If the U.S. border wall could align with the territorial boundaries of the 1830s when a significant part of the Southwestern U.S. used to be Mexico, then the Mexican government wouldn’t mind bankrolling the project. This humourous suggestion was made this week by the President of the Mexican Senate. His comments were following a discussion in his country about the U.S centered immigration raids occurring in Los Angeles.
In recent times, these immigration raids have fueled a multitude of furious protests and violent outbursts. Some of these demonstrations featured participants who, on American soil, proudly wave Mexican flags. In fact, the frequency has been so high that it has led to an outcry from critics who label these scenes as proof that Los Angeles is an ‘invaded territory’.
Reflecting on this, he shared a private conversation he had with U.S. President Donald Trump. According to him, he presented an interesting proposition to President Trump: Mexico is willing to finance the controversial border wall, but under a particular condition. This proposition arose from his unique take on the situation.
He expressed his stipulation for the border wall funding saying, ‘The one condition we have is this – we will only honor it if the U.S. agrees to use the Mexican territorial map of 1830 as the demarcation line’. To further illustrate his point, he brought up a cartogram for emphasis. His presentation aimed to highlight the U.S. territories in 1830 which used to be under Mexican control.
He emphasized that if the border were realigned based on the 1830 map, it would effectively cover about 48% of U.S. electoral votes. This percentage also represents a proximate measure of population size and density present in that territory.
As a member of Mexico’s progressive Morena Party, he lamented the historical injustice done to Mexico. He reminisced on how Mexico lost nearly a third of its geographical area to the U.S. due to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty, signed in 1848, put an end to the Mexican-American War.
Interestingly, these territorial conflicts between Mexico and the U.S., which included Texas, didn’t favor any of the sides completely. Both countries experienced significant losses. However, the substantial territory loss experienced by Mexico was most profound.
For people residing in the territories that were previously controlled by Mexico but were about to be governed by the U.S., the treaty provided some protective rights. The transition phase occurred only a few months after the treaty’s signing, in 1849.
‘Our people were already living in those territories before the emergence of what is now known as the United States’, he said, in regards to the historical facts of settlement in the territorial regions mentioned. He addressed the treaty negotiations as unfair and highlighted that the established rights were ‘not honored’.
In his arguments, he gave the example of Laredo, Texas. Here, he pointed out those who felt marginalized and chose to establish a new community, Nuevo Laredo, on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande. This, he asserted, emphasized a strong sentiment among many Mexicans who preferred to identify with their homeland rather than becoming Americans.
Further underlining the strong connection between Mexicans and these territories, he reaffirmed, ‘Mexican men and women have always viewed these areas as their historic homeland’. His statement was not only political but deeply rooted in cultural and historical sentiment.
While noting this, he also put forth a rather surprising statement. He pointed out that the residents of Los Angeles don’t necessarily have to be proficient in English. His reasoning? The historical prevalence of the Spanish language in those regions.
In conclusion, he admitted, ‘Of course, this is part of the U.S. It’s only logical that the U.S. government reserve the rights to enact whatever immigration policies they deem fit to put in place’. He acknowledged the authority of the U.S. government over matters of its own territories.
Despite his understanding of U.S. sovereignty, he firmly asserted the need for respect of migrant rights. ‘Yes, the U.S. government has absolute rights over implementing their immigration policies. However, they possess no right to degrade the dignity of migrants. By no means should they be allowed to induce suffering, persecution, and harassment’.
The post Mexican Senate President Proposes Controversial Border Wall Financing Stipulation appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
