You stole our land

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

I mean, if you want to claim some kind of 1800's international law... I don't know the concept was there yet.

I am not saying conquering is any better than theft. But stealing stolen land doesn't put the original thieves on a moral or legal high ground...

An example of "Give me back what I have rightfully stolen." Arguing after the fact seems silly. IMHO the only people with a claim to the land are the aboriginal people of that land. They got to steal it from the mastodons and sabretoothed tigers...

Even in current law, if you BUY a stolen item legitimately, it still belongs to the original owner, and when discovered stolen, must be returned.

---

how does the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo entail international law ? the treaty contained provisions promising to protect the civil rights and property of the more than one hundred thousand Mexicans who lived in the conquered territories. this has nothing to do with international boundaries.

arguing morally that no one has the right to any land here other than mexicans does not do anything to diminish the legal merit of the land grants.

but if you wish to be so relative about rights to land, or equate a legal right to a moral one, then your next assertion should actually be that there really can not be any laws against illegal immigration since essentially everyone here is an illegal except for the native americans.

Had the land been taken from the natives, with consent on both sides, than there was a legal transfer to the Spanish. Mexicans seemed to steel the land from Spain at that point, unless they gave that land up with consent. Only at that point would there be a legal precedent for a treaty to be made between Mexico and someone else (the US) for that land. The chain falls apart once that 1st link breaks.

Mexico gave up the land via treaty, so by Mexico's laws, California is no longer theirs. By US law it is theirs. If, by their own laws, they want the land back, they can try to A) Conquer it, B) Purchase it, or C) try and repopulate it.

They are doing C). Good for them. If the US guys are incapable of keeping it, too bad. But as of now, it is a state in the United States federation of states.

But to say there is a moral right of Mexico over anyone else? Morally, it is the Native Americans. Period. If they are all dead, than the land is in the hands of whoever currently occupies the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

Had the land been taken from the natives, with consent on both sides, than there was a legal transfer to the Spanish. Mexicans seemed to steel the land from Spain at that point, unless they gave that land up with consent. Only at that point would there be a legal precedent for a treaty to be made between Mexico and someone else (the US) for that land. The chain falls apart once that 1st link breaks.

---

when the spanish cortes failed to recognize the validity of the plan of iguala and the treaty of cordoba they then forfeited all rights to the mexican monarchy. in other words, they surrendered official recognition of their colony.

Quote:

---

Mexico gave up the land via treaty, so by Mexico's laws, California is no longer theirs. By US law it is theirs. If, by their own laws, they want the land back, they can try to A) Conquer it, B) Purchase it, or C) try and repopulate it.

---

they gave up the territory not individual rights to land. land-title law was not varied by the change from mexican to texan sovereignty except that the previous holders of land who had supported the mexican cause had their lands declared forfeited. and the only anomalous result of continued application of the spanish doctrine to land grants made before the act of january 20, 1840, and those made thereafter is that different rules may apply to adjacent tracts depending on the origin of the grant.

Quote:

---

They are doing C). Good for them. If the US guys are incapable of keeping it, too bad. But as of now, it is a state in the United States federation of states.

But to say there is a moral right of Mexico over anyone else? Morally, it is the Native Americans. Period. If they are all dead, than the land is in the hands of whoever currently occupies the nation.

---

no, as of right now, by your argument, it is still morally only the native americans land and they are being both immorally and illegally pinioned by the US government. (since treaties obtained by force, according to your premise, are irrelevant)