It’s the year 2036.
The US has collapsed economically and militarily from future President Bernie Sanders who abolished the military out of belief that “it is imperialistic” and who ruined the economy by driving up the national debt from giving universal avocado toasts to millennials.
And every American is too busy jerking off or fingering themselves to anime porn in the metaverse.
On the other side of the border, Mexico has elected a new President who is part of a group known for demanding that Mexico reclaims the Southwestern territories of the US and Central America again.
A group known as the Nationalist Front of Mexico.
With a weakened US that is no longer capable of defending its border, the new Mexican government acts on the electoral mandate it holds to reconquer the stolen territories from the US.
With Mexican troops invading states like California or Texas, they quickly reclaim the land in a matter of 24 hours with no resistance.
And every American woman becomes a war bride offering their yankee holes to the Mexican invasion force.
Then the dopamine hits.
And some chubby 29 year old Mexican who is only 5’6 tall opens his eyes after cumming in the basement of his mom’s house in Nayarit.
Upon realizing his last girlfriend cheated on him by getting gangbanged by a bunch of American studs at a house party, he took it badly and hasn’t recovered since.
Now spends his days masturbating his 2.7 inch cock to erotic fanfiction he writes on the internet about how Mexico will reconquer the land and moaning the words “la raza! La raza! Reconquista!” after every time he finishes.
Looking for a few tissues to clean up, he checks his phone and realizes he has to be at work in 10 minutes at the OXXO down the street that pays just 4,800 MXN a month.
Fantasy time over.
Or is it really just a fantasy?
Before we begin, let’s provide some very brief context so you know what I’m talking about.
Once upon a time, Mexico had control over what is the Southwest of the US.
And the US was stealing land left and right from native Americans and ultimately wanted to keep expanding west as part of “it’s destiny.”
Wanting the territory that Mexico had, President James Polk provoked a war with Mexico in 1846 and ultimately won after a very bloody conflict.
It occupied most of Mexico and forced Mexico to accept the deal where the US gives 15 million dollars to Mexico in which “Mexico ceded 55 percent of its territory, including parts of present-day Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, to the United States. Mexico relinquished all claims to Texas, and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern boundary with the United States.
This treaty was known as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and signed on February 2nd, 1848. You can read more about it here.
To this day, you got folks who talk about a “Reconquista” of the Southwest in which the land should be reclaimed by Mexico.
Let’s get to that idea next.
The Idea of the Reconquista
That idea of the Southwestern US being returned to Mexico is actually desired by plenty of people.
It’s a common thought that is every so often either advocated for or at least referenced by some of the following groups that I’ve noticed.
First, you got Mexican journalists, academics or writers who discuss the merits of the idea.
For example, you have this Mexican writer here who has discussed the idea.
“La escritora mexicana Elena Poniatowska, ganadora del premio Alfaguara de Novela 2001 con "La Piel del Cielo", consideró el viernes, que el avance del español y de los latinos en Estados Unidos es una especie de "reconquista" de territorios con hondas raíces hispanas.”
Second, you got Mexican nationalists who advocate for Mexico reclaiming the US Southwest and also all of Central America.
As referenced earlier in this article, one of the more prominent examples of this is a group in Mexico known as the Nationalist Front of Mexico. Here’s a video made by them on their Youtube channel.
Third, you got folks with Mexican heritage in the US that advocate or at least reference the idea as you can see here.
“MEChA, an acronym for the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, has come under fire for revolutionary language in its “El Plan de Aztlan,” a founding document that declares “the independence of our mestizo nation,” decries the “brutal gringo invasion,” and says that land “rightfully ours will be fought for and defended.”
What’s notable about MEChA is its otherwise mainstream image. Most Hispanic leaders, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, belonged to MEChA in high school or college. Former Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante came under fire from conservatives for refusing to renounce his membership during the 2003 gubernatorial race.”
Which, as a side point for those who didn’t know, the term “Aztlan” is basically “the mythical ancestral homeland of the Aztecs that reportedly stretches from the border to southern Oregon and Colorado” as mentioned in the last article cited.
Before we go on, I also think it's fair to say, from my interpretation, that those who call for something like Aztlan are basically trying to create a Latino ethno-state.
Not surprising anyhow. In the US, you got various groups who call for their own ethno-states in the country (black nationalists, white nationalists, etc). Here's some interesting quotes from this interview here of someone calling for Aztlan. Some of the talking points he uses will be discussed later in the article.
"We’re the only ethnic group in America that has been dismembered. We didn't migrate here or immigrate here voluntarily. The United States came to us in succeeding waves of invasions. We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that’s they're problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest.
This entire region, as it becomes more Mexican and Latino, will blur the border. As it is, that’s an antiquated concept. The border is porous. It only exists for police purposes and security purposes. Ideas, disease, commerce, even people cross that border regularly, legally, and illegally. This whole region will become the new Meso-America once again."
As a quick side point, reading the above gives me the same vibe as when you read about Mussolini craving the return of the Roman Empire.
It all boils down to a group of people jerking themselves off to the idea of reigniting the "glory days" of some greater version of a country in the past (which we have seen on the Mexican side also with the mentioned Nationalist Front of Mexico).
Fourth, you also have a few self-hating Americans among the left who aren’t actually Latino but want to sound woke and advocate for the idea.
Fifth, you also have foreign leaders who are antagonistic to the US that reference the idea to question the legitimacy of the US on the world stage like you can see with Putin here.
Outside of those groups that I have seen be the most vocal advocating or discussing this idea, you’ve also had other entities reference the idea.
For example, you got Swedish company Absolut Vodka releasing a map in an ad in Mexico showing the Southwest of the US belonging to Mexico as you can see here.
“The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut promises to push all the right buttons south of the U.S. border, but it could ruffle a few feathers in El Norte.
The billboard and press campaign, created by advertising agency Teran\TBWA and now running in Mexico, is a colorful map depicting what the Americas might look like in an "Absolut" -- i.e., perfect -- world.
The U.S.-Mexico border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 when California, as we now know it, was Mexican territory and known as Alta California.”
Got to pander to that audience to make the revenue, huh?
Putting that funny example aside, I’m sure you can find plenty of other times where this idea has been referenced in the US, including in the mainstream media like this New York Times article here discussing the idea of returning this land to Mexico.
“For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest. Surely not the physical reconquest of the territories that once were ours. Nor an indemnification that should have been much greater than the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in instalments, for the stolen land. We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.
But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.”
So, as you can see, when people discuss the idea of Reconquista, it does vary a little bit as to what they mean actually.
For some, it simply means changing the narrative about the war that allowed the US to take that land and to use that changed narrative to justify immigration reform.
For others, it could mean actually succeeding from the US but not actually joining Mexico. Instead, as you can see here, it would involve creating a separate country with territories in the Southwest US and northern Mexico.
“Then there’s the Mexica Movement, which wants to “reconstruct” the United States as an “indigenous” nation called Anahuac. Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico envisions a sovereign Hispanic nation called the Republica del Norte that would encompass Northern Mexico, Baja California, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.”
Obviously, we have also seen plenty of cases where this idea could mean just transferring the stolen land back to Mexico.
And you have those who don’t really talk about any land being returned to Mexico but simply rejoice at the demographic and cultural changes seen in parts of the US and call that a “Reconquista” all by itself.
Regardless of what “Reconquista” means for you specifically, we’ll discuss various topics related to the concept below.
So let’s get to it.
What Do the People Want?
Let’s begin by trying to guess how many people actually want Mexico to get that land back.
First, we have Mexicans. According to this 2002 survey by Zogby International here, about 58% believe that the territory of the Southwest US belongs to Mexico while 28% disagree and 14% are not sure or don’t know.
What was surprising to me is that number is only 58%. You would think a stronger majority of Mexicans would be more biased in their own interest for having that land back.
Either way, that was the only poll I could find for the Mexican opinion on the subject and remember that poll is 20 years old.
On the flip side, I wasn’t able to find any polling on the opinions of the people who live in those territories (California, Texas, etc).
While Mexicans who argue for this idea might not give a shit what they think, keep in mind that the current residents of those territories had nothing to do with which country current owns that land.
On top of that, the people most impacted by any change would be those who actually live in the states of California, Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, etc.
By giving that land back to Mexico, you are legally making the residents of those territories Mexican by nationality and so their opinion should be the most important to consider since they are the most impacted by any change.
Ultimately, while I couldn’t find any actual polling asking residents of those states if they want to be Mexican, I can only assume that most likely don’t.
In part because a majority of residents in those states are not trying to immigrate to Mexico permanently.
No matter how many times Conservatives or Liberals threaten to leave the US if someone they don’t like wins the White House like you can see here.
“28% of Americans would consider moving to Canada if Trump is elected.”
And that’s Canada. Not Mexico!
On top of that, most residents in those states are not Latino with Mexican heritage.
As you can see in this map here, the US took land from places like California to bits of Kansas even supposedly.
Source for image here.
For California, about 39% of people are Latino as you can see here.
For Texas, about 39.3% of the people are Hispanic of Latin America as you can see here.
For Arizona, 31.7% of the people are Hispanic as you can read here.
For New Mexico, about 47.8% of the population is Hispanic as you can read here.
And those are some of the states with the most Latino population.
Now, even in states with a Latino population hovering higher between 40 % to 50%, that still leaves you with the other half of the population or more that isn’t Latino and would have less obvious motivation to want to be Mexican.
While also keeping in mind that not every Latino in those states is of Mexican origin either.
And, for those Latinos who are of Mexican origin in the US, a majority of them do identify as American and that identity is likely stronger after each generation.
Among others who lean towards the right and would have issues with illegal immigration and where 33% voted for Trump as you can see here.
Then you have this interesting quote from this article here.
““Amid a growing number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border that have reached levels last seen in 2006, 42% of Latinos say increasing border security is a very important immigration policy goal, while only 18% say increasing deportations is a very important goal.”
So for specifically the Latinos who either voted for Trump or want better border security, how many of them live in the Southwest and how many of them realistically speaking would want the US to let the Southwest become Mexican again?
You want border security against Mexican immigrants but you simultaneously want the land you stand on to be Mexican?
Not too sure about that one.
On top of that, given that 58% of actual Mexicans voted for wanting the land back 2 decades ago, it’s easy to theorize that those who are of Mexican heritage but not actually Mexican would be less likely to want that land given back to Mexico (especially considering that they were born in the US where that bias based on nationality would influence beliefs).
So, in short, given that a majority of Mexicans quite possibly want the land back (though, if that 58% is still accurate today, then it’s not a very strong majority given you would expect it to be higher) and where we can make an educated guess that probably most people in those Southwestern states don’t want to be Mexican, then I’m going to say that these details work against the idea of returning the land back to Mexico.
Still, times change.
And, when people discuss this topic online, they also bring up changing demographics.
Given all this talk about demographics above, let’s dig a little deeper from that approach to this subject.
A Cultural Mexican Reconquista?
As we discussed before, some believe in the “Reconquista” as not necessarily being one where the land is legally given back to Mexico but that it can instead be a process to simply change the culture and demographics of the Southwest.
So, to begin, there obviously has been a demographic and cultural change where more Latino influence can be seen in the Southwest versus how it was decades ago in say 1950.
Even though there were Latinos obviously in the Southwest in 1950, you just have a stronger Latino cultural and demographic presence in that part of the US nowadays.
That’s all true.
Though, as I said, not every Latino in the Southwest is of Mexican heritage.
For example, according to this article here, about 84% of Latinos in California and 83% of Latinos in Texas are of Mexican heritage.
Given this is the Southwest and not Miami, these two states serve as pretty good examples for the origins of most Latinos in that part of the country.
Still, in either example, you still have almost 20% of the population that isn’t of Mexican origin.
Now let’s put these statistics together with those other ones showing how some Southwestern states have Latino populations in the 40 percentile range while others are much lower around the 15% or so.
Could you argue there is some cultural Reconquista going on where the land isn’t legally being returned to Mexico necessarily but Mexican culture is “reconquering” the land?
Well, as we saw, not every state in the Southwest is the same on this matter.
For example, in states like Wyoming, Utah or Kansas where the Latino population can go from 10.1% (Wyoming) to 21% (Colorado), I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to call that a “Reconquista” culturally.
You do have Latino cultural influence and Latinos in those states but let’s not get crazy by calling it an actual Reconquista when they only make up 10% to 20% at most in those specific states.
Then you have more obvious states like California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada or Arizona where the number of Latinos goes from 28.3% (Nevada) to 47.5% (New Mexico).
So, effectively speaking, these states have almost a third of their population being Latino to literally half of the population (though New Mexico is the only one that is that close to 50% given Texas and California both hit just at around 39%).
Now considering Latinos make up a third to a half of the population om these specific states but somewhere between 15% to 20% of them aren’t even Mexican, can we really call this a Mexican Reconquista?
We ain’t counting the Guatemalans and Venezuelans here because, last I checked, neither Guatemala nor Venezuela owned the Southwest previously.
Eh, for these specific states, I can at least see where people are coming from given 47.5% isn’t too shabby.
At this point, one of the points to discuss would be “how much cultural influence do you need for it to be a Reconquista?”
Does the Reconquista have to eliminate the cultural influences of the other groups or just dominate?
If the former, then this wouldn’t be a Mexican Reconquista because you still have the other 60% to 80% population that isn’t of Mexican heritage (60% to 80% being just numbers out of my head when considering that 15% of the Latino population in some of those states aren’t even of Mexican heritage).
Still, it’s all just a thought experiment at this point.
Really a matter of semantics to be discussing if this is a “true Mexican Reconquista” or not.
The point still stands that, while Mexican culture doesn’t dominate 100% of the culture in these states (and much less so in the other states mentioned with a smaller Latino population), you still have considerable Latino culture in the entire Southwest.
So I’ll leave it up to you as to if there has been a real Mexican Reconquista culturally of this region or not.
Still, as I consider this argument about “changing demographics” and its influence on the culture of this region, it’s also necessary to look at how it’ll play out in the future.
Changing Demographics Continued?
While Latino culture (and Mexican specifically) will always have and will continue to have an important role in the Southwest and the broader US, there is some discussion needed as to how demographics are predicted to change in the Latino community.
Here’s some basic facts according to research I did on the subject in this article here.
First Interesting Fact Here: “In 2017, the Pew Research Center reported that high intermarriage rates and declining Latin American immigration has led to 11% of US adults with Latino ancestry (5.0 million people) to no longer identify as Latino.”
Second Interesting Fact Here: “First generation immigrants from Latin America identify as Latino at very high rates (97%) which reduces in each succeeding generation, second generation (92%), third generation (77%), and fourth generation (50%).”
Third Interacting Fact Here: “More than 37 million Latinos in the U.S. speak Spanish at home, making it the country’s most common non-English language. But while the number of Latinos who speak Spanish at home continues to increase due to the overall growth of the Latino population, the share of Latinos who speak the language has declined over the past decade or so: 73% of Latinos spoke Spanish at home in 2015, down from 78% in 2006, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data.”
Fourth Interacting Fact Here: According to this source, Latino birth rates mirror the birth rates of most groups in the US by being slightly below replacement level.
Fifth Interesting Fact Here: “The Center’s 2015 survey findings also show that Spanish dominance is on the decline among second- and third-generation Latinos. While 61% of Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. are Spanish dominant (and another 32% are bilingual), the share who are Spanish dominant drops to 6% among second-generation Hispanics and to less than 1% among third or higher generation Hispanics. Meanwhile, the share of Hispanics who are English dominant rises across generations: Just 7% of immigrant Hispanics are English dominant, a share that rises to 75% among third-generation Hispanics.”
Finally, we have this one last source here that we’ll be dissecting also.
To give a quick summary, it basically says that, from 1970 to 1994, there was a huge spike in Mexicans coming to the US. From 1995 to 2000, there were even more Mexicans coming to the US than Mexicans returning to Mexico.
In 1970, there were fewer than 1 million Mexicans in the US but then it increased to 9.4 million by 2000.
However, from 2005 to 2014, you had more Mexicans leaving the US than entering the US.
As of very recently in the few years before Covid started, you finally had a reversal of that trend with more Mexicans entering the US than leaving the US but the extra amount of Mexicans entering the country isn’t comparable to the 1995 to 2000 period.
However, after Covid started, there apparently hasn’t been enough information released to know completely the trend of Mexicans coming and going into the US but most of the datapoints that do exist suggests a decline in Mexicans coming to the US during that period.
In the long run, there’s also a question of if there will be continued declines in the Mexican population with more Mexicans leaving the US than entering. It’s up for debate as to if a continued decline will carry on in the years to come. When the decline started in the last decade, it was primarily due to the US Great Recession, the Mexican economy being relatively more stable than how it was in the 1980s and 1990s and also lower fertility rates and a decreased working age population. On that last point, we have this interesting quote from that last article here:
“Some changing patterns in Mexico could also be behind the reduction in the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. since the Great Recession. First, growth in the working-age population of Mexicans has slowed due to a decades-long decline in the average number of births among women in Mexico. Lower fertility rates also mean smaller family sizes, which reduces the need for migration as a means of family financial support.”
Now, having put all of that information together for you, can we predict some Mexican Reconquista of the Southwest in the long run from a cultural and not legal standpoint?
If I had to guess, I’d say no.
While Mexican culture will always be around and have its place in the US, I think the word “Reconquista” is a bit extreme given the data that is out there.
First, if Mexico’s fertility issues means less people to send with more Mexicans leaving by choice or stricter immigration policies, then you’d have many more years of more Mexicans leaving the US than entering.
Then we have to discuss the Mexicans already in the US.
As you saw in those 5 “interesting facts” way above, you literally have Latinos as a whole having below replacement birth rates.
And, for the Latinos that do reproduce, 50% of Latinos no longer identifying as Latino by the fourth generation with interracial marriages being one of likely several contributions to that and only 1% of Latinos are Spanish dominant by the third generation (with 73% of Latinos being able to speak Spanish now but that number has also been dropping and will likely to continue to drop).
So where’s the Mexican Reconquista?
And, going beyond the cultural implications, you could also ask the legal implications here.
How much of an argument would Mexico have to reclaim the land if less of their people enter the country versus those leaving and the future generations of those that choose to reproduce will eventually have half of them not even identify as Latino and most not being Spanish dominant.
For comparisons sake, when Russia took Crimea, they at least made the argument of having to protect ethnic Russians as you can read here (though, while ethnic Russians make up 65.3% of Crimea’s population, they had other motivations for taking the land obviously).
“The Russian leaders and the media often characterised the overthrow of Yanukovych as a fascist coup, and they justified support of separatism and annexation of Crimea by protection of ethnic Russians from the Ukrainian ‘fascists’ and by the Russian national security interests to prevent it from losing control of the main Black Sea naval base and its falling under control of NATO.”
Going back to Mexico now, you don’t have 65.3% of the population in the area that identifies as specifically Mexican and, as we just saw, the number of Mexicans coming versus leaving is likely to decrease while, after each generation, less and less identify as Latino or speak Spanish.
Nor do you have any major motivations for Mexico to take that land back outside of maybe a Mexican politician pandering to nationalistic sentiments in his country like you can see here.
"Mexican Senator draws line in the sand over Trump’s wall
Patricio Martínez says border is in wrong place and demands US return land"
Es erróneo el trazo de límites entre México y EU, asegura el senador Patricio Martínez
Either way, it’s definitely not like they are some aspiring superpower like Russia who needs to keep a rival military alliance from stealing a very important navy base.
Not to mention, as I said already, the unlikelihood that most people of Mexican heritage (especially those of later generations) in the US would even want the land to go back to Mexico.
So Mexico, in short, doesn’t even have that justification to take back the Southwest.
Either way, let’s look at some other arguments.
Borders Always Change
This is a typical argument that you hear against the idea of Mexico taking the land back.
That idea being that, throughout human history, you’ve always had conflict where countries lose wars and the victors take home some war brides.
Borders and Pussy.
And, at least when it comes to borders, I agree.
Countries change their borders all the time when it comes to war.
While the people can bitch all they want about it like Bolivians complaining about losing access to the ocean to Chile, they just have to accept it unless a solution can be reached or if they can militarily take the land back.
At the end of the day, if the US is to give the land back to Mexico, then I’m going to demand every other country in the world be fair also and give back land that they stole.
Starting with Mexico giving Chiapas back to Guatemala.
Or Chile gives that land back to Bolivia.
In fact, Bolivia could stand to gain a lot of land back from almost all of its neighbors that are guilty of stealing land from it.
Small shout out to Peru for supposedly not being a dick to Bolivia as seen in the map below...
Source for image here.
Yo Paraguay -- when you going to give El Chaco back to Bolivia, you imperialist scum!
Does Panama join Colombia again?
Similar to people in the Southwest not likely wanting to be Mexican, do Panamanians even want to be Colombian?
And you know what’s really weird if we took this logic back far enough?
What about all of the land that various indigenous groups lost to the Spaniards and the Portuguese?
Can they all get their land back?
For example, should large chunks of Argentina and Chile be separated into their own country for the indigenous people in that area?
They did lose their land, you know!
By that logic, we’d basically be carving Latin America up into a hundred or thousand different countries basically letting countless indigenous groups have whatever land they claim belongs to them for a new country.
But even indigenous people weren’t very innocent!
Going back to Mexico, is this idea of Aztlan that we discussed before a concept that other Native Americans agree with?
“Because Aztlan, the myth of Aztlan, is a form of colonialism.”
While some Mexicans claim that the whole Southwest belongs to Mexico and it was imperialism for the US to take it, I agree with his point in asking how is the concept of Aztlan also not imperialism?
What was Aztlan again for those that forgot?
Let me remind you with that quote from before from this article here.
“The mythical ancestral homeland of the Aztecs that reportedly stretches from the border to southern Oregon and Colorado”
And so why do the Aztecs get to claim this land?
If it’s imperialistic for any one group to conquer the land that another group was living in and that land should be given back to the victims, then I can guarantee you that Aztlan does not belong to the Aztecs because you had many other indigenous groups that existed in the Southwest well before the Aztecs ever showed up like these groups here (among many others).
“Thousands of years ago, ancient people first settled in the deep canyons of present-day New Mexico. The members of these ancient civilizations—the Pueblo (PWEB-loh), the Mogollon (moh-guh-YOHN), and the Hohokam (huh-HOH-kum)—built cities carved into the cliffs and created complex canals to water crops in the desert.”
So by claiming that the land should be returned to Mexico because of the myth of the Aztlan, you’re still engaging in your own form of colonialism by denying the historical existence of other indigenous groups that lived in various pockets of the Southwest.
Not to mention all of the other land that the Aztecs stole from as they enslaved and conquered other groups of indigenous people who, among some of them, ultimately teamed up with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs as you can read here.
“In 1428, under their leader Itzcoatl, the Aztecs formed a three-way alliance with the Texcocans and the Tacubans to defeat their most powerful rivals for influence in the region, the Tepanec, and conquer their capital of Azcapotzalco.
By the early 16th century, the Aztecs had come to rule over up to 500 small states, and some 5 to 6 million people, either by conquest or commerce. Tenochtitlán at its height had more than 140,000 inhabitants, and was the most densely populated city ever to exist in Mesoamerica.
Defying the authority of Velasquez, Cortes founded the city of Veracruz on the southeastern Mexican coast, where he trained his army into a disciplined fighting force. Cortes and some 400 soldiers then marched into Mexico, aided by a native woman known as Malinche, who served as a translator. Thanks to instability within the Aztec empire, Cortes was able to form alliances with other native peoples, notably the Tlascalans, who were then at war with Montezuma.”
And so, if we really wanted to be consistent, then we can’t give the land of Aztlan back to Mexico on the basis of historical claim of the Aztecs because the Aztecs fucked over many other groups of people.
Now, going a step beyond that, some might say “well, we aren’t talking about the Aztecs. We’re talking about what Mexico had because Mexico always had the historical right to that land according to documents showing it controlled under the Spanish Empire.”
This is another argument I’ve heard before and it makes even less sense.
The Spanish Empire took that land through colonialism.
So how does Mexico have any legit claim to that land if they are going to say that the US can’t own it because of “imperialism” when yet the land in question was literally taken initially by colonialism from Spain.
Anyway, let’s move on.
Who Would Run it Better?
While I have no doubt about Mexico being able to run the territories in the Southwest, I’m strongly in the opinion that the quality of life for the average person would better if they were continued to be controlled by the US.
No, it’s not because Americans are inherently better than Mexicans are governing shit.
It’s because of a few not so small details…
First, the US GDP is 20.94 trillion USD while the Mexico GDP is 1.076 trillion USD.
In short, we simply have more resources than what Mexico has to dedicate to those areas.
Yes, Mexico’s GDP would obviously increase if they took over the territory but Mexico is still a relatively much poorer country that simply couldn’t do those areas as much justice as we could.
Second, the other big issue with Mexico running that territory is Mexico’s worse record with drug cartels, impunity from violence and general corruption among cops, judges and politicians.
While the US has its own fair share of corruption and crime, we’re two completely different worlds when it comes to this topic.
In Mexico, “roughly 98 percent of violent crimes, including homicides, go unsolved” as you can read here.
What about the US? It’s not perfect but it is noticeably better than Mexico as you can see here.
“The number of murder cases that go unsolved by police hit a new high in 2020, according to an analysis of recent FBI data by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ).
Number-crunching by the CCJ revealed that the murder “clearance rate”―the proportion of resolved cases―fell to 50 percent last year, in tandem with an historic single-year increase in homicides.”
And while I don’t know what statistics to find regarding corruption among cops and judges, I’ll just say that I’ve never been able to or have known anyone who could easily bribe cops and judges in the US.
Then you have really stupid shit like this here that makes Mexico look like the wild west to anyone who hasn’t been to Mexico.
Though, to be fair, Mexico could probably teach us a thing or two about how to stop school shootings since they don’t that issue as much (if at all).
But, to be fair, we could probably bring up also all of the gun violence that happens in combis where people get robbed or the fact that a cartel brought a large Mexican city to its knees forcing the fucking President to release a criminal.
But I’m definitely not saying that Mexico would turn the entire Southwest into literally Afghanistan despite the US State Department ranking certain Mexican states to be as dangerous as Afghanistan like you can see here.
“This week the United States told its citizens not to visit five violence-ridden Mexican states, placing them on the same warning level given to war-torn Somalia, Afghanistan and Syria.”
Not to mention the fact that I have never heard of Americans going to Mexico to escape violence but that has happened plenty of times with Mexicans going to the US for that exact reason (though plenty go for financial reasons like better jobs too obviously).
In contrast, the Americans who do go to Mexico go because they come from a country that has done a better job at having a stronger currency that they can bring with them to exploit an exchange rate advantage that allows an easy life down here.
Regardless anyway of the financial and safety indicators that show us that the quality of life would probably be better if the US kept controlling the Southwest, I have no doubt that Mexico could run the same territory also.
Just that the US obviously runs it better than what Mexico could do momentarily.
Either way, as you can tell by now, I’m not entirely in agreement with the idea that the US should give all of the Southwest back to Mexico.
However, I do agree with one point I’ve seen online regarding giving some land to select amount of Mexicans while still having that land be legally US soil.
Giving Land & Citizenship Individually
As we covered briefly in the history section way above, you had Mexicans living in the Southwest who were promised to keep their specific land that they owned after the Southwest would become part of the US.
However, those folks never got to keep their land as you can listen to here where descendants of those Mexicans who lost their land talk about that history.
While I don’t agree with the belief that some random Mexican dude in Oaxaca “lost his land” like some Mexicans seem to frame it, I do think this is obviously different.
If you owned your small bit of land somewhere and the country you lived in now changed, you shouldn’t lose the land and the house with it just because the soil underneath you is legally part of another country now.
There’s obviously no justification for doing that to people.
So, when it comes to the topic of giving land back, I would argue that it’s definitely appropriate on an individual basis.
And, on that note too, let’s talk briefly the topic of citizenship to undocumented Mexican folks.
Remember that New York Times quote from way above that you can see again here?
But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.”
My opinion when it comes to this is the same as the one about giving land back to individuals.
If an individual Mexican can prove that his personal ancestors lived in the Southwest but lost out on citizenship, then I’m all for giving citizenship to that person and any other family members impacted.
And I mean his actual ancestors! Specific names of people with documented proof that his specific family way back lived in the Southwest.
Not some bullshit ancestral connection like “My ancestors were the Aztecs. Now I get citizenship (even though they lived by Hidalgo or some shit and nowhere near the Southwest).
That’d be like bitching about some shit the British did to the Irish way back that in no way impacted my ancestors because they weren’t part of whatever incident that I’m claiming victimhood from.
If you can prove it, then citizenship should be granted to you.
Either way, the point is the same: I’m absolutely in favor correcting generational wrongs here and giving back land and citizenship to specific individuals and families that lost their shit.
So, having said everything I have said now, I think I’ve covered most of the main arguments made online regarding if the land should be returned to Mexico or not.
But despite not seeing much of a solid rationale for why Mexico should have the land, what if they did try to “reconquer” the land back anyway?
Or is this all just a very long thought experiment based around a hypothetical that doesn’t have much chance at ever happening or even being attempted in the next 100 years (if ever)?
How Could Mexico Reclaim the Southwest of the US?
What are some scenarios in which Mexico could theoretically get the Southwest back?
Let’s do some more thought experiments!
First, Mexico could try getting nuclear weapons and do a surprise attack on the US by dumping most of their nukes on the country and then moving in the troops to reclaim the territory.
Given Mexico’s close proximity to the US, a surprise attack could be done in a much shorter time period than what it would take for China or Russia.
There’s a few problems though.
For one, I doubt the US would ever let Mexico get nuclear weapons.
Granted, some might argue that it’s possible given North Korea’s and Pakistan’s success at getting a missile.
Though, at least in the case of North Korea, one could argue that the US was too hesitant to ever start that war given we had been so dedicated to the Middle East for all this time and also because of concerns for how bad North Korea could attack our troops and civilians in South Korea.
Still, whenever a country does think about getting nuclear weapons, the US usually fucks with you pretty heavily to discourage it.
While the US starting a war with Mexico if they tried to get nuclear weapons would also be costly, I think it’s more possible than the US starting a war with North Korea and we literally almost did start a war with North Korea.
And, more importantly, the US has a long history of wanting to be the big dog in the Americas.
The whole Monroe Doctrine and all our interventions into Latin countries over the decades.
Hell, even when Cuba had Soviet support with missiles on their island, we literally almost nuked their country off the map.
So if Mexico, given it’s technically closer to the US than Cuba with our border and all that, ever tried to get nukes, I could totally see the US attacking it before that happened.
At the very least, there would be very heavy economic sanctions and other punishments.
Maybe the CIA and DEA would work to fund drug cartels or certain guerrilla groups to destabilize Mexico?
Either way, the point being is that this path for Mexico to get back its land is unlikely because I doubt the US would let Mexico have nuclear weapons.
And, even if they did get nuclear weapons, there’s no guarantee Mexico would be able to get the Southwest even if they nuked the US.
The US would still have military capability most likely that is considerably better than the Mexican military and also Mexico would have to say goodbye to all of their major cities if they even tried this.
Second, Mexico can wait for the US to collapse from some devastating event and move in to reconquer the Southwest.
Perhaps a civil war happens in the US and destroys it from the inside?
Or maybe the US gets into a nuclear war with China over Taiwan or Russia about Ukraine or some shit.
While I have my doubts that a civil war would be devastating enough to destroy the US military capability to defend the Southwest, a nuclear war could maybe allow for that to happen.
It would have to be devastating enough though.
A lot of people talk about nuclear war like it would be the end of the world but that’s not necessarily the case.
It would depend heavily on how many nuclear weapons are fired.
No country is going to deploy all of their nuclear weapons at once because then they would be left with no weapons afterwards if third nuclear country jumped in the conflict afterwards.
Either way, it’s a possibility that Mexico would have to hope for if it ever wants the Southwest again.
Though, in the case of a nuclear war or civil war, Mexico would also face strong economic consequences given a lot of trade between our countries would probably decrease initially with so much infrastructure destroyed.
Outside of a war though, some might argue that the US is crumbling on the inside anyway and that maybe that would make it possible for Mexico to someday get the upper hand on the US?
I doubt that though – the US would have to fall quite considerably for a country like Mexico to ever be stronger than us militarily.
Doesn’t seem likely in my lifetime.
Either way, let’s wrap this up.
Final Verdict: Will Mexico Reclaim the Southwest of the US?
While this article touched numerous subjects, let’s give a summary here on the most important question: will Mexico reclaim the Southwest of the US?
In the near term over the next 100 years, probably not from either a cultural or a legal standpoint.
Culturally, Mexican culture has always had a place in the US and has increased noticeably.
However, given the trends talked about before, using the word “Reconquista” is a bit of an exaggeration from a cultural standpoint.
And, from a legal standpoint where Mexico actually takes the land back, I just don’t see how that happens in the next 100 years.
And I emphasize “the next 100 years” because obviously we don’t know how human history will unfold in such a long-time scale.
There will come a point, in all likelihood, where both the US and Mexico cease to be countries.
Throughout human history, plenty of empires and countries have emerged and collapsed.
Borders change all the time.
So, in 200 years perhaps, maybe Mexico conquers the US.
But not just the US…
With the ghost of Porfirio Diaz leading the country, Mexico manages to conquer every country in the Americas from Canada to Argentina.
A True American Empire.
At least under that scenario, nobody in Latin America can get upset when someone calls themselves an “American” as I wrote here because we all technically would share the American nationality then.
Still, let’s leave alone any discussion about how borders will change after the year 2100 alone.
For the immediate future, I don’t see Mexico “reconquering” the Southwest legally or culturally.
After reading a lot of perspectives promoting the idea, it honestly feels like a wetdream that a few Latinos in Mexico and the US jerk themselves off to alone in their rooms while moaning out "LA RAZA!! LA RAZA!!!!"
Anyway, I do agree with giving some land back to individuals who lost their land because they lived in the Southwest before the US took the land from Mexico.
But that’s all just my opinion.
If you got anything to add, drop a comment below in the comment section.
And follow my Twitter here.
Thanks for reading.