Which US candidate will either due idiocy or actual will make this reality faster?

Which US candidate will either due idiocy or actual will make this reality faster?

feel the shill

Oh no you don't. If you take Texas, you're taking Oklahoma too. There's no room for negotiation on that one.

Shillary said she wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens after 90 days of them living here.

I don't think there's anything that annoys me more on Sup Forums than mexican smugness about Latino demographics

Yeah man I heard something about Hillary wanting to dissolve US border within 1 year of her presidency, I'm really curious about it

She's a shameless globalist who wants to be the American Merkel and import enough people to ensure her political party never loses an election.

Even the most Hispanics in the US are republicans - it's the blacks who are solid blue because of dat welfare

>not getting a latino gf to join the master race

Funny thing is it's all illusory from pointless one-drop rules. Fucking Geoff Hernandez from Houston turns lobster-red in half an hour of sunlight, thinks Taco Bell is ethnic food and patrols the border on weekends with his minuteman buddies but he's "latino" on the census.

>wanting to dissolve the border
That's hyperbole, but she wants to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and reduce our presence on the border.

the one that creates less mexcrement butthurt

There's no racial difference between White Americans and Mexicans except Americans have more Black blood. Mexican immigrants are what's going to save the US.

Which one would that be my dear American intellectual?

Clinton because of policy

Trump because of ironic backfiring

wew lad

Clinton because of policy

Trump because of ironic backfiring >Fucking Geoff Hernandez from Houston turns lobster-red in half an hour of sunlight, thinks Taco Bell is ethnic food and patrols the border on weekends with his minuteman buddies but he's "latino" on the census.

>"""""""""""white"""""""""" latinos

CHI

>There's no racial difference between White Americans and Mexicans except Americans have more Black blood. Mexican immigrants are what's going to save the US.

Trump never specified the wall would be on the current border.
:^)

Why wont the US just annex mexico already?
That would solve a lot of problems
>no more mexican butthurt cause they get their land back!
>no more large border to defend
>NO MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!

He is not wrong, you could argue that insted of black blood present in Americans Mexicans have native but in the end the phenotype in both nations is predominantly white.

Give Mexico back their rightful clay, Yanks

o ok

People say "non latino whites will soon be a minority in the US"
When that finally happens they'll just remove the "non latino" part from statistics so they can keep saying the US is still white.

ITT

CHI

They would pass as white Americans.

CHICANO

t. San Juan Diego

Mexico pls invade

Im mexican and she sounds fucking retardo

Spics look like Spics.

Most non-hispanic white Americans look like Europeans.

Also, it's a meme that white Americans are mixed with 10-15% African blood.
This is only concluded because mixed race "whites" were included in the results and then the percent was averaged out.

Most Northern Americans are as white and European as their ancestors from 1700-1900.

A chicano would deny any white blood in Mexicans tho.

?Que es este "Chicano"?

>Canada not taking Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Except Trump now has the black vote sewn up because he's associated with tasteless displays of wealth, something black culture glorifies.

Same reason we didn't do it in 1848.

"We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake."

-- James Polk

Sure thing m8. Right after you give Gibraltar to Spain and the Malvinas to the Argies.

Or give Ulster to Ireland.

Well that's quite embarrasing reading it now.

Wonder how Polk would feel about this.

Both of those territories are rightfully Britain's.
Gibraltar was ceded in a war, and referendums have all overwhelmingly gone in the favor of the UK owning them.
The Falklands were colonized and occupied for centuries by Britain.

It's honestly refreshing to see the unironic racism of past presidents.

americucks

kek.
The only niggers who vote are women and they are 100% Hillary.

Probably would run as Trump's vice-President.

Isn't Polk known as the one president who actually did what he said he would and then left like he said he would?

A lot can happen between now and 2040.

Yeah We could have even less whites and more spics.

It goes both ways.

"As the war was winding down, President Polk faced increasing pressure from antiwar voices who said the entire conflict was a mistake and an act of European-style aggression and militarism along with extremists who favored annexing either Mexico's northern states or even the entire country. Some Whigs only supported the annexation of Texas while ignoring everything further west while most of the All Mexico advocates were pro-slavery Democrats. In the end, Polk stuck to his commitment that the US would annex Texas, Nueva Mexico, and California, but nothing south of the Rio Grande. He was in any case eager to end the war as fast as possible for logistical reasons (the war was extremely expensive) and political reasons (it would have become a major issue in the upcoming 1848 presidential election)."

But less whites is guaranteed.

Non-hispanic white Americans have been naturally declining since 2013.

What are you even mad about? You nerds won't have children anyway.

All the same, Mexico's birthrate is also shrinking fast.

Yeah but not the Mexicans up here.

Who you calling a nerd Hue?

John C. Calhoun said that

Polk purposefully didn't run for election in 1848 even though he would have won by large margins.

It's likely a fake quote tho, given that I've seen it attributed to polk, a senator and an ambassador, also paintings of the time portrayed Mexican soldiers as white.

It was actually very convenient that the war ended just before elections in the US started, which would have guaranteed that Polk were voted out due the American deaths being much higher than expected. It's almost as if Santa Anna have been on the side of the US all along :^)

Mexico != Chicanos

The key difference being that the Southwest was almost entirely an empty wilderness in 1848 with nothing but Indians and a few settlements in Nueva Mexico and California. These were inhabited by Spanish-descended settlers and the US immediately promised them citizenship. There was some resentment among them as they feared discrimination and cultural incompatibility with the Anglo/Protestant majority US. A few chose to move to Mexico, but most stayed put. Only in California was there a brief rebellion which was soon suppressed. The locals of Nueva Mexico quickly pressed claims against Texas, which was forced to give up its westernmost territories in 1850.

The total non-Indian population of the SW at the time was under 90,000 people. This stands in contrast to Mexico proper which had at least 7 million, including many pure-blooded Indians. Not only would it have been foolish to absorb approximately a quarter of the US population at the time (then about 20 million people), but they would have had to be represented in Congress and become an overnight major political influence, not factoring in the language, cultural, and other incompatibilities with the US, or the cost of occupying and pacifying Mexico.

Most All Mexico advocates were Democrats who wanted to establish slavery in Mexico, where it had already been illegal for 20+ years, but also the only part of Mexico suitable for cotton was the coastal plain around Veracruz, a heavily populated region.

>Mexicans still butthurt that they had a bad dictator while we had good ones

Chicanos are just a bunch of stoner college students in CA who wear Che Guevara T-shirts though.

They are as well. Birthrates for all races have dropped quite a bit since 2008.

Hillary or Bernie will change that you know.

FUCK

Why did you remind me?

I'm not a big Trump fan, but it speaks volumes when the democratic candidates are worse.

I love Bernie, but he would get hijacked by the SJW Democrats.
I dislike Clinton, who is a shill and corrupt.

Actually most black people I know vote republican because of welfare. They know it's just a way of keeping people voting blue.

"Although the Spanish-descended ruling class of Mexico were mostly pure-blooded Europeans, this did not necessarily make them equals in the eyes of WASP Americans. At that time, it was generally held that Latin Europeans, while higher than blacks and Indians, were less than northern Europeans. One of the first Mexican ambassadors to the US, a pure-blooded Spaniard, following independence in 1821 reported the condescending attitude with which he was received in Washington DC. The first US ambassador to Mexico, Joel Poinsett, spoke of Mexicans as "an ignorant, immoral" race. Even the upper class criolles were held in low esteem and accused of "constant intercourse with the aborigines, who were and still are degraded to the very lowest class of human beings .... [racial miscegenation] contributed to render the Mexicans a more ignorant and debauched people than their ancestors had been."

Annexation of the Mexican heatland would create an extremely unstable situation, with three irreconcilable territorial entities uneasily united under a single government. Remember, Mexican heartland at that stage is densely populated and largely lawless even aside from the US invasion, while Mexican population is hostile to the Protestant Anglo invaders. Assimilating this area by colonization is impossible in the short term. The Mexican-American war would have gradually passed into a guerrilla stage, with the US government control within Mexican heartland limited to actively occupied urban areas. While colonization of the sparsely populated Northern Mexico would not be a problem by itself, it would create new problems elsewhere, since Tamaulipas,

The only parts of Mexico south of the Rio Grande at the time that could have reasonably been annexed were Baja California and the northern states like Sonora and Chihuahua, but what were we going to do with that empty desert anyway? Even New Mexico and the other areas in between Texas and California were mostly just desert and only interesting because they were between Texas and California.

That's fun. The Mayans will have fun decimating the Americans just like they decimated the Mexican and Yucateco armies. It'll be like an nineteenth century Vietnam.

It was under OTL anyway. The Mayans resisted the Mexican government for more than half a century before the rebellions were finally suppressed in 1901 and there was still scattered resistance as late as the 1930s.

Mexican politicians are actually dumber so never.

Your race is self-reported on the census so if Geoff Hernandez puts himself down as Latino that means he himself identifies as one.

I'd highly doubt the Mexicans were that different from the current U.S culture, Perhaps the US could handle them like the US handled white immigrants from Europe. Learn our language and assimilated and you'll be left alone. Settlers would largely settle in the northern area of Mexico (Sparsely populated). This may even result in the largely white north join the confederacy, and the South would join the Union assuming a later civil war- 1870 due to the expansion of slavery into Mexico.

That's the problem though, all this was completely incompatible with the racial and social ideologies of the 19th century which held that Mexicans were a lower race incompatible and unassimilable with WASP American society. In fact the main reason it wasn't annexed is because *drum roll* it was full of Mexicans.

That's the thing though, most Mexicans were Indians who didn't identify with European culture or values at all and even the Mexicans who were of European ancestry were still regarded as an inferior race as I noted in

Waddy Thompson, a Whig who'd worked as a diplomat, said:

"A friend said to me today that we will not take the people, but the land. Precisely the reverse will be the case; we shall take the people, but no land. It is not the country of a savage people whose lands are held in common, but a country in which grants have been made for three hundred and twenty-five years, many of them two and three hundred miles square...it is all private property, and we shall get no public domain which will pay the cost of surveying it. I speak of the country beyond the Rio Grande. We shall get no land, but we shall add a large population, alien to us in feeling, education, race, and religion..."

we don´t want that, Mexicans are very nationalist and we won´t let our culture mix with the US (they are not an original culture, they are a mix of plenty of cultures)

sorryits for you haha

Is this person you?

>(they are not an original culture, they are a mix of plenty of cultures)
Neither are you. You're a mongrelized mix of Spanish and natives.

This

Chicanos are spoiled White liberals.

>which held that Mexicans were a lower race incompatible and unassimilable with WASP American society
They were right.

See, he even admits it in here

I guess the 20-30% of European blood African Americans have appeared of them by act of magic, because white americans are too aryan to fuck with them kek.

Yes back in the day slave owners did their slave girls. Your point?

He never said anything about being inferior.

The US in the mid-19th century simply did not have the logistical, financial, or cultural resources to absorb 7 million Mexicans.

Your guys are huge hypocrites. Perhaps the biggest ones in the continent.

Obviously if you weren't an Africa-level country, your own people wouldn't need a wall to keep them down there and out of here. You don't see the reverse with you needing a wall to keep out white people.

Unless you're that Mexico is white troll in which case your opinion goes in le trash.

Why didn't you use the facebook one

I know a bunch of Hispanics who are half WASP and half Mexican. They look the same(brown or blonde hair, light eyes) and have the same culture as WASP's ie pro-SJW shit.

>Same reason we didn't do it in 1848.
>American president in present day

"During the war, half of Mexico's states were in open revolt against the central government. Although there was initial hope that they would welcome annexation, this quickly dimmed when the occupying army of Zachary Taylor in Northern Mexico encountered considerable hostility from the locals."

Since when did Mexico ever own Louisiana? The Louisiana purchase was a good 20 years before Mexico was even a country.

Maybe it's somehow justified from when Napoleon's cousin or someshit owned Spain, so France and Spain's possessions in the new world were essentially combined? I really don't know. I'm shit at history desu.

He did and this was the entire speech.

"I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race--the free white race. To incorporate Mexico would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped--the Portuguese at least to some extent--and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project...Are you, any of you, willing that your States should be governed by these twenty-odd Mexican states, with a population of about only one million of your blood, and two or three millions of mixed blood, better informed, all the rest pure Indians, a mixed blood equally ignorant and unfit for liberty, impure races, not as good as Cherokees or Choctaws?"

You can see in the situation of Canada what happens when you try to shove two completely incompatible cultures who don't speak the same language under one roof.

There's the other thing - although Montreal is a major financial and cultural hub of Canada and has many English-speaking Canadians, the rural areas of Quebec are still solidly French and after many of them migrated to the city for work, they turned it into a bilingual city.

A first world nation that has stayed together fine for generations on generations.

Oh no anything but that senpai

But all the worse because Quebecois are still white people speaking a European language, not a bunch of Indians and half-breeds who don't have European values or culture at all.

The influx of Anglo settlers into the Southwest was nearly unstoppable anyway; although Mexico's birthrate was much higher than the US for most of the 20th century, back in the 19th century, the US birthrate was 2-3x higher. At the time of Mexican independence in 1821, there were about 9 million Americans against 5 million Mexicans. By the time of the war in the 1840s, Mexico stood at about 6-7 million people against almost 20 million Americans.

After the war, the Mexican government also pushed to settle its almost vacant northern states so they wouldn't be at risk of being cleaved off along with California.

Here's where it gets complicated: Mexico was unable to establish any kind of stable political structure post-independence as liberal and conservative factions battled for control, there were civil wars, internal revolts, economic collapse, and intervention from Spain and France.

Yucatan seceded from Mexico in 1840 and allied with the Republic of Texas, later on the local governing class offered annexation to the US. Given that most of Yucatan consisted of Mayans who fought their local overlords for three generations in a war to the death, one can hardly assume they would have been more accepting of US control.

Texas which independence was never recognized by Mexico was annexed by the US as another state in 1845. The short lived republic boundaries with Mexico were delimited by the Nueces River. However, the US claimed the border to be established at the Bravo River or Rio Grande.

The Federalist and the Centralist factions were in continuous clashes.

In 1844, General Jose Joaquin Herrera removed from office to Gen. Valentin Canalizo and exiled to Santa Anna to Cuba

President Jose Joaquin Herrera ordered to have dispatched troops to the limits with Texas, while Taylor established his headquarter on the region.
Gen. Paredes y Arrillgada revolted at San Luis Potosi against the government and used the troops under his command to stop the American invasion in order to remove from power to Pres. Herrera, claiming that he was negotiating with the US to give up the northern territories.

Mexico was expecting that the US and the UK could go to war in regards the US interest on Oregon. However, the US and the British government settled the terms for Oregon to be another US state.

Mexico also expected war between the US and Britain over Oregon, however that conflict was resolved peacefully.