Wake up tomorrow

>Wake up tomorrow
>This happens

What do?

Kill myself realizing I live in Mexico

Good

you can have my house, it's pretty nice

meh, nothing's changed

>mexicans hate their own country so much they are willing to be shot trying to escape it
>for some reason they want the USA to become Mexico just so they then have to escape to Canada

You'd inherit all of CA's shitlibs and CHIs. Enjoy. :^)

Problem?

Nah I just don't get why Mexicans who escape the country then want where they end up to become part of it.

AN ABSOLUT WORLD

Yeah that map is funny because Aztlan retards never seem to remember how Guatemala and whatnot were part of Mexico once. Why don't they want that clay back? Why do they only want the rich, First Wor...oh, right.

Cry tears of joy

Those people are just reclaiming their lebensraum

I think cause dollar$ are better than mexican pesos

*gets drafted*

Well I live in the Mexican side now so:
Work hard, I have a government job irl and have been promoted 3 times in the past year and a half. My work ethic and drive is strong and now I'll put it to use for my new, now massive, country.
This NEW Mexico (new Mexico was formerly a state in the US and has since been dissolved) is no longer just paisas and little brown people limited to central America, It's inherited at least a third of the population (around 100 million), major infrastructure, major airports, major ports, natural resources, agriculture, maritime industry, forests, Aerospace giants, and so many major military installations, this thread would die before I could list them all. And we know how to use all of this. I mean these idiots just HANDED us Camp Pendleton! That's about 100,000 FORMERLY US Marines, now Mexican Marines. They'll revamp the existing Mexican military. HANDED us countless missile silos housing top of the line Nuclear ICBM's, HANDED us the Edwards air force base! HANDED us the massive Naval stations in San Diego and San Francisco! HANDED us Coronado Island where half the Navy seals are. Handed us Area 51 and all research and technology being developed therein! Shit, they've even handed us Texas! They've handed us a shitload of oil!
Not only did they hand us this stuff, They included a shitload of now former Americans with it, so we know the territory.
This is my home, you think you know my state better than I do? You're fucked. Not only do we have the upper hand on the terrain and weather, but we know your mindset, because it was ours, too!
Not that I think you would, what's Oregon gonna do? Shoot hippies at us?
You clipped your own nuts and now they're ours.
All that land and conquest ou- YOUR ancestors died for in manifest destiny is now ours.
And we're gonna use every bit of it to excel and surpass you.
Remember, we used to be Americans. We know how to get under your skin and we will.
Day in, day out, we will.

CHIs in Texas are more loyal to Texas than they are to Mexshitco.

>Taking the Maritimes from us
You fucking give them back right now

CHIs and Mexicans loathe each other actually, they have separate gangs in prison and always start wars there.

Shit we might start making deals with the Chinese and cutting you out of the action.
So now even our trade will be stronger.
AND I can now get Cuban cigars so I can have something to smoke while I watch my former country fucking collapse on itself.

I'm happy because my homeland has been annexed by the US and we're out of leafland.

In the end they all work for the same people.

They'll be the first to be shot

celebrate

Are you that same butthurt autist that was spamming "haha DREAMERS BTFO XDDD" in that thread yesterday?

post pic

There's a difference between Cali CHIs and Texas CHIs though. California CHIs would gladly offer up their asses to Mexico and dream of uniting with them. Texas CHIs have more loyalty to the US than Mexico, but greatly identify as Texan more than anything else.

You wanna come here and start shit and be shitty tourists? That's fine. You'll get a one way ticket to prison.
And I know what you're thinking:
>Mexican prison, big deal, I'll pay a guard off and tunnel out.
Not when we put you in one of Californias many world renowned notorious gulags.
Pelican Bay is OURS, now.
And just like it is now in Mexico, Nobody comes to feed you, you don't get fed.
Die of starvation.
We'll have no problem doing this to the people who gave us up to another country.

Rev up those CHI's

ALL Texans identify more with Texas than the US.
Tell them to pick between one or the other, they'll pick Texas.

That's another thing.
You're gonna have millions of Peter Johnson's who are gonna be PISSED that they got given up to Mexico.
And I'd be one of those John Brown's.
I can tell you right now, you faggots turn your back on me and give me up, i'm not gonna come crawling back, not after seeing how you fucks treat the Mexicans who try to get here, now.
I'm gonna be loyal to my new, now massively upgraded country.
My hatred for you shit heads turning your backs on me will fuel me every single day.

acquire mex bf and move to californian coast

Finish the job.

Kill myself realising I live in USA

>Mexico
>ever having the capability to hold that much clay
The greater midwest is what gives us the insane capital-base to hold the west coast under our control. People seem to forget that up until the 90s, Mexico was a country that collapsed to the brink of civil war every few decades.

There is no conceivable timeline in which Mexico could reclaim the southwestern US or even want to. Aztlan is even more ridiculous a proposition - an entire country composed of literal desert outside the reach of major grain markets? At least Mexico has *some* grain-based agriculture. The southwest (mainly California when we're talking about agriculture) is only useful for meme crops like almonds, grapes, and cannabis.

Also, the US would glass Texas before letting Mexico have it. There's too much access to the US's internal waterways from Texas. It's much more palatable to reduce it to an uninhabitable wasteland than to see a foreign power control it.

What if Texas went full autism and declared independence?

>ever having the capability to hold that much clay

They couldn't hold it in the 19th century and they sure can't now.

Mexico today is way more unstable than it was before the 90s

Go back to sleep and stay there until this happens

>People seem to forget that up until the 90s, Mexico was a country that collapsed to the brink of civil war every few decades.

Wut? Mexico had no coups, no juntas and no insurrections since the establishment of the modern state at the end of the Mexican revolution. The closest to that was precissely in 1994 with the Zapatista uprising, partly a result of NAFTA.

You may be right about the situation on your side of the border but you know shit about Mexico.

It probably wouldn't, but in that case, the US would simply declare it a territory in rebellion and forcibly reannex it.

The PRI was constantly carrying out military operations against insurgent factions, man.

That's more likely than Aztlan, but still realistically impossible. Texas is to the US as Hong Kong is to China. So long as the US allows Texas some mild autonomy perks over most other states, they're not gonna secede because they like the idea that they are special more than actually wanting to secede.

>There is no conceivable timeline in which Mexico could reclaim the southwestern US or even want to. Aztlan is even more ridiculous a proposition - an entire country composed of literal desert outside the reach of major grain markets? At least Mexico has *some* grain-based agriculture. The southwest (mainly California when we're talking about agriculture) is only useful for meme crops like almonds, grapes, and cannabis

Also if it did become part of Mexico, Mexico doesn't have enough grain production to feed a population of that size.

The fact remains Samuel Houston conspired with US congressmen and that the American southwest was taken by force in a war of conquest. Mexico didn't lose the territory because "it couldn't hold it" but because a foreign power unlawfully intervened. Had the gold rush taken place while California was still a part of Mexico and had Mexico taken in migration from Catholic Europe (Irish, Italian) to settle those territories things would have worked out quite differently.

It's all just this bs propaganda you guys still do for whatever reason to try and justify "manifest destiny" I think we should be at the point of looking at history objectively without you trying to whitewash or justify history. The United States took those lands on the basis of military strenght alone, there was absolutely no moral justification, your president Lincoln was honorable enough to go down in history saying so plainly. It was an act of theft, and as far as Texians are concerned, treason.

You can have commiefornia. The rest we'll invade.

>LE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
This meme needs to end

>Catholic Europe (Irish, Italian) to settle those territories things would have worked out quite differently.
cuck

I hate maps like this because it doesn't show yields or inputs. Much of the area that produces grains on that map is horribly inefficient to farm, so production is significantly less than an equivalent area of farmland in the US.

The Gold Rush didn't make the US rich, my friend. That's your inner Spaniard talking. We got rich by selling grain for hard currency during the early 1800s when wars were disrupting food production all over Europe.

>The United States took those lands on the basis of military strenght alone, there was absolutely no moral justification

Right of conquest was accepted practice in the 19th century. It may not be today (cf. Crimea) but it was a different time. The borders in North and South America shifted all over the map before reaching their present condition and there were quite a few wars.

For example, Bolivia are still butthurt their coastline to Chile in a war. That was unfortunate, but how things worked in those days.

You mean the dirty war in the 70's? That wasn't about that and it wasn't popular uprisings, I'm by no means justifying PRI but you're being disngenous here if you do know about that part of our history.

Aztlan is a retarded circlejerk fantasy. The one state with enough people who might want to join Mexico is New Mexico and it's a shitty irrelevant state and any rebellion would get put down in a second.

Both Texas and California, the two states that could possibly have some real leverage of seceding would rather be independent than join Mexico.

not the other american, but if the telephone had been invented when we ended the mexican american war we would have had more of your land

the american diplomat decided to take less than what the president and congress ordered him to
but its kinda hard to renege on a peace treaty

>Much of the area that produces grains on that map is horribly inefficient to farm, so production is significantly less than an equivalent area of farmland in the US
Some of it has to do with the terrain not being as optimal as the Midwest, but of course Mexican agriculture also isn't as technologically advanced as the US. Either way, the point still stands that Mexico couldn't feed the entire population of California by itself.

Isn't most of that land just arid shit?

Not exactly. The American negotiators wanted Baja California, which was useless desert but the Mexicans argued they still needed it to control smugglers.

Californian farmers produce those crops because they bring in the money. Also corn pretty much grows everywhere on earth.

The South won't rise again, it will stand firm as the rest of the country crumbles around it.

and the drug cartel's homes/battlegrounds

yeah okay buddy whatever you say

Sure, but there's a difference between 'we can grow corn here' and 'we can grow corn here efficiently'. California is notably quite water-poor and lacks many inland waterways to move grain around cheaply. There's a reason why California's agricultural niche is all in products that are suited specifically for California's climate.

California farms depend on extensive artificial irrigation because the state is a desert climate, especially south of San Francisco; in fact climatologists have shown that the 20th century, when most infrastructure was built, was unusually wet.

sounds like you dodged quite the bullet there

California agriculture is not efficient. The crops produced gobble up water, but that's entirely the point. The farmers aren't going to grow more water-efficient crops because their profits will decrease.

The state is not a desert climate.

Lel, are you serious? Mexico lost any sort of moral argument in claiming ownership of Texas when the Alamo happened you dipshit. Good luck getting the UN to say Texas is rightful Mexican clay after your dictator decided to slaughter innocent woman and children.

...

The map shows right there how much artificial irrigation is used, plus my other point about how the 20th century was wetter than normal.

Is it time for the game yet?

How many are already ITT

No man, just working out of 19th century logic.

Never claimed the Gold Rush made the US wealthy but it did populate California. In terms of logistics and suplies by far it was supported by Mexico, the 49ers made their way to California via Veracruz to Mexico City to Mazatlán to San Francisco, they didn't for the most part cross the US which was at the time a very long journey through dangerous wilderness and with hostile native American tribes in much of the way.

Right of conquest was not accepted, it's part of the reason the US went through the trouble of paying the Mexican government for the territory, they wanted to whitewash what was seen as a heinous crime at the time. Bolivia was a very different thing, Chile was attacked for starters, there's a lot of nuances involved here. More importantly, as I pointed out, many Americans themselves considered what had been done to Mexico to be a crime. I'll be the first one to grant there were honorable men on your side trying to make do in bad circumstances but the bottom line is the act was immoral and unjustifiable. Mexico attempted to plead for its former territories to at least be made free from American slavery which the US refused, this was in fact seen as barbaric in Europe, it was literally the bad guys and the wrong cause winning.

california's south is naturally neveda desert, climate like the levant coast

without water from a dozen or so states out west california's farming industry would collapse

It probably will in a few decades anyways because of population growth

>Most of the farmland is irrigated
That's the point. In order to make California agriculture profitable, you need crops with large profit margins in order to justify the capital investment necessary to make it operate in the first place. California outside of the US simply does not have access to the capital necessary to maintain its current agricultural production.

What the fuck kind of agricultural region is "Megalopolis"?

its not, its housing/suburbs/city

Well then why the hell does his map have it as an 'agricultural' region?

>Right of conquest was not accepted it's part of the reason the US went through the trouble of paying the Mexican government for the territory, they wanted to whitewash what was seen as a heinous crime at the time. Bolivia was a very different thing, Chile was attacked for starters
In the 19th century, yeah it was accepted. As for the other example, note that Israel acquired most of its clay after being attacked by the Arab states in a couple of wars but that still hasn't prevented extreme butthurt over the West Bank for decades since and refusal to accept that territory as part of Israel.

No, they wanted a railroad running from Tampico to Mazatlán, back then it was the best way to communicate the East and West coasts but ultimately that territory had too large a population which would have been difficult to asimilate.

It is true tho that the Americans in charge were in the end a bit more generous than Washington would have liked, while conscience may have played a part there were also practical considertaions to occupation, the Mexican government collapsing and imposing conditions too severe as to lead to an eventual war of revenge. In the real world military victories aren't as easy to mantain as it may seem.

All of them are true. Making a bingo board of valid arguments doesn't invalidate things that are true.

i would probably go to california to visit all my "dreamers" family

>Mexico attempted to plead for its former territories to at least be made free from American slavery which the US refused, this was in fact seen as barbaric in Europe, it was literally the bad guys and the wrong cause winning
None of the Mexican cession became slave territory except Texas, and that lasted all of 16 years. In fact the Southern states were gravely worried because most of the territory was desert that they couldn't do plantation agriculture on. This led to various hairbrained schemes to take Caribbean islands and things like that.

That map is old. Templars don't exist anymore.

>many Americans themselves considered what had been done to Mexico to be a crime.

Both the Mexican-American War and the Texas Revolution had acceptable Casus Belli's. In both cases, Mexico gave them reasonable justification for war even if the US was trying to bait them in to it. Mexico has nobody to blame but their own retarded leadership.

As far as I know, James Polk did not want anything below the Rio Grande. Some Southerners fantasized about taking Tamaulipas as it was suitable for growing cotton but the place was fairly heavily populated and they wanted the land, not the people in it.

The thing is, if Mexico were on the winning side of the war, they would have almost certainly demanded territorial concessions from the US because that was what you did in a war in those days.

>In both cases, Mexico gave them reasonable justification for war even if the US was trying to bait them in to it
That is kind of like the Franco-Prussian War. The French declared war first, although Bismarck baited them into it.

wasn't there also some retards that wanted the Yucatan peninsula?

Israel is a bad example, the international community as a whole considers the gains made in the six day war to be illegal, This is black and white no exceptions except for the United States who couldn't care less and is certainly far from being considered a country that respects or upholds international law.

Right of conquest generally required a justification and was not carried out amongst civilized nations. And either way the discussion is moot because the United States never made a claim on those principles. Let's say I walk into your home point a gun to the heads of your wife and children then force you to sell me your property. That wasn't acceptable or legal in the 19th century.

>Costa Rica with Nicaragua
Start a War! Nicas fuck off of my country REEEEEEE!

>Israel is a bad example, the international community as a whole considers the gains made in the six day war to be illegal

Uh...yeah, that's because Six Day War happened after WWII when right of conquest wasn't considered acceptable anymore.

Wake up again

Don't think so. Some people wanted the northern states of Mexico, a few cranks wanted the whole country, but Yucatan itself...no. The Mayans waged an independence war against Mexico that lasted 70 years and involved horrendous atrocities by both sides.

Actually, half of Mexico was trying to secede during the war, the country was in a state of near-anarchy.

The Texas "revolution" was an act of sedition, Texians were Mexicans and had no rights under international law. As for the Mexican American war that was annexation of another country's territory,

In neither case was there casus belli on the part of Mexico, just American aggression, covert in the first case.

kek

huh, so then what's the deal with this image? Is it just a crock of shit?

>Texans were Mexicans and had no rights under international law.

International law didn't exist back then though.

I think it is. I definitely recall reading that Polk didn't want anything south of the Rio Grande. Some expansionist Democrats may however have wanted more clay.

War of conquest was always ambiguous, again, you needed some justification (eg the Spaniards evangelizing Native Americans) and it wasn't done amongst civilized nations, no ethnostates would have been possible in Europe otherwise. You're oversimplifying this and like I mentioned earlier the US never claimed rights of conquest, they went through the trouble of paying Mexico what was a rather large sum of money for the time, not that it wasn't self serving, had Mexico's government collapsed they would have signed a treaty with a non existing entity inviting claims by later succesors.

>implying that it could survive without gibs from states that matter.

Uhh, the US absolutely had a claim which was the treaty Santa Anna signed after losing a war to Texas. The UN maintains today that self-determination is a basic human right, which Mexico withheld from provinces which wanted to secede. One of the provinces (Texas) won their rebellion against Mexico had their leader sign the terms of surrender which the Mexico later refused to honor arguing "That's not fair, you weren't supposed to beat us".

Mexico has no argument. If they argue that the terms of Surrender in the Texas Revolution aren't fair, than neither are their claims to regions in Mexico which tried to secede to continue to be Mexican territory.

Mexican butthurt over the war really has less to do with clay they never really controlled in the first place and more to do with the humiliation of having their heartland invaded and their capital occupied by a foreign army.

That's an entirely different discussion, aren't you claiming right of conquest was accepted? that'sb two contradictory statements. In any case, they would have been considered Mexicans by all other nations.

Then why aren't they butthurt about the empire of Mexico where France literally did the same thing?

No. It has much more to do with you making ludicrous claims, spreading propaganda for more than a century and not owning up to your actions.

Fix it by restoring the borders to their proper order, building a wall, and making Mexico pay for it.