So, imagine, if you will, a country which conceives of the idea that it deserves to add to its territory – a territory owned by another sovereign nation. The “Seeking Country” sends its citizens into the territory. They settle there, become successful and influential. Some even adopt citizenship and the religion of the other country. Eventually, the residents decide they do not want to continue as part of their host nation. They appeal to their homeland for help. The homeland stations troops at the border – and inside the disputed territory. Tensions mount. Diplomacy fails, although it’s attempted in a half-hearted way.
The day arrives! The homeland sends its troops in, takes over the infrastructure and deposes the government in the host territory. The new group declares itself part of the homeland, claiming that it is the will of the people and harks back to their long history of claims. some even say it is fair in order to protect the security of the host country’s border and the military stationed thereabouts.
What does the U.S. do in this situation?
Perhaps the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get up in arms – figuratively, but not literally – and protest to the international community that the “homeland country” has violated the sovereignty of the host country. “Give it back!” they demand.
The ‘settlers’ in the disputed territory reply with, “Come and Take It!”
Is this the Crimea in Ukraine?
Is this the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia?
Or is this Texas in Mexico in 1836? “Remember the Alamo!”
Perhaps we should reconsider how we shot many, many Latinos, and took all of their belongings. Maybe we should give it all back? Move “the Wall”?
As long as we’re at it, maybe we should give back California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, part of Colorado, since we acquired all of that in much the same way.
Makes one think. Perhaps this is why the outrage of the Executive and Congress died down so quickly. Imagine Putin replying to Trump, “Give it back? YOU give back what you took from Mexico!”