Mexican Senate President Gerardo Fernández Noroña recently stirred up controversy with comments regarding the ongoing unrest in Los Angeles related to illegal immigration. During a press conference, he claimed, “We’ll build the wall and we’ll pay for it, but we’ll do it according to the map of Mexico in 1830.” He presented a historical map showing how much of the American Southwest was once considered part of Mexico.
Noroña argued that Mexico was dispossessed of these territories and questioned how the U.S. could speak about liberating places like Los Angeles and California. His remarks reflect a deeper historical grievance regarding land ownership and the legacy of the Mexican-American War.
The backdrop to his comments is the complex history of land acquisition in North America. The U.S. gained control of these territories through military conflict and treaties, notably the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, which followed the Mexican-American War. Under this treaty, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million for approximately 525,000 square miles of land. This historical context raises questions about the legitimacy of land claims and ownership.
Critics of Noroña’s perspective argue that his view overlooks the nature of conquest throughout history. They point out that land has continuously changed hands due to wars and treaties. For instance, before Mexico, the land was held by Spain, which had taken it from Indigenous peoples. This cycle of conquest complicates any claim to rightful ownership based solely on historical occupation.
Noroña’s assertion that the U.S. should return land to Mexico also raises practical questions. If the U.S. were to return the land, it would not necessarily go back to Mexico, as various groups, including Indigenous tribes, have historical ties to the region. Moreover, the U.S. has governed these territories for over 170 years, compared to Mexico’s control of just 27 years.
The conversation around land acknowledgment has gained traction in recent years, with some advocating for recognition of Indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants of various regions. However, critics argue that such acknowledgments without action are insufficient and hypocritical.
Noroña’s comments reflect a broader dialogue about historical grievances and the complexities of land ownership in North America. As tensions around immigration and identity continue to rise, discussions like these will likely remain at the forefront of political discourse.
