Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My understanding over the US/MX cartel relations is performing an invasion and “act of war” would solidify asylum status claims by Mexican residents and throw a wrench into the whole immigration scheme every administration plays.

But then again this time seems different, laws aren’t followed or upheld. Human rights are a fleeting staple.





Starting a war with Mexico would be a pretext for interning everyone of "Mexican" ethnicity, citizen or otherwise, as was done to Japanese nationals.

Its mincing words a bit, but an attack targeting drug cartel assets wouldn't necessarily be viewed as a war with Mexico. It could lead to that for sure, and the Mexican government could declare it an act of war, but we did just see the US literally invade a foreign country and arrest their sitting leader without war being declared on either side.

Yet. It has certainly ratcheted up worldwide tensions, to put it mildly.

The US hasn't declared war since World War II.

I suspect Mexicans would view it as another Pancho Villa Expedition, which was also event where neither side declared war.


We declared war on drugs and on terror, maybe AIDs and Covid as well? Though you're right, we haven't declared war on another state since WWII despite being in multiple wars over that time.

I assumed when you wrote "war being declared" you meant in Constitutional sense which reserves to Congress the power to declare war.

Not in the metaphorical "war on poverty" sort of way.

FWIW, examples in addition to Maduro are Aguinaldo (Philippines), Noriega (Panama), Hussein (Iraq), and Aristide (Haiti).

(Technically speaking, the US didn't recognize Philippine independence so didn't consider Aguinaldo to be its president, but instead a rightful cession from the Kingdom of Spain due to the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish–American War, where the US had made a formal declaration of war.)

(Also, the US says Aristide's departure was voluntary.)


its a lot more expensive than the US properly controlling what weapons are leaving its borders.

rather than arming the cartels to fight against the mexican government, thr US could just... not


[flagged]


From what I've seen in the news, and also in history books, and also from anecdotes from the family of a previous (American dual national) partner, I don't agree that Americans as a whole see the international border as "a bright line" nor "a defining point of jurisdictional change".

Some Americans may, I don't know how many, but definitely not Americans as a collective.


I tried writing a comment to explain the Chicano perspective, but since I am a non-Chicano American, I was just making things up.

Suffice it to say that the Chicano experience and perspectives on nationalism are different than that of typical Americans. And that Americans cannot understand the political relationships or the border states or the Chicano enclaves without accepting that our perspective is not shared by them, and their worldviews on race, ethnicity, culture, territory, nationalism and legal status has led us to this point in 2026.

Our national motto is "E PLURIBUS UNUM" and our structure is a republic with 50 states. But like the Internet is a network of networks, the United States is a nation of immigrants, where not everyone is playing by the same rules.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: