BALFOUR DECLARATION:
http://www.change2100.com/GTD/contents/en-us/d87.html
Does the BALFOUR DECLARATION, adopted as the basis for Israel being established as a nation by the LEAGUE OF NATIONS and later reaffirmed by the UNITED NATIONS, establish “Ancestral Right” for re-integration into a jurisdictional area as a “LAW OF NATIONS” legal precedent?
SCOTUS RULING:
http://www.change2100.com/GTD/contents/en-us/d85.html
If Ancestral Right is a LAW OF NATIONS legal precedent, does not the SCOTUS ruling in 1815 require all Courts in the USA to recognize and rule in favor of Ancestral Right, irrespective of Federal, State, County, or Municipal rules, ordinances, or laws that may otherwise criminalize or apply civil penalties to an undocumented immigrant that can prove Ancestral Right to be in the USA?
LATINOS AND USA HISTORY:
https://www.history.com/news/the-brutal-history-of-anti-latino-discrimination-in-america
https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation
https://embracingdiversity.us/american-latinos-discrimination-in-us-schools/
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/top-trump-immigration-official-blames-230133260.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hondalatino/winning
https://aflcio.org/2015/9/26/11-important-facts-about-latinos-us-workforce
https://www.interexchange.org/articles/visit-the-usa/latino-hispanic-culture-in-us/
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a4157/benefits-of-being-latino/
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/native-americans-descended-single-ancestral-group-dna-study-confirms
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261520/DNA-study-by-Sorenson-links-most-Native-Americans.html
SO… LATINOS HAVE ACTIVELY BEEN PART OF USA NATIONAL HISTORY FOR OVER 170 YEARS… AND THROUGH COMMON NATIVE AMERICAN ANCESTRY… HAVE BEEN PART OF USA AREA HISTORY FOR ABOUT 20,000 YEARS!
However, as shown in the above links, for over 170 years the USA government has periodically “rounded up” Latinos and deported them, often including USA citizens.
How many USA citizens were included cannot be determined, but deportation of USA citizens on a wide scale basis is known to have taken place.
Can descendants of these deported USA citizens not claim Ancestral Rights to return to the USA?
MONROE DOCTRINE – AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS:
Excerpt from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/America+for+the+Americans:
On December 2, 1823, Monroe presented the terms of the Monroe Doctrine, which Adams had helped to develop. The doctrine contained four significant elements: the American continents were to be regarded as independent, with no further settlement by European nations; the nations of the Western Hemisphere were deemed republics, as opposed to the European system of monarchies; European intervention in the affairs of nations of the Western Hemisphere was prohibited and would be viewed as a threat to the security of the United States; and, conversely the United States promised to refrain from involvement in European affairs.
When the USA was a young nation, with much of what is now the USA being part of Mexico, the MONROE DOCTRINE became the policy of the USA Federal Government.
As part of that Doctrine, intervention by foreign powers in any nation in the Americas was considered a threat to the security of the UNITED STATES.
Does the proclamation and enforcement of the MONROE DOCTRINE by the USA not indicate that the USA considered all nations (and citizens thereof) in the Americas to be participants in the national experience of the USA?
Before the USA MEXICO war, could peoples that were citizens of all nations in the Americas not habitually travel with little or no impediment, crossing borders anywhere in the Americas?
Irrespective of borders and immigration policies and laws since the USA MEXICO war, would not the principle of Ancestral Right, as a LAW OF NATIONS precedent, not apply to descendants of those peoples today?
In fact, did the treaty with Mexico and the purchase of over half the national territory of Mexico by the USA not include a clause that required the border between the two countries to be an open border?
Was that treaty provision not legally in effect until removed by USA Amendment (never ratified by the Mexican Parliament) in 1972?
Thus, does the principle of Ancestral Right not apply to descendants of Mexicans that lived since the treaty was signed at least until the unilateral removal of the open border clause by the USA in 1972?
Since Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, which were part of the “Captaincy General of Guatemala” when that entity declared independence from Spain, were annexed for a period by Mexico under the administration of Iturbide in Mexico, would not the Ancestral Right that applied to descendants of persons in that area (citizens of Mexico during the period of that annexation) also apply to them?
MANIFEST DESTINY:
From www.dictionary.com
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR Manifest Destiny ON THESAURUS.COM
the belief or doctrine, held chiefly in the middle and latter part of the 19th century, that it was the destiny of the U.S. to expand its territory over the whole of North America and to extend and enhance its political, social, and economic influences.
As a corollary to the MONROE DOCTRINE, the doctrine of MANIFEST DESTINY is an integral component of the national experience of the USA.
It should be noted that MANIFEST DESTINY was used as a basis for expropriating Indian Nations of their territories, even contrary to SCOTUS rulings such as with the Cherokee Nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia
It was used to justify violation of treaty after treaty, by U.S. citizens invading territories and then taking them over.
https://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_treaties_did_the_US_break_with_native_Americans
And it did not just apply to an expansion westward. It was used to justify expansion southward as well, with the war against Mexico and attempted takeover by a USA citizen army in Central America.
As for the war with Mexico, the following is published in the LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Mexican.war.pdf
Then, there was William Walker:
WIKIPEDIA: William Walker (May 8, 1824 – September 12, 1860) was an American physician, lawyer, journalist and mercenary who organized several private military expeditions into Latin America, with the intention of establishing English-speaking colonies under his personal control, an enterprise then known as "filibustering". Walker usurped the presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua in 1856 and ruled until 1857[1], when he was defeated by a coalition of Central American armies. He returned in an attempt to reestablish his control of the region and was captured and executed by the government of Honduras in 1860.
Thus, was Walker’s short rule, following the same pattern as in USA western expansion, not a de facto annexation by the USA?
Was that possibly a hidden justification for the later bloody and economically devasting interventionist policies of the USA in the region commencing with and continuing since the USA Eisenhower administration?
Would that not mean that peoples from that area, at least descendants of those that lived in the area at the time of Walker, would have the Ancestral Right, today, to freely migrate to anywhere in the current USA jurisdiction?
AZTEC EMPIRE JURISDICTION:
https://www.biography.com/political-figure/montezuma-ii
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/93352/RESEARCHERS-SAY-AZTEC-HOMELAND-WAS-IN-UTAH.html
Based on the above, was the jurisdiction of the Aztec Empire as far south to include Nicaragua, and as far north to include Utah?
If so, would not descendants of those that lived in the jurisdiction of the Aztec Empire have the Ancestral Right to be anywhere in that jurisdiction today, including in the USA?
AZTEC EMPIRE NOT ABOLISHED:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_nobility
When Cortes conquered the Aztecs, the Empire was not abolished. Instead, nobility of Aztec families continued to be recognized by Spain and later by Mexico, and has never been challenged by anyone, including the USA (with part of their jurisdiction being an integral part of the USA today).
Thus, would those that live within its jurisdiction today, anywhere, not have Ancestral Right to be anywhere in that jurisdiction, including in the current USA?
SPANISH COLONIAL RULE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas
During the Spanish Colonial period, a colonial could travel and relocate anywhere in the colonial territories.
Evidence exists to indicate colonials included descendants of Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, Polynesians, and possibly all races ever on Planet Earth.
The Spanish Colonial period lasted about 300 years.
Would not the descendants of persons that lived in the Spanish Colonies have, today, the Ancestral Rights as per LAW OF NATIONS precedent established with the BALFOUR DECLARATION?
ARGUMENTS AGAINST:
The history and law are clear.
It seems that arguments against are based on discriminatory reasons invoking emotions and fear, not on history and valid law.
If a reader does not believe that, the challenge is, present your case!
SOLUTION:
However, is there a need to argue the matter, or to change anyone’s opinion?
Why not, instead, change the circumstances?
Only the EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, and JUDICIAL branches of USA government can change and enforce laws, deciding what they want done, right or wrong!
But there is a solution that is made available through commerce:
http://www.employeegold.info/In fact, that solution is expandable to any area of the world, which may eliminate for many the need and desire to migrate, without changing opinions, without changing or enforcing laws, but rather by providing opportunity for local improvement, income, and safety.
KEY WORDS: ANCESTRAL, RIGHT, INCOME, SAFETY, DISCRIMINATORY, SOLUTION, BALFOUR, MOCTEZUMA, AZTEC, UTAH, WALKER, LINCOLN, POLK, WAR, ANNEXATION, SCOTUS, LATINO, CONGRESS, FEAR