Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
Considering it is no longer the time of the Alamo, I'd be careful about using that argument today.
No, there's absolutely no reason why I should be. The fact that there were more Anglos in Texas than Mexicans at the time of the Alamo relates to the ongoing claim since then by some Mexicans and racist anti-American Hispanics living in the US (e.g. Cruz Bustamonte) that Texas was unlawfully seized from them by the US. Thier argument depends on a revisionist history which is based on a number of falsehoods, one of which is that Texas and the rest of the Southwestern US was "settled" by the Spanish-Mexicans. Pointing out the truth, i.e., that there were more Anglos in many parts of the Southwest at that time is perfectly appropiate. Mexico has no legitimate claim to the Southwestern US on any basis whatsoever; legal, historical, moral, or otherwise.
As for the growing numbers of Mexicans in the US, very few want the US States they now live in to rejoin the poverty-stricken dung-heap that Mexico has become. They left Mexico to be rid of the corrupt socialist government generated poverty that permeates the place.
Nor would a new modern-day hispanic majority in CA, TX or any other US State suddenly give Mexico any legitimate claim to those areas. Those lands have been settled, developed, and defended by blood by Americans for 160+ years.
And finally, I don't recall any passage in the Bible promising TX and CA as the promised land to Mexicans as Israel is promised to the Jews.