There's a newish meme being used to justify the anti-ICE riots and illegal immigration--the illegal immigrants have a right to be in the United States because the Southwest was stolen and really belongs to Mexico. 

The problem isn't illegal immigrants; it's American citizens who wrongly believe they have the right to live here without being invaded.

So I guess it’s an invasion then and these are enemy aliens. Attention SCOTUS. https://t.co/7vlAg66Pwh

— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) June 10, 2025

Cue the next Mexican-American war, folks. And, if you are watching what is unfolding in America's cities, that war has already begun. 

So implies the President of the Mexican Senate, and if you listen to the rhetoric of many on the left, a lot of other people. José Gerardo Rodolfo Fernández Noroña suggested that Mexico should accede to President Trump's demand that a wall be built at our border and that Mexico pay for it--but it should do so at the borders as they existed prior to the redrawing of the boundaries after the Mexican-American War. 

Noreña is right that parts of the Southwest were indeed Mexican territory, although if you want to go that route, you might want to turn Mexico back over to Spain, or the French, or the Aztecs, or any of a large number of tribes who inhabited the land. Noreña himself is clearly of at least partial European descent, so it's not clear to me that he has any more right to inhabit and rule the land he is on as American citizens do to control ours. 

Journalist on CNN defends the rioters who threw rocks at cops and burned police cars:

"California was part of Mexico, all of the Southwest is Mexico." pic.twitter.com/Y5UPc0HWwh

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 10, 2025

Most people don't know that Mexico's immigration laws are actually much tougher than the United States'. Entering the country illegally is a felony, and while that law is enforced with the same uniformity as all laws in the country are--Mexico is a famously lawless country with, shall we say, uneven application of the law--much harsher than in the United States. 

Such is the logic of decolonization, which in reality has everything to do with Leftists seizing power and nothing to do with "fairness." There is no point in arguing the fine points of the law, fairness, morality, justice, or any fine words. It is about raw power and its exercise. October 7th was about "decolonization," and in the logic of decolonization, it makes perfect sense to wear a Keffiyeh and wave a Mexican flag. IT is all the same issue, and that issue is delegitimizing the Western liberal order by any means necessary. 

Liberal democracies are particularly vulnerable to appeals to a sense of justice, even if those appeals are based on weak or even ridiculous claims. One of the great virtues of liberal democratic societies is the preference to find compromises and to establish domestic peace through using processes that everybody acknowledges are basically fair. Our legal systems are highly refined, and while imperfect, we tend to believe that the adversarial process, in which everybody can make an argument, gets the best results. 

As imperfect as the system is, it is far superior to the "might makes right" alternative that has been the most common way of resolving disputes. 

The downside of that system is that it can be abused--either through frivolous claims or through refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy. The "decolonization" riots of all types--anti-ICE, George Floyd, BLM, Atlanta Police, or any of the many violent movements--try to impose a heckler's veto, banking on the idea that we all want peace so much that we will give in to the most violent. 

That's the logic behind the claim that none of this would have happened if only Trump had given in to the rioters. It's not the rioter's fault that there is violence, but rather ICE's. 

Think of it as the "from the River to the Sea" argument--there would be no terrorism in Israel if only the Jews would hurry up and die. It really is THEIR fault for existing. 

The argument that Mexicans have a right to invade the United States because 200 years ago a Mexican could have entered without a passport is no stronger than my claim to National Health Service treatment in Wales because a great-great-great-grandfather was from there. 

It is a mistake to assume that any of these arguments should be taken seriously, because they are not meant seriously. They are meant to confuse the issue. Not to put too fine a point on it, but every country and every border is established through the right of conquest at some point in time, and it's stupid to argue the point. There is not a single border in the world that God decreed or that has been uncontested. 

Ask the Ukrainians about that. After all, little more than 30 years ago, any Russian could have driven across that border without contest, and now the Ukrainians are fighting and dying to keep them out. Borders are legal entities, backed up by law. 

Illegal immigrants aren't streaming across the border because they want the United States to return the Southwest to Mexico; what they want is to live in a free and prosperous country that is much better governed than Mexico or wherever else they came from. In other words, because these countries suck for some reason. 

It's as simple as that. And the reason why America seems better to them is because we have a society that, at best, is governed by the rule of law. 

And the rule of law means they have to follow the legal process to come here, or be deported. Everything else is a distraction. 

Editor's Note: President Trump will not allow lawlessness to reign in America. We will not have a repeat of 2020's "Summer of Love."

Help Hot Air continue to report on the president's crackdown on rioters in Los Angeles and expose the truth about the violent left trying to destroy our great country. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.