Did Mexico promise to take care of Rio Rico before calling an airstrike the next week?
I don't "get" the Maquis at all. Please explain them for me.
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
In the year 1845, the middle of the Rio Grande river was established as part of the America southern boarder, by the year 1970, through natural and artificial movements, the river was no longer in the same place. In order to maintain the river as the boarder, the Boarder Treaty of 1970 exchanged thousands of acres of land between America and Mexico. In one place on the boarder two thousand acres of developed agricultural land was given to Mexico.
The final provision of the treaty transferred the Texas city of Rio Rico to Mexico in 1977.
The resident were never asked if this is what they wanted.
Originally, all resident of Rio Rico were to lose their US citizenship and be deported in place. However, after a lawsuit, the U.S. courts ruled that all residents born in Rio Rico between 1906 (when the river moved) and the 1977 handover could retain their U.S. citizenship. The majority of the residents choose to emigrate to America as full citizens.
But what if.
What if the residents the town of of Rio Rico had formed a Rio Rico Maquis in 1977? What if they had attacked Mexican military, police and civilians in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas and had also fought against American law enforcement, FBI, Boarder patrol and police (they were American citizens) in the Texas county of Hidalgo (where Rio Rico use to be)? What if they were receiving material support from within America? Should those individuals be subject to prosecution?
Where would your sympathies be then?
While Mexico isn't a antagonist or a enemy, they are a foreign power. Do you feel that the Rio Rico Maquis would be justified in attempting the force the nation of Mexico to release their town back to them? To cede it from Mexico? And if they did seceded in their efforts, do you honestly believe that America would then agree to extend the boarders to enclose this town?
Against the provisions of a treaty America sought and signed?
Please.
Some excellent questions!
First off, one thing to bear in mind is that the situation you're describing is fundamentally different than the UFP/Cardassian situation in one respect -- the Americans were actually the aggressors, originally. The Republic of Texas was actually formed when a bunch of Americans moved to a Mexican province and then took it over; we basically stole Mexican territory and kept it because we beat them in a war.
Having said that, we can disregard that history for the purposes of this discussion and restrict ourselves to the questions facing the United States and the United Mexican States in the 1970s and in particular the questions about the rights of the 1970s citizens of Rio Rico and disregard whether or not their ancestors had a right to move there.
I would argue that this constitutes a violation of the principle of self-determination. As I understand it, U.S. law is based on the principle of dual sovereignty -- states in the Union have an inviolate right to exist and maintain their territorial integrity and the federal government has no right to dissolve them, though federal law trumps state law when there's a conflict. However, states themselves are unitary states -- municipalities only exist at the pleasure of the state government. State governments always retain the right to abolish municipal governments and to then directly govern a given city, village, township, or whatever, by themselves.
So, for instance, there's a community called Cleveland located in northern Ohio, and that community was granted its own government by the Ohio General Assembly and Governor, thereby forming the City of Cleveland. But the City of Cleveland only exists as long as the Ohio government wants it to; if they want, the General Assembly and Governor can revoke the City Charter and thereby abolish the City of Cleveland and its laws, governing the community called Cleveland directly from the Ohio Statehouse (though most unincorporated communities are governed at the county level -- but counties themselves only exist at the state governments' pleasure, too).
Now, legally, I'm sure this applies to Rio Rico, too. The U.S. has no right to dissolve the State of Texas, but the State of Texas has the right to dissolve Rio Rico, as all states in the Union are unitary states.
However -- this is an aspect of state law I don't in general agree with. Now, sure, I can see a need to grant state governments the right to dissolve municipalities if, for instance, a community has become a depopulated ghost town. But in general, if you have a permanent community, I don't agree with the idea that the state government can revoke that community's right to self-governance.
And, to that end, I don't agree with the idea that the United States and Texas governments could just hand over Rio Rico to the United Mexican States without gaining the consent of the people of Rio Rico in a referendum. It may be legal, but I view it as a violation of Rio Rico's right of self-determination. And I'd be horrified to think that the Federation, which is supposed to be better than the United States, wouldn't respect its local communities' rights of self-determination.
That would depend on how the Mexican authorities were treating them.
If the Mexican federal and state governments were treating the citizens of Rio Rico well, respecting their rights as American citizens and as, presumably, Mexican citizens simultaneously (I'm guessing that residents choosing to stay would have received dual citizenship?), then, no, I would not support a "Rio Rico Maquis."
If, on the other hand, Mexican authorities had promised not to attack them and to not interfere with Rio Rico's internal affairs but then turned around and supplied arms to Mexican civilians who were attacking Rio Rico with military-grade equipment? If Mexican authorities were persecuting Rio Rico residents in an attempt to drive them out?
And if all of this was happening after Mexico had been launching an organized campaign of conquest against American communities along the border in the same manner that Cardassia had launched an organized campaign of conquest against Federation worlds along the border?
Then I'd absolutely support the right of Rio Rico to use violence to protect themselves from persecution. And I'd say that the United States should either dissolve the treaty and take Rio Rico back, or that it should make it clear that it will use force to protect its citizens' rights while not seeking to annex Rio Rico. At the very least, the United States should not interfere and declare it's an internal Mexican problem -- it certainly shouldn't actively target Rio Rico Maquis members who are only protecting their own rights.
If, on the other hand, the Mexican authorities and citizenry are not persecuting the people of Rio Rico? Then, no, the people of Rio Rico have no right to use violence or create their own "Maquis."
If the Mexican government were to persecute them, then, yes, as far as I'm concerned, the City of Rio Rico would have the right to declare independence as the City-State of Rio Rico if its citizenry felt it was necessary to do so to protect themselves and their rights.
I think that in a situation like that -- the U.S. handing off Rio Rico to a government that persecutes them, then refuses to protect its citizens living in Mexican territory when they're persecuted, and then that city manages to become an independent city-state -- the City-State of Rio Rico would be unlikely to want to reunite with the U.S. And they'd have every right not to want to do so.
What about it? You realize that it's just a Vulcan thing, right?
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
This turned into another one of those threads that people should have saved all their long posts and just saved it for their thesis instead of wasting it here.
I'm not saying they're good enough for a thesis but they just sound like they'd be.
I'm not saying they're good enough for a thesis but they just sound like they'd be.
To be completely honest no, for seventy years Mexico against international law quietly treated Rio Rico as part of Mexico.
Are you saying that if the Cardassians' basically ignored the colonists, then all the objections to the Federation/Cardassian treaty territory exchange would go away?
Your assuming that federation citizens have property rights ... in the eyes of the federation government! The people currently inhabiting the federation council might view the entirely of the federation as their administrative personal property. In the supposed post-scarsity replicator environment, the federation government easily could view all personal property, whether real estate or a palm sized trinket, as a casually replaceable worthless item. The council lives in a money-less civilization where nothing has any intrinsic value.
In America the constitution defines a citizen as
1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States.
combined with
2) All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The maquis (apparently) were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United Federation of Planets. they were certainly not acting in accordance with Federation law. Being a citizen comes with responsibilities and obligations, not just endless rights. So how is it you think that the maquis are citizens?
Basically yes, the maquis earned their treatment through their own actions, this wasn't something that was inflected upon them out of the blue. The post above where I sight the example of Rio Rico, That went though the US court system. I can't find a single example ProtoAvatar of the colonist, maquis or other wise even attempting a legal solution against the Federation government in the Federation courts. In the case of Dorvan Five ...
So, a village, in a small valley. This is the basis behind their claim upon a entire star system. One single village, in one single small valley,
When Picard says "How many before it's wrong?" How about more than one small valley Picard?
No. But it's unlikely that the colonists would have formed the Maquis and resorted to violence.
That would be a basic violation of the principles of freedom and self-determination that Picard says the Federation is founded upon in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part I."
Because they were consistently referred to as Federation citizens.
That, and if they WEREN'T Federation citizens, then the Prime Directive would ban the Federation from getting involved in the Maquis-Cardassian conflict. After all, if they're not Federation citizens, then it's ultimately not the Federation's business.
Yes, it was, and no they didn't. The Cardassians began attacking them AFTER they had announced that they'd allow the colonists to stay in their homes without hurting them. The Cardassians were the aggressors.
How 'bout not?
Not exactly. From 'Journey's End' again:
Now, this doesn't say they are comparable, but it doesn't say they are not either.
Well, it is if they start disrupting the order on a Federation administered station (blowing up a docked Cardassian freighter and abducting Dukat from DS9). And especially if there's a threat that the conflict could spread to involve the Federation as well.
Can I ask you something, Sci? What are your views on Israel's forcible relocation of it's settlers from Gaza? It's not a complete analogy for the DMZ situation but there are some interesting parallels.
Just to add, I'm not completely against the Maquis. But I don't think absolving them of any blame is fair either.
Then the UFP would have the right to pursue the person who blew up that ship and nothing more.
It can't spread and involve the Federation if the Federation refuses to get involved. If the Federation utterly renounces the colonists to the point of revoking their citizenship, the Cardassians aren't going to attack the Federation over them.
But, of course, the Federation DIDN'T revoke their citizenship, is why it DID stay involved.
I think it's a bad comparison, because the Israeli settlers are essentially invading Palestinian territory to establish their settlements. Whereas the contested worlds in the DMZ were all uninhabited before Federation settlers arrived.
But I have no problem with the idea of the Israeli government forcing Israeli settlers out of Palestinian territory that they had illegally entered.
(And lest someone think I'm anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, I'm also against extending to the Palestinians the right of return. I think neither side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is in the right.)
Based upon what you and ProtoAvatar and others have said, no the Federation doesn't provide it's citizens with "the principles of freedom and self-determination," perhaps it's a myth that's mirthfully told to Federation children. Sure Picard occasionally recited this, but Picard might simply be dutifully mouthing a government approved slogan.
The same way that they were consistently referred to as possessing "the principles of freedom and self-determination?"
The Federation/Starfleet is constantly interceding, moderating, mediating, ending other peoples wars, sealing opposing leaders in caves, freeing drill thralls and playing favorites, why would the Maquis-Cardassian conflict be any different?
Given that there is as yet no sovereign Palestinian nation/state, how can the gaza strip, the west bank or any where be "Palestinian territory?"
Given that there is as yet no sovereign Palestinian nation/state, how can the gaza strip, the west bank or any where be "Palestinian territory?"
Tut tut - semantics. The settlements have been declared illegal under international law regardless of such labels. There is also a problem of ethnic Palestinian-owned homes being demolished on Jerusalem and then being rebuilt but reserved for ethnic Jews.
However, these unlawful activities are less like the Maquis/Cardassian situation, which is more akin to Robert Mugabe's treatment of his people in Zimbabwe. How much direct action did other nations take against him? They applied sanctions and arrested any protestors who broke the law in their own countries. No doubt the Federation would do something similar with the Cardies and the Maquis.
Again, I must say "wow." I didn't mean to effect a firestorm, but I do find the exchange interesting to follow.
I have a relatively mundane Maquis-related question: before Sisko went on his campaign against the Maquis in "For the Uniform", I got the notion that the Federation wasn't being too active in their persecution of the Maquis. This is based on Eddington's opportunities to kill Sisko and later destroy the Defiant. But he said "our quarrel is with the Cardassians, not [you/Starfleet/the UFP]."
I think that after Sisko took extraordinary measures against, the Maquis *then* became extremely embittered against the UFP, whereas before, they probably didn't like what the UFP did but understood when they arrested/prosecuted individuals for specific acts; they probably knew the risks they took when engaging in openly combative actions and knew Starfleet was just doing as ordered by the UFP.
Does that sound correct? For if it does, then I'm wondering why the Maquis on Voyager were set up to be people that would *hate* Starfleet personnel — *unless* the events of "Caretaker" took place *after* Sisko's biogenic attack. Did it?
If it did not, then I'd think it would make a little more sense why there wasn't more conflict on Voyager. The Maquis wouldn't necesarily have hatred for all things Starfleet. But maybe they would; I don't know. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
I have a relatively mundane Maquis-related question: before Sisko went on his campaign against the Maquis in "For the Uniform", I got the notion that the Federation wasn't being too active in their persecution of the Maquis. This is based on Eddington's opportunities to kill Sisko and later destroy the Defiant. But he said "our quarrel is with the Cardassians, not [you/Starfleet/the UFP]."
I think that after Sisko took extraordinary measures against, the Maquis *then* became extremely embittered against the UFP, whereas before, they probably didn't like what the UFP did but understood when they arrested/prosecuted individuals for specific acts; they probably knew the risks they took when engaging in openly combative actions and knew Starfleet was just doing as ordered by the UFP.
Does that sound correct? For if it does, then I'm wondering why the Maquis on Voyager were set up to be people that would *hate* Starfleet personnel — *unless* the events of "Caretaker" took place *after* Sisko's biogenic attack. Did it?
If it did not, then I'd think it would make a little more sense why there wasn't more conflict on Voyager. The Maquis wouldn't necesarily have hatred for all things Starfleet. But maybe they would; I don't know. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
Starfleet tried to lure a large part of the Maquis in a trap in order to catch/destroy them way back in TNG 'Preemptive Strike'. I think that episode happens not long after the DS9 'Maquis' two-parter. Of course, it's possible that after the failure of that attempt Starfleet decided to scale back it's anti-Maquis operations.
Thanks, neozeks. I forgot about that.
That makes me curious: why in the world did Eddington not take out the Defiant when he had the chance? I suppose I can understand why he didn't kill Sisko when he first met him, but later Sisko demonstrated he was vehement in hunting down the Maqius, in particular, Eddington. And Eddington had killed many before, so why spare Sisko and the Defiant?
Also, I was highly surprised that Sisko could waltz into that Maquis outpost without anybody recognizing him. He's the most prominent Starfleet officer in that sector. I could see why he wouldn't necessarily be recognized by, say, the average UFP citizen on Earth. But even Americans like me recognize our top military commanders from various wars, both past and present. And I'm just a citizen, not someone who would pay particular attention to a military figure (they're not out to get me, as far as I know!)
Is there a plausible in-universe explanation for this? The only one I can think of is that Eddington knew in advance Sisko was coming and told everyone to pay no heed to him so Eddington could personally deal with him.
Finally, do we ever know what motivated Eddington to defect to the Maquis? As far as I know, he never lived in the DMZ; he was just a Starfleet officer. Thus, given the way Starfleet had tried to infiltrate the Maquis in the past, I'd think the Maquis would be highly suspicious of a Starfleet officer suddenly defecting, even if he did initially provide them with aid. That is, unless he had a plausible reason, such as family in the DMZ being killed by the Cardassians.
That's a lot of questions. I hope someone will help me with some answers. Thanks!
I have never claimed that the principles of freedom and self-determination are myths or government propaganda. I have claimed that they are ideals that the Federation government has not always lived up to and has violated in the particular instance of the Maquis question.
In particular, I think it's worth noting that the Federation President during that era was Jaresh-Inyo, who was, frankly, not a very strong leader. I can easily see where a fellow like him would try to appease the Cardassians at the expense of the rights of his own citizens. But these policies are clear outliers from the Federation's normal policies of protecting individual and group rights.
More like, the same way there is absolutely no evidence that the Federation ever revoked the colonists' citizenship.
Given that there is as yet no sovereign Palestinian nation/state, how can the gaza strip, the west bank or any where be "Palestinian territory?"
There is a Palestinian nation. There is simply not a Palestinian state. When the State of Palestine is established, it will no doubt be a nation-state. Please get your terminology straight.
And the fact that there is not a Palestinian state does not change the fact that there is Palestinian territory, that the State of Israel had acknowledged such in the past, and that the State of Israel has been allowing its citizens to illegally invade Palestinian territory to build those settlements -- in essence, to illegally expand the borders of the State of Israel by stealing Palestinian land.
Eddington's wife was maquis, we don't know very much about her. It's possible that the maquis leadership sent her, Israeli-mossad style, to seduce and recruit "a local Starfleet tactical officer." That officer just happen to be Eddington. This might have happen after Eddington was assigned to DS9, but prior to his arrival or soon after.
It's unlikely that that the maquis would have got very far with Worf.
Also, Eddington could have been disaffected with the Federation and Starfleet prior to his entry into the maquis, born hypothetically on the "utopia" of Earth, the contradiction of what he was raised to believe and the reality of how the Federation actually governs it's segment of the galaxy might have caught a then young Eddington by surprise. The treatment of the treaty worlds created further serious doubts within Eddington's conscious. Even Picard was somewhat shaken by the effects of the treaty.
So the Federation government revoked the colonists' "citizenship rights," without revoking their actual "citizenship?" Interesting.
Last edited:
Interesting thing about Eddington, though, is his actions in "Our Man Bashir". He was one of the DS9 crew who were working to save Sisko and the others. If he was Maquis, why would he do that? Why bother? He'd consider them his enemies, wouldn't he?
The thing to remember is that the DMZ is basically a sort of "inhabitted neutral zone." It works out exactly like the Romulan Neutral Zone, with one important difference: neither side can enter the DMZ, but their citizens can and do claim planets and settlements inside it. This produces a kind of amorphous border situation where both the Federation and the Cardassians have severe limitations on what measures they can take to police that border. That alone is a recipe for piracy and organized crime, and add to that the Cardassians' use of militant groups for proxy warfare--and the generally unpleasant xenophobic nature of Cardassians in the first place--and you've got all the ingredients for a perfectly intractable guerilla war.
It's not about blame or sympathy, nor is it really about "for or against." The Maquis is Star Trek's representative for every vigilante group that has ever slipped through the cracks of a controversial law and decided to take said law into their own hands. They have a somewhat legitimate grievance and respond to it in a (legally) illegitimate way. They are the IRA. They are the Palestinians, they are the Tamil Tigers, they are Tecumseh's Confederation. It's the stubborn group of plucky guys dedicated to a lost but noble cause. They don't have a very solid plan for how to win, which is part of the point of a guerilla war: you don't have to win, you just have to not-lose.
Though occasionally the underdogs DO prevail (just ask the Vietcong) it rarely has anything to do with their righteousness or the sanity of that cause. The only thing to understand is that the cause means a whole hell of a lot to the Maquis, and if they ever do win, it'll mean even more to their gawking inbred descendants.
Similar threads
