round the world, the United States has supported enclaves of people seeking self-determination. We have provided support to people looking to secede in the Jammu/Kashmir region of India, East Timor of Indonesia, Bosnia and even a province of Spain in the 1970s—just to name a few.

The United States supports resolutions within the United Nations calling on sovereign countries to hold a “plebiscite” – a type of referendum – to allow areas of their country to decide whether they can become independent or secede and join a neighboring country.

While many Americans do not know the position our country has taken, it is well remembered by the nations whose territories we advocated should be reduced to accommodate an ethnic minority’s ambition for secession.

Spaniards remember the forced separation of their Province of Western Sahara from Spain in 1975 as if it happened yesterday. India is still fighting United Nations resolutions supported by the United States calling for a plebiscite in the Jammu/Kashmir region. Even our closest allies like Israel have been told to shed territories they gained in war and cede control because an ethnic minority does not support their national government.

Separation Anxiety
While these situations are certainly complex and not all similar, they do represent a general trend of American foreign policy practiced by our State Department.

A recent Absolut Vodka advertisement in Mexico that showed the American southwest as part of Mexico calling it “absolut Mexico” caused quite an uproar in the U.S. press. It surprised me that so many people are learning for the first time that our nation’s sovereignty is in question.

For years, the “re-conquista” movement in California and across the southwest has been gaining momentum. However, the vodka advertisements appear to be the first nationwide reaction to the radical view. What has been propelling them forward is the direct involvement by the Mexican government in our internal affairs. If current trends continue, a call for a plebiscite over Southern California is not out of the question.

I say this because some members of the California State Legislature already represent districts in Los Angeles County where so few constituents are U.S. citizens that voter turnout is sparse. This hasn’t gone unnoticed in Mexico.

Mexico claims the right to interfere in our internal politics as more of its citizens move across the border and establish residency. When Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico, he regularly referred to the “120 million” Mexicans he represented. At the time, Mexico’s population was only 100 million but he explained he also represented 20 million Mexican living inside the United States.

In 1998, the Mexican Congress passed a law allowing Mexicans nationals to retain their citizenship even after pledging allegiance to the United States when becoming U.S. citizens. The law, called Mexican Nationality Law, even allows immigrants who already became naturalized U.S. citizens before 1998 to become legal Mexican citizens retroactively.

Two years ago, the Mexican Congress passed an absentee voting law to accommodate these many new citizens of their country. Now, Mexican citizens living permanently inside the United States may participate regularly in Mexico’s national elections. There have also been initiatives inside the Mexican Congress to add seats for representatives from districts in areas like California. Imagine a Mexican legislator telling a U.S. Congressman that he received more votes in the district and is therefore the democratically elected representative of, say, Los Angeles?

Claiming California
It took the Absolut Vodka advertisement for our national media to even discuss this issue. Many Americans were shocked to learn that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believed the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico. Our government has not considered the longer-term consequences of immigration policies that no longer require assimilation as the cost of U.S. citizenship or residency. Mexico, on the other hand, has considered the consequences carefully and is taking action.

Most of the ingredients the U.S. State Department considers necessary before calling for a plebiscite are already here: A large population of unassimilated foreign nationals and another government pretending to be their voice. The ingredient still missing is civil unrest or severe economic conditions that aggravate the delicate political situation.

It is not my intention to be an alarmist since I do not know if it will take ten years or 50 years before the inevitable California plebiscite is demanded by Mexico. However, the irreparable harm being done to our claim of national sovereignty through uncontrolled immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately.