Aw. The "legitimate government" would be obligated also to pretend to sort out the conflicting claims of the early inhabitants. In a "fair" hearing and settlement, the Spanish settlers would have some conflict from any original survivors of the aboriginal native population, then.

It is a modern law that if you pay taxes on a piece of property long enough, and/or conspicuously live there, then that is/can be the dispositive legal point on determining ownership.

Maybe this "squatter's rights" "law" even is older than the Mexican-US of American treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatters_rights

From one angle, I guess that the Spanish really deserved an unequal treaty, considering what they themselves did to/for the native Aztecs, Incas "etc.".

Compare: the erosion of basic constitutional rights by means of walking over them regularly. Case in point, the generally docile behavior in the face of gross violations of Bill of Rights search warrant spirit/intent on the FLDS bigamists in Texas. Is the government really entitled to the poisoned fruit of the "investigation" tree, taking DNA blood samples from FLDS people without obtaining voluntary consent?

In one sense, I guess that the present FLDS and the old Spanish land grant recipients are in the same boat, up a creek with no paddle, and the water is very murky and lumpy, anyway.

In brief: For government, under the constitutional social contract, however noble-pretending, the ends should not justify the means. Government should set a nobler precedent than mere unruly citizens can be allowed to, it should *pay* for land it wants to take, and should respect personal rights in the unequal face off.