She says that latinos can't be illegals because they are descendants of native people

Analysis

Couple of problems. 1) America does NOT have jure sanguinis...a right by blood. It has locational and parental citizenship, meaning if born in America you're a citizen even if the parents aren't. It means if you are born ABROAD, you have parental citizenship if your parents are both US citizens and one has residence in the US. It's that simple those are the rules. They haven't changed and we ought not change them imho.

Amercia doesn't have right by blood, which is what OC is suggesting. That's Italy, Israel and some other countries. If you're Jewish you're always welcome in Israel, and if your paternal ancestors have not explicitly denounced their Italian citizenship right by blood then the consulate can grant you Italian citizenship even if you are a citizen of other countries.

AMERICA does not work this way. There is no "American" blood. Nor is there some kind of innate, constitutional law, common law, maritime admiralty law, natural law that creates a "Jure sanguinis" type of right-to-land-by-blood. Sorry--but her argument is false and she is wrong.

Speaking of LATIN-os

2) There are laws about "Adverse Possession", which is the idea that using something makes you possess it. In this case, real property or land. Commonly called, "Squatter's Rights". If you occupy the property for a certain amount of time, it becomes yours free and clear. That is our law. The amount of time to possess a property varies from state to state

This type of law IS in the US Codes, and this type of law IS common law upon which our Constitution is based, and this common law DOES go back to Usucapio the Latin concept of adverse possesion.

The US Aquired land through purchase. Those landholders initially aquired the land by force (French, British) or through Adverse Possession. Even if the land purchase were shown to be faulty somehow, we've pushed the natives into reservations and then US citizens have occupied their land for 350+ yrs, well beyond the legal purchase. US continental land has become through Adverse possessoin ALSO, and this legal concept goes back to the Roman Empire, the name upon which "LATINOS" is based, thus it's older and more precedent.

Of course, Adverse Possession applies to land that isn't already US Government owned. If the United States owned the land ("Public land") it cannot be reclaimed back, by way of Adverse Possession, pursuant to "48 U.S. Code § 1489 - Loss of title of United States to lands in territories through adverse possession or prescription forbidden"

So there's no takebacks BY Latinos in America, except possibly on private land

Now I'm not a lawyer, I'm just some fact-correctional turd on the internet who can read and understand plain english and sifting thru law.cornell.edu using google for anything responsive to term "adverse possession" took me five minutes. Ocasio-Cortez is apparently incapable of this, AND she's incapable of ordering her numerous staff to do this for her, and then tell her what the laws are.

And why is that?

Here is Why

She doesn't know our US laws. Yet somehow, she's serving on a body that creates them. Why is that? She's not a lawyer, and she can't even use logic or reason.

Furthermore, she's trying to manipulate the public into thinking that there ARE these laws. That is called Gaslighting through caustic propaganda, and it's dangerous. GIving people the wrong ideas by misrepresenting our laws, is effectively acting as an attorney without a degree or license. That alone is a VERY strong reason that Ocasio-Cortez should be immediately expelled from the Congress for criminal negligence causing injury to the public through "rebellion against the establishment", "incitement to riots", because the expected behavior of the public is to cause anger and then confrontation of our own public officials over this matter. Again, this matter is a NON matter because the law is the law