It is often discussed here that, following the Mexican-American War, the USA might have annexed more (or even all) of Mexico. Usually, this leads to a discussion aboyut just how realistic it would be for 19th century Americans to want to absorb sustantial amounts of Mexicans. What I have never seen suggested, however, is the idea of "unequal treaties" being imposed on Mexico, the way such threaties were in OTL imposed on China by the Europeans. What I mean by that is that ports (such as Veracruz) are permanently occupied by the USA, Mexico loses tarriff autonomy, US corporations get concessions to a lot of Mexican natural resources (such as mining sites) etc. Mexico nominally retains its independence, which prevents the whole "hassle" of absorbing Mexicans into the USA, but in practice, the Americans have control over Mexico and can exploit the country as they see fit. Obviously, it's a complete dick move, but it seems like a highly profitable one. It surprises me that such an idea was never raised when the option of annexing more or all of Mexico was being debated. Or perhaps it was, and I'm just unaware of it? If so, why was it rejected? I find it hard to believe that the mid-19h century politicians would discard this option out of humanitarian considerations. And finally, of course: what would have happened if this suggestion had been raised, and had been implemented?