Unfortunately, Jorge Castaneda's statement about "propagating militant activities" does not appear to be getting much attention from anyone.

Very few people appear to recognize the threat.

While we're waiting for the rest to catch up, you might want to read this Phyllis Schlafly article, or the longer article MULTICULTURALISM, IMMIGRATION AND AZTLAN (complete with extensive footnotes). Excerpt (bolding mine):

Mario Barrera, a faculty member of U.C. Berkeley's Department of Ethnic Studies, admitted that multiculturalism "would help prepare the ideological climate for an eventual campaign for ethnic regional autonomy." In January 1995, El Plan de Aztlan Conference at UC Riverside resolved that "We shall overcome...by the vote if possible and violence if necessary." The rise of Mexican irredentism as a serious political movement "awaits only the demographic transformation of the Southwest." As an article entitled "The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own" in 1982's Excelsior, Mexico's leading daily newspaper, put it:

The territory lost in the 19th century by...Mexico...seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours on the old maps. Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.... [The result of this migration is to return the land] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot.

I think a major part of the problem is that no one wants to be accused of being a xenophobic racist simply because they support the sovereignty of the United States. For an example, a KNX radio reporter asked Antonio Villaraigosa to comment on his involvement with Mecha during a mayoral debate on May 31, 2001. You will note from Villaraigosa's answer that a) he does not answer the question, and b) he assumes the mantle of victimization and accuses mayorno.com of intolerance and of vilifying him. Simply because mayorno.com put up a web site concerning Villaraigosa's past activities with a separatist organization. mayorno.com is certainly hyperbolic and alarmist. However, does that mean that the undisputed, easily verifiable facts it presents aren't true and don't deserve an answer?

All Villaraigosa had to say was "that was then, this is now. I no longer support separatism." He did not say that, he evaded the question in a feel-good way. Unfortunately, everyone was feeling so good about his answer, they forgot to notice that he didn't answer the question about his own past intolerance.

This tactic is similar to that used by, for instance, Arab groups to foreclose anyone looking too closely into the threat posed by militant Islam or questions concerning the Saudi involvement in 9/11. Thankfully, the Saudi involvement is being noticed; hopefully the threat posed by another enemy/ally will not go unnoticed for long.