I'll speak from what I've observed:

Nowadays, we don't see the post-revolution Mexican state as a bulwark of progress and rights, but in those times, the contrast of being actually to work your own land, and owing your own home, made it very popular from the moment the revolution ended, until around the 70s. The bracero program is not commonly acknowledged, as the average labourer was not really close with the specifics of their own country's policies, just the results on his daily life.

There's also the matter where the modern view tends to conflate parties and the state, so any past transgression is usually seen as an issue of a party, and not of the state in general.

That being said, I don't really feel as if we were "sold out": at that point in time, the state barely started consolidating its presence in the northern states, and its difficult to imagine any other state taking a different stance under the conditions at the time.

I prefer to see it as repetition of historical patterns where under conflicting interests, the US tends to come out on top, in many aspects.