I received some interesting responses to my last column, "The case for imperialism," in which I suggested that the War on Terror could have been prevented by the continuation of colonialist policies as practiced by the U.S. and European powers in earlier centuries, as doing so would have made the West more culturally relevant to Third World peoples by acclimatizing them to Western concepts and values.
One of the surprising aspects regarding the feedback received was that most of it reflected agreement. Granted, the idea was a bit of a stretch – there were lots of qualifiers involved, something of a "What if Hitler had never been born?" kind of postulation.
The column was also a little over the top even with respect to ideas dyed-in-the-wool conservatives generally espouse, thus it positively lit up the blogosphere on the left. The chatter resembled the flavor of conversations my peers and I have concerning, say, Noam Chomsky, but with far more expletives.
So here's another stretch, but one with more contemporary flavor: The case for annexing Mexico.
Due to a variety of factors (including national security), issues surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border have been in the forefront of discussion for many months. The precise number of Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally each year is impossible to accurately determine, but estimates average out to about 1 million. The motivation for the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico is, as we are all aware by now, primarily economic.
So, I say: Annex Mexico. Handsome bribes to Vicente Fox and his underlings would no doubt bring them around to thinking it an excellent idea. As a contingency, we could probably enlist the cooperation of key players in the Mexican military fairly cheaply. A poll released on Aug. 16, 2005, by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that more than 40 percent of Mexican adults would move to the United States if they could, so I seriously doubt there would be widespread rioting in the streets of Mexico City when the mutually agreed-upon annexation was announced.
But what about here? Certainly the prospect of all 107 million Mexicans potentially streaming across the border is something no one – particularly alleged conservatives like myself – wishes to contemplate. Even a smaller scale exodus would be horrific. Leaving aside the fact that the smaller scale exodus is already underway, of course, we couldn't allow that any more than we could allow indigent citizens to move en masse into our public parks. The oft-suggested border tightening – probably utilizing the National Guard – would need to be implemented until Mexico's economy developed to the point where the economic incentive for relocation began to diminish.
We would gain complete and immediate legal control over both sides of the border (as well as all ports and points of entry within Mexico, a national security boon). Mexicans who are now coming here illegally would no longer be coming illegally, but safely and to verifiable destinations via public transportation paid for with their own tax dollars. The U.S. businesses that pounced on the market (partly to offset the loss of obscenely cheap labor) would be required to pay a percentage of their earnings to cover renovating the Mexican infrastructure, with a substantial allotment for education. The finer distinctions of this admittedly cyclopean feat would be determined by more knowledgeable sociopolitical and economic minds than mine. If anyone's interested, I do have a short list.
The new government could be structured similarly to that of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. A few more prisons would have to be built – likely most of the new convicts would be police and politicians, since we could not afford to tolerate the kind of corruption currently endemic in Mexico to continue.
The question many will ask (I daresay, violently hurl my way) is that if through such action we shattered all remaining illusions relative to our role as the international big daddy, where would it end? This is imperialism, clearly, and we simply don't do that anymore.
To which I would answer: First, we already are the international big daddy. Let's abandon the intellectual dishonesty once and for all – if there's going to be a biggest dog, it might as well be us. The swift and terrible retribution exacted upon the Abu Ghraib offenders offers clear evidence that we aren't going to tolerate imperial storm troopers within our ranks. America ought to be embracing its supremacy and overall ethical integrity, yet due to the moral perversions of political correctness and international socialism, it faces a fundamental challenge merely acknowledging its right to exist.
Second, I consider the proposed actions more of a moral obligation than anything else. The government of Mexico is doing it wrong – their policies are oppressing their people, stultifying their social and economic growth and negatively impacting the United States. Just last week, the governors of New Mexico and Arizona declared states of emergency, releasing more than $2 million to help their states cope with the flood of illegals, and the financial burden on the state of California inches it closer to insolvency every month.
As far as sovereignty or national identity goes, these have already been proven to be a joke, given the number of Mexicans coming here and those who wish to. Instead of letting their system drag us down, why not use ours to pull them up? A business acquaintance of mine is already working on a Habitat for Humanity-style endeavor to implement in Mexico – I am sure that there are thousands of brilliant men and women in business who, properly motivated and judiciously monitored, could turn the Mexican economy and educational system around in fairly short order. Imagine what 20 years of social and economic development – unconstrained by Third World corruption and institutional criminality – could accomplish!
Then, we could move on to Haiti, which is essentially an African nation in the Caribbean, plagued by a level of corruption, poverty and squalor that is shameful given its proximity to our shores. I think we owe even more to Haiti than Mexico, given our government's abysmal historical conduct there. And they don't even hate us that much yet. In the case of Haiti, I think we could just call ahead and fly in.
Madness? Just look at how the poor devils live. I doubt a shot would be fired. You want madness? Let's discuss attorneys and Geneva Convention protections for captured al-Qaida and other terrorists ...
Annex Mexico?One difference between the demonstrations in France and the demonstrations in America: The French are demonstrating for the right not to work hard, while the demonstrators in America mostly want to work.
And most of them, I think, really want that. Yes, there are loonies -- more than the standard Big Media treatment would have you believe -- who think that the Southwestern United States should go back to Mexico. But I suspect that most illegal immigrants don't want that. If they wanted to live in Mexico, they'd have stayed in Mexico.
In fact, they're leaving Mexico because its corrupt and thuggish political culture stifles economic growth and opportunity. The people there are smart and hardworking, after all, and they tend to do just fine when they get here. They're leaving because being smart and hardworking is enough to get you ahead in the United States, but not in Mexico. And I suspect that if the Reconquista advocates somehow did get their way, and the Southwest United States became a new Northern Mexico, we'd soon have illegal immigrants crossing over into Kansas and Oklahoma for opportunity, because the Mexican political culture would have ruined things in Arizona and Texas just like it's already ruined them further south.
So maybe we've been thinking about this the wrong way. Instead of worrying about Mexicans invading America, maybe what we need is for the United States to annex Mexico.
Oh, we don't need to turn Mexico into a state, or several. At least not right away. But as part of any immigration deal, the United States needs to demand reform in Mexico. Serious political reform, and serious economic reform.
And reciprocity. If we're going to make it easy for Mexicans to come to the United States to live, work, hold property, and get public benefits without too much paperwork trouble, we need to make it easy for Americans to do the same in Mexico. Right now, as several people have noticed, the environment there is considerably less friendly to foreigners than America's is.
But as the Mexican government has been free to express opinions about how the United States should set immigration, economic, and educational policy, it seems only fair if we do the same for them.
It's an interdependent world, after all. And that works both ways.
Maybe annexation would solve immigration problem MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW
MICHAEL ELLIOTT
The issue facing Congress and our country regarding illegal and undocumented workers is one of concern. Thoughts and suggestions are all over the map, including the simple (and uninformed) statements that we should ship all 11 or 12 million of "them" back across the border. An article I read suggested that it would cost the government approximately $215 billion over a five-year period to remove 75 percent of the illegals; the other 25 percent would "take the hint" and vamoose back home, presumably to the life of luxury that they left behind.
In the April 10 Tribune, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer states that in order to seal our border with Mexico we need to construct a long, admittedly ugly fence; perhaps two of them, with a road, cameras and sensors in between. I'd suggest adding rattlesnakes to the mix, since they're indigenous to the area, and there are plenty available each spring due to the numerous rattlesnake roundups held throughout Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Why turn the nasty buggers into boots and belts when we can put them to work in service of the country they live in?
Alas, as we know, a fence won't work. As part of the annual Terlingua, Texas, Chili Cook-off (and related festivities), an event called The Terlingua Memorial Over, Under or Through Mexican Fence-Climbing Contest began in the early 1980s. The fence: 17 feet high. First prize: a case of Lone Star beer. Winning time: 30 seconds. You'd think they'd have offered better beer, but when in Terlingua ...
A fence also can be tunneled under, as seen on the news in San Diego, where a professional quality tunnel, complete with lights, was discovered. I'm confident that, given more time, a Starbucks and a VISA credit card booth (offering a free T-shirt with sign-up) would have been added.
After considerable thought, I think I've come up with a solution that should make nearly everyone currently living in the United States of America happy. I believe that we should annex Mexico and the Central American countries.
We have plenty of precedent for this, beginning with the U.S. war with Mexico in 1846, in which we snatched what is now Texas and a number of other states.
We "annexed" Hawaii (an independent kingdom) in 1898; Puerto Rico from the Spaniards in 1898; and Panama's Canal Zone in 1914, just to name a few.
Imagine the boon it would be to our country to add eight more states to our flag; imagine the prestige it would add to our world stature. Beyond the swelling of nationalistic pride, there are rational considerations. First, nobody would be an illegal immigrant. We would instantly add millions of American citizens, eligible to be taxed on their wages and purchases.
The price of phone calls would drop, as callers wouldn't pay those international charges; the "can you hear me now" guy would drop, exhausted, from all of his walking.
With the annexation of these countries we would automatically absorb their natural resources. Congress would salivate at the prospect to open the bidding to sell the rights to the oil, timber and mineral companies.
Venezuela and Colombia would be on our national doorstep, better for us to keep an eye on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his oil supplies. Our drug enforcement agency could also keep closer tabs on all of that cocaine mysteriously making its way from Colombia onto our streets.
To help ease the unemployment factor, Wal-Mart could build a plethora of stores, selling its low-cost products (still made in Asia) to its low-paid employees.
I can't imagine resistance in our soon-to-be states. People are already moving here in droves. Our cultures are similar enough; Cinco de Mayo is as popular as St. Patrick's Day and, locally, Dyngus Day. These are all Christian countries, keeping with the "one nation under God" theme, and you've gotta admit, the food can't be beat.
And if there is resistance? We'll simply show them how superior the American way of democracy is. Look how well it's working in Iraq.
In the event that this idea is passed over in favor of a fence, the estimated cost is approximately $1.26 billion, double that if we use Krauthammer's model of a double fence. We're currently spending $150 million a day on the war in Iraq. Perhaps we could give our soldiers in Iraq 17 days worth of vacation to cover the expense of building the fence. I bet Kansas and the other states would throw in the rattlesnakes for free.
Ok, we can stop quoting articles verbatim. Post a link and quote the relavant parts. Otherwise we could get in trouble for ripping other peoples work off.
Interesting site. Yes, there are some idiots, but there are also some respectable members.
I have to write an essay about illegal immigration. Personally, if you're here illegally, pay the penalties for committing the crime. I have nothing against deporting every person who is here illegally. 20 million illegal aliens being deported opens up many jobs for the currently unemployed legal Americans.
Illegal aliens are receiving tax refunds even though they have not paid into the system and they are receiving much more aid from the government than legal Americans who are down and out on their luck. They bring diseases across the borders with them; some diseases that we once had practically erradicted are surfacing again.
I have to say I'm impressed that I didn't see anyone here saying "But this country was founded by illegal immigrants." Cry me a river. People who fall back on that obviously forgot their American history. Yes, America was founded by immigrants, but they were not in the country illegally since at the time of its founding there wasn't a government, there wasn't a Constitution or Bill of Rights, and there wasn't a system of law established.
Illegal aliens marching in the streets, waving their flag, shouting out demands for their rights is a joke. Illegal aliens are not legal members of our society, therefore, they do not have any rights under our laws and Constitution.
Guest worker program? Give me a break! Why cater to the unemployed of another country? How about employing legal Americans first before racing to the rescue of other countries?
The whole "illegals do the jobs Americans won't do" is a crock of shit. Anyone who is too proud and willing to work even the most menial of jobs in order to keep themselves off of welfare would "do the jobs American's won't do." I certainly would.
Wait. I have done jobs that most Americans would not do. In fact, it was at one of those jobs that the three mexican workers we had were fired after three days for not bothering to show up at all. The other three mexican workers were fired within three weeks of being hired. One for theft, the other two for deciding they could show up whenever they felt like it and not sticking to the set schedule.
The plight of Mexico is not my concern nor should it be America's concern. America has its hands full with its own problems (that seem to be on the back burner constantly) that are in dire need of fixing.
20 Million illegal aliens need to return to Mexico and revolt against their own government and quit trying to change ours.
The sad fact is this: The illegal alien problems have been with us since the early eighteen hundreds at least, maybe even earlier. The government will do a little here and little there to appease the outraged public, but that's about it. The illegals will win because our government is more concerned with getting the votes of the minorities when election time rolls around instead of what's best for the country and what the American citizens want.
