NationStates Jolt Archive

After listening to all this debate about immigration coming from the 'Alien Nation', I thought that maybe I'd add my solution to the problem: the United States of America and Mexico.

I've heard it said in some arguments as to why borders should be controlled, "if not, why don't we just admit Mexico!?" And why not? The admission of the Mexican states would mean that immigration between the two nations would be completely legal.

But this would just swamp us with overcompetitive labour and possible benefit leeches!, I hear you object. And yeh, I admit that it would, in the short-term, but not by any significant increase, the people currently living in Mexico are not there simply because they are afraid of the US border, there will always be a minority that want to seek their fortune abroad, (as Europe learned when the suspected that the 2004 accessions would swamp the nations with millions of polish plumpers, that just did not happen).

In the long term the economic situation would gradually equalise, removing much of the motivation behind mass migration. And the situation would equalise because Mexico is not, as many unduly believe, an inherantly poor country, when much of Mesoamerica was New Spain there was no significant wealth gap between the northern provinces such as California or Texas and the southern provinces that made up Mexico and beyond. Whereas today the state of California has a higher GDP than most actual countries, there is no reason why the Mexican states cannot reach that same level of success.

Politically, the accession of the Mexican states must be on an equal basis to the existing states, to shrug away accusations of yanqui imperialism, perhaps a tier of government could be added between state and federal to represent a Mexican regional congress, and, of course the USA must become officially bilingual, or (preferably) remain linguistically neutral.

But there are National Security arguments aswell. The Mexico-Guatemala/Belize border is 1,212km long, the Mexico-American border is 3,141km long, that's nearly three times longer! By thirding the soft southern border America would have three times more border patrolmen per kilometre than they do now, making them three times more efficient at catching undesirable elements that may wish to cause harm to America.

//This left-field idea was brought to you by Greyenivol Colony//

you forget allot of other issues like the fact of Mexico’s instability and high organized crime this could potentially put the U.S in a quagmire and further damage its reputation.

If Mexico (and allot of South American countries) could stabilise there could be a copy of the E.U being formed in the Americas with little border control and a universal currency (which would help the poorer nations by giving a more stable currency albeit at the U.S expense) another plus point would be to lower tariffs on raw materials to the U.S giving it a competitive edge in the manufacturing industry and allowing the South American countries domination of a large market in the U.S for natural resources such as timber this would help pull South America out of poverty and provide much needed jobs helping in the long term other job sectors development

Wow. Now see, that's what I have been telling so many people. They just turn around laughing their heads off at me. I think it would save billions of dollars de to the fact that we do not have to patrol the border. (Except of course the smaller border.) I mean, all I can see is the positives of what would happen if the US just had Mexico become a part of the country. Yes, the economy may shimmer slightly, but then it will have a high rebound. There are soo many different profitable exports that Mexico does have. More political problems may be the differences in the laws between the two countries, such as drugs...law enforcement...etc. That can all be taken care of. Also, the Mexican President may not want to give up his job. The American Government can try to get around that, possibly by making him the first Governor of the Mexican State. Another thing that may happen would be that the Mexican people may just be like Puerto Rico and be a territory of the US, but do not want to pay taxes and thus stay a territory. I am not a lefty. What I am is in the middle. I say 'yes' to having Mexico join the US. I would also like Canada to Join the US as well. They may not like the USA but they would also benefit from it. The US is a economic world power. They just don't control their power as effecientlly as most other countries. Hey, after Mexico...we could keep moving down and assume the rest of central America. That way we would have an even smaller border to watch...now that is a complete right sided ordeal...or is it? All I'm for is world unification. We all just need to get along and look towards the future generations of humans that will be present when we have passed on. Global Warming...Pollution...Famine...Diseases...Cancer...those should be our most important concerns now.

This Middle Field Oppinion by:

Alexander Ra'Baal, Dictator of Dephire.

Yes, I'm a dictator...but I am one of a kind. The nice kind.

No need for a Union.

Just give citizens of NAFTA countries (Americans, Mexicans and Canadians) the right to live and work in each others countries.

You know, to be honest, if I thought there was a chance in hell that the oligarchy that rules Mexico now would be willing to give up power completely and trasfer it to the US government I'd not really have a problem with that.

But they won't, so...:confused:

I do truly like your idea, but I have my own radical proposition that moves in another direction (though I have also heard this discussed):

Instead of expanding a union that increasingly dissatisfies so many constituents, allow the opposite, creating regional governments with the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

For example, from the Pacific coast moving eastward approximately 100 miles to natural terrain-suggested borders, and from Canada to Mexico, allow this sliver of liberalism to secede and be independent; allow Utah and the surrounding areas to incorporate into the Kingdom of Mormon, or some such thing (this is especially important for the purpose of travel restrictions that could be placed on Mormon passport holders!); allow new england from Jersey up to secede; consolidate texas to florida into some kind of Christian fundamentalist republic, or whatever those people would democratically choose; the desert regions of CA, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico are culturally distinct enough to warrant exclusion from the southeastern states, forming another new region; the north, from eastern Washington to Pennsylvania, whatever, lump it together or cut it up; independence for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico; and make the southern tip of Florida a different country, too!

Some Canadians, upon contemplating this hypothetical demise of their loathesome, overbearing neighbor then contemplated the benefits that their country might enjoy, being similarly partitioned.

Let Bush be the president of texas, or southeastern america, for the rest of his natural life if they like. What allegiance do New Yorkers, Texans, and Californians feel to one another? It's all well and good to theorize about patriotism, but try advertising your californian nativity in Mississippi and you will learn what xenophobia looks like when you're the bad guy.

So, bust it all up! The purpose is good, or at least representative, government, not empire building. That's already happened, and those always topple. The US as well as China should both disintegrate like the Soviet Union.

If Mexico gets into the Union it should be called New Texas.

No need for a Union.

Just give citizens of NAFTA countries (Americans, Mexicans and Canadians) the right to live and work in each others countries.

The problem with this opposed to the Union is that it could create a brain drain in Mexico or other places as the most capable people will leave to seek their fortune in America. But, if they shared the same federal system, then Washington would be able to provide genuine economic incentives to keep capable people within Mexico, it's ironic I know, but that's globalisation for you.

No, there should be no union with the underdeveloped nation of Mexico; if there was a union, us northerners would have to carry these people on our backs, pouring possibly trillions of dollars into the Mexican economy just to keep it afloat. It's best to just let Mexico rot in its current situation, sending back any strays we capture when they attempt to flee into this nation.

They made their own bed, they can sleep in it.

I do truly like your idea, but I have my own radical proposition that moves in another direction (though I have also heard this discussed):

Instead of expanding a union that increasingly dissatisfies so many constituents, allow the opposite, creating regional governments with the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

For example, from the Pacific coast moving eastward approximately 100 miles to natural terrain-suggested borders, and from Canada to Mexico, allow this sliver of liberalism to secede and be independent; allow Utah and the surrounding areas to incorporate into the Kingdom of Mormon, or some such thing (this is especially important for the purpose of travel restrictions that could be placed on Mormon passport holders!); allow new england from Jersey up to secede; consolidate texas to florida into some kind of Christian fundamentalist republic, or whatever those people would democratically choose; the desert regions of CA, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico are culturally distinct enough to warrant exclusion from the southeastern states, forming another new region; the north, from eastern Washington to Pennsylvania, whatever, lump it together or cut it up; independence for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico; and make the southern tip of Florida a different country, too!

Some Canadians, upon contemplating this hypothetical demise of their loathesome, overbearing neighbor then contemplated the benefits that their country might enjoy, being similarly partitioned.

Let Bush be the president of texas, or southeastern america, for the rest of his natural life if they like. What allegiance do New Yorkers, Texans, and Californians feel to one another? It's all well and good to theorize about patriotism, but try advertising your californian nativity in Mississippi and you will learn what xenophobia looks like when you're the bad guy.

So, bust it all up! The purpose is good, or at least representative, government, not empire building. That's already happened, and those always topple. The US as well as China should both disintegrate like the Soviet Union.
But none of us want to do that. :confused:

The problem with this opposed to the Union is that it could create a brain drain in Mexico or other places as the most capable people will leave to seek their fortune in America. But, if they shared the same federal system, then Washington would be able to provide genuine economic incentives to keep capable people within Mexico, it's ironic I know, but that's globalisation for you.

That brain drain is already happening. There also a substantial benefit to Mexico from people going to live/work in the USA and returning to Mexico with new education/skills.

Those "genuine economic incentives" sound like pork to me.

If the Federal Government can't fix economic inequality and poverty in some areas of the US it probably can't do much for Mexico in any case.

Having an American Union without Mexico submitting to US law is fruitless... As long as the foolish Mexican land laws remain unreformed, it will only accelerate immigration.

Mexicans shouldn't blame us for 'keeping families from supporting themselves' when their land laws make it difficult for new farms and industries to be created. I'd love to have more open borders, but America cannot be a dumping ground for those Mexico could easily feed within its own borders.

But none of us want to do that. :confused:

Sure, there are hordes! Did you ask any Hawaiians? They'd love to ditch America's imperialism. Considering the extremity and newness of the radical nature of such a proposition, I feel there are actually a numerous few who are already receptive. And I, on behalf of myself specifically, support it!

Come on! We'd be really a hell of lot better off without Texas - Florida!

Sure, there are hordes! Did you ask any Hawaiians? They'd love to ditch America's imperialism. Considering the extremity and newness of the radical nature of such a proposition, I feel there are actually a numerous few who are already receptive. And I, on behalf of myself specifically, support it!

Come on! We'd be really a hell of lot better off without Texas - Florida!
Great, Just produce me one single survey that shows an even remotely significant segment of the population that wants to cede from the US. Even in the south, where they fought to leave the union less than 150 years ago, you wouldn't find any relavent public opinion in favor of leaving the US. There is a hawiian soveirgnty movement and if you go to one of their meetings you may find as many as ten or eleven people there. :)

This is why I knwo you're full of shit when you say you're a teacher, or anything else you say for that matter. The fact is that people who live here may have a porblems with the government or a particular administration, but we generally still like living here.

...I thought that maybe I'd add my solution to the problem: the United States of America and Mexico.

I've heard it said in some arguments as to why borders should be controlled, "if not, why don't we just admit Mexico!?" And why not? ...But there are National Security arguments aswell. The Mexico-Guatemala/Belize border is 1,212km long, the Mexico-American border is 3,141km long, that's nearly three times longer! By thirding the soft southern border America would have three times more border patrolmen per kilometre than they do now, making them three times more efficient at catching undesirable elements that may wish to cause harm to America.

//This left-field idea was brought to you by Greyenivol Colony//

Interesting proposal however Mexico has a coastline that is not patrolled and would make the boat situation the US faces (where tons of immigrants come from Cuba to Florida) seem small in comparison. Obviously you would have to then put more police and survellience on the coastal Mexico border and of course get tougher police enforcement within Mexico itself (their current police abilities are questionable at best after the recent murder of a Canadian couple in Mexico for instance (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147778273737&call_pageid=971358637177)). All these costs would outweigh any benefit but I do commend you for original thinking.

Oh and my solution would be video and police dog surveillance coupled with pulling marines from Iraq and placing them along the border since the scary part is that while fighting the war in Iraq (costing taxpayers $811 billion and growing), by ignoring the US-Mexico border, the US may very well be allowing terrorists into the US. A permanent physical barrier along the entire border would help as well (yes I know, costs, not to mention that this is definitely more of a long term proposition however think of the possible costs if you were to let in a terrorist)...

This is why I knwo you're full of shit when you say you're a teacher.

Wow, this must burn you up! I've been a teacher for four of the past seven years, taking breaks to STUDY history when I've traveled. Moreover, my academic background is language arts and Asian religions. The politics that courses my viens is either genetic, due to my previous career as an activist, or to having been brought up in a conservative, Republican family in a red-neck town and having realized that everyone was lying, even if they didn't know that they'd swallowed the party line.

Anyway, I live in Taiwan. You're right; I couldn't be persuaded to live in the United States again. You can keep it; just do me a favor and stay there, doing exactly what you're already doing, forever.

No need for a Union.

Just give citizens of NAFTA countries (Americans, Mexicans and Canadians) the right to live and work in each others countries.

NO way.

I don't have much of a problem beween Myselves and the canadians since canada is atleast close to us economonically but the ILLEGALS can STAY where they are. No, it's not racist, I don't want their organized crime, heroin, coke, crack, weed, and whatever else.

Mexico would become a ghost town overnight. Everybody would move up north...Bad juju for the US.

This is pretty much a step towards an EU type system for N/S America. Neeyet.

Wow, this must burn you up! I've been a teacher for four of the past seven years, taking breaks to STUDY history when I've traveled. Moreover, my academic background is language arts and Asian religions. The politics that courses my viens is either genetic, due to my previous career as an activist, or to having been brought up in a conservative, Republican family in a red-neck town and having realized that everyone was lying, even if they didn't know that they'd swallowed the party line.

Anyway, I live in Taiwan. You're right; I couldn't be persuaded to live in the United States again. You can keep it; just do me a favor and stay there, doing exactly what you're already doing, forever.
It doesn't burn me up. Your subterfuge is just so comically transparent and i enjoy debate. And, no, unfortunately I won't be staying here for very long. Upon reciept of my Geology degree I will probably be moving around quite a bit. That doesn't, howvere, detract from the stupidity of yoru remarks regarding splitting up the US into regions. A history teacher would probably understand things like that, though. When you get to class tomorrow at whatever highschool you attend you should ask your teacher more about that.

You know, to be honest, if I thought there was a chance in hell that the oligarchy that rules Mexico now would be willing to give up power completely and trasfer it to the US government I'd not really have a problem with that.

But they won't, so...:confused:
There are indications that they may at least be willing to share it. We'll see what happens after elections this year.

After listening to all this debate about immigration coming from the 'Alien Nation', I thought that maybe I'd add my solution to the problem: the United States of America and Mexico.

Fabulous post, love. Truly articulate and well thought out. A++++ (as we say on Ebay)

Mexico has a pretty darn secure southern border. Why can't we have the same? Why does Mexico cry foul whenever we try to do the same? Is the Mexican government in favor of illegal immigration?

There are legal ways to go about this whole immigration thing. If you want into the US, get in line and follow the rules like everyone else.

A giant wall won't do much because people will just dig under it or climb over it. Lots of sensors would only work
if we stop the stupid catch and release.

-snip-

You're effectively arguing for absolute free trade and free movement of labour. How libertarian of you.

The US would never give the Mexican states equal footing because the voters in Mexico would immediately vote themselves benefits at the expense of their new comrades to the north. Americans are rich - Mexicans aren't. If you give Mexicans any democratic control over the wealth, they'll take some.

The world is motivated primarily by greed. People need to accept this.

If Mexico gets into the Union it should be called New Texas.

Or The United States of The Western Hemisphere?

(which after much thought I decided sounded better than United States of Half the Planet)

This is why I knwo you're full of shit when you say you're a teacher, or anything else you say for that matter.

You know Dan, you really need to work on your social skills....

I don't have much of a problem beween Myselves and the canadians since canada is atleast close to us economonically but the ILLEGALS can STAY where they are. No, it's not racist, I don't want their organized crime, heroin, coke, crack, weed, and whatever else.

Mexico would become a ghost town overnight. Everybody would move up north...Bad juju for the US.

This is pretty much a step towards an EU type system for N/S America. Neeyet.
You assume that all Mexicans are eager to move to the US. Why would a Mexican engineer move north when he can stay where he is and enjoy the improving economy? Or a doctor? Or a lawyer? Why would unskilled labor move north if they could get a job and live cheaply in their place of origin?

Organized crime, weed, crack, etc. you already have your own. Your addiction problems are not our fault.

No need for a Union.

Just give citizens of NAFTA countries (Americans, Mexicans and Canadians) the right to live and work in each others countries.


PLEASE i hope to god you are not an American. If you want mexicans invading our country you are no American. If your canadian shut up you have no clue what it is like to be the worlds strongest country with MILLIONS invading your country every year... we dont want more mexicans....and inviting them into america will only make the problem worse

It doesn't burn me up. Your subterfuge is just so comically transparent and i enjoy debate. And, no, unfortunately I won't be staying here for very long. Upon reciept of my Geology degree I will probably be moving around quite a bit. That doesn't, howvere, detract from the stupidity of yoru remarks regarding splitting up the US into regions. A history teacher would probably understand things like that, though. When you get to class tomorrow at whatever highschool you attend you should ask your teacher more about that.

You silly moron. Why haven't you chimed in on the travel thread? Because you've never really gone anywhere? Oh, but you will next year? Yeah, right, kid. Geology, huh? Well, why don't you study the earth a little and smoke a joint, then think about how much you actually don't know.

Fabulous post, love. Truly articulate and well thought out. A++++ (as we say on Ebay)


you have got to be kidding me......please let your comment be sarcastic. if you support an american mexican union.....oh my god, you had better check your reefer...cuz its a little old...

You know, the whole argument rationalizing a closed border to keep out terrorists is flimsy at best. The terrorists, home-grown and international are already here by the hundreds. If they wanted to attack us, they would. The feds were able to sneak 60 potential massively destructed albeit pretend devices into numerous airports about the country just last week. Its futile. And what the fuck are you so scared about anyway? You could be hit by a bus tomorrow and what would Homeland Security mean to you then?

you have got to be kidding me......please let your comment be sarcastic. if you support an american mexican union.....oh my god, you had better check your reefer...cuz its a little old...

You better check your own reefer college boy. I am dead serious.

welll...if there was a union of the two, there would probably be a great deal of civel uproar over taxes. because there are so many catches with immigrents that they would loos out on.

and then there would be companies that would have to deal with paying them the minimum wage instead of takeing them for all their worth.

PLEASE i hope to god you are not an American. If you want mexicans invading our country you are no American. If your canadian shut up you have no clue what it is like to be the worlds strongest country with MILLIONS invading your country every year... we dont want more mexicans....and inviting them into america will only make the problem worse
But US citizens could also move freely to Mexico and, I don't know, invest in mines, tourism, heavy industry, and infrastructure development. They'd make a pretty penny, they could even hire US skilled labor. Mexicans would get an improved country, better jobs, and gradually levelling economy and then they wouldn't move north unless they wanted to; just like US citizens who move south if they want to.

PLEASE i hope to god you are not an American. If you want mexicans invading our country you are no American. If your canadian shut up you have no clue what it is like to be the worlds strongest country with MILLIONS invading your country every year... we dont want more mexicans....and inviting them into america will only make the problem worse

Classic. "You know, about two hundred years ago, all this land was part of Mexico...and it will be again someday!"

None of this would work for obvious reasons. First off, The US and Mexico are not just different nations in name only. They are two different people, culturally economically and politically. Second, the poverty in Mexico and the language barrier would create a permanent underclass in the whole country, basically a return to slavery where the Mexicans have no rights. Third, there would still be an illegal alien problem with other central American nations. Forth, it would be viewed by the world as expansionism and empire building on the part of the United States. Fifth, for all the other reasons mentioned, it would cause the worst civil was in the history of the world. Between Mexico and Mexican supporting states against non-Mexican states. Millions would die, the world could join in on either side, nukes could be thrown etc.

Yeah, bad idea.

If Mexico gets into the Union it should be called New Texas.
LOL, yup! :D

But seriously, why annex Mexico? What would the US gain? Next to nothing.

LOL, yup! :D

But seriously, why annex Mexico? What would the US gain? Next to nothing.
Pfft! Only the largest deposits of silver, tungsten, zinc, and manganesum in the world, and maybe a giant oil field. And let's not mention gold, copper, iron, coal, and some stuff under water.

And all that before even talking about the food.

None of this would work for obvious reasons. First off, The US and Mexico are not just different nations in name only. They are two different people, culturally economically and politically.

You mean kinda like Red-As-Hell Kansas and Blue-As-Fuck Massachusetts? And I know they don't speak the same language because in Kansas we don't pawk aw kaw in da dawk and sit and tawk. And economically, i know no one in Mass would do my job for the pay that I get for doing it, but in Kansas it's considered good. But if you are worried that I might recognise my disadvantage and migrate to Mass, think again. Home is home, and most Mexicans feel the same way.

But there are National Security arguments aswell. The Mexico-Guatemala/Belize border is 1,212km long, the Mexico-American border is 3,141km long, that's nearly three times longer! By thirding the soft southern border America would have three times more border patrolmen per kilometre than they do now, making them three times more efficient at catching undesirable elements that may wish to cause harm to America.

//This left-field idea was brought to you by Greyenivol Colony//

I've pointed this out before, somewhat facetiously, but it's good that you actually bothered to check out the length of the borders.

Certainly a 1,212km long wall would be easier to construct and guard than a 3,141km long wall...

LOL, yup! :D

But seriously, why annex Mexico? What would the US gain? Next to nothing.
Exactly. At this stage in history, annexing Mexico would simply devastate the American economy, and put a huge strain on our political and social system. Americans may have thought as late as the early 20th century that Mexico, Cuba, and Canada would eventually become part of the US, but as of now that appears unlikely. Canada and Cuba both could eventually become part of the US, however, beyond the possible acquisition of the baha territories, Sonora, and Chihuahua, I doubt the U.S. has any interest in the rest of Mexico.

Pfft! Only the largest deposits of silver, tungsten, zinc, and manganesum in the world, and maybe a giant oil field. And let's not mention gold, copper, iron, coal, and some stuff under water.

And all that before even talking about the food.
And one huge group of poor people who would need care. In a time where the US is involved in a costly war, as well as having domestic issues to focus on, this makes no sense. Adding on a vast lower-class population to the one that we already have wouldn't help the situation right now. Call us in 5 years if you still want to join up.
So in the final analysis, let's see, some semi-rare metals, or the collapse of the American government...yea, I think the US will stay on our side of the line (even though the Mexicans don't want to stay on theirs)

You know Dan, you really need to work on your social skills....
I know. :(

And one huge group of poor people who would need care. In a time where the US is involved in a costly war, as well as having domestic issues to focus on, this makes no sense. Adding on a vast lower-class population to the one that we already have wouldn't help the situation right now. Call us in 5 years if you still want to join up.
So in the final analysis, let's see, some semi-rare metals, or the collapse of the American government...yea, I think the US will stay on our side of the line (even though the Mexicans don't want to stay on theirs)
Yes, genius, and who would mine the minerals, build the roads, distribute the goods and generally participate in the larger economy? The lower-class, that's who. Both in the US and Mexico.

Mexico has a trouble creating jobs, the US can use its enormous capital to exploit Mexican resources, create jobs, and make a profit. Mexicans would step out of poverty and the US would have a larger tax base and growing economy to solve some of the social issues. All of this would happen gradually, of course, but it would happen.

America wants Mexico's oil, Mexico wants America's jobs. If we unionize the two, everybody wins. Well, the big guys do at least.

Yes, genius, and who would mine the minerals, build the roads, distribute the goods and generally participate in the larger economy? The lower-class, that's who. Both in the US and Mexico.

Mexico has a trouble creating jobs, the US can use its enormous capital to exploit Mexican resources, create jobs, and make a profit. Mexicans would step out of poverty and the US would have a larger tax base and growing economy to solve some of the social issues. All of this would happen gradually, of course, but it would happen.
Um, we don't really to grow our economy any more than it is right now. And as I mentioned the government is kinda busy right now. Later, sure, but right now it just isn't going to work out.

It's not you it's us.

Ok, maybe it's more you than us, but you get the point.

America wants Mexico's oil, Mexico wants America's jobs. If we unionize the two, everybody wins. Well, the big guys do at least.
Wow, that's a kinda simplistic way to look at it.

Um, we don't really to grow our economy any more than it is right now. And as I mentioned the government is kinda busy right now. Later, sure, but right now it just isn't going to work out.

It's not you it's us.

Ok, maybe it's more you than us, but you get the point.
Lol. Ok, we get the message. But if you see us holding hands with Venezuela don't get all possessive then.

PLEASE i hope to god you are not an American. If you want mexicans invading our country you are no American. If your canadian shut up you have no clue what it is like to be the worlds strongest country with MILLIONS invading your country every year... we dont want more mexicans....and inviting them into america will only make the problem worse

Well you kinda got my point.

US employers need the Mexican labour and the Mexicans are coming anyway. You can either continue to spend $Billions on a failed policy trying to keep the border closed or find a way to manage immigration better.

Um, we don't really to grow our economy any more than it is right now. And as I mentioned the government is kinda busy right now. Later, sure, but right now it just isn't going to work out.

It's not you it's us.

Ok, maybe it's more you than us, but you get the point.

Solution: Get out of Iraq. Then our government isn't so busy.

US-Mexican union would be VERY difficult. Would be easier to go back in time and get the US to annex the whole country.

You silly moron. Why haven't you chimed in on the travel thread? Because you've never really gone anywhere? Oh, but you will next year?I did chime in. Beyond that, my penis is big enough. I don't need to supplement it with a "let's see how much better then you I am" thread, especially a fake one. :p I come here to debate when I'm bored at work, not to boost my ego.

Yeah, right, kid. Geology, huh? Well, why don't you study the earth a little and smoke a joint, then think about how much you actually don't know.
I don't smoke pot. I used to sell it to your mom, though. Sorry, i didn't realize she was pregnant.

You're a troll and you're not even a good one because you lack the requisite language skills and you lack the knowledge and experience to make the kind of cogent, informed arguments that can make trolls and flames fun. You're all about stupid jingoistic phrases with no substance to anything you say. The reason I know you're a lyer is because anyone as well educated as well travelled as you claim to be would have much more substance in their discussion and much less empty rhetoric. And your rhetoric is not only empty, it's stupid and juvenile. :) Although, I have to admit the wit displayed here:

On a fun note, here are some funny notions I encountered recently:

USuckAss

Jorge BUllSHit, Nazi Dictator of the United Soviet States of America

...Now that's over the top! HAHAHA

is uncommonly insightful. Dig that first sentence, BTW. You can definately tell your "white-ass California born" self did real well in those collegiate English classes, what, with the flow of the language and all.

Now, go do your homework and maybe one day you can be as neato as you want to fool people into thinking you are here. In the meantime, the reason I come here is because I have found most of the posters here to be reasonably well informed enough to have intelligent debates and passionate enough to actually care about the things they discuss. I'll be spending my time in discussions with them. You'll need to actually post something worth reading to get another response from me.

Well you kinda got my point.

US employers need the Mexican labour and the Mexicans are coming anyway. You can either continue to spend $Billions on a failed policy trying to keep the border closed or find a way to manage immigration better.
Would you accept this:

I have an idea, how about we lock donw the border, set up enough security to slow illegal immigration to a trickle and start seriously punishing employers that hire illegal immigrants. Then we can set up employment offices at teh border. They can even be run by Mexico so that we don't have to use our tax dollars. Mexicans wishing to work in the US can then reigster, do simple health and criminal checks and be given temp worker status in a couple days with an actual destination and a job to go to. That way it costs them next to nothing to get in and very little time and employers will not have to hire people illegally. All teh taxes get paid, everythings above board. We know who's coming here and if we catch someone coming in illegally we can be pretty damn sure there not coming here to work. How's that? :)

America wants Mexico's oil, Mexico wants America's jobs. If we unionize the two, everybody wins. Well, the big guys do at least.
Mexico's oil's gonna last about five to ten years. After that, all gone.

Originally Posted by PsychoticDan
I have an idea, how about we lock donw the border, set up enough security to slow illegal immigration to a trickle and start seriously punishing employers that hire illegal immigrants. Then we can set up employment offices at teh border. They can even be run by Mexico so that we don't have to use our tax dollars. Mexicans wishing to work in the US can then reigster, do simple health and criminal checks and be given temp worker status in a couple days with an actual destination and a job to go to. That way it costs them next to nothing to get in and very little time and employers will not have to hire people illegally. All teh taxes get paid, everythings above board. We know who's coming here and if we catch someone coming in illegally we can be pretty damn sure there not coming here to work. How's that?

I don't want to waste any more tax money trying to "lock down the border"

There's already customs and immigration when you enter the US legally. I don't see why anyone's should be tied down to a particular job or location tho.

The United States already owns a lot of Mexico, it is like inviting your tenant apartment renter who you don't particularly like but is handy with fixing the plumbing into your house. 40% of Mexicans in Mexico work in US companies. It is a very cruel situation.

I don't want to waste any more tax money trying to "lock down the border"It's not a waste. At least, not according to just about every other country in the world. Has to do with security. As for the tax dollars to do it, how about we take all teh tax subsidies from the oil comanies and use that. Five billion would be more than enough.

There's already customs and immigration when you enter the US legally. I don't see why anyone's should be tied down to a particular job or location tho.
They wouldn't be. They could apply for job after job after job. The only reason they'd be tied to a location is the same reason I am. I have to live where I do because that's where my job is.

It's not a waste. At least, not according to just about every other country in the world..

Most borders aren't marked by more than a rickety fence, if even that, unless its the kind of country where they want to keep people in for some reason.

They wouldn't be. They could apply for job after job after job. The only reason they'd be tied to a location is the same reason I am. I have to live where I do because that's where my job is.

Ok I thought you were saying people wouldn't be allowed in unless they had already had a job.

Instead of expanding a union that increasingly dissatisfies so many constituents, allow the opposite, creating regional governments with the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

or do both. more local/regional control, but with an overarching confederation built on freedom of movement, a shared conception of basic rights, common defense, and ye olde general welfare.


on another note, i wonder if canada is still preapproved to join the united states. they were under the articles...

The United States already owns a lot of Mexico, it is like inviting your tenant apartment renter who you don't particularly like but is handy with fixing the plumbing into your house. 40% of Mexicans in Mexico work in US companies. It is a very cruel situation.

This is why the US business/political interests will never be interested to a union with Mexico; they'd just prefer to own it.

You're a troll and you're not even a good one because you lack the requisite language skills and you lack the knowledge and experience to make the kind of cogent, informed arguments that can make trolls and flames fun. You're all about stupid jingoistic phrases with no substance to anything you say.

Ad hominem rebuttal; hao he lien! You poor pathetic idiot. Would you say that the psychological model of 'neurotic projection' applies to you here?

Let's learn more about you...

How many languages do you speak?
What countries have you lived in?
Which world religions have you studied?
How old are you?
Do you play any sports?

Is your underlying hostility due to the fatness of your girlfriend? Again, I live in Asia, so I don't have that problem. Who knew 'yellow fever' had a third stage wherein all those nice white girls become completely unattractive?

No, there should be no union with the underdeveloped nation of Mexico; if there was a union, us northerners would have to carry these people on our backs, pouring possibly trillions of dollars into the Mexican economy just to keep it afloat. It's best to just let Mexico rot in its current situation, sending back any strays we capture when they attempt to flee into this nation.

They made their own bed, they can sleep in it.

Well, when you lay down next to dogs, you catch fleas. ;)

bump.

Let's all join Guatemala instead. They have good coffee.

on another note, i wonder if canada is still preapproved to join the united states. they were under the articles...

serious question, btw.

serious question, btw.
If you mean the Articles of Confederation then, no. The Articles were rejected so they have no force of law. If there is some article in the Constitution that I am unaware of, then yes. I don't think you're talking about the Constitution, though, because, while I do not have it memorized I do have a pretty good grasp of it and have read it more than once and I don't remember anything about that. I could be wrong, though.

After listening to all this debate about immigration coming from the 'Alien Nation', I thought that maybe I'd add my solution to the problem: the United States of America and Mexico.

I've heard it said in some arguments as to why borders should be controlled, "if not, why don't we just admit Mexico!?" And why not? The admission of the Mexican states would mean that immigration between the two nations would be completely legal.

But this would just swamp us with overcompetitive labour and possible benefit leeches!, I hear you object. And yeh, I admit that it would, in the short-term, but not by any significant increase, the people currently living in Mexico are not there simply because they are afraid of the US border, there will always be a minority that want to seek their fortune abroad, (as Europe learned when the suspected that the 2004 accessions would swamp the nations with millions of polish plumpers, that just did not happen).

In the long term the economic situation would gradually equalise, removing much of the motivation behind mass migration. And the situation would equalise because Mexico is not, as many unduly believe, an inherantly poor country, when much of Mesoamerica was New Spain there was no significant wealth gap between the northern provinces such as California or Texas and the southern provinces that made up Mexico and beyond. Whereas today the state of California has a higher GDP than most actual countries, there is no reason why the Mexican states cannot reach that same level of success.

Politically, the accession of the Mexican states must be on an equal basis to the existing states, to shrug away accusations of yanqui imperialism, perhaps a tier of government could be added between state and federal to represent a Mexican regional congress, and, of course the USA must become officially bilingual, or (preferably) remain linguistically neutral.

But there are National Security arguments aswell. The Mexico-Guatemala/Belize border is 1,212km long, the Mexico-American border is 3,141km long, that's nearly three times longer! By thirding the soft southern border America would have three times more border patrolmen per kilometre than they do now, making them three times more efficient at catching undesirable elements that may wish to cause harm to America.

//This left-field idea was brought to you by Greyenivol Colony//


I dont think that you will find much popular support for this in the U.S. or Mexico. Your only hope is to take over both countries and join them unwillingly under you. Good luck with your endeavor.

We already have enough freeloaders on welfare... why would we want to add an entire country to the roles?

hehe JUST KIDDING

we'd never ask, and they'd never accept

If you mean the Articles of Confederation then, no. The Articles were rejected so they have no force of law. If there is some article in the Constitution that I am unaware of, then yes. I don't think you're talking about the Constitution, though, because, while I do not have it memorized I do have a pretty good grasp of it and have read it more than once and I don't remember anything about that. I could be wrong, though.

the articles weren't rejected, they were replaced. but the stuff that wasn't explicitly changed was kept (or changed by law later). so did anyone actually take away canada's preapproval to join as laid out in article XI? or did it just get ignored as canada didn't take them up on the offer?

serious question, btw.

Probably, for the sole reason that I can't imagine anyone unpreapproving (good word) Canada's accession, it would be politically admitting that Canada is too good for the Union, and that would be potentially embaressing.

It would also probably be a case that each of the Canadian provinces is lined-up individually, to accept the world's second biggest nation as a single state would be crazy (hyper-representation in H of R, hyper-under-representation in the Senate, amongst other problems).

I dont think that you will find much popular support for this in the U.S. or Mexico. Your only hope is to take over both countries and join them unwillingly under you. Good luck with your endeavor.

I'm sure if you made sure to emphasise the economic benefits and make clear that the federal system clearly allows individual cultures to be maintained then I'd think that after a while people would begin to think in favour of the USAM.

the articles weren't rejected, they were replaced. but the stuff that wasn't explicitly changed was kept (or changed by law later). so did anyone actually take away canada's preapproval to join as laid out in article XI? or did it just get ignored as canada didn't take them up on the offer?
The were replaced because they were rejected by some of the states. The point is that the document, "The Articles of Confederation," carries no force of law. Some of it made it into the Constitution, and that means that some of the ideals in it are law, but only because they are in the Constitution. In other words, the document, "The Constitution," is the supreme law of the land. If it's not in there or has not been made law since then following the procedures set forth under the Constitution then it is not law even if it is in the Articles. Put another way, if it says that about Canada in the Articles but not in the Constituton then it is not law because the document "Articles" is not law.

Put another way, if it says that about Canada in the Articles but not in the Constituton then it is not law because the document "Articles" is not law.

so did the u.s. under the constitution have to redeclare independence from england? or did that just sort of transfer over from the pre-articles days when it was done originally? and did we lose the right to freely travel between the states when they left that out of the constitution (it was explicitly written into the articles)?

Yes, genius, and who would mine the minerals, build the roads, distribute the goods and generally participate in the larger economy? The lower-class, that's who. Both in the US and Mexico.

Mexico has a trouble creating jobs, the US can use its enormous capital to exploit Mexican resources, create jobs, and make a profit. Mexicans would step out of poverty and the US would have a larger tax base and growing economy to solve some of the social issues. All of this would happen gradually, of course, but it would happen.

So....Mexico has all these amazing resournces that they haven't been willing to use to their advantage for how many years. The U.S. somehow bamboozles the very proud country of Mexico into turning over their authority to us, and WHAM! Presto change-o! Here comes the money. I realize you said gradual, but who is feeding all these people? Who is taking care of all these people? How long do we support them before we make them stand on their own two feet? Cause I don't know if you've noticed, but the U.S. seems to have a lack of dedication to an ideal when there is no direct profit....like in Iraq. This is another shiny, happy idea from the left that really makes no sense. This isn't just people we're dealing with that love and cherish the U.S. and it's ideals. It's a government.That prints out manuals on how to infiltrate the U.S. (illegally) and syphon money back home.

so did the u.s. under the constitution have to redeclare independence from england? or did that just sort of transfer over from the pre-articles days when it was done originally? and did we lose the right to freely travel between the states when they left that out of the constitution (it was explicitly written into the articles)?
The Declaration of Independance was our, well, declaration of independance. The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation were documenst that spelled out the rules and regulations around which a system of governance could be formed in our newly independant nation. There is no declaration of independance in the Constitution because it was unecessary. I'm not sure about the Articles. They also didn't leave the right to freely travel between states out of the Constitution, they relagated the right to control insterstate commerce to the Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the interpretation that says this gives broad powers to Congress to control movement. not only of goods and services, but of people, too. Remember, in order for goods and services to move between states, especially back then, it required people to move between states to move them. Also, the Constitution was at first not intended as a rights declaration. It simply set up the operational procedures, organizational principles and governmental powers of the three branches. What happned is that several states threatened to reject the constitution unless certain rights were guarenteed in it. That resulted in the first Ten Amendments, otherwise known as The Bill Of Rights. Once these amendmente were adopted the Constitution was ratified and became law. Lastly, it is important to remember that the Constitution does not outline all the rights a citizen enjoys, it sets the minimum standards for those rights. A state is free to grant it's citizens more rights, just not less.

The Declaration of Independance was our, well, declaration of independance...There is no declaration of independance in the Constitution because it was unecessary.

in other words, it was held over and didn't need to be restated.

They also didn't leave the right to freely travel between states out of the Constitution, they relagated the right to control insterstate commerce to the Congress.

how is that not the same as leaving it out? the articles specifically stated that people could freely travel between states. the constitution does no such thing. and the congress under the constitution didn't pass any laws about the existence of a right to travel from state to state. and yet, we retained that right. so obviously merely removing something from mention between the articles and the constitution isn't necessarily enough to get rid of it.

in other words, it was held over and didn't need to be restated.More like they were dealing with two different issues. One was a document that declared our independance to England and started a war. The other was a document that, after thewar was won, set up a government for teh newly independent nation.



how is that not the same as leaving it out? the articles specifically stated that people could freely travel between states. the constitution does no such thing. and the congress under the constitution didn't pass any laws about the existence of a right to travel from state to state. and yet, we retained that right. so obviously merely removing something from mention between the articles and the constitution isn't necessarily enough to get rid of it.Because the Articles was a document that called for strong state governments that allied together under a weak central government, much like the EU, certain interstate rights, like the right to travel between states, needed to be explicitly spelled out. The Constitution was just the opposite. Weak state governments under a strong central government. The Constitution and the federal government under were the ultimate power.

I guess the easiest way of putting it is that for citizens to travel freely between the US and Canada there needs to be an agreement between governments to aloow that because Canada and the US are soveirgn nations. The right of citizens to travel within Canada and the US does not need to be spelled out because a Canadian, by virtue of being a Candian, gets to travel between Quebec and Ottowa whenever he wants because they are part of the same country. Under the Articles it was more of a loose conglomeration of independent states, not a single country comprised of states.

in other words, it was held over and didn't need to be restated.

Declaration of Independence = Licensing agreement.
Constitution and Articles = Instruction manual.

Declaration of Independence = Licensing agreement.
Constitution and Articles = Instruction manual.

the point remains that the acts of a previous system of government are not automatically undone when a new government is formed.

the point remains that the acts of a previous system of government are not automatically undone when a new government is formed.
I don't know how else to state this so I guess I'll just say that you can spend 24/7/365 for the next decade on www.findlaw.com and you will not find a single instance of the Supreme Court referring to the Articles of Confederation when deciding any case. Further, you can look at the all of the bills that have passed through Congress since the Constitution was adopted and you will not find one instance of them ever amending or even referring to the Articles of Confederation. There may be some things that were carried over from the Articles into the Constitution, but anything that was not is not law and anything that was is only law specifically because it is part of the Constitution, not because it was once part of the the Articles. The Articles of Confederation is a dead document that is nothing more than an historical footnote.

I should amend that to say "appeals or referrs to the authority of the Articles." There may have been a bill or a case that reffered to a principle, but not in a way that confers any authority to the document. Court cases often refer to the Magna Carta, for example, but not because the magna Carta has any force of law in the US.

There may be some things that were carried over from the Articles into the Constitution, but anything that was not is not law and anything that was is only law specifically because it is part of the Constitution

have you found the right to freely travel among the states in the constitution yet? it doesn't continue to exist because it was in the articles, but neither does it's ommision from the constitution mean that it went away.

it might fully be the case that canada's earlier preapproval was quietly rejected later. but it is not trivially true that it was on the basis of the constitution alone.

The right of citizens to travel within Canada and the US does not need to be spelled out because a Canadian, by virtue of being a Candian, gets to travel between Quebec and Ottowa whenever he wants because they are part of the same country.

and you believe this is trivially true? strange. the right to free travel within a country is not at all a universal assumption.

(it should probably be mentioned that canada actually did feel the need to spell this out in chapter 6 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms)

have you found the right to freely travel among the states in the constitution yet? it doesn't continue to exist because it was in the articles, but neither does it's ommision from the constitution mean that it went away. Yes. I told you that the Constitution gives Congress the righ to regulate interstate commerce.

The founders' understanding of the word "commerce" is unclear. Although commerce means economic activity today, it had much broader and non-economic meanings at the time. For example, in 18th century writing one finds expressions such as "the free and easy commerce of social life" and "our Lord's commerce with his disciples".[1] Further, interpreting interstate commerce to mean "interstate human interaction" makes more sense for the foreign and Indian commerce clauses as one would expect Congress to be given authority to regulate non-economic relations with other nations and with Indian tribes. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause



it might fully be the case that canada's earlier preapproval was quietly rejected later. but it is not trivially true that it was on the basis of the constitution alone.
The only point that I am making is that if it was only in the Articles and not in the Constitution then it has no force of law.

and you believe this is trivially true? strange. the right to free travel within a country is not at all a universal assumption.
See above.

Yes. I told you that the Constitution gives Congress the righ to regulate interstate commerce.

and thus congress could outlaw interstate travel, yes?

and thus congress could outlaw interstate travel, yes?
They could, maybe when the bird flu gets here we'll see, but being that they need to be reelected every two or six years I doubt that would ever happen.