NationStates Jolt Archive

Mexico sure has a lot of problems. They're fighting a civil war with gangbanging drug dealers who go around killing thousands of civilians.
They are now very very sick because of corporate/political corruption.

Their economy sucks. They all wish they were Americans that is why they keep entering the US illegally.

If the "all of Mexico" movement had won in the 19th century Mexicans would not be having all these problems. They would living lives of wealth and luxory. There would not be a Mexican flu or Veracruz flu. There would be no Mexican civil war. No drug dealers abducting, raping, torturing and killing people.

But it's not too late. All they have to do is fill out an application for their country to be annexed by the United States. That will eliminate the border and end illegal immigration because they will all then be US citizens entitled to all the rights and cool benefits that Americans get.
They'll even get access to our stockpile of flu treatments. Their children will even get in state tuition.
Think about it, an impoverished Mexican working for a penny an hour on a foriegn owned pig farm, could instead be a wealthy McDonald's franchise owner. And all he would have to do to achieve it, is lobby for annexation into the United States.

Not to mention, annexation would not only boost the Mexican economy but it would boost America's economy too.


Not to mention, under one government, Mexico and the United States will be totally invincible.


what do you think? Great idea right? Afterall we're gradually heading in that direction anyway so lets just do away with pretenses. We want to own Mexico and Mexicans want to be Americans. It's a win win for everyone.

:p






(of course we also want Canada, the carribean, south america, europe and the whole middle east. j/k)

If people from both nations voted for it, why not?

I doubt they would, but if this hypothetical plebiscite happened, and a yes was given, fine.

It would drain our coffers.

It would drain our coffers.

Winding up with their debt on top of ours would do that.

But on a more inquisitive note... What do y'all think the two parties would stand to gain if it happened?

I'd vote for it. Maybe set up a provision for the new states to keep Mexico's minimum wage and then slowly over the period of 2 decades increase it to match out minimum wage.

Winding up with their debt on top of ours would do that.

But on a more inquisitive note... What do y'all think the two parties would stand to gain if it happened?

I dunno, but would probably crush the chances of Federally mandated homosexual rights, considering we would have a massive influx of Catholic voters.

I read problem as pokemon...

Anywho, never going to happen unless Mexico gets all uppity and tries to invade the US for some reason.

I dunno, but would probably crush the chances of Federally mandated homosexual rights, considering we would have a massive influx of Catholic voters.

but it would also change a lot of red states to blue states as hispanic vote tends to be 60% democrat and 40% republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement#.22All_Mexico.22

"the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans."

the decision to not annex all of Mexico was made because of racism. Thus it was wrong.


"With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico," particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region."

Those people were right. Because ever since our country refused to annex Mexico, Mexico has had nothing but problems. Those problems are America's fault. But mistakes can always be corrected. :)



Here's another thing supporting my supposition that the refusal to annex Mexico was based on inherent white racism.

"W]e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... " by Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina.


They simply did not like the idea of nonwhites being US citizens. That is the only reason why Mexico did not become part of the US.

That was an error that needs to be corrected.


Not to mention it would mean there would be two official languages in America's states: english and spanish.

It would drain our coffers.

all these wars are draining our coffers.
While it is true that Mexicans who illegal immigrate to the US use a disproportionate amount of our resources, if Mexico joined in a union with the US, they would also be contributers and our coffers would be bigger than they are now.

Yes, I know. Mexico isn't so great economically. But Mexico has lots of potential. We just clean up their environment and raise their standard of living to be equal to ours and that is how their standard of living raises. Not to mention, do you realize such a union would result in a huge hike in Mexicans' minimum wage.

but it would also change a lot of red states to blue states as hispanic vote tends to be 60% democrat and 40% republican.

I am not a Democrat, so it concerns me little. But I do think incorporating Mexico would bring massive difficulties.

I suppose many Hispanics probably are Democrats because Republicans treat 'em like shit.

Winding up with their debt on top of ours would do that.

But on a more inquisitive note... What do y'all think the two parties would stand to gain if it happened?

I'm sure their major parties would be preferable to neocon run Republican Party. One of Mexico's conservative parties could become America's new Republican party.

Mexico has this gang violence problem from US guns flowing across the border. If Mexico could only build a fence to stop it....

all these wars are draining our coffers.
While it is true that Mexicans who illegal immigrate to the US use a disproportionate amount of our resources, if Mexico joined in a union with the US, they would also be contributers and our coffers would be bigger than they are now.
Not true. Here in North Carolina, which has a very fast-growing hispanic population, studies have demonstrated that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in public services. Strange but true.

all these wars are draining our coffers.

Yup.

While it is true that Mexicans who illegal immigrate to the US use a disproportionate amount of our resources, if Mexico joined in a union with the US, they would also be contributers and our coffers would be bigger than they are now.

Not relative to the cost of improving Mexico to our standards.

Yes, I know. Mexico isn't so great economically. But Mexico has lots of potential. We just clean up their environment and raise their standard of living to be equal to ours and that is how their standard of living raises. Not to mention, do you realize such a union would result in a huge hike in Mexicans' minimum wage.

I just do not see us affording it right now. If we paid-off most of the Federal debt, then I would consider it.

I am not a Democrat, so it concerns me little. But I do think incorporating Mexico would bring massive difficulties.

I suppose many Hispanics probably are Democrats because Republicans treat 'em like shit.

I wasn't accusing of being such.
I was commenting on the existence of a democratic party that was anti Gay marriage.
This sort of shift in the democrats would be enough to shift republicans to a more libertarian position.

Though I find both parties have their anti immigrant groups.

Not true. Here in North Carolina, which has a very fast-growing hispanic population, studies have demonstrated that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in public services. Strange but true.

How very interesting. :) Could I have the source? I intend to print it out and show it to a few racists.

but it would also change a lot of red states to blue states as hispanic vote tends to be 60% democrat and 40% republican.
Mexicans can't vote in US elections but I'm willing to bet it would be down the middle. You can't tell a persons leanings just from their immigration status. But it is unlikely they would support the extremist parts of the Republican agenda. I actually see some of their country's political parties becoming involved as major parties in the US political system.

This is a bad idea, and you should all feel bad.

This is a bad idea, and you should all feel bad.

*feels bad*

I wasn't accusing of being such.
I was commenting on the existence of a democratic party that was anti Gay marriage.
This sort of shift in the democrats would be enough to shift republicans to a more libertarian position.

Though I find both parties have their anti immigrant groups.

actually the Republican party is actually reconsidering its position on gays. So it would be more likely that Mexicans who feel strongly againt gay rights would more likely form their own political parties.

Come to think of it, if the All Mexico campaign had won, not only would Mexican history have been different but America's history would have been way different. Would we have entered the first and second world wars? Would there have been a US civil war? (Mexico had already banned slavery and the Mexican states would have allied with the North if the south had seceded.
Would there have been a Vietnam or a Korea? not only would our history have been different but modern world history probably would have been different too.

Mexicans can't vote in US elections but I'm willing to bet it would be down the middle. You can't tell a persons leanings just from their immigration status. But it is unlikely they would support the extremist parts of the Republican agenda. I actually see some of their country's political parties becoming involved as major parties in the US political system.

I don't know if the Mexican political parties would do well with our system.
They sort of have a gentleman's agreement to rotate power. Mexico is more of an oligarchy then I would say a true democracy.

actually the Republican party is actually reconsidering its position on gays. So it would be more likely that Mexicans who feel strongly againt gay rights would more likely form their own political parties.

Come to think of it, if the All Mexico campaign had won, not only would Mexican history have been different but America's history would have been way different. Would we have entered the first and second world wars? Would there have been a US civil war? (Mexico had already banned slavery and the Mexican states would have allied with the North if the south had seceded.
Would there have been a Vietnam or a Korea? not only would our history have been different but modern world history probably would have been different too.

I was thinking of annexing them right now. Not if we had annexed them 150 years ago.

Over the past few decades we have come up with more ways to piss off the Mexicans that Jerry has to piss off Tom. ENOUGH. All this bullshit to keep them from picking lettuce and working construction. Bring em in, make em legal and tax them. As pointed out in the OP, it's going to happen anyway.

Amigos....Me casa, you casa. If this is not the case the the lady in New York should not bare the words "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. Mexicans are tired, poor and huddled in mass. Why all the red tape then?

For a long time, America's two parties also had a gentleman's agreement to rotate power.
America is also, in many respects, an oligarchy. In many states you can't get on the ballot unless you have lots and lots money. So they would probably fit right in.


I was thinking the same. Just considering how things would have been had they already been annexed.

Amigos....Me casa, you casa. If this is not the case the the lady in New York should not bare the words "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. Mexicans are tired, poor and huddled in mass. Why all the red tape then?

Because now its our people who are tired, poor and hundling in masses.

Not true. Here in North Carolina, which has a very fast-growing hispanic population, studies have demonstrated that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in public services. Strange but true.

Do you have a link? What counties did it say the hispanics where in?

For a long time, America's two parties also had a gentleman's agreement to rotate power.
America is also, in many respects, an oligarchy. In many states you can't get on the ballot unless you have lots and lots money. So they would probably fit right in.



No, our parties fight tooth and nail for power.
The democrats more or less held congress for 40 years.

A small boarder with central america is much preferable to a large one with mexico. Plus if we keep the minimum wage down for a while we could help bring back jobs that went overseas.

A small boarder with central america is much preferable to a large one with mexico. Plus if we keep the minimum wage down for a while we could help bring back jobs that went overseas.

your also leaving out Mexico's oil

wait. Mexico has oil? You mean they're not just an impoverished landmass with nothing to offer?
Most likely, the ban on oil drilling would be extended to cover both of Mexico's coasts and any areas in Mexico not already being drilled.

The precedent for this: ANWAR and the east/pacific coasts of the US.

wait. Mexico has oil? You mean they're not just an impoverished landmass with nothing to offer?
Most likely, the ban on oil drilling would be extended to cover both of Mexico's coasts and any areas in Mexico not already being drilled.

The precedent for this: ANWAR and the east/pacific coasts of the US.

Gulf coast have generally been allowed to drill. also for Mexico to join we would have to leave ownership of their off coast oil to them, as we do with Texas.

I say make the pitch and put it up for a national vote in both nations. There would be a big adjustment but I think it would be fine after awhile.

So what are the reasons for not annexing Mexico?

How hard was it to not title this thread "Final Solution to the Mexican Problem"?

So what are the reasons for not annexing Mexico?

Swine flu

How hard was it to not title this thread "Final Solution to the Mexican Problem"?

How about just "The Final Solution". It sounds so official...

How hard was it to not title this thread "Final Solution to the Mexican Problem"?

Yes, that is what flit through my brain when I first saw it. I was worried I was going to run into a bunch of nuts advocating an invasion of Mexico.

I think, in a sneaky night time move, the US should swap with Canada, get some nice water, leave all the crap behind for the Canadians to go 'eh', and loads of pristine land to drill, cut and generally create suburbs.

Imagine the look on Canadian faces when they wake up.

I was worried I was going to run into a bunch of nuts advocating an invasion of Mexico.

So what are the reasons for not annexing Mexico?

Well, its not quite invading...;)

Well, its not quite invading...;)

*moan*

The word "annexing" irritates me--I suppose it has a belligerent connotation in my mind, because I always think of "conquering" and "Manifest Destiny" when I read it. The stupid attitude that the United States would be doing other countries favors by taking them over.

*moan*

The word "annexing" irritates me--I suppose it has a belligerent connotation in my mind, because I always think of "conquering" and "Manifest Destiny" when I read it. The stupid attitude that the United States would be doing other countries favors by taking them over.

How about co-existing in a mutual beneficial union?

How about co-existing in a mutual beneficial union?

well if we just make nafta more like the EU....

well if we just make nafta more like the EU....

I think that was the original intention all along. Eventually we would come to this conclusion.

Annexing Mexico will not erase Mexico's massive gang and drug problems or debt. America does not have anything close to the money and resources it needs to repair Mexico's problems. And you really think that all illegal immigrants are Mexican?

How about co-existing in a mutual beneficial union?

I would not mind that, but it should wait until we recover from our debt crises.

Annexing Mexico will not erase Mexico's massive gang and drug problems or debt. America does not have anything close to the money and resources it needs to repair Mexico's problems. And you really think that all illegal immigrants are Mexican?

jsut pull out of Iraq and deploy troops there.

America does not have anything close to the money and resources it needs to repair Mexico's problems.

of course, fixing mexico's problems would be beneficial to USia

jsut pull out of Iraq and deploy troops there.

What troops? You realize that the gangs in Mexico are both massive and well armed? With all the problems we're having in Iraq and Afghanistan, how can we handle the strain of fighting a third front against the Cartels? It's possible, sure, but with all the strains of troops already and the general lack of funds...deploying troops all over the world is definitely not the best solution to every problem. If America pours troops into Mexico, it could be seen as an invasion force-plus, its just as hard to tell a gang member from a civilian in Mexico as it is an insurgent from a civilian in Iraq.

What troops?
The troops currently in Iraq put them in Mexico.

You realize that the gangs in Mexico are both massive and well armed? With all the problems we're having in Iraq and Afghanistan, how can we handle the strain of fighting a third front against the Cartels? It's possible, sure, but with all the strains of troops already and the general lack of funds...deploying troops all over the world is definitely not the best solution to every problem. If America pours troops into Mexico, it could be seen as an invasion force-plus, its just as hard to tell a gang member from a civilian in Mexico as it is an insurgent from a civilian in Iraq.
I doubt the gangs in Mexico would give us as much resistance as the fighters in Iraq. You know why ? They are gangs their motivation is for profit. It is unprofitable to fight the US.

I don't know. We'd have to become officially bilingual, and that would royally piss off those on the right.

Also, let's look a a recent example of a wealthy nation and poor nation merging. East and West Germany merged almost 20 years ago. They had a common language, history, and were only separated for just over 40 years. Yet they had (and are still having) major problems integrating politically, economically, and socially. As different as Mexico and the US are, I don't think it would work well. It would take many generation to fully integrate if ever.


GERMANY'S EASTERN BURDEN
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,373639,00.html

Former East Germany is a major liability costing the economy €100 billion annually.

* only about 60 percent of eastern Germans capable of gainful employment are in fact employed. The average unemployment rate in the region tops 18 percent. According to the Institute for Economic Research in Halle, eastern Germany is short of about 2 million jobs;


* migration away from the East continues unabated, especially among young people. According to the Dohnanyi report, "eastern Germany is threatened by a dramatic aging of the population and a dangerous loss of especially well-trained workers and its creative force";


* the economy in the new German states has been growing more slowly than in the West for years. The catch-up process has stalled, leading to an ever-widening gap between East and West;


* the East lacks medium-sized businesses when compared with the western standard. Companies in the East are generally too small and short on capital;


* the costs of reunification consume four percent of the gross domestic product annually. But because economic growth falls short of this figure, aid to the East is eroding the West's economic base;


* billions in aid and subsidization policies are no longer effective. Without a "change in course," according to the report, the "need for West-East transfers of funds can even be expected to increase in the future."


And East Germany only had a population of 16 million at reunification. Mexico has almost 10 times that many people at 110 million.

What troops? You realize that the gangs in Mexico are both massive and well armed? With all the problems we're having in Iraq and Afghanistan, how can we handle the strain of fighting a third front against the Cartels? It's possible, sure, but with all the strains of troops already and the general lack of funds...deploying troops all over the world is definitely not the best solution to every problem. If America pours troops into Mexico, it could be seen as an invasion force-plus, its just as hard to tell a gang member from a civilian in Mexico as it is an insurgent from a civilian in Iraq.

The US military and intelligence agencies if put to task could wipe out the cartels. The difference really is money vs religion. Religious people will die in large groups for their cause. Money well it just isn't that big of deal when faced with a certain death.

So what are the reasons for not annexing Mexico?

The original reasons? "america was made only for the white man. If we annex Mexico that means that nonwhites could be citizens and the white man will lose control."

New reasons? Probably pretty close to the original. "Annexation means amnesty for millions of criminal illegals" "Annexation means brown people can vote in our elections" "Annexation means the government going to steal my money and put my kids in schools with children with backs that are wet."


Pretty much those would the arguments on this side would they not? The American arguments against annexation would be racist and probably vile.

I'm sure Mexicans who object can come up with better reasons than, "I don't want to annex this country because they're not my group."

Mexicans might come up with national pride. Or they might come up with .... the only thing I can think of is national pride if it exists down there.

But national pride is the same as the racist arguments that people on the American side might make.

*moan*

The word "annexing" irritates me--I suppose it has a belligerent connotation in my mind, because I always think of "conquering" and "Manifest Destiny" when I read it. The stupid attitude that the United States would be doing other countries favors by taking them over.

annexing is troublesome. But I could not find another word for Mexico joining the Union. When the Texas Republic joined on its own accord the term they used for the unification was annexation. I assume the same would be true if Mexico chose to enter the Union. Though I am sure, it did happen, Mexico would join the Union as a group of states rather than a territory.
Meaning Mexicans becoming eligible overnight to vote for the President of the United States.

Annexing Mexico will not erase Mexico's massive gang and drug problems or debt. America does not have anything close to the money and resources it needs to repair Mexico's problems. And you really think that all illegal immigrants are Mexican?

America has one thing that Mexico needs: organization, wealth, and entrepreneurial spirit. Mexico has something America needs: lots of conservatives, a tiny border with Central America that would be easier to control than one we have now.


No one said that all illegals were from Mexico. But the majority of them are. The rest come from mostly Central America. With one or two coming from China or Europe or the middle east.

of course, fixing mexico's problems would be beneficial to USia

creating jobs in Mexico for Mexicans would create jobs for Americans in America.

Fixing Mexico's problems would create lots of jobs for people on both sides of the current border.

The cartel might need some military action at first but as local police forces are fully modernized the drug problem will eventually become a mere law enforcement issue.

Also, the US has laws against using soldiers to enforce civilian law. I would only see the military being used if the Cartel continued to engage in terroristic activities.

If two gangs in LA are having a shoot out and messing up the town, the government is not allowed to send in soldiers. It's purely a police matter.

It could be interesting, politically:
Big five parties:
Constitution: ultra conservative
Green: enviromentalist, left wing, very liberal
Libertarian: Anarcho-capitalist
Republicans: moderate version of the Constitution party
Democrats: liberal

Hispanic voters: generally vote Democrat, however are socially conservative voters due to devout Roman Catholic faith. Right wingers have been nasty to them from time to time. Latin America has been a hotbed as of late of leftist sentiments. hmmm.... seems like we would have massive block of swing voters that could give the third parties a viable chance...especially if one gets a blue Green (socially conservative Green) or a moderate, left leaning Libertarian (NB I am not talking about Libertarian socialism, a quick look at the Nolan chart should explain things).

Mexico sure has a lot of problems. They're fighting a civil war with gangbanging drug dealers who go around killing thousands of civilians.
They are now very very sick because of corporate/political corruption.

Their economy sucks. They all wish they were Americans that is why they keep entering the US illegally.

If the "all of Mexico" movement had won in the 19th century Mexicans would not be having all these problems. They would living lives of wealth and luxory. There would not be a Mexican flu or Veracruz flu. There would be no Mexican civil war. No drug dealers abducting, raping, torturing and killing people.

But it's not too late. All they have to do is fill out an application for their country to be annexed by the United States. That will eliminate the border and end illegal immigration because they will all then be US citizens entitled to all the rights and cool benefits that Americans get.
They'll even get access to our stockpile of flu treatments. Their children will even get in state tuition.
Think about it, an impoverished Mexican working for a penny an hour on a foriegn owned pig farm, could instead be a wealthy McDonald's franchise owner. And all he would have to do to achieve it, is lobby for annexation into the United States.

Not to mention, annexation would not only boost the Mexican economy but it would boost America's economy too.


Not to mention, under one government, Mexico and the United States will be totally invincible.


what do you think? Great idea right? Afterall we're gradually heading in that direction anyway so lets just do away with pretenses. We want to own Mexico and Mexicans want to be Americans. It's a win win for everyone.

:p






(of course we also want Canada, the carribean, south america, europe and the whole middle east. j/k)

Credit refused. You can't afford Mexico currently.

....steamingly huge pile of turds that do nothing but show off an exemplary and somewhat horrifying ignorance of Mexico and it's history.....

You've never been to Mexico, have you?

By the way, ever since the USA destroyed its economy, the illegals aren't going to the USA anymore. Now they come to Canada or stay at home.

The cartels who are currently fighting the soldiers in the north (it is not a civil war) are fighting to contro the drug and gun smuggling routes. If the USA really wanted to help with that in some sort of intelligent way, the US government could change its drug and gun laws to reduce drug demand and gun supply.

:):):):)

The idea that you can solve our problems instead of complicating them more is so hilarious, I been laughing for half an hour non stop.

Kudos for this joke!

Nukes.

There's a much easier way to take Mexico if the US really wants it. Add a 20% tariff to bank transfers going from the US to Mexico. The country will go broke overnight (Especially tagged with Mexican Flu right now), and will beg and plead to join.

There's a much easier way to take Mexico if the US really wants it. Add a 20% tariff to bank transfers going from the US to Mexico. The country will go broke overnight (Especially tagged with Mexican Flu right now), and will beg and plead to join.

When Mexico went broke in the 19th century, she got invaded by the French. I wonder if there are any unemployed Austrian archdukes around?

When Mexico went broke in the 19th century, she got invaded by the French. I wonder if there are any unemployed Austrian archdikes around?

I declare myself an Arch duke and volunteer for the job emperor of Mexico.
He does have a point remittance from US is Mexico #2 source of economic activity.

Did anyone else get reminded of die Endlösung der Judenfrage when they read the title of this thread?

:):):):)

The idea that you can solve our problems instead of complicating them more is so hilarious, I been laughing for half an hour non stop.

Kudos for this joke!

Move aside and let the white guys show ya how to run a country.

I declare myself an Arch duke and volunteer for the job emperor of Mexico.
He does have a point remittance from US is Mexico #2 source of economic activity.

Oh, I know, it's a valid point. Annexing Mexico would have the salutary effect of making untold numbers of white supremacists drop dead from fits of apoplexy, too. It could work out.

Did anyone else get reminded of die Endlösung der Judenfrage when they read the title of this thread?

Yes, and I've been wondering whether to call USofA- on it.

And did the "Buying propery in the US" thread make you think of "buying popery"?

:):):):)

The idea that you can solve our problems instead of complicating them more is so hilarious, I been laughing for half an hour non stop.

Kudos for this joke!
While I am against annexing Mexico, I do have to say, you guy guys really aren't doing that great of a job running your country.

Mexico has a shit load of potential, but its government has always sucked, its people remain far too under-educated, superstitious and corruption has always been far too high.

Oh, I know, it's a valid point. Annexing Mexico would have the salutary effect of making untold numbers of white supremacists drop dead from fits of apoplexy, too. It could work out.

Well with the increase of Mexican woman we could end white supremacy. Because lets face Latin women are hot. Who doesn't want to be in that sort of cultural exchange?

...if we keep the minimum wage down for a while we could help bring back jobs that went overseas.

The minimum wage has pretty much zero effect on that (source: three economics professors I've had classes with who have said the same thing every time the topic comes up).

Outsourcing is, although painful in the short term for the worker whose factory closes down, a good thing in the long run. We import stuff at a lower price than we can make it, and it frees up labor to work on things our own country is better suited for (renewable energy technology, for example).

The minimum wage has pretty much zero effect on that (source: three economics professors I've had classes with who have said the same thing every time the topic comes up).

Outsourcing is, although painful in the short term for the worker whose factory closes down, a good thing in the long run. We import stuff at a lower price than we can make it, and it frees up labor to work on things our own country is better suited for (renewable energy technology, for example).

And all those factory workers should just suck it up and get retrained in high tech jobs, right, because those will never go overseas. :rolleyes:

And all those factory workers should just suck it up and get retrained in high tech jobs, right, because those will never go overseas. :rolleyes:

At the rate technology grows, there will always be new high-tech jobs to replace the ones that will eventually go overseas as well.

At the rate technology grows, there will always be new high-tech jobs to replace the ones that will eventually go overseas as well.

I'll tell that to the guy who's "early retirement" party I'm going to tonight. I'm sure it will buck him up fabulously.

I'll tell that to the guy who's "early retirement" party I'm going to tonight. I'm sure it will buck him up fabulously.

FYI: My own father lost his job to outsourcing when I was 13. He was 61 at the time. You think I don't know firsthand how painful that is?

FYI: My own father lost his job to outsourcing when I was 13. He was 61 at the time. You think I don't know firsthand how painful that is?

'Changing your politics because of personal problems: Working since Henry VII!'

'Changing your politics because of personal problems: Working since Henry VII!'

What the hell are you talking about? And I think you mean Henry VIII, his son.

FYI: My own father lost his job to outsourcing when I was 13. He was 61 at the time. You think I don't know firsthand how painful that is?

Sorry, I'm not a mindreader. I stand by my point: corporations will always do whatever benefits the "bottom line" first and look after employees second.

Move aside and let the white guys show ya how to run a country.

Mexico has been run by white guys for almost all of its history.

What the hell are you talking about?
Shouldn't post when I'm sick, make too many mistakes. MY apologies.
[And I think you mean Henry VIII, his son.
Most likely, that is to say, yes.

While I am against annexing Mexico, I do have to say, you guy guys really aren't doing that great of a job running your country.

Mexico has a shit load of potential, but its government has always sucked, its people remain far too under-educated, superstitious and corruption has always been far too high.

And you think USA would do any better? ROLF :):):):)

It isn't as simple as that, unless you are planning to exterminate the population... wait... I see it now... those blankets... you bastards!!!

Mexico has been run by white guys for almost all of its history.

By white I mean American...wait....

And you think USA would do any better? ROLF :):):):)
No puedes leer lo que yo dije?

"While I am against annexing Mexico" . . .

No puedes leer lo que yo dije?

"While I am against annexing Mexico" . . .

Lei lo que dijiste.

The question is clear. Do you think USA would do a better job running the country?

Think Puerto Rico.

Lei lo que dijiste.

The question is clear. Do you think USA would do a better job running the country?

Think Puerto Rico.
Dondes vives en Mexico?

It's impossible to know. America is good at running America, because our government is made up of people running the government for the good of their own country. (in theory, at least ;) )

I think that generally, politically, a country's own people would do the best job running it, because it is in their direct interest to promote the common welfare of their own people and country.

But there are cases of outsiders being brought in to run things to good results. For example, after Chile's try at communism that totally failed, they brought in American trained economists that resulted in the restoration and boom of the Chilean economy.

The British in Hong Kong is another good example.

Bulgaria recently has pleaded to Western Europe to send people over to help improve their country.

There was a call in a certain African country (which one I don't remember) to bring back "White people" to help straighten things out due to the extreme African mismanagement going on, etc etc etc

Dondes vives en Mexico?

It's impossible to know. America is good at running America, because our government is made up of people running the government for the good of their own country. (in theory, at least ;) )

I think that generally, politically, a country's own people would do the best job running it, because it is in their direct interest to promote the common welfare of their own people and country.

But there are cases of outsiders being brought in to run things to good results. For example, after Chile's try at communism that totally failed, they brought in American trained economists that resulted in the restoration and boom of the Chilean economy.

The British in Hong Kong is another good example.

Bulgaria recently has pleaded to Western Europe to send people over to help improve their country.

There was a call in a certain African country (which one I don't remember) to bring back "White people" to help straighten things out due to the extreme African mismanagement going on, etc etc etc

Vivo en la Ciudad de México...:gas:

ahh the white man's burden :hail:

Assuming it was voluntary, I would support the annexation of Mexico once the US has recovered from the economic crisis and withdrawn from Iraq (and preferably Afghanistan).

We would declare a state of emergency in northern Mexico, to allow US troops to be deployed there. Adapting tactics from Iraq, the drug cartels are wiped out. Illegal immigration is no longer a major issue. Mexico is modernized in time for the invasion of Canada.

Also, LG gains access to actual Mexican tacos, which are more lethal than the American variety.

Vivo en la Ciudad de México...:gas:
Y como es, en actualidad, la problema? ? ?
ahh the white man's burden :hail:
2 out of 4 of those examples involved White on White cases . . . so "white man's burden" doesn't apply.

2 out of 4 of those examples involved White on White cases . . . so "white man's burden" doesn't apply.

You act as if Santiago is going to listen.

You act as if Santiago is going to listen.

Nobody loooveeeesssss meeeee :(

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z52NFR02L._SL500_AA280_.jpg


lol, j/k

Sorry, I'm not a mindreader. I stand by my point: corporations will always do whatever benefits the "bottom line" first and look after employees second.

This is true that is why unions were invented.

I would vote against it. Why annex a shit country?

Y como es, en actualidad, la problema? ? ?

Mucha paranoia. Todo el mundo anda con cubrebocas y la gente empieza a ponerse histerica. Por otro lado el tráfico es una delicia.


2 out of 4 of those examples involved White on White cases . . . so "white man's burden" doesn't apply.

It may not be based in race, but the idea is very much the same. Any way I'm assuming your answer to the question is that you don't know, right?


Nobody loooveeeesssss meeeee

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA280_.jpg


lol, j/k


You are right nobody loves you.

On the other hand, everybody loves me. :fluffle:

Mucha paranoia. Todo el mundo anda con cubrebocas y la gente empieza a ponerse histerica. Por otro lado el tráfico es una delicia.
hahah, fantastico. :p

Pero ten cuidado.

It may not be based in race, but the idea is very much the same. Any way I'm assuming your answer to the question is that you don't know, right?
The idea is that people from more advanced countries can sometimes (and sometimes) offer something good in terms of advancment to less developed countries. Call that what you want. My answer to the question is it depends on the case, obviously. I don't want American government officials to run Mexico, though. We have enough on our hands at the moment.

hahah, fantastico. :p

Pero ten cuidado.


The idea is that people from more advanced countries can sometimes (and sometimes) offer something good in terms of advancment to less developed countries. Call that what you want. My answer to the question is it depends on the case, obviously. I don't want American government officials to run Mexico, though. We have enough on our hands at the moment.

Something good maybe, in the form of advice and help. But when they take over it usually ends in disaster and pillage. Of course this is all hypothetical. The true is that the USA didn't annexed Mexico when they had the chance because of their racism. At that time Mexico was a forced union around Mexico City and there were a few attempts of secession before Texas. It was only after the Mexican-American war that Mexico started to take form as a full nation and a national identity was developed. Now an annexation would be near impossible without considerable bloodshed.

You've never been to Mexico, have you?

By the way, ever since the USA destroyed its economy, the illegals aren't going to the USA anymore. Now they come to Canada or stay at home.

The cartels who are currently fighting the soldiers in the north (it is not a civil war) are fighting to contro the drug and gun smuggling routes. If the USA really wanted to help with that in some sort of intelligent way, the US government could change its drug and gun laws to reduce drug demand and gun supply.

That's what nonAmericans believe. However we can't ban guns because such laws are prohibited by the Constitution.

But while the second amendment says you have the right own and possess guns, it no where says you have the right to take them with you when you leave US territory.

Can't ban guns but you can inspect every vehicle leaving the US for Mexico. Won't happen though because wealthy multinational companies will whine and sue the US over it.

The Mexicans could do it on their side but their people are being spread out to thin. Then again, as with the US, they might be sued by the corporations.

:):):):)

The idea that you can solve our problems instead of complicating them more is so hilarious, I been laughing for half an hour non stop.

Kudos for this joke!

If it was not for President Polk illegally invading your country, it would not be having any of the problems it is having today.
And we wouldn't be having the problems we are having. So all the blame for problems on both sides of the border really belongs to James Polk and the US Democratic Party.

In a sense we are responsible for your country's problems. Our responsibility goes all the way back to the Mexican American war.

Did anyone else get reminded of die Endlösung der Judenfrage when they read the title of this thread?
what's that?

If it was not for President Polk illegally invading your country, it would not be having any of the problems it is having today.
And we wouldn't be having the problems we are having. So all the blame for problems on both sides of the border really belongs to James Polk and the US Democratic Party.

In a sense we are responsible for your country's problems. Our responsibility goes all the way back to the Mexican American war.

Too much speculations with out any substance. It is impossible to know what WOULD have happened if this or that...

If the USA didn't had all those territories they took from Mexico, what would have happened during WW I and II?

what's that?

die Endlösung der Judenfrage

The final solution to the Jews problem.

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

Mexico has been run by white guys for almost all of its history.

Santa Ana was not white. I don't think Benito Jaurez was either. Though the latter was probably your country's best leader.

OP Snip
You know why, despite Scott's occupation of Mexico City and Polk's annexationist tendencies, the all-Mexico movement never gained any serious traction? Mexico was too full of filthy Mexicans, who were considered undesirable. Mexico is still too full of filthy Mexicans, who are still considered undesirable.

die Endlösung der Judenfrage

The final solution to the Jews problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
"Question" . "Frage" in German means question.

That's what nonAmericans believe. However we can't ban guns because such laws are prohibited by the Constitution.
Actually, the states can. The Second Amendement has yet to be interpreted as applying to the states as far as I can remember.

"Question" . "Frage" in German means question.

Question:

n.
1. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
2. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.
3. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.
4. A point or subject under discussion or consideration.

Assuming it was voluntary, I would support the annexation of Mexico once the US has recovered from the economic crisis and withdrawn from Iraq (and preferably Afghanistan).

We would declare a state of emergency in northern Mexico, to allow US troops to be deployed there. Adapting tactics from Iraq, the drug cartels are wiped out. Illegal immigration is no longer a major issue. Mexico is modernized in time for the invasion of Canada.

Also, LG gains access to actual Mexican tacos, which are more lethal than the American variety.

Problem with that is that you can't deploy American troops in American cities. If Mexico joined the Union that means Mexican cities would be American cities. Remember the law against station US soldiers in civilian population areas.
Soldiers currently doing counter drug ops in Mexican cities would be required to return to the baracks and civilian law enforcement would take over. Unless the cartels decided to carry out terrorist acts.

Santa Ana was not white. I don't think Benito Jaurez was either. Though the latter was probably your country's best leader.

Santa Ana was white. He was the son of a prominent Spanish family living in Mexico. Unless you don't consider Spaniards white.

Benito Juarez was the least white president Mexico ever had and one of my favorites, but not as good as most people like to think.

Question:

n.
1. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
2. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.
3. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.
4. A point or subject under discussion or consideration.
Are you arguing just to hear the sound of your voice? I speak German and "Frage" translates directly to "question". Don't be so argumentative.

You act as if Santiago is going to listen.

I actually agree with Sant though. When I talk of Mexico joining the Union I am talking about as equal partners. Mexicans would still be charge of their own states and communities unless the demographics changed.


Whites are a minority in America already. Time to get over it.


Besides, Mexico and America would be stronger together than they are currently as seperate countries.

It also should be noted the two countries have similar problems that could be better resolved if they merged.

I think the only thing that could really block it is racism on both sides. Whites hating Mexicans and Mexicans hating whites.

Are you arguing just to hear the sound of your voice? I speak German and "Frage" translates directly to "question". Don't be so argumentative.

So it is "The final solution to the jewish question" ? :confused:

What would be the question? What to do with so many damn jews?

I actually agree with Sant though. When I talk of Mexico joining the Union I am talking about as equal partners. Mexicans would still be charge of their own states and communities unless the demographics changed.


Whites are a minority in America already. Time to get over it.


Besides, Mexico and America would be stronger together than they are currently as seperate countries.

It also should be noted the two countries have similar problems that could be better resolved if they merged.

I think the only thing that could really block it is racism on both sides. Whites hating Mexicans and Mexicans hating whites.

Integration yes, it is already happening contrary to what some of us may like.:mad: Annexation, no. Not possible.

The 2nd applies to the states as well as the federal government.

I don't like the title being compared to Hitler's speeches. I'm going to moderation to get it changed. Not cool.

The 2nd applies to the states as well as the federal government.

I don't like the title being compared to Hitler's speeches. I'm going to moderation to get it changed. Not cool.

Relax, this is NSG, a title has yet to be invented that someone wont compare to Hitler at some point.

Whites are a minority in America already.
No we are not.

The U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2006 was as follows:[32][33]

Total population: 299 million
White alone: 74% or 221.3 million
Not including the 23.2 million White Hispanic and Latino Americans: 66% or 198.1 million
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million
Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million
Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
These figures add up to more than 100% on this list because Hispanic and Latino Americans are distributed among all the races and are also listed as an ethnicity category, resulting in a double count.

Besides, Mexico and America would be stronger together than they are currently as seperate countries.
Mexico would gain and America would lose from it.
It also should be noted the two countries have similar problems that could be better resolved if they merged.
No. Mexico would add to our levels of violence, corruption, inequality, poverty, illiteracy, religiousness. Mexico would reduce our standard of living, our level of economic freedom and our efficiency.

I think the only thing that could really block it is racism on both sides. Whites hating Mexicans and Mexicans hating whites.
Do you have any idea how fucked up and shitty most of Mexico is? You're ridiculous if you think racism is the only reason why Americans wouldn't want Mexico joining our country.

Relax, this is NSG, a title has yet to be invented that someone wont compare to Hitler at some point.

Godwin in the tittle. That has to be a record or something

No. Mexico would add to our levels of violence, corruption, inequality, poverty, illiteracy, religiousness. Mexico would reduce our standard of living, our level of economic freedom and our efficiency.

But then we could annex Canada and gain their "superior" public healthcare system! We could be called the United States of North America and the USian junk would be dropped!

We'd be USNAs!


>.>
<.<

So it is "The final solution to the jewish question" ? :confused:

What would be the question? What to do with so many damn jews?
Yes. "The final solution of the Jewish question."

The question was what to do with / how to eliminate Jewry:

Hitler foretold the coming Holocaust of European Jewry when he said:

"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"[2][3][4]

Christian Gerlach has argued for a different timeframe, suggesting the decision was made by Hitler on December 12, 1941, when he addressed a meeting of the Nazi Party (the Reichsleiter) and of regional party leaders (the Gauleiter). In his diary entry of December 13, 1941, the day after Hitler’s private speech, Joseph Goebbels wrote:

"Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."[5]

Echoing his above statements along with the January 30, 1939 speech by Hitler, in an article written in 1943 entitled "The War and the Jews" Goebbels wrote:

"None of the Führer's prophetic words has come so inevitably true as his prediction that if Jewry succeeded in provoking a second world war, the result would be not the destruction of the Aryan race, but rather the wiping out of the Jewish race. This process is of vast importance, and will have unforeseeable consequences that will require time. But it can no longer be halted. It must only be guided in the right direction."[6]

After this decision, plans were made to put the Final Solution into effect. For example, on December 16, at a meeting of the officials of the General Government, Hans Frank referred to Hitler's speech as he described the coming annihilation of the Jews:

"As for the Jews, well, I can tell you quite frankly that one way or another we have to put an end to them. The Führer once put it this way: if the combined forces of Judaism should again succeed in unleashing a world war, that would mean the end of the Jews in Europe. ...I urge you: Stand together with me ... on this idea at least: Save your sympathy for the German people alone. Don't waste it on anyone else in the world, ... I would therefore be guided by the basic expectation that they are going to disappear. They have to be gotten rid of. At present I am involved in discussions aimed at having them moved away to the east. In January there is going to be an important meeting in Berlin to discuss this question. I am going to send State Secretary Dr. Buhler to this meeting. It is scheduled to take place in the offices of the RSHA in the presence of Obergruppenführer Heydrich. Whatever its outcome, a great Jewish emigration will commence. But what is going to happen to these Jews? Do you imagine there will be settlement villages for them in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told: Why are you making all this trouble for us? There is nothing we can do with them here in the Ostland or in the Reich Commissariat. Liquidate them yourselves! ... Here are 3.5 million Jews that we can't shoot, we can't poison. But there are some things we can do, and one way or another these measures will successfully lead to a liquidation. They are related to the measures under discussion with the Reich.... Where and how this will all take place will be a matter for offices that we will have to establish and operate here. I will report to you on their operation at the appropriate time."[7]

Santa Ana was white. He was the son of a prominent Spanish family living in Mexico. Unless you don't consider Spaniards white.

Benito Juarez was the least white president Mexico ever had and one of my favorites, but not as good as most people like to think.

I meant white for Santa Ana. The not was in there by accident.


I took a college course on Mexican history and culture but the culture part was more like Mexican American culture than it was actual Mexican culture. Lots of talk about Aztlan. First they're going to seize the USA, then they're going to invade Mexico for reunification. I don't think either Americans or Mexicans like that idea.

The culture as it is in Mexico is actually better than the American version of it.

You for sure crashed in that mexican culture course, or the course sucked a lot.

Are you sure that the mexicans want to be americans? Have you ever been in Mexico? In different parts of Mexico, that is a huge country?

Santa Ana was as white as a mexican can be.

Regarding race. Mexican is not a race. Hispanic is not a race. Some people to the north of Mexico will never understand...

Why you changed the tittle? It isn´t as funy as before :(

how about we solve the problem of all those dirty little Indian territories first? I mean think of all the money you could make recycling all those beer bottles and getting what are essentially gypsy's into civilized sociaty!

then we start up a settlement program on the former Indian land building up infrastructure and the like putting the land to good use

Are you sure that the mexicans want to be americans? Have you ever been in Mexico? In different parts of Mexico, that is a huge country?

this is what I'm wondering I mean who wants to be part of the US just look at Detroit or Arkansas ffs

Those problems are America's fault. But mistakes can always be corrected. :)

Absolutely. It's so awful that America didn't seize all of Mexico and forcibly annex it. What the hell is wrong with us.

Honestly, are we going to blame all of Mexico's problems on America because we didn't annex it? What's next -- blame Sri Lanka's problems on Sweden because they never conquered them?

this is what I'm wondering I mean who wants to be part of the US just look at Detroit or Arkansas ffs

That's like calling saying "North and South Korea are shitholes", when they are two different types and levels of shitholes.

Why you changed the tittle? It isn´t as funy as before :(

sorry. I had second thoughts about it when a poster or two made comparisons of it to a speech by Hitler. Hitler's speech proposed wiping out an entire people just because of who they were. What he did was reprehensible and when someone said the title gave them the same thought about Mexicans, it was time to get it changed.
Though I did pick it to catch the eye for amusment, but the Hitler stuff was not what I looking for. Genocide is not a joke and we probably don't want people thinking we're making light of it.

The ones who keep entering the US illegally obviously want to be Americans.
Everything is moving in that direction anyways. So why not just speed things up.

The ones who keep entering the US illegally obviously want to be Americans.
Everything is moving in that direction anyways. So why not just speed things up.

Of course, last time you checked, those that keep entering the US illegally were what, the 60 per cent of the mexicans? Like as, enough to be a democratic decision easily won to be annexed by the US?

Have you compared the total population of Mexico with the total of inmigrants to the US, who actually usually just come from the northern and empoverished part of Mexico?

Have you commented that situation with Mexicans, in Mexico? Because most mexicans I know are really proud of their country, heritage, history and fatherland, and wouldn't accept to be annexed or assimilated into the US. Actually, I am pretty sure that mexicans are one of the former spanish colonies with the highest degrees of national identity and hubris, if not THE one with the highest.

Of course, that would force us to understand mexicans as a population and a country with many, many deeps and peaks, and not just as a stereotype we can easily dismiss or despise. Realize this, mexican inmigrants towards the US are a minority. Actually, they have always been. Now take your logic and try to see why. There are many questions you haven't answered to yourself, as...From which region of Mexico the mexican inmigrants come? Or...How many regions does Mexico have?, for that matter.

Then again, I have been watching you from afar, lurking in your threads, making this silly sound of "tch, tch" with my lips each time I read one of your threads, and your attitudes towards mexicans. I have realized how deep your bias runs, and how determined you are towards despising mexicans as either a "lesser race", even if, as I already said, "mexicans" is not a race, (and that some mexicans are actually fairer of skin than you are), or at least as a "lesser people", that needs "american orientation".

North Mexico is a chaos hellhole because of the drug dealing gangs? Well, yes, so? Are we going to judge all Mexico based on what happens in that area?

Detroit is a fucking heap of inorganic and human garbage. Are we going to judge all the US based on what happens in that area?

Some mexicans are corrupted officials and business men. Guess what? AMERICANS TOO! Enron!, Watergate!, go figure! Can we start to apply stereotypes again or are we already satisfying in the fact that they do not work?

Some americans, for another example, are fat idiots weighting more than 140 kilos and do not know where is Iraq, or Australia, not able to point at them in a world map. Can we start judging all the american people based on that standard too?

Or can we let this rest?

The ones who keep entering the US illegally obviously want to be Americans.

Some perhaps, but not all. Just because you are forced to go to another nation to find work doesn't mean you want to become a citizen of said nation. Many Mexicans (if not most) just want to make some money to support their families back home and maybe save enough so they can one day go back home.

The ones who really want to become Americans enter the US legally. Those who come over illegally generally just want a pay check and don't give a rats ass about becoming Americans.

Hey, we've already got a currency...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wsNtPvrGAj4/R2MA8B78TiI/AAAAAAAAD28/NXd9lJptrFE/s400/amero1.jpg

Id rather join the EU though, personally...But, Mexico I suppose could come too, lol...

Of course, last time you checked, those that keep entering the US illegally were what, the 60 per cent of the mexicans? Like as, enough to be a democratic decision easily won to be annexed by the US?

Have you compared the total population of Mexico with the total of inmigrants to the US, who actually usually just come from the northern and empoverished part of Mexico?

Have you commented that situation with Mexicans, in Mexico? Because most mexicans I know are really proud of their country, heritage, history and fatherland, and wouldn't accept to be annexed or assimilated into the US. Actually, I am pretty sure that mexicans are one of the former spanish colonies with the highest degrees of national identity and hubris, if not THE one with the highest.

Of course, that would force us to understand mexicans as a population and a country with many, many deeps and peaks, and not just as a stereotype we can easily dismiss or despise. Realize this, mexican inmigrants towards the US are a minority. Actually, they have always been. Now take your logic and try to see why. There are many questions you haven't answered to yourself, as...From which region of Mexico the mexican inmigrants come? Or...How many regions does Mexico have?, for that matter.

Then again, I have been watching you from afar, lurking in your threads, making this silly sound of "tch, tch" with my lips each time I read one of your threads, and your attitudes towards mexicans. I have realized how deep your bias runs, and how determined you are towards despising mexicans as either a "lesser race", even if, as I already said, "mexicans" is not a race, (and that some mexicans are actually fairer of skin than you are), or at least as a "lesser people", that needs "american orientation".

North Mexico is a chaos hellhole because of the drug dealing gangs? Well, yes, so? Are we going to judge all Mexico based on what happens in that area?

Detroit is a fucking heap of inorganic and human garbage. Are we going to judge all the US based on what happens in that area?

Some mexicans are corrupted officials and business men. Guess what? AMERICANS TOO! Enron!, Watergate!, go figure! Can we start to apply stereotypes again or are we already satisfying in the fact that they do not work?

Some americans, for another example, are fat idiots weighting more than 140 kilos and do not know where is Iraq, or Australia, not able to point at them in a world map. Can we start judging all the american people based on that standard too?

Or can we let this rest?

Your disdain for the lower classes is evident in your posts. The typical rants about "anything negative about ANY Mexicans is racism". That's neither here nor there.
As has been noted by others besides myself, the fact is that the merger of Mexico and the United States is inevitable.
This thread is about speeding up the process. The Mexicans who would oppose such a merger are either racists or upper class elitists.
That leads me to another matter pointed out in another post. The fact that country is so mismanaged by the elites that the people of Mexico are having to risk their lives to enter an country just to survive because the current government of Mexico doesn't give a rat's a^^ about them.
You bring up the issue of corruption. As we all know, Mexico's corruption index is far far higher than America's. How many people in Mexico have been arrested for bribery or for taking bribes? How many in America? One. A fellow who lost his job as governor of Illinoise as a result.

Are you saying that Mexicans in Mexico City are "better" than Mexicans in the Northern Mexican states such as Sonora, Baja, etc?
My bias, which I do have, is against gangbangers, not Mexicans. You do know that gangbangers can be of any race and ethnicity. Are you claiming that all gangbangers are Mexicans?
It's not often I have discussions with people who think that gangbangers constitute a distinct ethnic group. Most people, Mexican, White, Black, NA, Arab, share my disdain and my bias against gangbangers and drug dealers. In fact, gangbangers are worse than pedophiles.

Have you compared the total population of Mexico with the total of inmigrants to the US, who actually usually just come from the northern and empoverished part of Mexico?



Realize this, mexican inmigrants towards the US are a minority. Actually, they have always been. Now take your logic and try to see why. There are many questions you haven't answered to yourself, as...From which region of Mexico the mexican inmigrants come? Or...How many regions does Mexico have?, for that matter.


North Mexico is a chaos hellhole because of the drug dealing gangs?





I asked a question about this. I suppose that all the problems in Mexico are because of "those filthy people in the North". Kind of like saying that America's problems are because of those immoral people in California.

The fact that people in Northern and Southern Mexico are risking their lives to illegally enter a foreign nation just to survive speaks volumes about the incompetence of the home government.
There are no Americans trying to illegally enter other countries just to survive.
You speak the word "annexation" and you claim you read all of my posts. Obviously you missed the one where I said I didn't like the term. You also seemed to miss the growing consensus that the correct term is merger. The two countries will eventually merge politically regardless what of what anyone on either side of the border thinks.
You also missed the post where I said I was not sure what objections Mexicans would have but that American objections would be based on racism.
For someone who is watching my threads, you sure missed a lot of important points.

Problem with that is that you can't deploy American troops in American cities. If Mexico joined the Union that means Mexican cities would be American cities. Remember the law against station US soldiers in civilian population areas.
Soldiers currently doing counter drug ops in Mexican cities would be required to return to the baracks and civilian law enforcement would take over. Unless the cartels decided to carry out terrorist acts.

Actually... we can. We garrissoned Union troops in the South after the Civil War.

If they are for sale then of course we should. That would likely be the only way to eliminate the immigration problems. The question would be what would we have to give up to get it?

We would likely keep the dollar and do away with peso. There would be a massive movement of people into northern and southern states. Housing prices would skyrocket. Affordable housing would cease to exist. There would be massive unemployment in the short term but with all those new people to supply it would create more jobs in the long run. Our agricultural base would be jumping for joy likely. We would have to ramp up food production. Our transportation system would be in serious trouble. Assuming they all came here via roads. It would like tie up roads for several days if not full weeks. If they were to do that they would need to double the civil service because our population would increase to likely around 400+ million or so.

Mexico population:
109,955,400

If we were to assume that at least half would relocated that is a lot of people to work into all systems. There would be a run on banks likely. We would need a lot of liquidity in the short term. We would feel the pinch in schools and hospitals. Staffing levels would have to increase pretty much across the board.

Phase two would be the development of Mexico. I see lots of hotels and resorts in the short term. We would need a lot of money for infrastructure improvement.

Then comes the political landscape. I don't even know how we would manage. We can barely handle the strain as it is. Elections would take even longer than they do now.

It would be a lot of pain in the beginning but once we got over the hump it may even cause a slight boom.

Of course, last time you checked, those that keep entering the US illegally were what, the 60 per cent of the mexicans? Like as, enough to be a democratic decision easily won to be annexed by the US?

Have you compared the total population of Mexico with the total of inmigrants to the US, who actually usually just come from the northern and empoverished part of Mexico?

Have you commented that situation with Mexicans, in Mexico? Because most mexicans I know are really proud of their country, heritage, history and fatherland, and wouldn't accept to be annexed or assimilated into the US. Actually, I am pretty sure that mexicans are one of the former spanish colonies with the highest degrees of national identity and hubris, if not THE one with the highest.

Of course, that would force us to understand mexicans as a population and a country with many, many deeps and peaks, and not just as a stereotype we can easily dismiss or despise. Realize this, mexican inmigrants towards the US are a minority. Actually, they have always been. Now take your logic and try to see why. There are many questions you haven't answered to yourself, as...From which region of Mexico the mexican inmigrants come? Or...How many regions does Mexico have?, for that matter.

Then again, I have been watching you from afar, lurking in your threads, making this silly sound of "tch, tch" with my lips each time I read one of your threads, and your attitudes towards mexicans. I have realized how deep your bias runs, and how determined you are towards despising mexicans as either a "lesser race", even if, as I already said, "mexicans" is not a race, (and that some mexicans are actually fairer of skin than you are), or at least as a "lesser people", that needs "american orientation".

North Mexico is a chaos hellhole because of the drug dealing gangs? Well, yes, so? Are we going to judge all Mexico based on what happens in that area?

Detroit is a fucking heap of inorganic and human garbage. Are we going to judge all the US based on what happens in that area?

Some mexicans are corrupted officials and business men. Guess what? AMERICANS TOO! Enron!, Watergate!, go figure! Can we start to apply stereotypes again or are we already satisfying in the fact that they do not work?

Some americans, for another example, are fat idiots weighting more than 140 kilos and do not know where is Iraq, or Australia, not able to point at them in a world map. Can we start judging all the american people based on that standard too?

Or can we let this rest?

We have no way of knowing the vast majority are undocumented aliens. They are already here. New York, Vermont, Connecticut, California, and New Jersey. There are some place that have seen there populations rise by large amounts.


These are not stereotype these are real facts:

http://www.urban.org/publications/1000587.html

# Total number: Our best estimate, based on the March 2002 Current Population Survey and other data sources, is that there are 9.3 million undocumented immigrants in the country.1 They represent 26 percent of the total foreign-born population [figure 1].
# Countries of origin: Mexicans make up over half of undocumented immigrants—57 percent of the total, or about 5.3 million. Another 2.2 million (23 percent) are from other Latin American countries. About 10 percent are from Asia, 5 percent from Europe and Canada, and 5 percent from the rest of the world.



This is from 2002 you can only imagine how much it is today.

Just for round numbers. 9.3/300 = 3% undocumented. Of that 3%, at least 1.5% are Mexican. Again by calculation Mexico is losing 5% of it population each year.

Table 1. Undocumented Immigrants by State, 2002
U.S. total (in millions) 9.3
California 2.4
Texas 1.1
Florida 0.9
New York 0.7
Illinois 0.4
New Jersey 0.4
All others 3.5

We would likely keep the dollar and do away with peso. There would be a massive movement of people into northern and southern states. Housing prices would skyrocket.../snip


Why leave home when the welfare checks come to you?

Why leave home when the welfare checks come to you?

I have nothing bad to say about them in that regard. They tend to work far harder then any Caucasians. They tend to put up with conditions that we would never put up with. They are prepared to make sacrifices the we would not likely make too. They usually are a benefit to the communities that they travel to with regard to the workforce.

I have nothing bad to say about them in that regard. They tend to work far harder then any Caucasians. They tend to put up with conditions that we would never put up with. They are prepared to make sacrifices the we would not likely make too. They usually are a benefit to the communities that they travel to with regard to the workforce.

Thats because they have no other option. Once an option becomes, fill out a few forms and wait for check in the mail, it wont seem nearly as important to drive across half a continent.

I have nothing bad to say about them in that regard. They tend to work far harder then any Caucasians. They tend to put up with conditions that we would never put up with. They are prepared to make sacrifices the we would not likely make too. They usually are a benefit to the communities that they travel to with regard to the workforce.

The question here is are they hard workers because of any innate drive given to them by their nationality, or are they hard workers because they have no options other than working hard or starving? Once you remove the option of starving from the table through welfare, and re-distribution of income, what's to keep the newly increased poor [by American standards] Mexican population from voting for the group that offers them more money? Or [gasp!] creating a group that proposes both spending vast amounts of money on them AND the Christian rhetoric that would appeal to Roman Catholics?



This is a horrible idea.

1. National pride. The Mexicans don't want to be part of the United States, they want to annex/regain the land they consider to be rightfully theirs and be dominant on this Continent.

2. Debt. We can't afford to pay our bills now. So why the hell would we merge with a country that's seemingly struggling pay it's own bills, even though they're spending a lot less than we are?

3. Language. The kids can learn 2 languages no problem. but how are you going to integrate 400,000,000 people most of whom can't speak a secondary language? That's not a great way to unify anything.

4. Let me be blunt here. Show me some Americans that are going to move to Mexico. Unless it's rich folks going to Mazatlan or Acapulco it ain't happening. Los Angeles and Houston on the other hand...

4a. Migration would still occur to "richer" American States because welfare regulations and unemployment benefits differ BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL STATES. As is, there is a difference between what you can do and get in Alabama and say, New York since most money is administered by the state. Now think of what the difference would be between New York and Oaxaca or Chiapas. And since it's all legal, you don't have to pay a "coyote" 5-6,000 dollars, or risk dying in the desert. Just hop a coach bus for a week or so, and you're there.

5. Infrastructure. Good luck trying to build basically an entirely new Interstate Highway system, in a rugged country with multiple high mountain ranges. And that's not even starting on clean [American standard] water, sewer, power grids, freight rail.

You know maybe we should look to fix our own damn problems like the fact that most of the world hates the United States, that our economy is imploding, and that we owe $500,000 for every man woman and child on the National Debt before we start worrying about crap from a dead era like "Manifest Destiny" or "54 40' or Fight!"

The question here is are they hard workers because of any innate drive given to them by their nationality, or are they hard workers because they have no options other than working hard or starving? Once you remove the option of starving from the table through welfare, and re-distribution of income, what's to keep the newly increased poor [by American standards] Mexican population from voting for the group that offers them more money? Or [gasp!] creating a group that proposes both spending vast amounts of money on them AND the Christian rhetoric that would appeal to Roman Catholics?



This is a horrible idea.

1. National pride. The Mexicans don't want to be part of the United States, they want to annex/regain the land they consider to be rightfully theirs and be dominant on this Continent.

2. Debt. We can't afford to pay our bills now. So why the hell would we merge with a country that's seemingly struggling pay it's own bills, even though they're spending a lot less than we are?

3. Language. The kids can learn 2 languages no problem. but how are you going to integrate 400,000,000 people most of whom can't speak a secondary language? That's not a great way to unify anything.

4. Let me be blunt here. Show me some Americans that are going to move to Mexico. Unless it's rich folks going to Mazatlan or Acapulco it ain't happening. Los Angeles and Houston on the other hand...

4a. Migration would still occur to "richer" American States because welfare regulations and unemployment benefits differ BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL STATES. As is, there is a difference between what you can do and get in Alabama and say, New York since most money is administered by the state. Now think of what the difference would be between New York and Oaxaca or Chiapas. And since it's all legal, you don't have to pay a "coyote" 5-6,000 dollars, or risk dying in the desert. Just hop a coach bus for a week or so, and you're there.

5. Infrastructure. Good luck trying to build basically an entirely new Interstate Highway system, in a rugged country with multiple high mountain ranges. And that's not even starting on clean [American standard] water, sewer, power grids, freight rail.

You know maybe we should look to fix our own damn problems like the fact that most of the world hates the United States, that our economy is imploding, and that we owe $500,000 for every man woman and child on the National Debt before we start worrying about crap from a dead era like "Manifest Destiny" or "54 40' or Fight!"


This is the thing. yes a lot of them sneak over the border. I will not argue with you on that.

However there are even more who are "invited" in by our own people so they can pick crops like say cotton and tobacco. We are talking southern states for the most part. After they finish picking the field guess what? They don't go back home. They stay on looking for more work and move around and what have you.

Right now we probably wouldn't move to Mexico, but if it was part of the USA, why not? Nice weather? It would give Florida a run for it money. Vacation spots? Okay so maybe we have to give incentive to relocate like we did for Alaska or the West at one time.

Thinking about this further, if you control the states they relocated to, we might be able to pull it off.

Infrastructure would take a hit. We need to spend more money on this anyway.


Debt would work itself out. Who cares at this point we are so far in the hole what a few more billion. We are looking at 20 years any way you slice it.

I don't think Mexico hates us yet, just Arab nations and some of the Europe.

National pride. The Mexicans don't want to be part of the United States, they want to annex/regain the land they consider to be rightfully theirs and be dominant on this Continent.
After 163 years, I'm sure most would concede that it's yours.

Imagine the hundreds of billions we would need to spend alone just to get Mexican water to US Federal standards.

This is the thing. yes a lot of them sneak over the border. I will not argue with you on that.

However there are even more who are "invited" in by our own people so they can pick crops like say cotton and tobacco. We are talking southern states for the most part. After they finish picking the field guess what? They don't go back home. They stay on looking for more work and move around and what have you.

Big corporations /= The people first of all.

And I assume you're talking about guest worker programs for Agriculture specifically such as H-2A Guest worker visas. Most of those people were not invited. Let's look at New York State for example. According to a study [link (http://www.migrant.net/pdf/farmworkerfacts.pdf)]Approximately 47,000 migrant farmworkers and their families come to N.Y. every year. In 2000, 1,903 of them had H-2A visas. So we formally invited around 4-5% of the people who showed up.

Right now we probably wouldn't move to Mexico, but if it was part of the USA, why not? Nice weather? It would give Florida a run for it money. Vacation spots? Okay so maybe we have to give incentive to relocate like we did for Alaska or the West at one time.

Thinking about this further, if you control the states they relocated to, we might be able to pull it off.

So at some point we're going to have to pay migrated Mexicans to convince them to move BACK to Mexico? By the way, if you merge with Mexico, then Mexican citizens have rights under whatever constitution we choose to retain. That includes the freedom of movement within the country and the freedom to assemble. So you can't ban them to a state.

Infrastructure would take a hit. We need to spend more money on this anyway.

If American infrastructure isn't good enough, then how would we do better spending our money to modernize someone else's system? They're driving on dirt roads 3 miles from the border, man.

Debt would work itself out. Who cares at this point we are so far in the hole what a few more billion. We are looking at 20 years any way you slice it.

20? More like 100. Either way in order to cut debt we either need to make more cash [per capita] or spend less cash [per capita]. Explain how merging with Mexico would allow us to do either?

I don't think Mexico hates us yet, just Arab nations and some of the Europe.

Hahaha, oh wow. That's all I can say.

Imagine the hundreds of billions we would need to spend alone just to get Mexican water to US Federal standards.

Poland Spring would be happy. I say we dump it all. We put desalinization plants that would give about 25 million gallons a day. Not enough for the whole country but is a start.

Not to mention the people that wanted to stay in Mexico would help in the form of taxes and what have you.

Poland Spring would be happy. I say we dump it all. We put desalinization plants that would give about 25 million gallons a day. Not enough for the whole country but is a start.

Not to mention the people that wanted to stay in Mexico would help in the form of taxes and what have you.

We cant even keep our own infrastructure of highways and bridges in proper repair, can you imagine the staggering costs of rebridging and repaving Mexico? There isnt enough money in existence in the entire US economy to bring Mexico up to the same standards of the rest of the US. The Superfund Toxic cleanup sites alone would cost the GNP of several States

We cant even keep our own infrastructure of highways and bridges in proper repair, can you imagine the staggering costs of rebridging and repaving Mexico?

In a lot of cases we would be paving it for the first time. :)

Mexico
Land area: 742,485 sq mi (1,923,039 sq km)
Transportation:
Railways: total: 17,665 km (2006).
Highways: total: 235,670 km;
paved: 116,751 km (including 6,144 km of expressways);

America
Land area: 3,539,225 sq mi (9,166,601 sq km);
Transportation:
Railways: total: 194,731 km mainline routes (2000).
Highways: total: 6,334,859 km;
paved: 3,737,567 km (including 89,426 km of expressways);

Given that Mexico is around 1/5 America's size. you would expect it to have around 1,000,000km of roads, maybe around 20,000km of expressway and 40,000km or rail.

Big corporations /= The people first of all.

And I assume you're talking about guest worker programs for Agriculture specifically such as H-2A Guest worker visas. Most of those people were not invited. Let's look at New York State for example. According to a study [link (http://www.migrant.net/pdf/farmworkerfacts.pdf)]Approximately 47,000 migrant farmworkers and their families come to N.Y. every year. In 2000, 1,903 of them had H-2A visas. So we formally invited around 4-5% of the people who showed up.

No argument from me. They do end up here somehow. See this is what I don't understand how can 47000 families come and yet 1903 only have visas?



So at some point we're going to have to pay migrated Mexicans to convince them to move BACK to Mexico? By the way, if you merge with Mexico, then Mexican citizens have rights under whatever constitution we choose to retain. That includes the freedom of movement within the country and the freedom to assemble. So you can't ban them to a state.

We could may be encourage them to move to specific states by tax incentives or whatever.


If American infrastructure isn't good enough, then how would we do better spending our money to modernize someone else's system? They're driving on dirt roads 3 miles from the border, man.

Well it would be ours at that point. Something like 1 million dollars per mile of road. Yep, I would say leave that for taxes. At some point though those are jobs. More demand is usually good for an economy. Providing you can actually supply that demand. Wouldn't that piss off all those off shoring companies.

There would be more demand for resources. I think we are sitting at a surplus now. More people means more food sold, more supermarkets, more restaurants, more bars. More people means more doctors. lawyers, police, firefighters, right on down the line. So for the first 5 to 7 years just dealing with the increases could keep us going. When we started to level off we could start developing Mexico. To some degree they would bring some of their existing resources with them. Right now they probably don't bring a whole lot.



20? More like 100. Either way in order to cut debt we either need to make more cash [per capita] or spend less cash [per capita]. Explain how merging with Mexico would allow us to do either?

You have just increased your capita by let's say 100 million or more. So now you have even bigger tax base. It would take a while to figure everything out. I think we do a little of both. Demand would definitely go up, it would just be a matter could the supply handle the increase. I think we have some of the excess capacity. It has been a long time since we saw a manufacturing increase in the USA. I think this might do the trick.





Hahaha, oh wow. That's all I can say.[/QUOTE]

Mexico
1923039
17665 0.92%
116751 6.07%

USA
9166601
194731 2.12%
6334859 69.11%
Roughly half is paved.

Okay so we would have some work to do.

Okay so we would have some work to do.

We can save a lot of money by hiring illegal immigra- ah, shit.

We can save a lot of money by hiring illegal immigra- ah, shit.

Yeah we could pay them minimum wage. Wow things might even improve for them?

We could may be encourage them to move to specific states by tax incentives or whatever.

The GDP per capita in Mexico is $14,932/year. [wikipedia, 2009 est.] Finding average wage stats is a chore and I'm not going to do it for Mexico right now. But to compare it to America. Our GDP per capita is $46,800/year.

I say that to say this. These people already aren't going to be paying taxes in any significant amount. You can't get blood from a stone.


Well it would be ours at that point. Something like 1 million dollars per mile of road. Yep, I would say leave that for taxes. At some point though those are jobs. More demand is usually good for an economy. Providing you can actually supply that demand. Wouldn't that piss off all those off shoring companies.

No, because we were never off-shoring construction jobs. You can't build a road in Indiana from a cubicle in India. So unless you're going to give all the white-collar professionals a pick and a shovel I doubt it would help stop off-shoring.


You have just increased your capita by let's say 100 million or more. So now you have even bigger tax base. It would take a while to figure everything out. I think we do a little of both. Demand would definitely go up, it would just be a matter could the supply handle the increase. I think we have some of the excess capacity. It has been a long time since we saw a manufacturing increase in the USA. I think this might do the trick.

But the average person in those 110 million people would be under the poverty line in America. What can they afford to contribute?

Actually... we can. We garrissoned Union troops in the South after the Civil War.
That was the mid 19th century. Congress has since passed a law prohibiting it except in times of extreme emergency. That is why it takes at least a week for the President just to get issue an activation and deployment order in times of rioting.

Actually... we can. We garrissoned Union troops in the South after the Civil War.

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

The GDP per capita in Mexico is $14,932/year. [wikipedia, 2009 est.] Finding average wage stats is a chore and I'm not going to do it for Mexico right now. But to compare it to America. Our GDP per capita is $46,800/year.

I say that to say this. These people already aren't going to be paying taxes in any significant amount. You can't get blood from a stone.

I guess the question becomes how many of those industries are artificially kept low by well, us actually. Since they would be making minimum wage now which likely much higher than they are used to and their standard of living will definitely improve over the course of time. A lot of manufacturing is done down there. Tires for one comes to mind. More money in American Banks or our combined banks whatever we call it. They are going to want all the same things we want. From college tuition to new cars. They will have to work for it like everyone else and some are doing now whether we like it or not.



No, because we were never off-shoring construction jobs. You can't build a road in Indiana from a cubicle in India. So unless you're going to give all the white-collar professionals a pick and a shovel I doubt it would help stop off-shoring.

Manufacturing is though. Construction would slowly become required. Apartments and mass housing would be required.


But the average person in those 110 million people would be under the poverty line in America. What can they afford to contribute?

Their standard of living should improve rather quickly, I would think.

If they are for sale then of course we should. That would likely be the only way to eliminate the immigration problems. The question would be what would we have to give up to get it?

We would likely keep the dollar and do away with peso. There would be a massive movement of people into northern and southern states. Housing prices would skyrocket. Affordable housing would cease to exist. There would be massive unemployment in the short term but with all those new people to supply it would create more jobs in the long run. Our agricultural base would be jumping for joy likely. We would have to ramp up food production. Our transportation system would be in serious trouble. Assuming they all came here via roads. It would like tie up roads for several days if not full weeks. If they were to do that they would need to double the civil service because our population would increase to likely around 400+ million or so.

Mexico population:
109,955,400

If we were to assume that at least half would relocated that is a lot of people to work into all systems. There would be a run on banks likely. We would need a lot of liquidity in the short term. We would feel the pinch in schools and hospitals. Staffing levels would have to increase pretty much across the board.

Phase two would be the development of Mexico. I see lots of hotels and resorts in the short term. We would need a lot of money for infrastructure improvement.

Then comes the political landscape. I don't even know how we would manage. We can barely handle the strain as it is. Elections would take even longer than they do now.

It would be a lot of pain in the beginning but once we got over the hump it may even cause a slight boom.

I don't think it would result in mass migration. The conservative idea would be to give locals the tools to develop their own communities and public lands, as is the case today. Mexicans who immigrate to the US, whether legal or illegal, are among the US's top entrepreneurs. Up there with the Asians and other immigrants.
Affordable housing? It already is nonexistent. But I don't think the Mexicans would move north just for housing. Many of them have lived where they are for decades are I am sure they are rather attached to their hometowns. There are even Americans who have never left their hometowns.

Mexican land is just as good for growing grains and produce as American land is. If, there was a merger, that production could be improved.

The major investment America would have to make would be mostly in environmental clean up to make it safer for everyone in the long term.

The political merger would be complicated. We'd probably keep the US constitution but with amendments proposed by the Mexican side. Of course Mexico would be the biggest state unless it was admitted as a group of states. That would change the US flag because you would have to add all those stars. Plus, every state in Mexico and the present US would have to have an opportunity to op out of the new Union and go their own way.

Course that can be done by a secession clause to the Constitution that allows any state to leave for any reason it wants.

I have nothing bad to say about them in that regard. They tend to work far harder then any Caucasians. They tend to put up with conditions that we would never put up with. They are prepared to make sacrifices the we would not likely make too. They usually are a benefit to the communities that they travel to with regard to the workforce.

They work way way harder than caucasions. They are also more willing to make sacrifices to get what they want. When it comes to saving money, caucasions have much to learn from Mexican immigrants.

So we would not get Income Tax, but States would get Sales Taxes. We could modify things so a portion of that goes to the Federal government.

I guess the question becomes how many of those industries are artificially kept low by well, us actually. Since they would be making minimum wage now which likely much higher than they are used to and their standard of living will definitely improve over the course of time. A lot of manufacturing is done down there. Tires for one comes to mind.

[snip]

Their standard of living should improve rather quickly, I would think.

Water Heaters. I worked for a trucking company, and one of their major customers was transporting Water Heaters from Nuevo Laredo to Montgomery, where they would have minor finishing work done [qualifying them to be made in the USA].

The issue here is that you're assuming that the same money hungry people that moved our jobs to Mexico won't pack up and move the jobs even further south under CAFTA. All these people didn't move to Mexico for the food.'

So we would not get Income Tax, but States would get Sales Taxes. We could modify things so a portion of that goes to the Federal government.

Most states get a majority of their money from a graduated income tax as well.

If they're American citizens how would they be illegal immigra?

Water Heaters. I worked for a trucking company, and one of their major customers was transporting Water Heaters from Nuevo Laredo to Montgomery, where they would have minor finishing work done [qualifying them to be made in the USA].

The issue here is that you're assuming that the same money hungry people that moved our jobs to Mexico won't pack up and move the jobs even further south under CAFTA. All these people didn't move to Mexico for the food.'



Most states get a majority of their money from a graduated income tax as well.

I think the newly Americanized Mexicans would be more vocal against offshoring than current Americans are. We don't need manufacturing but they depend on it.

I don't think it would result in mass migration. The conservative idea would be to give locals the tools to develop their own communities and public lands, as is the case today. Mexicans who immigrate to the US, whether legal or illegal, are among the US's top entrepreneurs. Up there with the Asians and other immigrants.
Affordable housing? It already is nonexistent. But I don't think the Mexicans would move north just for housing. Many of them have lived where they are for decades are I am sure they are rather attached to their hometowns. There are even Americans who have never left their hometowns.

Mexican land is just as good for growing grains and produce as American land is. If, there was a merger, that production could be improved.

The major investment America would have to make would be mostly in environmental clean up to make it safer for everyone in the long term.

The political merger would be complicated. We'd probably keep the US constitution but with amendments proposed by the Mexican side. Of course Mexico would be the biggest state unless it was admitted as a group of states. That would change the US flag because you would have to add all those stars. Plus, every state in Mexico and the present US would have to have an opportunity to op out of the new Union and go their own way.

Course that can be done by a secession clause to the Constitution that allows any state to leave for any reason it wants.

This of course we be the best option. If we could just put investment dollars in, all the better. In the short term, I think there would be a fairly large movement of people. 50 -50 / 60 -40 difficult to say how much. That is somewhere around 50 million to deal with. This being the point 50 million divided 50 states is pretty easy 1 million. 50 million divided by 10 states is 5 million. To an already overcrowded state such California that could be a big deal. With the exception of New York city,which is likely where they will come, our State is fairly sparse.

There could be incentives for them to stay where they are, such as increasing job opportunities through job creation programs and small business loans to start local businesses.

As for college. They could do what California currently does: don't charge instate tuition. California's public universities only charge out of state tuition.

There could be incentives for them to stay where they are, such as increasing job opportunities through job creation programs and small business loans to start local businesses.

As for college. They could do what California currently does: don't charge instate tuition. California's public universities only charge out of state tuition.

That's only because the state of California has been paying their shares with IOUs

I think the newly Americanized Mexicans would be more vocal against offshoring than current Americans are. We don't need manufacturing but they depend on it.

True enough. Plus I am not sure how much further they can go without the distance becoming an issue.

For finished goods it would still be an issue but for parts such as tires where assembly plants in the USA require them on an daily basis. At some point the distance will become too far to be cost effective. This also assuming those countries will work for less than we do.

Something about the transportation part of the deal. The US is already shifting to easing its reliance on fossil fuel vehicles. Plus, for shipping, they could put in high speed rail as is being discussed in Cali. Plus they could have maglevs going from New York to Mexico City and Los Angeles.
It would be chance to totally restructure the US transportation infrastructure.

Their economy sucks. They all wish they were Americans that is why they keep entering the US illegally.

USians don't appreciate boleros. Number one reason Mexicans will never want to be culturally USian. :p

We put desalinization plants that would give about 25 million gallons a day. Not enough for the whole country but is a start.


http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_7381128

A MARIN Municipal Water District desalination plant could process 5 million gallons of water a day, cost $115 million to build and supply a large part of the county with a drought-proof source of water, according to a draft environmental analysis.

Now, the average US home uses 69.3 gallon of water a day. So to provide Mexico's 110,000,000 people with water (average 4 per household, though it's fewer in the US and they will expect to live like the rest of the US) would require building 372 desalinization plants. That would cost up to 42 billion dollars just for the plants. That's not counting the cost of laying all the pipes, plumbing all the homes, building all the waste water treatment plants or building the power plants needed to run them (and stringing the wires from the power plants, etc., etc., etc.). And that is just for residential use. Industry, tourism, and agriculture use far, far more water. So look at at least tripling that price.

USians don't appreciate boleros. Number one reason Mexicans will never want to be culturally USian. :p

I am Mexican and I totally HATE boleros. :mad:

USians don't appreciate boleros. Number one reason Mexicans will never want to be culturally USian. :p

boleros?

http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_7381128

A MARIN Municipal Water District desalination plant could process 5 million gallons of water a day, cost $115 million to build and supply a large part of the county with a drought-proof source of water, according to a draft environmental analysis.

Now, the average US home uses 69.3 gallon of water a day. So to provide Mexico's 110,000,000 people with water (average 4 per household, though it's fewer in the US and they will expect to live like the rest of the US) would require building 372 desalinization plants. That would cost up to 42 billion dollars just for the plants. That's not counting the cost of laying all the pipes, plumbing all the homes, building all the waste water treatment plants or building the power plants needed to run them (and stringing the wires from the power plants, etc., etc., etc.). And that is just for residential use. Industry, tourism, and agriculture use far, far more water. So look at at least tripling that price.

Actually water can be rationed to 20 gallons a day. 69 is just plain wasteful.

http://www.illwillpress.com/mex.html

:)

Bolero: a quaint 19th century slow dance.


What's wrong with that?

Actually water can be rationed to 20 gallons a day. 69 is just plain wasteful.

But that's the way Americans live. The only reason Mexicans might possibly want to join the US is so they can live like Americans. Wasteful as it is. If you start putting restrictions Mexico while allowing business as usual in the North, any merger will be impossible. And there is no way in hell you'll be able to force Americans to cut down their water usage that severely. That would kill any merger as well.

And that is just home water use. Think of all of the thousands of ways our lives differ and how difficult and horribly expensive it would be to bring both sides of the border to the same level. Mexico will rightfully insist on American material standards of living and Americans won't accept anything (real or imagined) that might lower their material standards of living.

It's never going to happen.

The US is in a drought. They need to start reducing water usage anyway. If they want to have water for future use.
The western states are already facing this problem. Hence, the "water wars" that are going on.

Everyone is going to have to adopt. We just don't enough water for wasteful consumption.

Barring the threat of external invasion by a superior common foe, I do not think the US and Mexico will ever merge.

...but I've been wrong before.

It will happen. We just have to work around the nationalists and other racist groups on both sides of the border.

The US is in a drought. They need to start reducing water usage anyway. If they want to have water for future use.
The western states are already facing this problem. Hence, the "water wars" that are going on.

Everyone is going to have to adopt. We just don't enough water for wasteful consumption.

All the new innovations for recycling water look promising.

It will happen. We just have to work around the nationalists and other racist groups on both sides of the border.

Well, all the racists will never come around. But in places like here in Alabama, KKK rallies have become nothing but a laughing matter. Something WILL be worked out with Mexico and with South American nations whether the racists like it or not.

Mexico sure has a lot of problems. They're fighting a civil war with gangbanging drug dealers who go around killing thousands of civilians.
They are now very very sick because of corporate/political corruption.

Their economy sucks. They all wish they were Americans that is why they keep entering the US illegally.

If the "all of Mexico" movement had won in the 19th century Mexicans would not be having all these problems. They would living lives of wealth and luxory. There would not be a Mexican flu or Veracruz flu. There would be no Mexican civil war. No drug dealers abducting, raping, torturing and killing people.

But it's not too late. All they have to do is fill out an application for their country to be annexed by the United States. That will eliminate the border and end illegal immigration because they will all then be US citizens entitled to all the rights and cool benefits that Americans get.
They'll even get access to our stockpile of flu treatments. Their children will even get in state tuition.
Think about it, an impoverished Mexican working for a penny an hour on a foriegn owned pig farm, could instead be a wealthy McDonald's franchise owner. And all he would have to do to achieve it, is lobby for annexation into the United States.

Not to mention, annexation would not only boost the Mexican economy but it would boost America's economy too.


Not to mention, under one government, Mexico and the United States will be totally invincible.


what do you think? Great idea right? Afterall we're gradually heading in that direction anyway so lets just do away with pretenses. We want to own Mexico and Mexicans want to be Americans. It's a win win for everyone.

:p






(of course we also want Canada, the carribean, south america, europe and the whole middle east. j/k)

Heh the thing that made me laugh about this one was the very first lines. Coz we all know that Gangbanging drug dealers just don't exist in North America!

Heh the thing that made me laugh about this one was the very first lines. Coz we all know that Gangbanging drug dealers just don't exist in North America!

Just one of the many common problems I was alluding to. America may not have drug cartels trying to overthrow the government, but according to the America's premiere intelligence agency, the greatest threat to the continued existence of the US are the street gangs who do sell drugs for the cartels. Heck, many American street gangs are actually cartel terror sleeper cells just hanging out waiting for orders to kill people or cause mayhem.

Mexico and the US could address this problem more efficiently if they merged into one country. Mexicans can come up from the south, we'll come down from the north and do a pincer movement on them Al Qaeda allied cartels.

Meh, I think itd be more efficient to get a North American Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union) going...that way we can keep our sovereignty, and still present a United front on things, and we could argue with Europe over who's Union is better, :p...

Nyet to South America joining. We don't have anything in common with them. I would support Mexico if they want to join because Americans have a lot in common with Mexicans. Except the language of course.
We both have a large number of conservative christians. Both people's have strong moral values. Both have the world's strongest entrepreneurial spirit.
We have common problems that we are working together on.
Mexico, in some places, even uses the US dollar. And, in case you didn't know, there are privately owned businesses in South California that accept pesos as payment.
Just like America, Mexico has two major parties which are basically conservative and liberal.
The seperation of the two into seperate countries is really a formality.

As for South America, not only is their gulf between them and the US but the only thing SA has in common with Mexico is the language.

I could be wrong about South America but I don't see any commonalities.

Meh, I think itd be more efficient to get a North American Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union) going...that way we can keep our sovereignty, and still present a United front on things, and we could argue with Europe over who's Union is better, :p...

That's obvious. It would be ours.

That's obvious. It would be ours.

Well, of course, thats almost self evident, But, itd be fun to tell them limeys anyway, lol..

There was a call in a certain African country (which one I don't remember) to bring back "White people" to help straighten things out due to the extreme African mismanagement going on, etc etc etc

Never mind that the problems are entirely the fault of the "White people" who were in charge. Something about no home rule leading to something about none of the leaders having any experience at running the country, you know?

It would drain our coffers.
The coffers have already been drained. :p

I have a hunch that a merger with Canada is more likely. The biggest difference is that we'd have to do the convincing, not the other country...

I have a hunch that a merger with Canada is more likely.
No thanks!!!