A very radical idea re: Mexico

I am beginning to think that political union with Mexico -- a deal in which the U.S. actually absorbs the entire country over time -- will be the eventual solution here.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20070430-0956-mexico-usa-.html

The U.S. needs Mexico's labor force -- especially its younger workers. Mexico needs our rule of law, our environmental standards, our currency and our Constitution.

Over the short term, such an historic union would he hugely expensive for the U.S. Over the long term, it could generate more wealth than anything since the U.S. opened up the West.

No, I am not talking about a military takeover.

Why would you even consider this? Union with Mexico, we'd be out of our minds. History of corruption at all levels of government and police, much of it from the drug trade, would be difficult to root out. Cleaning up the environmental problems as well as the inadequate infrastructure. This would be their gain, our loss.

Don't agree with the premise. Union with Canada in a heartbeat, if they'd have us.

But Mexico has a lot of inherent strengths that just plain are not being taken advantage of by its government. And I think Mexico could be on its way to becoming a failed state. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., we have an aging population and a pending labor shortage.

Mexico is going to be our problem one way or another. I'd rather offer them the benefit of our Constitution now rather than wait till things implode.

If the Mexican population was offered better education, fair labor standards, better property rights, better government, etc., we could unleash a wave of human potential that is being held back now. Meanwhile, we'd open up a vastly under-invested country to capital from the U.S. in new ways.

Maybe I am just a nut. But I see huge long-term advantages.

:tinfoilhat:

Not. At. All.

I happen to like the idea of a union of equal states for North America, but Mexico, Canada and the United States publics would never go for it.

It all depends on what was offered and how it was offered. We'd have to think about the United States differently. We could not absorb a country the size of Mexico without, in a sense, also being absorbed ourselves.

Because of nationalism. But both Mexico and Canada are even more nationalistic. Both countries would view this as a takeover by the United States. If the US thinks Iraqis are tenacious, it won't know what hit them with Mexicans. Canadians will talk it through and reject it; Mexicans will take out their guns. I think most Mexicans, not counting the political class, view the US a lot more favorably than many on DU would think. However, that would change in no time if they begin to believe their territory is threatened, which is how the discussion inevitably would be framed here.

(they can't solve their country's problems that way, but it helps somewhat and no one is stopping them) but they will never want to give up being the big fish, even if the pond they rule over is relatively small and poor. That's just human nature. As oil revenue declines for example, and revenue will decline, the profits from narco trafficking and the importance of narco trafficking will loom ever larger in the affairs of the Mexican elite and gov't. They can't have a free hand over that money if they give up sovereignty to the United States. Any federal union of Mexico with El Norte is completely out of the question for the people who actually decide things there. It will remain out of the question even if most of the common people viewed political union with the United States as an attractive proposition.
Being members of a national elite has its benefits, some of which are hard to put a price on, no matter how high you make the price.

Mexico may have a revolution in the not so far off future (and then if that were to happen the jealous guard over the prerogatives and perks of the old national elite would cease to dominate relations with the North), but the character of that revolution would almost certainly retard, not promote, the tendencies &trends towards closer political union between Mexico and the U.S. The next revolution in Mexico would likely be nationalist and populist and strongly anti-globalist/imperialist; reaction from U.S. elites would be immediately and intractably hostile, as it has been in the case of Venezuela. So, one set of inhibitions to North-South political union would vanish, only to be replaced by another set.

Who then becomes the head of this new country and how? Will our democracy "By and For the People" be the same or will we all be reduced to serf status while the rich elites crush us under their heels?

IMNSHO, The North American Union is one of the creepiest, most frightening plans out there, because it will not be done for any other reason that to kill off the middle class once and for all. :puke:

But it isn't a plan I'd support in any way.

It's the same process that made the America we know today possible. It's just expansion of territory, same as the 13 colonies, same as the Civil War, same as every step along the way.

Having said that, I'd be completely against it(and would've been against Manifest Destiny as well), if I had a say, which I won't.

But not only that, you can throw away your rose colored glasses because what is being planned is NOT the kind of country the forefathers envisioned. If you've been paying attention the past several years, you would know that the middle class, working class and poor are systematically being denied their rights. The North American Union will be the final nail in the coffin for us all. How do you feel about making a dollar an hour or less? Can you pay your bills on that? How about having ALL the rights granted you in The Bill of Rights taken away? And so on and so forth.

Make NO mistake:
This is a TOTAL POWER GRAB and WE, THE PEOPLE WILL BE THE LOSERS. :grr:

I'm not for this. However, it will happen eventually, as centralization has been the general trend for thousands of years. It's just globalization in the Western Hemisphere.

"because what is being planned is NOT the kind of country the forefathers envisioned"

There are a lot of things they envisioned that have been, are, and will be done away with for the sake of progress. They were ordinary men who were in the right place at the right time. There is a larger goal in mind, and the thoughts of a few dead people don't count(most living opinions don't count either).

Again, I'm not wearing any glasses. Considering the way this country came to be, I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't exist, let alone a North American Union. Whatever facilitates production and consumption at the lowest possible price is what will be done, and it doesn't much matter what "we, the people" want.

"IN SECRET"

What isn't done behind closed doors?

Why are you here on DU if it's all been decided already?

I know why I'm here and what I'm trying to do and I'm not going down without a fight.

This isn't a threat to power. A threat to power would be a shutdown of the economy, not paying taxes, etc. But everyone has kids to feed, bills to pay, health related issues, all of which are a living beings greatest flaws(economically speaking). See, we're not machines, but that's what the world is turning us into. We seem to fight for a piece of the exploitation, not an end to it. We seem to play by their rules, when that is all those in power want. The more stake we have in their way of life, the more treats they'll gladly give us.

I'm as guilty as anyone. I get up everyday, go to work, filed my taxes(although I got money back, so I'm sure they rather I didn't even file). I wear clothes that were probably made by a 7 year old, or by someone who was willing to work for less than the parents of that 7 year old.

I'm not saying don't try. I'm not even saying it's all been decided(unless we continue down this road). I'm saying we're not doing the right thing, depending on what we're fighting for.

That's insane right-wing black helicopter bullshit. I know where you found it, and I know who wrote it, and he's a fucking fascist nutbag asshat.

we already have absorbed their people.

Just ask West Germany how much they've enjoyed adopting East Germany.



Cher


oops, just in case anyone thought I really think this is a great idea:

:sarcasm:

But overall this would be a terrible idea.

And we tried the military takeover that you so blithely disregard.


More realistic relations between both countries would benefit us all.

The devil would be in the details.

If we're going to talk radical, we might as well talk about the pink elephant in the room: Namely, how the US came into possession of that land to begin with.

oops, that was Indian land too. I guess we'll all have to move back to Europe so a few of us won't have to have a guilty conscious.

All people can do is change the government that claims the land. That, however, is possible, as opposed to forcibly uprooting a population.

Allow me to demonstrate the point. If the majority of people in the Southwest 40 or 50 years from now when white people are no longer a majority decided to rejoin Mexico, what do you do? Force them all back south of the Rio Grande? Or are you going to accept it and turn over the land to let some other government, namely the Mexican government, administer it?

For surely if the south west is the "pink elephant in the room" because the land was conquered forcibly, than the country itself is a pink elephant as well as this entire country was conquered by European settlers who did, in fact, forcibly uproot entire populations. And, frankly, I don't forsee any American territory being ceded back to anybody ever.

Namely, that demographic reality isn't shifting towards Native Americans becoming the dominant majority in several regions of the country, so to assert that we should all go back to Jamestown is, in my mind, a strawman argument, since I only addressed the issue of the Mexican cessation with respect to original OP's point about absorbing Mexico, not the entire country, and I never asserted uprooting a population was a sensible solution to the problem beyond merely signing over the land in question to the Mexican government if there was such a groundswell of support for secession in the coming decades, like Bloc Québécois up in Canada today.

I don't think my point is a strawman argument. Your point, as I understood it, is that "the pink elephant in the room" is the fact that, basically, Americans/Europeans stole our south-west from Mexico. I do not believe that we did in fact steal this land at least, that is to say, no more than we stole every square inch of this country from someone. To be honest, I believe our claim on the south-west is more legitimate than our claim on any of the land comprising the thirteen original colonies. As you aptly pointed out however, native American populations aren't taking over entire regions of this country which does tend to make a Mexican cessation more likely. Both points are equally ridiculous, however, not because of their impossibility but because of the ramifications that would surely follow. It isn't entirely clear how such a thing would pan out but it seems probable that war would be part of every possible outcome. The destruction of the United States in a manner similar to what we saw in the former Soviet Union would be probable and the collapse of US financial institutions seems pretty probable as well which would, of course, drag the rest of the world into our problem which would then open up a pandora's box of chaos. All that is certain is that hell would surely follow in the wake of such a course of action. Therefore, you see, it is ridiculous not because it could not happen but, rather, because it must not happen.

A war? Violent dissolution of the United States? As you said, it isn't clear how things would pan out. People in the early 1990s were predicting violence within the Soviet Union when Gorbachev was overthrown by communist hardliners, but it didn't come to that despite the fact that the Warsaw Pact dissolved and several states seceded in short order. Nobody wanted that kind of bloodshed, and I doubt few would want that kind of bloodshed if there grew a movement of secession in the Southwest 40 or 50 years from now.

For all we know, a resurgent China, India, and the EU will move in and fill the economic void if a violent war erupted that disrupted the US economy.

I guess the ultimate point of the whole exercise is to point out that we can't predict the future but that if we're going to talk about a notion such as absorbing Mexico, then I think people who participate would have wide latitude in throwing out hypothetical scenarios realizing none of them are likely to pass.

Cessation of the south western states, however, is the stated goal of many Hispanics. I'm sure your familiar with La Raza and aztlnan for example.

"I doubt few would want that kind of bloodshed if there grew a movement of secession in the Southwest 40 or 50 years from now."
I don't doubt it for a second.

"For all we know, a resurgent China, India, and the EU will move in and fill the economic void if a violent war erupted that disrupted the US economy."
Our economies are all symbiotic to a large extent. A collapsed US economy would definitely affect the rest of the world.

"I guess the ultimate point of the whole exercise is to point out that we can't predict the future"
One can throw a stone and see approximately where it will land before it gets there.

"if we're going to talk about a notion such as absorbing Mexico, then I think people who participate would have wide latitude in throwing out hypothetical scenarios realizing none of them are likely to pass."
Of course.

And you probably mean "Aztlan" instead of "aztlnan." (Gosh, ignorant in two languages!)

Please--find a link proving that "cessation of the south western states, however, is the stated goal of many Hispanics."

A Minuteman site doesn't count.

Read "The Untied States of America" by Juan Enriquez:
http://www.amazon.com/Untied-States-America-Polarization-Fracturing/dp/0307237524

If the southwest ever becomes like Yugoslavia, and happens within my lifetime, I'll march down there and shoot separatists if I have to (oh, and while I don't condone this...you'll have Freeper-types forming militias and putting hispanic-Americans in concentration camps similar to how Bosnian Muslims were rounded up by Bosnian-Serb militia.) Lincoln helped settle the issue 142 years ago, and no radical Chicano/Aztlan nationalist is going to claim otherwise.

The reason why we should be worried is that, unlike previously immigration waves, this immigration wave is primarily concentrated in one geographically-contigious area; an area that has historical contestation. The same thing is happening in the parts of Russia that are near the Chinese border. In 50-100 years, China will either invade, or you'll have the descendants of Chinese migrant workers trying to claim Vladivostok for China. Oh, and let's not forget about the majority-Somali Ogaden region of Ethiopa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden
There was a separatist attack in Ethiopia just last week over this.

or only when brown people secede?

One has to wonder whether what Mexico would be now if it had all that territory -- particularly Texas and California -- to work with. They lost a lot of resources, for sure.

Mexico was already pretty unstable even before the Mexican War, due to the dictatorship of Santa Anna, and because of the country's stratified class system. OTOH, we might have gotten all of the Oregon Territory (which included British Columbia) if we weren't going to get California. The only why we were willing to go "54 40 or fight!" was because we didn't want a second war with Britain while the Mexican War was being waged.

It's how the EU wants to come to be.

It would be nothing more than further centralization of power. It would be more power in fewer hands. That's why it will eventually happen. As long as we have cheap enough energy to keep it together, it will happen.

I'm not sure this is radical though. This would be the continuation of the general trend for the last few thousand years. The same thing will happen in SA, Africa, Asia, Europe, then all of those unions will absorb each other, and we'll finally end up with what we've been trying to do for a long time. One government, one corporation, one economic system, one of anything and everything. One is the most efficient, productive, and predictable number. It's the most orderly number. There is no diversity in the number one. That seems to be the goal.

Again, as long as we have cheap enough energy to constantly fight entropy.

too Bentonville Arkansas.;)

It's one big California - the weather, etc.

I can easily picture it developed and looking like the nicer parts of California. One wonders how capitalism did not just naturally spread.

It must be the corruption in the government - I don't think we need a union so much as a way to get them to follow a Constitution and the rule of law and have a Bill of Rights.

Maybe we can do that without military invasion.

The problem is Mexico never has had long periods of governments that genuinely followed the rule of law, and thanks to this and more than one civil war officials in Mexico are more often than not corrupt and don't do their jobs as much as look out for themselves. In modern times the power of the drug cartels makes that even worse, they are virtually beyond the reach of the central and provincial governments.

massive illegal immigration as a safety valve to prevent revolution . chimpy and big.biz are happy to go along with this for the cheap labor. the middle class is stuck with the bill for all the services the illegals use.

All this would do is open both countries up to chaos.

All we really need to do is be good neighbors, and quit spending a trillion dollars on an Iraq war, and a military machine that dwarfs the rest of the world all put together. We need to start living in PEACE with other countries, and see how that works first.

out of your mind, to start with the US does NOT need more unskilled, uneducated laborers. Wages are being depressed in this country and there is only one reason for that, excess labor, period.

If you educate Mexico, they won't be unskilled. Your apparent assumption that the Mexican workforce must necessarily remain unskilled and uneducated is unsupportable.

Mexico has a lot of human potential that is not being realized. We have an aging population. We could help each other.

(or anyone else's for that matter) all but the cronies would be ahead.

disgustingly jingoist, imperialistic post I think I've EVER seen on DU.

Utterly fucking revolting.

Redstone

When did I ever suggest that a political union of the two nations should happen without the consent of the Mexican people? I have read over my original post and don't see where you came up with that. You apparently are "reading" a lot that is not there -- maybe intentionally.

I see two nations that have problems -- and the ability to potentially solve them by forming one union. You see something "utterly fucking revolting" about uniting with Mexico for our common good.

Whether your opinion is motivated by disdain for the Mexican people, some backward-looking desire to "preserve" American culture, or something else, is unclear. But your attempt to demonize me as some kind of "imperialist" seems like a transparent attempt at spin.

"The U.S. needs Mexico's labor force -- especially its younger workers. Mexico needs our rule of law, our environmental standards, our currency and our Constitution. Over the short term, such an historic union would he hugely expensive for the U.S. Over the long term, it could generate more wealth than anything since the U.S. opened up the West."

You were damn blithe about telling the Mexicans that they "need" things that we, the Big Daddy, would graciously grant to them, our backward neighbors.

I stand by my assertion. This was about the most condescending post I've EVER seen on DU. Hey, Mexico! You're too ignorant (and brown) to know how to run your own country, so let us take control of and exploit your young even more than we do now ("we could use the cheap labor," in your words), and Big (white) Daddy will take care of all the Grownup issues.

I will NOT calm down. Your post was condescending and imperialistic and racist, and an insult to every citizen of Mexico. Who the FUCK are you, to tell the citizens of Mexico that they'd be better off if they just let us take them over? But I will concede one thing: How gracious of you to reassure them that we wouldn't necessarily have to INVADE them to make that happen.

I'm NOT backing down. Your post was ignorant and offensive, and you owe the people of Mexico an apology for belittling them.

PS: The US "opened up the West," that event that you admire so much, on the bones of Indians who were exterminated like rats. Guess what, Mister Manifest Destiny: Those Indians were NOT rats. They were human beings.

Redstone

The fact that I stated my opinion about what I see as the benefits of a political union --based on the situations of the two countries --was offensive to you.

Then, do you want to show me that the U.S. population is NOT aging and is NOT in need of younger people? Do you want to show me that Mexico is doing a bang-up job of educating its workforce and boosting its economy in ways that empower the working class?

I never suggested (as you do) that the Mexican population is (or should be) doomed to being "cheap labor" forever. In fact, I think that a lot of change could take place there in just a generation, if the right conditions were available and the resources were provided. Growth and higher living standards there would benefit us as well. The economic pie is not a set size.

Your assumption seems to be that the problems of Mexico are not rooted in a lack of resources or a bad government -- but in something inherent in the Mexican people. And yet you call ME a racist?

I am also not sure why you assume that the citizens of Mexico would be incapable of effective in rising to leadership roles in a new, united nation. Do you assume that they would not vote? Would not run for office? Would not get elected to Congress? Remember: my suggestion was to unite the two nations, not colonize Mexico.

I didn't say this in the original post, but I think there are aspects of the Mexican culture -- mainly its emphasis on community and family -- that would be good for us.

I suspect that, had I made this suggestion about an English-speaking country with a young workforce -- and massive untapped potential that we could help unleash by helping to provide resources and new rights to the population -- you would be fine with it.

I think the idea of dealing with Mexicans as complete equals -- under the same set of laws with the same legal protections -- threatens you. It does not threaten me at all.

of your original post.

As a matter of fact, I would NOT be in favor of ANY "union" that amounted to an American colonization of ANY country, no matter the average skin color of that country's citizens.

Furthermore: "Your assumption seems to be that the problems of Mexico are not rooted in a lack of resources or a bad government -- but in something inherent in the Mexican people. And yet you call ME a racist?"

I never said ONE WORD about "the problems of Mexico."

Nice twisting of facts and words. It's late; go and dream your imperialistic dreams, and if you want to comfort yourself in a feeling that you've "beaten me" in this discussion, be my guest in feeling so. I'll not be providing you any more opportunities to practice your redoubtale spin expertise tonight.

Redstone

But I think I know more about the "spirit" of my original post than you do. Your attempt to "interpret" my "real meaning" was lame. When I tried to explain further, you continued your exercise in reading things that were never there.

I am sorry if the idea of bringing new people (the ones you call the "brown" ones) into our club offends you. But I continue to think that such a union could benefit the populations of both countries, if it was handled in the right way.

Also: please look into the meaning of the word "imperialism." Based on the definition you are using now, every state admitted to the union after the first 13 should be considered to be nothing but vassal states.

I am not sure how sending a big delegation to Congress to represent the new citizens would be "imperialistic" in any way. Assuming each of the current 31 Mexican states had 2 senators -- and proportional representation in the House -- well, I think they'd actually be a very powerful political force.

Again, I suspect the real problem here is your unwillingness deal with Mexicans as true equals.

Go ahead and call me names, if it makes you feel better. I am also sure that, by now, you have altered the moderators to my apostate views. But I think this should be a place where people can consider radical, unconventional ideas. If it isn't then I don't want to be here anyway.

There is NO FUCKING WAY that Mexico will be taken over by the USA. The Mexican people are proud of their independence.

Cinco de Mayo is coming up. More than a chance to OD in tequila, it's a commemoration of the Battle of Puebla. A victory against French invaders.

It would be nice if the US government stopped supporting crooked elections in Mexico. And actually worked with whatever politicians do get elected.

The last President, Fox, was "conservative"--for Mexico. But he was the first non-PRI president since the Revolution. At his initial meeting with Bush, he suggested regularizing the status of Mexican workers in the USA. And economic development plans--to improve the lot of Mexicans in Mexico. Bush ignored him.

Sure, there is a very big chance that Mexico would never consent to political union with the United States. And it's also very likely that the U.S. would never make the offer.

But then, U.S. companies will be free to continue (under NAFTA and any future trade agreements) to simply exploit the labor there without having to worry about the workers ever getting U.S.-style rights -- at least not for the foreseeable future.

Is that better? Also, admitting the Mexican states into our union would no more be about us "imperialism" than the admission of Vermont was "imperialism" by the first 13 states.

:wtf:

Some people here seem to have had a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of such a political union -- and with bringing in Mexicans as our fellow citizens.

Here is one of my follow-up posts on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=794723&mesg_id=802315

And another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=794723&mesg_id=802466

I hardly think a union that could add 62 Mexican Senators to Capitol Hill would be "imperialistic."

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

I think they would be a very powerful group in the new union.

"our environmental standards", "our currency", and "our constitution" ? What a quaint... pre-9/11...sentiment.

Maybe I am being optimistic about our chances of going back to normal after the Bush nightmare has ended. But I still have hope.

Brown people can not possibly make it without the help of us Superior Americans.

It falls under "Mexico and the United States might have a better future together than separately."

To suggest that a a political merger with Mexico -- which would bring about 110 million of the "brown," Spanish-speaking people into our union -- is motivated by racism is bizarre on its face. I am sure that the prospect of doing that would scare the bejeezes out of racists.

You realize that Kipling was being a bit sarcastic when he spoke of "the White Man's Burden."

Don't you?

The only way to merge the two countries that would absolutely preserve our Constitution would be to absorb Mexico into our union -- probably by admitting their states as U.S. states.

Again, the idea that only a racist would want to bring Mexicans into our union -- as full citizens -- is bizarre and not supportable by logic and common sense.

best aspects of each.

There is no evidence whatsoever to justify this assumption, quite the contrary, it would be most likely to produce yet another basket-case third-world nightmare, where we would have completely vulnerable working class serfs under an incredibly corrupt ruling class in an environmental cesspool trading a worthless currency.

And poor Canada would likely disintegrate as a result too.

finally conquer the US.

It has been in the works since the 70's and the major architects are, who else, the Republiks. With their eye on, what they consider to be, long-term profitability (the Chinese are the world's experts at real long term planning), the morons that rule our nation and our corporations (all the same players) have played right into the hands of the communist Chinese strategy.

It is infuriating to see all this happening, to have heard the warnings and to have them pooh-poohed as "conspiracy theories", and to watch them, in their monumental arrogance do exactly what the Chinese want them to. They honestly believe that they will be the powers once the transfer is complete.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

Bullshit. We have a job shortage in this country. I suppose you're also in favor of offshoring and inshoring of American jobs to keep wages down and keep Americans unemployed. :eyes:

http://www.aim.org/special_report/5247_0_8_0_C/

North American Union "Conspiracy" Exposed
By Cliff Kincaid | February 19, 2007 - Accuracy in Media Website

A leading Democratic Party foreign policy specialist said on Friday, February 19, 2007, that a "very small group" of conservatives is unfairly accusing him of being at the center of a "vast conspiracy" to implement the idea of a "North American Union" by "stealth." He called the charges "absurd."

But Robert Pastor, a former official of the Carter Administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (CNAS), made the remarks at an all-day February 16 conference devoted to the development of a North American legal system. The holding of the conference was itself evidence that a comprehensive process is underway to merge the economies, and perhaps the social and political systems, of the three countries.

Pastor said that he favors a "North American Community," not a formal union of the three countries, and several speakers at the conference ridiculed the idea of protecting America's borders and suggested that American citizenship was an outmoded concept.

Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Pastor told AIM that he favors a $200-billion North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty and a national biometric identity card for the purpose of controlling the movement of people in and out of the U.S.

So the "conspiracy" is now very much out in the open, if only the media would pay some attention to it.

Media Cover-Up

Accuracy in Media attended the conference in order to produce this report and shed light on a process that is being conducted largely beyond the scrutiny of the public or the Congress.


*************

My question's are - Who would rule this North American Union? Who would be the BIG winner in this Union? Big corporations would have more cheap labor and slave tactics would be growing. What can we do? I say combine the efforts of all involved! If we don't it is going to get scary and I don't want to be on the road when this happens! I believe there are some who say they are for those that want the same quality of life we have established here that are just undermining the very essence of the argument! Take the idiots out of this and put the true priorities for everyone in the forefront!