Thread: The case for annexing Mexico

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=45923

The case for annexing Mexico

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


I received some interesting responses to my last column, "The case for imperialism," in which I suggested that the War on Terror could have been prevented by the continuation of colonialist policies as practiced by the U.S. and European powers in earlier centuries, as doing so would have made the West more culturally relevant to Third World peoples by acclimatizing them to Western concepts and values.

One of the surprising aspects regarding the feedback received was that most of it reflected agreement. Granted, the idea was a bit of a stretch – there were lots of qualifiers involved, something of a "What if Hitler had never been born?" kind of postulation.

The column was also a little over the top even with respect to ideas dyed-in-the-wool conservatives generally espouse, thus it positively lit up the blogosphere on the left. The chatter resembled the flavor of conversations my peers and I have concerning, say, Noam Chomsky, but with far more expletives.

So here's another stretch, but one with more contemporary flavor: The case for annexing Mexico.

Due to a variety of factors (including national security), issues surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border have been in the forefront of discussion for many months. The precise number of Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally each year is impossible to accurately determine, but estimates average out to about 1 million. The motivation for the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico is, as we are all aware by now, primarily economic.

So, I say: Annex Mexico. Handsome bribes to Vicente Fox and his underlings would no doubt bring them around to thinking it an excellent idea. As a contingency, we could probably enlist the cooperation of key players in the Mexican military fairly cheaply. A poll released on Aug. 16, 2005, by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that more than 40 percent of Mexican adults would move to the United States if they could, so I seriously doubt there would be widespread rioting in the streets of Mexico City when the mutually agreed-upon annexation was announced.

But what about here? Certainly the prospect of all 107 million Mexicans potentially streaming across the border is something no one – particularly alleged conservatives like myself – wishes to contemplate. Even a smaller scale exodus would be horrific. Leaving aside the fact that the smaller scale exodus is already underway, of course, we couldn't allow that any more than we could allow indigent citizens to move en masse into our public parks. The oft-suggested border tightening – probably utilizing the National Guard – would need to be implemented until Mexico's economy developed to the point where the economic incentive for relocation began to diminish.

We would gain complete and immediate legal control over both sides of the border (as well as all ports and points of entry within Mexico, a national security boon). Mexicans who are now coming here illegally would no longer be coming illegally, but safely and to verifiable destinations via public transportation paid for with their own tax dollars. The U.S. businesses that pounced on the market (partly to offset the loss of obscenely cheap labor) would be required to pay a percentage of their earnings to cover renovating the Mexican infrastructure, with a substantial allotment for education. The finer distinctions of this admittedly cyclopean feat would be determined by more knowledgeable sociopolitical and economic minds than mine. If anyone's interested, I do have a short list.

The new government could be structured similarly to that of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. A few more prisons would have to be built – likely most of the new convicts would be police and politicians, since we could not afford to tolerate the kind of corruption currently endemic in Mexico to continue.

The question many will ask (I daresay, violently hurl my way) is that if through such action we shattered all remaining illusions relative to our role as the international big daddy, where would it end? This is imperialism, clearly, and we simply don't do that anymore.

To which I would answer: First, we already are the international big daddy. Let's abandon the intellectual dishonesty once and for all – if there's going to be a biggest dog, it might as well be us. The swift and terrible retribution exacted upon the Abu Ghraib offenders offers clear evidence that we aren't going to tolerate imperial storm troopers within our ranks. America ought to be embracing its supremacy and overall ethical integrity, yet due to the moral perversions of political correctness and international socialism, it faces a fundamental challenge merely acknowledging its right to exist.

Second, I consider the proposed actions more of a moral obligation than anything else. The government of Mexico is doing it wrong – their policies are oppressing their people, stultifying their social and economic growth and negatively impacting the United States. Just last week, the governors of New Mexico and Arizona declared states of emergency, releasing more than $2 million to help their states cope with the flood of illegals, and the financial burden on the state of California inches it closer to insolvency every month.

As far as sovereignty or national identity goes, these have already been proven to be a joke, given the number of Mexicans coming here and those who wish to. Instead of letting their system drag us down, why not use ours to pull them up? A business acquaintance of mine is already working on a Habitat for Humanity-style endeavor to implement in Mexico – I am sure that there are thousands of brilliant men and women in business who, properly motivated and judiciously monitored, could turn the Mexican economy and educational system around in fairly short order. Imagine what 20 years of social and economic development – unconstrained by Third World corruption and institutional criminality – could accomplish!

Then, we could move on to Haiti, which is essentially an African nation in the Caribbean, plagued by a level of corruption, poverty and squalor that is shameful given its proximity to our shores. I think we owe even more to Haiti than Mexico, given our government's abysmal historical conduct there. And they don't even hate us that much yet. In the case of Haiti, I think we could just call ahead and fly in.

Madness? Just look at how the poor devils live. I doubt a shot would be fired. You want madness? Let's discuss attorneys and Geneva Convention protections for captured al-Qaida and other terrorists ...

i think we should launch an operation to settle Baja California Sur...

maybe we can use william walker's flag too

So, I say: Annex Mexico. Handsome bribes to Vicente Fox and his underlings would no doubt bring them around to thinking it an excellent idea. As a contingency, we could probably enlist the cooperation of key players in the Mexican military fairly cheaply.

If we are annexing, why not just......eliminate them instead by say sending them off to the middle east or an island in the pacific?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/art ... l?id=12652

by Erik Rush
Annexing Mexico Revisited
February 26, 2006 10:53 AM EST

Last summer, I penned a piece for WorldNetDaily called “The Case for Annexing Mexico”, in which I (only partly tongue-in-cheek) offered the suggestion that Mexico be annexed to the United States in the manner of a protectorate or commonwealth (like Guam or Puerto Rico).
Citing a variety of factors such as national security, drug trafficking, endemic and entrenched corruption in their government at all levels, illegal immigration and economic factors which (according to the scenario I put forth) could improve via this action, I set out general means by which this might be accomplished – peacefully, of course – and more specifically how ancillary contentious issues so prominent of late would be ameliorated.

The column was met with very mixed results. Some took it to be completely tongue-in-cheek, others used the opportunity to paint me (and of course all conservatives) as dangerous imperialists. At least one Mexican newspaper did a special feature on me, likening me to Pat Robertson as one of those dangerous “Christian” conservatives who view military incursion, assassination and clandestine action as solutions to all our foreign policy problems.

And although there were some moderates and conservatives whose reactions ran from “it’s a great idea; I’ve considered it myself - it just might work” to “it’s a great idea, but it’ll never happen,” there were also many folks of similar political leanings who believed it would just serve to drag us down economically, socially, and culturally. “Close the border and let them cannibalize themselves” – which, plainly our State Department and corporate interests will never let happen either.

Surprisingly, in the months since I wrote the column, quite a few things have come to light relative to the situation regarding our border with Mexico that lend even more credence to my suggestions.

Going back as far as 2002, news agencies such as the Associated Press, as well as media from the New York Times to the Washington Times and TownHall.com have run features citing corruption and collusion on the part of the Mexican police and military, drug cartels, and guess what – now, even our own government.

On September 25, 2002, Jerry Seper of the Washington Times wrote “This isolated area of the U.S.-Mexico border [Sonoyta, Mexico], a 100-mile-wide stretch of wild desert …has become one of America's newest drug corridors. Mexican drug lords, backed by corrupt Mexican military officers and police officials, will move tons of marijuana, cocaine and heroin this year over rugged desert trails to accomplices in Phoenix and Tucson…”

NewsMax.com, March 12, 2003; “Mexican Army Invades U.S.”, by Phil Brennan: “It’s the war nobody wants to talk about: well-armed Mexican soldiers storming across America’s southern border, sometimes with guns blazing. ‘We are in state of war,’ [Edward Nelson, chairman of U.S. Border Control]. ‘And we are fighting enemies who have brought the battle to our shores. If ever there was a time for the United States to put troops on the border, it is now.’”

The New York Times, July 5, 2005; “Corruption Hampers Mexican Police in Border Drug War,” by Ginger Thompson: “…this country has been forced to re-examine its police as it struggles against a devastating crime wave that in the last six months has taken more than 600 lives. At least half those killings have happened in the six Mexican states along the border with the United States, where drug traffickers fighting for control of lucrative drug routes empty their automatic weapons on busy streets in the light of day…where powerful cartels took over large parts of the country by corrupting or killing police officers, politicians, journalists and judges.”

And finally, on January 26 of this year, Sarah Carter, a reporter for the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA), reported in her article (part of an ongoing investigation on border corruption) “Cover-ups of Mexican military border crossings anger agents” that “Some officials suggested Wednesday that the confrontation between Texas law officers earlier this week was with drug smugglers, not Mexican soldiers assisting narcotics traffickers across the Rio Grande. But a Border Patrol agent who spoke on condition of anonymity said continuous cover-ups by Mexican and U.S. officials have put many agents and American lives in danger. ‘I think it shows how desperate the situation has become. I think it's insulting to expect Americans to believe what (Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael) Chertoff and the Mexican government are saying.’”

By the time Carter was interviewed last week on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, her investigation had uncovered the fact that the U.S. government has authorized $376 million to subsidize the Mexican military, and that Mexican drug smugglers had hired members of the international Mara Salvatrucha street gang (MS-13) to murder Border Patrol agents, according to a confidential Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by her publication.

So, while graft, murder, assassination, and substantially nasty firefights between the U.S. Border Patrol and Mexican police and military backing up drug cartels are commonplace and common knowledge to locals on both sides of the border, the political Left in America plays the Political Correctness game in the press, and those in Washington – right up to the President – play the diplomacy masquerade with smiling excrement in expensive suits, thieves and murderers of their own people – and ours. And apparently, we’re also being made to pay for the privilege.

So cut the deal, pay the bribes, and annex Mexico. Unfeasible? Impractical? Insane? No – what has been reported by the press, both on the Left and the Right, and what I have summarized above reflect the unfeasibility, impracticality and manifest insanity of our government’s current policies. Mexico’s sovereignty is a joke; with their citizens’ desire to cross our porous border by the millions and no will on our part to control it, it is coming to resemble a large ghetto within our nation anyway. Doing so, at least we’ll have legal control over the region, increased security, and constructive economic influence.

Militarizing the border is the only other viable option. Either could be accomplished, although the former would outrage the internationalist Left and the latter would meet great resistance from both the Left and corporate interests – but it’s time to stop playing both the Political Correctness game and the diplomacy masquerade; besides making us international whores, it endangers Americans in the border states as well as those who are valiantly executing their duties in order to keep our border secure - at this point – very obviously in vain.

Erik Rush is a New York-born Black columnist and author who writes "The Culture Shark," a weekly column of political fare. He is also a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. An archive containing links to just about everything he's written is at http://www.erikrush.com .

By all means, let's become one huge third world nation and let Canada support us all.

Since Mexico is not abiding by the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the US has the legal right to do whatever it wants in Mexico.

I would not write off annexation so quickly. Congress actually talked about annexing all of Mexico after the Mexican-American war. They didn't at that time mainly because it would have added many more slave states to the Union.

If Mexico was made only a territory of the US, Mexico would not be US Citizens. Then say each current Mexican state can be admitted to the US as a state, once over half of their residents are fluent in English, and corruption is cut by 90%. Only at that point would the residents of this Mexican state be able to work in the US. Also the residents of this particular Mexican state can become US citizens only by passing the citizenship test.

I look at this from the point of all the resources Mexico has. They sure have lots of nice warm beaches.

deleted

They didn't at that time mainly because it would have added many more slave states to the Union

OHHHHHHHHH! I see it now! We could have one big huge slave state and send all the businesses to the new state called Mexico.

I don't think I want to cede Mexico or any part of it to the USA.

Bush's Secure Prosperity Partnership for North America would for the most part merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico. People would travel across the borders just as easily as we travel from one state to the next. The U.S. would no longer be the nation that it is today, it would become an economic region. "Americans" would become "North Americans" and U.S. citizenship would be meaningless. We would all compete with workers from around the world for the least amount of money that employers could get away with. The rich would get richer and everyone else would struggle to keep their head above water. This is a wet dream for globalists like Bush, McCain, and Spector.

http://www.spp.gov/

Watchdog, I was being facetious. And I still don't want globalism or to cede Mexico to the US.