We should annex Mexico and make it our 51st state
By Bev Posted in Immigration — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am serious. Think about it. We are accused of being imperialist and overbearing by the world anyway. If their government doesn't want to join us, let's put it to a vote of the People-on both sides of the border. Then Mexico would be a state in the United States of America with full rights and responsibilites. Many, many men and women from Mexico serve our country in the military and their patriotism and loyalty to the USA is without question.
Surely most of their countrymen would be in favor of joining our Union? Wouldn't most citizens in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California see some benefit?
The majority of the population of Mexico like our country's values and social system and opportunites. Many have wonderful family values and are not shy of work. We need their labor in our work force. We could invest our money in an economy that needs it and would welcome the help.
The Mexican people can celebrate and preserve their culture and ethnic identity, same as all the the other ethnic groups in America. It isn't a bad thing on either side to learn another language.
Their president can become the govenor. We would build better schools and hospitals. The entire infra-structure of Mexico would be improved..water, social services, technology, etc. I read about entire towns in Mexico whose family structures are torn asunder due to so many people, mainly the men, leaving to make a few more dollars in America. If Mexico was our newest state, the opportunities would come to them, instead of them having to leave hearth and home so often.
We would only have the tiny border of Guatemala and Belize? to police. Mexico is a poor country compared to our nation, but as another state, our socials systems would kick into overdrive to help raise their standard of living. Every state in our nation already struggles with poverty, crime and other social problems..but we still have a great system of private and public resources. Travel to and from Mexico would be normal for everyone and the laws governing the populace would be about the same as it is now, with individual states having a few laws different.
Let's face it...the world is changing. The 77 million baby boomers that have influenced everything about this nation are growing older and will be largely absent from the landscape in another 50 years. We have not replaced ourselves in terms of population. Should we not think about the future of our country after we are gone?
Finally, let's think proactively about what I see as inevitable within another century anyway.
Thoughtfully,
Bev
"I lived/worked in Mexico City for five years and saw the results of no environmental law enforcement; of builders unconstrained by tedious codes; of no Big Brother OSHA regulators. Hey, no one is even going to tell you 'Do Not Litter'."
Thanks for the input CarolinaMan. If Mexico were a state, our current environmental laws and building standards would become the law. Wouldn't our building contractors have to ensure codes?
Surely our venture capitalists and investors would insist on them.
I agree, it might take a century to export our standards, but it's better than what's happening now. The only big impact we currently have on Mexico is the $, and it appears to be a one-way street.
Respectfully,
Bev from Arkansas
Mexico would seem like Paradise to anyone who has dreamed of small government (nonfunctioning gov't anyway). Well, the idea of total personal freedom is appealing for awhile.
They have some very strict laws, they are just not evenly or effectively enforced. Laws are used as a tool for extortion more than anything. And there's plenty of them to go around. They have very draconian gun control laws, for example. I'm not sure how that fits into "total personal freedom." The only people who have "total personal freedom" are those who own enough politicians to ensure it.
There is nothing small about the Mexican government, either. A number of industries in Mexico are completely owned and operated by the Mexican government. I'm not sure how that's a conservative dream come true.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Do not recommend your own work.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Bev from Arkansas
I'm sorry Thomas. This was absolutely my first blog ever and I
didn't realize the 'recommend' button was immediate.
Won't happen again.
Thanks!
Bev
I also posted this to Senator John McCain last night.
Will be interested to hear his comments due to proximity to Mexico...
Bev from Arkansas
Hint: it's not so they have the privilege of "building better schools and hospitals". Cities annex property that they believe will deliver economic or other benefits in the future. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
So can you make an economic "business case" to have Mexico as a "51st state"? I find very little appealing in the resources of Mexico that make it desirable for annexation. Furthermore, the amount of expense to deliver the kinds of things you're describing would be staggering.
No freaking way.
Now Canada - that's another story... ;-)
A few years back there was a semi-serious proposal to bail Mexico out of its financial difficulties by buying Baja California. The potential for real estate development mus be in the $ trillions.
Then there's oil and gas. Mexico has huge mineral wealth that is controlled by its state-owned three ring circus, PEMEX. American-style competition would be a good thing.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
So, 20 Senators, obviously.
Ontario is the size of Illinois or Pennsylvania (19 Reps, 21 Electors).
Quebec is the size of Virginia (11,13).
British Columbia is the size of Louisiana (7,9) or Kentucky (6,8)
Alberta is between Connecticut and Iowa (5,7)
Manitoba is the size of Rhode Island or Hawaii (2,4)
The rest are all under a million, which implies one Rep and three Electors, though Saskatchewan is slightly larger than Montana, so might just get two Reps.
Total of 49 or 50 Reps, and therefore 69 or 70 Electors.
The two most populous provinces are socially and politically comparable to North East or industrial Mid-West. The next two are more like the interior West. On balance, I would say, net gains for the Democrats from Canada.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You realise it would be huge, right? With 108 million people it is much more than twice California's size. It has to be larger than the four or five largest states put together. So that would be, what? 120 Congressmen and a similar number of Electors?
Much more sensible to admit the federal units of Mexico as separate states. There are 31 of them. They vary in size from 14 million (similar to Florida) to two that are around half a million (similar to Wyoming or Vermont), so none would be too small to be accepted as full states. The 31 states would have 62 Senators between them and, off the top of my head, about 150 Congressmen, or 25% of the new total.
You comfortable with that?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
In fifty years, as Bev has indicated, 77 million highly paid baby boomers will have left our economy without replacement. Land/home prices will plummet, social services will decline because of decreased tax revenues and companies, still worshipping the almighty dollar, will export many more high skill jobs to low paid workers in third world countries. IMHO the US will be a shadow of its former self. Additionally, the policies the US government has adopted as 'world police' will be the ones that bite us in the ass during that time. Bev is right, annex Mexico and make those investments now to train an ambitious workforce that will help us through those trying times that are heading our way.
In fifty years, as Bev has indicated, 77 million highly paid baby boomers will have left our economy without replacement.
In fifty years, without any further increases in immigration, the population of the US will increase by over 50%, from 300 million to over 450 million. Whatever other problems we face a declining population is not one of them.
Sure, by all means lets annex Mexico. Do you realise that it is populated by people to the political left of the Democratic party? The current "right wing" government there makes the Democrats seem like the reincarnation of Adam Smith.
If your goal is to make America much more left wing, then merging with Mexico is the way to do it.
And can I be the Silver Surfer?
_Whatever other problems we face a declining population is not one of them._
In fairness I think Dr von Doom is talking about an ageing population rather than a shrinking population. It is less of a problem in the US than in many parts of Europe, but does require some thinking about.
Personally, I am not sure that changing a country's borders has any particular relevance to the ageing population issue. If you need extra labour, there are ways to import it. But that does not mean the issue does not exist.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
And you can.
I don't see an "aging population" as being some sort of dreadful problem which needs to be "solved".
It is the natural consequence of more people living longer. At the time that retirement age was set at about sixty-five, the average life expectancy was about the same. Now life expectancy is up to eighty in some places.
If this is a problem, and I'm not even sure it is, then one obvious solution is to simply raise the retirement age. And all the employers crying about the non-existent labor shortage could cut back on the age discrimination.
For some strange reason there are many people who want both a long life expectancy and a median population age of about 28. That is not mathematically possible, and the sooner this is realised the better.
It is better to think of an ageing population as an issue than a problem - though in some of the more extreme cases in some parts of Europe (and I think Japan) it is likely to be a rather acute issue.
The problem, insofar as there is one, is people who think that everyone can stay in college longer, retire earlier, and still have a prosperous retirement.
People are not just living longer, but they are healthy longer. When all pension and healthcare arrangements are privately run it does rather force people to face up to things. Pension brokers tell me that people come in to see them in their forties, having made no private provision, and explain that they would like to retire in about 10 years time. As you can imagine, it is rather forcefully explained to them that they will need to invest about 150% of their income for the next ten years to fund that.
There are other solutions too, though. If there is a shortage of labour in one jurisdiction companies can hire labour in another jurisdiction. This has long been possible for manufacturing and is increasingly so for services too.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Expect retirement benefits to be pushed back by the time this comes into play. Our percentage of the population in the workforce will also be higher.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I keep seeing threats to ban people who talk about a North American Union. Here is a blog advocating exactly that.
?
1. We get to decide who to ban. You do not.
2. This diary is proposing a policy, albeit a wacky one. It's not making factual assertions of an existing conspiracy.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Following up on what Dan said, you may now feel free to accuse Bev of supporting an NAU conspiracy, since she's stated that she does. The problem is with making those sorts of assumptions about people who haven't written tripe such as this.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
As to the political reasons why I'm glad this isn't going to happen, read Quentin's first post. Unless they'd be stupid enough to form their own parties it would guarantee Democrat control of the federal government for decades.
As to why this will never happen: let's consider the voters' reaction on both sides of the border:
- US: will see an influx of even more workers. Not going to go well with the low-skilled end of our labor-market. Not to mention the fact that importing the political culture of mexico isn't exactly an improvement. Or the fact that Mexico would need loads of federal assistance for anything there can be federal assitance and then some (they'd surely have enough cloud to legislate a TON of pork).
- Mexico: become part of the gringo empire? Over our dead bodies. Not to mention the fact all those federal rules would be enforced for a change.
Lastly, there are few rational arguments to support the claim there would be benefits for the US. As mentioned above, one can import labor in different ways. With NAFTA, one can export goods pretty easily too. The US doesn't need to bolster population growth either. Besides, it is a fallacy to think that unless the population grows, we or our wealth are going to disappear. The transition would not be beneficial to the older generations as they generally need to buy very expensive labor, but there is no reason whatsoever that population grow is needed for economicy growth. The simplified version of the analysis is that you ditch the jobs that bring in the least profit and replace labor with more efficient tools and procedures.
If the US economy can function with a population of 300 million in 2007, it can also function with a population of 300 million in 2057. It could even function with a population of 150 million. In total the wealth would be lower, but per capita it would likely be higher.
Anyway, thats all academic, the way it's going now we'll likely hit half a billion well before we're halfway through the century, 1 billion before 2100 isn't out of the ballpark either.
If we were to annex Mexico, it wouldn't make sense to make it one state. Mexico is not some uniform place where everyone is all the same from north to south and east to west. I know, I know, the left is constantly saying there's a single Latin community with a single voice and a single set of values, but we know better.
Or we should anyway.
Run like Reagan!
The 50 Snark is a largely invisible but important part of our constitutional republic.
Do a wiki search on 50 snark - also known as the Szekeres Snark.
You can think of it like this:
Picture each state as a circle. Place all 50 states in a ring, overlapping slightly. Visualize the structure as a circular chain of states.
The 50 snark says that each state is then "Next" to every other state - connected directly. To get a logical intuition, every circle (state) in the chain can be moved to a different place in the circular ring so that it's neighbors are different. The 50 snark allows the state rings to be in EVERY combinatorial position at once.
The 50 snark is the largest known structure with that property.
If we add or take away a state, there will always be one or more states getting railroaded by the others. The only way to bring them back into the fold would be to create "bridges". Bridges suck.
With much smaller numbers you run into the issue of one or two larger states dominating. The early Republic was dominated by the Virginia-Massachusetts axis.
Also, how can you accomodate one state that is much larger than the others? The UK consists of four countries, and one of them has 85% of the population. Just try to imagine applying the US Constitution to that. A Senate in which England and Northern Ireland had equal representation? An Electoral College in which the winner in England was automatically President, however the other three countries voted?
The EU has 27 member states. The largest, Germany, has far more than double California's population and the two smallest, Luxembourg and Malta, are rather smaller than Wyoming. It is just isn't balanced the way the US is.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I can't tell if this is geometry, abstract philosophy, or a combination of the two, but neither is relevant to the admission of states I believe.
Run like Reagan!
And I described it.
Regardless, qlangley covers the bases in a less abstract form. A constitutional republic is about balancing local and federal power. The 50 snark structural aids in balancing that power.
To give another anolog, take an unbalanced tire on a car. At high speeds, if the tire is unbalanced, it throws the entire vehicle off balance. The 50 snark is a balanced tire. It aids in maintaining internal rotational symmetry.
Regardless of the abstraction, a union of states greater than 50 will have greatly reduced local liberty. And if you make the union too small ( or with hugely disproportionate members that aren't balanced out numerically ), one state can easily dominate.
Snarks are a connected, bridgeless, cubic graph. They are inherently visualizable because they are related to quaternion mathematics. They increase the amount of synthesis available between the "state" graph nodes.
Structures that sit on snarks can inherently take more advantage of the underlying combinatorial mathematics.
The united states needs a few tweaks, but the truth is we are in the most advanced liberty structure ever conceived by man. It's mindboggling brilliant when you study it in the frameworks of complexity theory, chaos theory, game theory, and several other branches of mathematics. If we fixed up a few broken pieces, she would fly to the stars.
why more than 50 states would be unstable. If the number of states is too few it is open to too much domination by the largest. The extreme example is the rump Yugoslavia left after the war which consisted of two states. How can you have any degree of balance in such a 'federation'. If Quebec ever leaves Canada, the remaining nine provinces (see my post above) would be heavily dominated by Ontario. That can lead to the central power being too weak.
More states can -depending on the constituional structures - weaken the central authority too. The EU requires unanimity for some decisions, including constitutional questions, foreign policy and the budget. That is why the EU took no stand on Iraq. In the case of the EU that is no problem, as the member states can have a foreign policy independent of the Union.
Given the three fourths rule for amending the Constitution, I don't see any reason why 60 states is significantly different to 50. Life is not a simple progress up to now. There was no reason to call a halt at 40 and none to call at 50.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I'm not saying more than 50 will be inherently unstable, nor less than 50.
I agree with your arguments about extremes in size.
However, the 50 snark adds a mathematical stability that is overlooked. Having studied it, I don't think it is insignificant.
That's all my point is. The 50 snark is likely more inherently stable - with less effort - than a 49 node republic configured the same way or a 51 node republic configured the same way.
Higher mathematical structures do have an effect on stability. That is not a disputed fact, but is well accepted within the chaos and complexity and game theory branches of mathematics.
I am merely pointing out that we gain some "free" stuff by being a 50 node republic which we wouldn't have if we were not a 50 node republic.
As far as centralized power becoming too weak, the 50 snark helps with that as well. It is a structurally reinforced UNION. Both the local nodes and the central union are enhanced.
The local nodes all have a projection over the same graph spot - like a venn diagram.
The 50 snark allows the overlap - union - structural center of mass - to be strong while also maintaining structural independence.
Study it. 50 Snark - wiki
structure and the relative merrits of 50 vs 48 (or 52) states.
Yes, your snark has 50 nodes and some interesting properties, but how do you magikly link that to a government structure?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The US constitution maps onto the 50 snark.
First a few basic premises:
1) A recent study - sorry specific link broken - but was here www.ncsa.uiuc.edu - demonstrated the inherent instability of parliamentary government. It was suggested that there were very few stable positions, and that the structure tended to collapse.
2) Most conservatives believe that the structure of goverment matters in the performance of the state, and the liberty that is accessible to it's citizens. Regardless of what particular structures one finds important, we believe that the structure matters.
As an EXAMPLE, whether one thinks the benefits outweight the costs:
Many conservatives believe in enumerated powers for the federal government. Yet enumerated powers are being eroded at an alarming rate. Why?
Before passage of the 17th amendment, Senators were elected by the state legislature. The 17th brought direct election by the people.
State legislatures want their own power. They dislike giving up power to anyone else. This basic notion of maintaining power is at the root of our founding. The framers attempted to balance power between competing factions - which you can think of as nodes. To aid visualization, think of the node as a power magnet.
So when a legislature elected a senator to the federal senate, they were inclined to elected someone that would MAXIMIZE their own power. Sometimes that would mean attempting to use the federal purse to their own advantage. However, if one state tried to use the federal purse to their own advantage, the other senators would counter with the "enumerated power" argument because using the federal purse to increase one state's power would necessarily limit the power of another state - and the state legislatures don't like that.
To visualize this setup, picture a chain in the shape of a ring. Each state legislature is a link in the chain. They are bound together by multiple forces, not the least of which is interstate commerce. Each link is somewhat stretchy. Now picture a smaller chain in the shape of a ring, sitting in the middle of it. A circle embeded in a circle. The inner circle is the Senate. Then run a rubberband between each Senator's chain link and their respective state legislature link. Then spin the the entire apparatus, like you would spin a pizza.
The inner and outer circles, connected by rubber bands, oscillate in an equilibrium, getting farther apart, then closer - back and forth. That oscilation is the calculation of enumerated powers. Sometimes power centralizes, sometimes it decentralizes.
So that would be an example of a structural issue.
But there is a problem. If a state with huge mass is "next" to - directly linked to - another huge state in the ring, then, like an unbalanced tire, when you spin the apparatus like a pizza, the pizza won't come out round, but will flop and destabilize.
The 50 snark makes it so that EVERY state is "NEXT TO" every other state in the circle. Its a multidimensional circle. The pizza has equally distributed mass as it rotates.
That is the importance of the 50 snark.
And it does that without taking away the rights of the people of populous states. They still have their extra mass represented - its just that is doesn't destablize the system.
(Well, John McEnroe is in London at the moment, so why not quote him).
A study that demonstrates "the inherent instability of parliamentary government" cannot be taken seriously because it flies completely in the face of all experience. The US is the only stable constitutional government in the world with an executive presidency. (France is, perhaps, a partial exception. But the President only gets to run the government when he has a majority in Parliament).
Generally, the abolition of parliamentary government for an executive presidency - see Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria and other examples - is expressly designed to replace democracy and constitutional rule. It is often followed by other valuable "reforms" like abolishing opposition parties.
If you want long term stability, there are seven countries which remained democratic with tolerable respect for human rights through the whole of the turbulent Twentieth Century. See if you can pick out the executive presidencies on the list.
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of America
Now, it may be that parliamentary government is incidental here, and there is another causal factor. But the "inherent instability of parliamentary government" is obviously someone playing a practical joke on you.
Just playing here, but what else do we notice about the above list?
Four out of seven are federations.
Five out of seven speak English (actually, they all do, but that is because Swedes and Swiss are so well educated).
Five out of seven are monarchies (four even share the same monarch).
Five out of seven use the English Common Law.
Any of those may be partial causal factors, but the strongest correlation is still with parliamentary government.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Without the link, I acknowledge I'm at a disadvantage. I will attempt to find it, but can't afford the time today.
The model designers were equally surprised by the outcome.
You rightfully point out other possible causal factors. Federations. English cultural heritage. I would add underutilized land as a serious factor, as it gives an escape route when the state over compresses.
The problem with the parliamentary state - and again admit I must cite the study to be taken more seriously - is that power always consolidated/centralized over time. Relocalization of power primarily occured due to external factors such as wars.
Furthermore, the failed presidential systems you note were missing internal structural power devolution mechanisms.
Lastly, I described the mathematical advantages of the 50 snark through analogy. I used analogy because the math is difficult to understand. The description is accurate.
The entire post was designed to give an EXAMPLE of a structural issue, and then proceed to give an analogue describing the structural characteristics imparted by the 50 snark. Regardless of whether those characteristics are considered sufficiently important to protect compared to another configuration, the 50 snark does impart them.
If you would like to argue otherwise I am interested in hearing your counter. Regardless, this type of argument lies at the heart of modern system analysis. It is being applied in a broad range of technology and science fields. There is no reason beyond institutional inertia that it should not be applied to politcal science.
The 50 snark imparts the characteristics I described through analogy, described in that matter to make the math accessible. Argue or don't.
Regards.
It sounds an interesting model. I just don't see there are any necessary parallels with federal structures.
In terms of the failed Presidential systems I cited, you realise those are just examples? I was saying that all Presidential systems except the United States have failed to uphold any moderately decent respect for human rights and democratic processes. Those examples were of countries which began with Parliamentary systems and which converted to Presidential systems in order to embed the power of the autocrat. Robert Mugabe was the first Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. He later changed the Constitution, making the President the more important position and himself the President.
I will certainly agree that, initially, it was the Parliamentary model that failed these countries. The conversion to a Presidential system was a symptom, not the cause, of the breakdown.
If the authors of your report were going on from the inherent instability of Parliamentary systems to argue that Presidential systems are also inherently unstable, I am with them. Most governments around the world have failed. Even the tolerably decent ones listed above have hugely encroached on the liberties of the people. One of the best run territories in the world - Hong Kong - doesn't really have constitutional government at all.
Most Parliamentay systems have failed spectacularly and so have nearly all Presidential systems. All but one, actually.
I can't agree on the surplus of land, either. Look again at the list. The UK and Switzerland are among the most densely populated areas of the planet - and consequently among the wealthiest. Canada, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia appear to be sparsely populated, but are not. Virtually all the population lives in a very small area of the country - over 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. These countries happen to have huge, almost uninhabitable, tracts of land attached. But no-one lives there.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Certainly to argue about the the best shape of the nation-state is a daunting endeavor.
As far as land, Tocqueville certainly is on my side, but I'm not intending to press the the point.
My primary purpose of the post was to disseminate the structural characteristics imparted by the 50 snark because they are not readily obvious and may be overlooked. I appreciate the time you spent reading and responding.
Clearly, to make a more solid argument would require some time. If I find that time, perhaps I will elaborate in a separate post.
Thank you again for the response.
together unrelated items that have a few common properties and confering all the other properties of one (the 50 snark) onto the other (US's congress of 50 states).
To refute your statement that our government was designed for 50 states... our nation functioned with less than 50 states for most of its history. It functioned in the same manner as you described, only without the 50 snark. It would function in the same way with 48, 50, 52, 60, etc. states.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
O.K. it's the heat of the meat X the mass of your *ss / Avogadro's number. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what they taught me in flight school.
I get the whole pizza think, but where's the beer. He's not seriously saying you can have pizza without beer.
And I did see Jaws and Jaws II (the original was better), but I still don't see how 50 sharks fit into this equation.
(By the way, not trying to sound superior but "shark" was misspelled at least 50 times in the preceeding posts.)
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.
You want to call it quack, go ahead.
If you actually think this type of analysis isn't used in everything from internet stability to studying weather, ecosystems, chip design, sociology, psychology, biology, chemisty, physics, operating system design, etc, then you don't kow what you're talking about.
BrianH, thank you for the reply. Obviously, to make the argument, I need some visual models to convey the math. It is relatively inaccessible. Certainly, I make no claim to greatness, as it took me quite a while to understand it.
Nation-states are dynamic systems. The study of the properties of the Nation-state is possible, and is being done, through the application of modern higher mathematics. All I have done is present an argument - poorly, apparently - using modern higher mathematics.
I will not attempt this again without a full model behind it. It apparently is not worth the effort. Perhaps this is not even the proper venue.
BrianH, my hypothesis is that the system was in an expansion mode, and when it hit the 50 snark, it reached a relatively stable configuration. The 50 snark imparted added stability to the configuration.
Again thank you for a serious reply.
Sorry, JD I'm not questioning the mathematics, sounds intriguing.
You did an excellent job of explaining it, hell even I understood most of it. But the post was about Mexico as a 51st state which is a pretty fanciful premise to begin with and I was just being satirical in my reply.
My point was simply to illustrate my own ignorance on the subject and hopefully to get someone to unexpectedly blow coffee out their nose.
No disrespect intended, I've been a cutup and prankster most of my life and find many controversial posts funny rather than aggravating. In this case I found the whole premise of the original post hilarious.
To close, lighten-up a little, even if you wrote the 50 snark theory you got to admit my post was funny.
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.
Yes, it was funny.
I've put over a year of research studying models of the U.S. constitution. I'm seriously concerned about our present course. Put that together and I am a bit "sensitive".
Apparently I'm becoming Stuart Smally.
Thank you for the followup.
Regards.
If I recall, Mr. Reagan made a 'fanciful' remark too one time...something like 'tear down that wall'....I wonder what the reaction would have been if he had entertained it in the 1950's? The man had vision. I miss him.
"It is what it is."
Millions of illegal immigrants are already here. Nothing our current government is doing is going to change that fact.
Their most recent legislation was defeated for good cause. How long have immigrants been crossing the Mexican border illegally? We have allowed decades of inaction.
I am putting forth the idea of a long-term, proactive
solution instead of a response to the current stimuli.
Mexico has oil. They work and have family values we once embraced. They send money back home versus our 'deadbeat dad' laws. I believe we should buy that country...I think they would sell.
Jefferson bought Louisiana:
"Jefferson's prediction of a "tornado" that would burst upon the countries on both sides of the Atlantic had been averted, but his belief that the affair of Louisiana would impact upon "their highest destinies" proved prophetic indeed."
Seward's Folly:
"Seward, secretary of state under presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, supported American expansion and was eager to acquire Alaska. However, convincing skeptics that Alaska was an important addition to the United States was a challenge. Thanks to strong support by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate approved the treaty by a vote of 37-2 on April 9, 1867. Nonetheless, the appropriation of money needed to purchase Alaska was delayed by more than a year due to opposition in the House of Representatives. The House finally approved the appropriation on July 14, 1868, by a vote of 113-48."..then gold was discovered in Alaska...then oil.
My fanciful idea will be judged by the same harsh
mistress as yours...History.
Respectfully,
Bev from Arkansas
. . . to a post that doesn't have a single reccomendation?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
this one had 304 comments with no recommendations. Part 1 of the same topic by the same guy had 186 with one recommendation from a run of the mill troll.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
to anyone who has dreamed of small government (nonfunctioning gov't anyway). Well, the idea of total personal freedom is appealing for awhile.
I lived/worked in Mexico City for five years and saw the results of no environmental law enforcement; of builders unconstrained by tedious codes; of no Big Brother OSHA regulators. Hey, no one is even going to tell you 'Do Not Litter'.
It's not pretty and it's NOT what an American Conservative would like to live with.
BTW Bev, I think you're right. We'll see CanAmeriMex soon enough. But first I want about a century's worth of exporting our standards.