Redstate

During his single six-year term, Fox proposed many more (much-needed) reforms than he was able to get enacted.

Apparently Calderon will have a legislative plurality to build upon.  Unfortunately, a congressional coalition with the PRI will likely require accepting more corruption and a "grand coalition" with the PRD seems ideologically improbable.

We shall see.

the original confusion.  My reference to "New Mexico" meant what would be left over in Mexico without the northern provinces which would be PRD and PRI dominated.

As for Lopez vs. Calderon, I don't really agree with you.  Mr. Lopez does not want to help small business, he wants government to get more involved in the economy through nationalization (oil) and regulation.  I believe his intentions are good, but his policies would hurt the country.  Mr. Calderon (as well as Mr. Fox) have the right ideas, but the question is in implementation.  Mr. Fox was stifled by the PRI control of the Chamber of Deputies.  Hopefully the PAN controlled Chamber will be more amenable to pro-market reforms and anti-corruption efforts.  PAN will not be perfect, but they were the best of the 3 options if you want Mexico to continue growing richer.

now he'd like to clean up US elections.

for my misattribution to you re "brown faces" in response #89. Hint: quotation marks do wonders!

you can tell a lot about someone with their history of comments, or lack thereof. Its an interesting game to play when you see a trollish comment to see if that person has more than 3 comments in their history.

dead giveaway!

I was hoping no one would say - " Sheesh! Does that woman have an opinion about #@#$%& EVERYTHING? Take a break, Lady!"

I think this is a wonderful site - I'm just getting used to how things work here ( I was confused about the new thread/open thread thing -reminds me of Junior high and the older kids wanting to sell you passes to the elevator)and some of the lingo ie trolls and moonbats (is there a difference?). I'm guessing trolls are those who come in and pretend to be a Nazi, skinhead or KKK member hoping to be embraced and catching one of us saying something they can exploit. Moonbats are simply annoying.

That's a valid point. But, I still wonder, if Mexican industry and its economy begin to grow, that has got to have a positive effect on the number of people leaving and breaking into America. And by positive, I mean a decrease in Mexicans leaving their border. The way Congress should address this issue is by tightening the border; we've missed our deadline with regards to national reserve being stationed along the border. They're not all there yet. That needs to change. From the outside looking in, it probably doesn't look as if this is as big of an issue as it really is and by doing nothing, we're espousing the impression that it's not that important of a problem.

We learn to tell the mobys, the open liberal troublemakers, and such through experience.

Interact enough with other Republicans, and you learn the ways Republicans tend to think and write, and in particular the kind of Republicans who gravitate to Red State.

Does that mean we are excluding some Republicans as well as the rest?  No doubt, because in some cases it's deliberate.

And when mistakes happen even beyond that, it's always reversible.  I saw both sides of that during the Ben Domenech ordeal.  I got a vastly wrong impression of Mrs. Nachos because she wrote some diaries in great anger.  I also got blammed during that time.

Because yes, while one of the implicit goals here is to have debate, the point of Red State is not to have a free-for-all where all opinions are welcome.

The bloodbath of indiscriminate Blammings! The smell of Troll blood in the air! The sad, but inevitable Friendly Fire losses!

But you were merely wounded...able to recover to fight the Orc Wars anew!

historical perspective is so much better the hysterical perspective we see coming from our friendly leftist trolls!

...in the case of the Cajuns we are discussing 1) a group that was in the grand scheme recent cultural "kin" to all Europeans  2) a small enclave that never made up a bloc of sufficient size as a percentage of the total US population to become a destabilizing influence.

If 10% of the Cajuns had decided to move elsewhere in a dispersed pattern in, say, a generation, the  migrants as a group would have left little if any enduring mark upon culture in the areas to which they removed. They would not have ever been able to insinuate any of their differentiting characteristics upon the broader culture as a whole. Part of that is due to the small numbers, part is due to existing natural affinities for physical similarities.

Cajuns were, however, able to wield influence in that Louisiana is the only state with law based on tradition other than English Common Law.   But to look at a Cajun, the midwesterner did not automatically see the product of the bayou as being "the other."  

It's always a big temptation to merge just to get size or if a deal starts to look inevitable, while losing sight of the inner logic of the transaction. The problem in Mexico is the small oligarchy that likes things just the way they are. They must be swept cleanly away. If that can't be done (and to those who think I'm a Conquistador, it can only be done with the full and enthusiastic support of the Mexican people), then the deal makes no economic or political sense. If we find ourselves negotiating with and buying off the fat cats, then the merger is a bad idea.

Yes, I know there are a million sticky details inside of this, even for those who find the vision compelling. I'd love to see a full and intelligent debate about it, though.

Perhaps I did not state it clear enough. They want back what they lost.

Why don't I go ahead and use a word that everyone fears. Let's imagine an American Empire, encompassing much of the territory of Mexico.

Well, we do have California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, taken in what was inarguably an episode of imperial expansion, but that's not what you meant.  

This was an idea floated widely in the pre-Civil War period.  I'm opposed to American empire, but appreciate that you're clear enough about what you advocate actually to use the word.  So many others advocate it on the sly, with themselves as the main victims of their deception.  

The neutral position would be complete non-involvement and non-interference. We see a lot worse than that from some of our "friends" in Europe and up North.

the Canadians decided they wanted no part of Vietnam for example but they certainly did not send yroops to fight against us

You don't have to get involved in an armed conflict with us to have an anti-American position on something. Chavez and Fidel haven't sent any troops to fight against us in Iraq, either. That doesn't make them neutral.

First off, I have called no one a "name".  The title of my comment "Conquistador" is in reference to an approach, so that couldn't be it.  If you are referencing my "Su Loco", then you need to bone up on your Spanish.

Now, how can you suggest "annexing" the land of another sovereign nation and not consider that an invasion?  I really want to hear the explanation on that.

In regard to a referenda, what right would we have to put something before the Mexican people for a vote?  That is a violation of their sovereignty and in direct violation of the values and principles that we, a free democratic nation, hold most dear.

...requires proper acts of Congress. That's where you get to vote on whether this is a good idea. Are you afraid that someone will take that away from you?

And you didn't answer my question. What, to you, is the essence of the American-ness that you are so anxious to preserve from foreign corruption? Often when I ask people this question, I get a response that boils down to "Dude, if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Do you have a better-reasoned answer?

I've heard people complain about this, but what exactly is wrong with a continued reduction in corruption, presidential powers and increased econominc stability and growth?  Or is it that you're expecting these changes to happen over night?  Fox did an amazing job at tackling major problems existant in Mexico, even despite an opposing congress.  We'd be very fortunate to see Calderone continue in Fox's footsteps, especially now that PAN has a plurality in congress.  But its silly to expect Mexico to enter into the developed world over the course of one or even two Presidencies.  If things continue the way they are, then I think we'll be fortunate to see real visible improvements after this term and possibly a truley developed nation in the next couple of decades.  As rich in resources as they are, Latin and South America have great potential to be economic powerhouses, defnitely moreso then China or India.  Hopefully if Mexico ends up on the right track it will lead others in the region to follow them as well.  We've already seen major poltical improvements and increased stability, I think its only a matter of time before the economic stability follows.

For further refrence on Mexico's improvements over the last six years, I recommend reading the economic section of the cia factbook:

http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#Econ

And Vicente Fox's Wikipedia page, particularly the legacy part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox#Legacy

subsists only in believing "in freedom, individual initiative, self-determination, and strong communities of the like-minded," then why do so many people have to come here to be Americans?  They could be American in Mexico, Canada, or Pakistan.  

My view of what makes someone an American is much more special, and more robust.

It is unabashedly more ideological.  "Special" and "robust," on the other hand...  It excludes people like me and KDaddy, despite our being life-long citizens by birth of America, and reduces "Americanness" to assent to certain policies and to the expansionist parties and state that express them.  It actually sounds rather Soviet, or, if you will, Jacobin.

Doesn't really belong on this thread, but the geopolitical future appears to be multipolar and power-balanced. Our relative level of prosperity will depend on how well we manage our decline. It can be done well, there are plenty of historical precedents. If we manage badly, others (the holders of our sovereign debt for example) will have a lot to say about how our grandchildren will live.

All of this is reasonably certain (to a certified Cassandra like me at any rate). What is less certain but more threatening to freedom is the prospect of world war, which we may someday no longer be in a position to forestall.

Who would? Some Colonial Civil Service?

It seems to me they would be Americans legally the day their jurisdiction was admitted to the Union, as I presume you see to be the goal.

But, would all the residents of the jurisdiction be Americans by your definition, Americans believe in freedom, individual initiative, self-determination, and strong communities of the like-minded, on the date of admission? If not how would they become so?

I'm sensitive to the concerns those folks raise; anyone with a knowledge of late-19th and early 20th century immigration, and the rise of socialism in this country, would necessarily be sensitive to those concerns.

But if we import the folks who have kids, who want our values or identify with them, and who, frankly, are economically productive, we stay one step ahead of the curve. And we keep our culture intact. I don't give two shakes what color Americans are one, two, or twelve generations down the line. I care that they adhere to the same core principles, hold the same core beliefs, and love the same places and things and ideas that Americans now do.

This is probably controversial, but it seems to me that across most of America, non-immigrants have not much more demographic vitality than old Europe.

Eh. You live in New York. It depends. I know more three-kid families than two-kid families. It just depends on (1) where you live, and (2) the sorts of folks with whom you hobnob. The richer they are, the later and fewer their kids.

I won't fully engage your point (except to say that you've activated the most emotional, but not necessarily the most interesting, objection to an annexation of Mexico).

Do you believe that America's Anglophone culture is so weak and lightly-rooted that it will wither in the presence of the Hispanic and Mexican ones?

It's funny. The rest of the world is afraid of encroachments by our culture. I think Mexico's cultural taditionalists (and there are many of them) have more to worry about from us than ours do from them.

Side point: if we annex Mexico, you won't suddenly see 100 million brown faces crowding the deep South or the upper Midwest. Capital is more mobile than people, and today's Mexicans will benefit strongly from the merger without having to move.

Mexico currently generates about one-twelfth the economic output as we do, from about one-third as many people... By my rough calculations, if they can sustain a US-style annual productivity increase of 4%, it's about 35 years before they're in our league.

And I believe that's using an assumption that our growth rate for those 35 years is zero.

The only thing stopping PR from becoming a state is that they don't want it.  They'd rather stay as they are: vaguely under the great umbrella of US protection, but without the full responsibilities  and lack of relative independence that come with statehood.  That's why they keep voting down both full independence and statehood!

Am I reading your post correctly in that you are suggesting the hostile takeover of a sovereign nation?  Is that your version of spreading freedom?

Su loco.

Do you believe that America's Anglophone culture is so weak and lightly-rooted that it will wither in the presence of the Hispanic and Mexican ones?

I take it your immoderate answer boils down to: Yes.

I have a feeling de Tocqueville would disagree with you.

Re: Canada has had neutral to anti-American policies for the last 50 years

Please name these anti-American policies. Unless you are talking some minor trade disputes (and American hands are not very clean there) I can't think of a one.

is the language with the most speakers on the world, more even than English. Maybe the US would do well if more our our people would learn it.

Why is this such a scandal?

You've been given two distinct warnings before, and are apparently incapable of heeding them. Thus, this:

100 million brown faces don't have to move here to exact their ruin upon us if they have a vote.

Is not welcome at RedState, and as of this moment, neither are you.

...who is a very successful and well-known Canadian businessman. He is having his children learn Mandarin.

What's my point? That the center of gravity in human affairs has moved south and east. The US will decline (in relative terms) if we don't forge closer alliances with nations like India, Japan, Britain, Canada and yes, Mexico.

There are those who would prefer to maintain the fiction of an insular "American" culture. But to me the greatest blessing of being American is freedom. Laugh if you will, but the freedom of our grandchildren is at risk if we permit ourselves to decline.

to propose a trade....

How exactly are we supposed to hold a vote in Mexico?  By what legal authority could a vote held by us be binding?  How would we determine the winner; that is, how could we with any justification set a threshold for annexation to have won?

If things continue the way they are, then I think we'll be fortunate to see real visible improvements after this term and possibly a truley developed nation in the next couple of decades.

Mexico currently generates about one-twelfth the economic output as we do, from about one-third as many people. (This data comes from the CIA's country book and I don't know if it includes the output of the 6 or so million illegals in the US in the Mexican total, but I'm assuming it doesn't.) By my rough calculations, if they can sustain a US-style annual productivity increase of 4%, it's about 35 years before they're in our league. (I don't know what you mean by "truly developed.") The problem is that Mexico can't and won't achieve anything near this rate of productivity growth. They will continue to fall behind, even as they make the slow political progress you anticipate.

But much depends on how you define success. You're defining it as stability rather than prosperity. I don't know that Fox or (presumptively) Calderon have in mind to deliver improvements that will reduce the terrible poverty of much of Mexico. Their goal may rather be to do just enough to prevent a replay of 1910. I suppose the Spanish-blood oligarchy that really runs the country would be perfectly happy with that outcome. If so, then most of your post is absolutely right, but this part...

As rich in resources as they are, Latin and South America have great potential to be economic powerhouses, defnitely moreso then China or India.  Hopefully if Mexico ends up on the right track it will lead others in the region to follow them as well.

...is probably wrong.

I don't know which is worse -- the socialists or the oligarchs.  Despite having a supposedly free-market regime in place, Mexico still does not allow foreign investment in industries the oligarchs control, nor do they only foreigners to own land anywhere near the coast.  It's outrageous.  The socialists couldn't be any worse.

...to answer all of the challenges with this idea. (To my complete dismay, I'm considering writing it.)

You've identified one of the challenges, the linguistic one, which I rate as one of the minor ones. (If we annexed Mexico, we would not see wholesale redistributions of indigenous populations. The increased mobility would likely come from the more economically and socially adaptable.) The language question, however, is joined at the hip with the cultural question, which is a major objection to the idea. It's a chapter-length discussion, but there are many thoughtful Americans who for some good reasons are not willing to entertain the thought of a bicultural United States. I'm not very concerned about this for several reasons, although I would insist that the national language of the merged entity must be English. (My primary reason for that is to preserve the American Founding as the essential narrative of the new nation, or as I would call it, the new empire.)

The rationale for Wiedervereinigung was not economic but political. Helmut Kohl essentially did an LBO of the East, and the economically disastrous consequences were plainly predicted by everyone even as they were inking the deal. Our unification with Mexico would take place on a very different basis. I don't believe we would be importing poverty. I believe that American-style capitalism and industrial management will raise Mexican productivity rates rapidly. It's potentially the best kind of accretive acquisition. This would not happen overnight however, which is why I'm imaging a 50-year horizon to complete (or partially complete) the transaction.

Anglo-Canada- what are we waiting for? Let's do it. Most Canadians of my acquaintance would be in favor. Canada must be willing to dismantle much of its social-welfare apparatus before the deal would make sense, but my hunch is that many Canadians are ready for that too. Maybe it could be done over a 20-year period?

So, how do you differentiate trolls from people who simply have a different opinion than you and would like to discuss it?

How do you differentiate a circular argument from in which the other person honestly doesn't agree with you and would like to hone in on the issue separating his opinion from yours?

That's what debate is, after all.

You want a real troll, look for the people who pop up and deliberately slam your point of view. The posters who treat your perspective respectfully but question a point you made are simply trying to engage in debate.

Moe already gave you more of an answer than you deserve so I won't gild the lily.

activists wants to do with the US? Just simply encourage so many of their citizens to move to our country so they can just annex it over?

Could, shoulda, woulda...missed it.  Somebody needs to invent "paraphrasation marks" anyway.

comment!

You have been here long enought to KNOW that Neil's comment was right on the mark...facts to the contrary, the radicals HAVE been claiming that our southwest is 'Aztlan' and that they want it "restored."

Try contributing, instead of stirring!

Given that AMLO started out with a ten point lead in the polls as late as March, I suspect that the ruling party sees the current election result as an endorsement of the status quo.  Calderón's message, after all, was based on a rhetoric of fear for the opposition and a promise to "stay the course" with respect to economic policy.  Having won the elections, why would they make any substantive changes to a system that benefits the current elite?

I would add that unlike in the US, one cannot just declare oneself a member of the PAN party.  Of the three major parties in Mexico it is by far the most difficult to join, which is one way of limiting the political payoffs to a small number of party loyalsts.

HuskerBrown, who came blowing in like some kinda KKK skinhead undereducated trailor park redneck hick - and not in a good way. <grin>

He hated 'homos' and had to go.

Canada has had neutral to anti-American policies for the last 50 years with minimal interruptions. While it may be driven from Quebec, the rest of Canada falls in line.

Canada had the 4th largest military in the world after WWII. Today it is virtually defenceless. This is not the result of a passing political tiff of the moment.

Perhaps this from the European perspective or this from the Canadian perspective demonstrate that I am not alone in the perception that Canada is an European country.

Your attitude speaks for itself.

The radical activists want the other way around: so many Mexicans come here that the northern portion of 'Aztlan' is restored or reconquered for Mexico.

the USA got the best possible results from this election, if Calderon has indeed held on to win. What I mean is: the better candidate (for American interests) won, but a scare was hopefully thrown The Establishment in Mexico.

Greater prosperity and growth should indeed help reduce emmigration pressures over the long term. The problem is (from what I've read at least) Mexico has been backsliding over the last five years or so when it comes to economic reforms, and the result has been truly dissapointing growth.

Maybe this election will help jumpstart some much needed reform.

disarmament, Non-participation in ballistic missile defence, El Salvador.

on how many immigrants the US can absorb?

Do you believe all immigrants are Americans in your definition?

Re: Canada is a European country now.

The United States is a European country too, for crying out loud, belonging to the Anglosphere subculture of Europe (along with Anglo-Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the UK itself). Any merger with Canada would be culturally quite painless as the population would already speak English and be thoroughly imbued with American culture in ways that even other Anglo nations would not (most Canadians live well within range of US broadcasting and many have friends and relatives residing here). Be careful not to trash our cultural heritage (solidly European, with only small dashes of African and Native American and more recently Asian culture) spicing up the mix. Passing political disputes of the moment should not blind us to our national character or our past.

...another generation or two of deaths, and it will be rarer than Basque...

State & federal educators punished whole generations of elementary school students of my parent's generation and before for speaking French (in many cases the only language spoken in the home) in school.

We Cajuns are something different---relocated/removed from basically everywhere, America allowed us a measure of acceptance and anonymity.  You'll not find more military volunteers per capita anywhere in the country, with the possible exception of the Indian reservations.

between the Anglo-Canadians and the Franco-Canadians, and most of the truly looney leftwingery (not just garden variety old fashioned liberalism of the sort that is common to the US too) that comes out of Canada has its roots in Quebec. Did you know that in 2003 Anglo-Canadians actually supported the US invasion of Iraq, something which was not true of public opinion even in Britain or Australia?

Now to be sure, the United States is THE hyperpower and no one even comes close, but I don't think that gives us any license to go around insulting our closest kin. And again: passing political tiffs of the moment do not make for deep cultural rifts. And the Canadian-American tiff is indeed passing now that sensible leadership holds the reigns of power in Ottawa again.

Your attitude reminds me of my very rich aunt and uncle who, because they were rich, thought themselves not more fortunate but greatly superior to the rest of us, endowed with the right to harangue and (when possible) manipulate everyone else toward what they though was best. But they died alone, with only their money for comfort, abandoned even by their own children who couldn't stand them. Remember: God ever humbles the proud and is no respecter of nations.

Desire it?  I do not believe that I had ever spoken or corresponded with anyone who would even have considered the thought of merging with Mexico, except in sardonic jest, before today.  That's a big part of the reason why it smacked me as being so absurd.  It was "interesting" that you appeared willing to allow the people of Mexico a referendum to see if they'd like to join us, but there's nery a peep from you about allowing Americans to do the same?  Why's that? And how would you prophesy that vote going?  

You ask: Are you in "my tribe?"  I don't know, it seems every family has its black sheep.  Why don't you tell me if you think you belong to my tribe and why? It might help to read this first:

Unabashedly Unhyphenated: A nation at 230

Tell MEChA.

You can find my Mexican election thread for more, but I am aware that PAN is the right-of-center party in Mexico.  The PRD would be considered far left (close to Green) in the US but are in line with the socialist left of much of Latin America.

PAN has never controlled the legislature before, so it will be interesting to see if the combination of having the Presidency and the Chamber of Deputies will be better.  Before the institutionalized, corrupt PRI still held 45% of the Deputies but the PAN has won a plurality this time around.  Hopefully the legislature won't block good reforms this time as it has over the past 6 years.

I dont understand how you can say the Spanish blood oligarchy really runs the country.  How does that hold any more merit now then when liberals say the US is run by WASP's/corporate oligarchies?  I think it's unfair to critisize Fox for slow progress, when what Mexico really needed were his contractionary policies for stability in the first place.  It's led to a low constant inflation rate, stabilization of the peso, high national reserves, decreased poverty and especially extreme poverty, and an average income growth of 26%, mainly for the lower class.  And all of this was done with pro-market policies.  In comparison to Mexico 10, 20, and 30 years ago, this is a major improvement, this increased poverty and especially is not a facade of progress like several centuries ago, this is the real deal.  Im not exactly finding where you see Mexico falling behind here.  And I dont see how you can accuse Fox and PAN of only doing enough to maintain stability without progress, what in Fox's time in office has lead you to believe this?

Also, they dont need a US style increase of 4%, they need a Sino style increase of 4%, which isnt nearly as difficult.  As things progress they shouldnt have a problem achieving high levels of growth for awhile.

are correct.  But I feel the need to point out that means the average income in Mexico is about $10,000 a year which is far higher than any other Latin American country and far above the international average which I believe is about $1,000 a year or so.

"They will continue to fall behind, even as they make the slow political progress you anticipate."

That, however, is untrue.  First, the gap has been decreasing so they cannot "continue" to fall behind.  Mexico needs growth in the 7-8% range for a couple decades to totally catch up with the US.  That is unlikely.  However, as Michael Barone pointed out Puerto Rice is about a third as rich as the US and all citizens are free to emigrate, but they don't.  It does not take equal incomes to prevent the drive for mass immigration.  People prefer to stay near family and in a country they know.  They are willing to work for much less to stay put.  If Puerto Rico is a guide, then Mexico may not be far off of an equilibrium with low levels of immigration.  So it could take one or two more Presidencies with good market reforms creating 5-7% growth to bridge enough of the gap to prevent the pressure to emigrate.

Part of why I remain a fairly big booster of certain kinds of immigration is that I'd like to import productive folks who produce kids.

That is 100% right. It couldn't be more right. I'm often afraid to say it because the usual answer is something about how evil it is to sacrifice our cultural integrity (and precious bodily fluids) just for economic benefits.

Japan is dying. Old Europe is already dead. India is demographically very strong, as is most of Latin America. The next twenty years in China will be very very interesting as the one-child policy's effects play out. (This may be why they are playing a market-share game while they can.)

This is probably controversial, but it seems to me that across most of America, non-immigrants have not much more demographic vitality than old Europe. We have more, but not much more. It's America's floridly fertile immigrants that are putting our overall numbers near the middle of the pack. Let's import more demographic vitality. America needs it, for one thing. For another, we will be leading with our strength, since the brightest and best young people in the world generally want to be here instead of where they are now.

I am being trollish by pointing out historical facts?

If you disagree with my assertion then please document the existence at some point of history of a nation or at least some sort of entity called "Aztlan" in the present Southwest of the United States. And this Aztlan is not to be confused with the Axtec Empire which of course did exist, but occupied only the southern and central portions of Mexico. (Note: the Aztecs did claim to have come from the north and they did have some ethnic kin in the area, e.g., the Utes, but most native Americans in the region were of Penutian, Hokkan or Athabascan ethnic stock).

Perhaps I have been wrong in thinking people who particpate on this website have a perferrence for real-world facts and historical accuracy. For my part, I don't see we do ourselves any favor by invoking mythical nations as a basis for this or that policy toward our neighbors.

but how easy would it be to assimilate not just millions of Spanish-speakers but also quite a lot of Native Americans speaking Nahuatl, various Mayan dialets, Zapotec and so forth? Our Navaho (100,000+ of them) have managed to become Americans while maintaining their native tongue and ways, rather like the Cajuns of Lousiana, but I'm none too sanguine we could pull it off with Native populations numbering several million.

And then there's the economic factors. Integration with East Germany has pretty much hamstrung West Germany's economy for over a decade. Imagine what integration with Mexico would do to ours!

I still think Anglo-Canada would be the better merger partner if that deal ever shows up on the table.

Why do people get all worked up about alleged tamper proof identification cards?

Isn't counterfeit proofing far more important?

"Dead-Proof" ID cards. Knock off the dead vote, and the Dem Party is decimated!

Re: People will always have a tendency to maintain their cultural space even if they think they have a desire to adopt some other.

I certainly have strong rservations about the annex Mexico idea: at most I think it might ultimately be psosible to annex (very hypotheticallY) the northern provinces which are gravitating into our cultural orbit slowly but surely: central and southern Mexico are another beast entirely.

But let's remember we have swallowed other cultures whole. The most noteworthy being the French Cajuns of Louisiana, who still have their own language (An aberrant French dialect that would give a collective heart attack to  L'Academee back in Paris) and who manage somehow to think of themselves as both Americans and yet also as something else: I recall a bed and breakfast proprieter in New Orleans telling me a bit about his family history (in very Southern-accented English) and differentiating constantly between "them" and "us". Yet he had a big old American flag out in front of the establishment and a picture of his father in a WWII unform on the mantle.

doesn't want to become a state because its Commonwealth status is too lucrative.

If they ain't dead, it's a great imitation.

That all makes sense. I think the label "troll" is often thrown out a little too easily these days, but it happens just as easily in liberal blogs.

Seems both sides have set their signal-detection equipment so tightly that many actual signals are getting thrown out with the noise. But it's understandable, I guess, given the current animosity each side has for the other.

Facts are rarely dispositive when nationalist myths are the subject of discussion.  Yes, you're correct to write that the ancestors of today's Mexicans and Mexican immigrants did not inhabit the US Southwest, and that Aztlan did not exist.  However, to the extent that the newly-immigrated Mexican inhabitants of California, Arizona, etc. come to believe that the land is theirs by right, those facts will be replaced with ones more suitable to the desired narrative.  Man is a reasonable animal; he can find reasons for anything he wants to do.  

But wasn't that a quote of the comment the poster was replying to?

With apologies to KDaddy.

The democrats in my state elected Mel Carnahan, who was really and truly dead.  We had to send his wife to the Senate as a stand-in.

but only as neutral (the Canadians decided they wanted no part of Vietnam for example but they certainly did not send yroops to fight against us). For real, honest-to-God anti-American actions check out Hugo Chavez, good old Fidel, the Iranian Mullahs, Dear Leader Kim and a host of others. Canada is not even remotely in that cogort.

members of the Anglosphere. They are the free riding, little brothers. The Canadians, including the unassimilated French, are most certainly NOT imbued with American political culture and spend a fair amount of time defining why and pointing that out to each other. The Canadian government is not based on the assumption that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. They've got a Queen and power flows from the top down. That's European.

America has European roots but it explicitly, violently broke from them. That's what yesterday was about. Canada still has European ties and enjoys them.

However we do both have lots of common roots. That's why the benefits to both parties of any closer association are small and the irrational costs high.

Mexico, on the other hand, has few common roots but senses the advantages of moving in our direction. It would benefit us both greatly to acclerate, make explicit and firm changes in this direction. And we're going to end up with lot's of Mexicans regardless. Might as well get the geographic assets as well as the human ones and greatly reduce the size of the border we need to defend.

The first two comments are true enough... I was just providing some context and some facts...

The third, however, isn't quite correct---Louisiana followed the Napoleonic Codes (a system by which precedent is not binding, and only explicitly passed laws are, well, Law) from the colonial days.  The French, then Spanish, then French colonial days... The Acadians were merely tolerated, situated on the land west of the Mississippi, and accompanied the rest of Louisiana into U.S. statehood with their system of government intact.

It's still superior to the foul dreck of judge-made law, though ;)

And unless you did not read my response, you knew that. America's "Anglophone" culture will reject it, and violently toss it out if push comes to shove. Rather than wither, it will take blood.  

Disbelieve it at great risk.  

threaten to unilaterally amke it independent without the tax breaks.

They are easily identified and dealt with. They recognize their hold can be threatened by a rising middle class. They can be provided a more secure, more liquid, and more rapidly appreciating fortune. And they get the opportunity to buy seats in the world's most exclusive debating club.

Katie's Daddy, your view of what constitutes America's essence is rooted in the rich but very shallow soil of shared experiences and common ancestry. It's easy to see why you make the statements you do, with the passion you have: because the American-ness that you cherish is automatically threatened by anyone who comes from a different heritage. That's also why you believe America can and should only have a small percentage of foreign-born residents at any point in time: because it takes a certain amount of time for newcomers to have enough shared experiences to feel themselves part of the "tribe." You are straightforwardly and unapologetically xenophobic.

But this is no more or less than what the children of every nation on Earth are taught.

My view of what makes someone an American is much more special, and more robust. Americans believe in freedom, individual initiative, self-determination, and strong communities of the like-minded. It's not enough to cherish a shared past. What's required is to cherish a shared and vital present and future. The Founding was as much a unique experiment in governance as anything else, and America is still the only nation in the world that is permanently committed to its principles.

America is great because we have figured out a better way to organize human societies. It depends crucially for its success on the continued independence of our people (which today is under committed and sustained attack by our internal opposition). Do you believe that this seed is built into the human spirit, and may flower in any individual regardless of his or her native land and tongue, and once attained will resist all efforts to take it away? I do.

You've now changed your argument in a subtle but crucial way. You started by decrying a course of action (annexation of Mexico) that you believe would induce the Americans to vengeful and bloody rejection of the foreign element. Now you're saying that, per Burke, that selfsame foreign element will not, indeed may not proceed beyond their desire to join the American nation. Do you think this whole idea is about a hostile takeover of Mexico? Or even more ludicrously, about a hostile takeover of the United States?

Someone called me a Conquistador here last night. I've been called much worse by more intelligent people, but (perhaps mistakenly) I assumed you realized I'm only interested in the annexation because it seems like both nations desire it and would benefit. There's no invasion and no takeover here.

Exactly where do you locate the essence, the sine qua non, of the American "tribe" (your word)? I for example am a child of European immigrants and English was not my first language. Am I a member of your tribe?

In the long term, meaning over the next twenty years or so, it's preferable that the Mexican economy get on a sounder footing. Hopefully Calderon, if elected, can work towards that goal.

The downside for us is that one way in which PAN is working for their own immediate electoral success is to encourage poor Mexicans to leave the country. This is gerrymandering on a national scale. If the immigrants were PAN supporters PAN would not be so eager to see them leave.(PRI is opposed to immigration for this reason)

As long as these immigrants end up being unable to vote in either the US or Mexico the net result is positive, politically. (Not economically.)

If they end up getting the francise in America the result of immigration will be to move Mexico to the right at the expense of moving the US to the left.

Re: If relations between the US and Mexico get real bad, then maybe our politicians would close the border.

More likely we'd feel bound to acept even more Mexicans as refugees from tyranny the way we take in Cubans. Of course we'd probably get more middle-class Mexicans then.

I only responded because your original post seemed to suggest that the PAN was "leftist".

You are clearly more sanguine than I am about the PAN party when it comes to questions of reform.  I've had business people in Mexico tell me that the current administration has done little or nothing to help small businesses, while at the same time perpetuating the same protectionist policies for the ruling oligarchy.  Consider the legislation passed a few months ago to protect the media concessions given to the large national television networks, televisa and azteca.  These were passed because of a fear of "deregulation" of the media if the PRD came to power.  Consider as well the accusations surrounding the children of the current "first lady" who are reported to have a monopoly on the importation of contraband.  And the list goes on.

Comparisons between López Obrador and Chávez are overrated-- as I'm sure you'll agree.  More importantly, López Obrador has few if any connections to established business interests, which in my mind is an advantage if you're trying to reform the status quo.  Finallly, he was the one candidate who understood the high social cost for mexico of current migration patterns: broken families, the loss of the most ambitious citizens, etc.   In any case, the outcome of the election shows, once again, that negative compaigns work, and that enough people were convinced that AMLO was a "danger for Mexico" to undermine his ability to win.  

If there is a silver lining, in my opinion, it's that the PRI is pretty much dead in MX now.  Madrazo barely broke 20% and the PRI now has the lowest representation off the three major parties in the congress.  

...the dead people have to vote for dead candidates.  Granted, that'll probably mean Michigan's next governor would probably be some ghost or another... who could more than likely nevertheless run the state better than Jennifer Granholm.

The north is also the richest part of Mexico.  If we bordered southern Mexico, the problem would be worse  rather than better.  Furthermore, the northern parts of Mexico are also PAN strongholds which means the "New Mexico" would be decidedly leftist.

And that's without even considering the whole war thing.

I wanted him to be as big a jackass as Chavez. If relations between the US and Mexico get real bad, then maybe our politicians would close the border.

  Besides, I actually believe that Mexico could use a little real socialism. Not the part about nationalizing industry, they already got that. I mean the part about a basic social safety net for its poorest citizens. Then not so many would flee here.

I mention that to thank you for your contributions. You've added significantly to the discussion...more than I can say for most of the new arrivals! :-)

How about re-annexing California first.

40% of Canadians do not want to be Americans, 40% of Mexicans do. Canada is a European country now. The integration problems would be large and expensive. Alberta might be the only exception. Do Canada after Mexico.

I think the tough part with Mexico would be lawyers, theirs and the oligarchs. I would also not do all of Mexico at one time. State by state with requirements and milestones. Just like in the 19th century. Fifty years probably is realistic, though if we get the pattern down, once it starts, it will probably gain a lot of momentum.

We might also want to consider re-introducing federalism into our system. The original constituion accomodated a wide variety of cultures successfully.

There may be more prosperity with Calderone than with AMLO and his foreign policies will surely be more to our liking, but AMLO recognized the human export business to be shameful. It may be that Calderone's economic policies are not a tide that raises all boats. Calderone represents, among others, the oligarchs who see emigration as a way to ship the human refuse they don't want to deal with overseas or at least overriver. Mexico will remain a potential failed state and an immense security vulnerability for the US. Congress could resolve this problem through an act to annex the northern half of Mexico into the US.

How could we justify declaring that we own part of Mexico?

You realize that'd be an act of war, right?

PAN came so close to losing the Presidency.  I know its not an sure set deal, but things certainly look brighter from my perspective.  I just wasnt sure why people were so pessimistic about the track Mexico is on right now.

If your intent was not to call him a Conquistador, that's fine.  But, really, it's your responsibility to be careful about precisely how you come across - and, yeah, I'm one of the official referees, and I'm telling you that you screwed up with that.  Although I did misread the su loco bit.  (Shrug) Jove nods.

As for your walkback... I'm fascinated on how, say, the Gadsen Purchase, the acquisition Alaska and the arbitration of the Oregon Country can be seen as an invasion. For that matter, you seem to have this odd, top-down view of the rights of a people to make their own decisions; it would be no more a violation of the sovereign rights of the people of Mexico for them to freely choose annexation than it's a violation of the rights of the shareholders of a corporation for them to choose to merger their company with another.

But that is far getting far afield.  Tell blackhedd that you're sorry for incorrectly stating his position so that we can all move on.

I was talking only about what it will take for Mexico to get to today's first-world level of productivity. I wasn't talking about them catching up to us, and I wasn't talking about raw GDP size. Productivity is what determines prosperity, not GDP size. And productivity only comes from correctly and efficiently deploying capital. And that requires freedom as a fundamental precondition. Command and semi-command economies (like Mexico's) fail on the latter requirement.

...several important points. In the first place, cf. my #72 above: I'm not talking about Mexico catching up to us, merely of achieving the status of "truly developed," in the formulation of Tagxy, to whom I was replying.

It's apples and oranges to compare Mexico with other less-developed nations. Mexico's per-capita GDP of roughly $10,000 includes a very large amount of mineral production, a lot of value derived from their privileged trading relationship with the US, and also the remittances of about 6 million illegals in the US. What is true is that Mexico's distribution of wealth is highly asymmetric, with a great deal of very serious poverty, which is a human tragedy that should be addressed, as well as the source of political instability.

5-7% annual growth over twelve years (your two more Presidencies) is a remarkably ambitious (and unachievable) goal, but not necessarily what is needed to solve the poverty problem. In the first place, some of that growth will come "for free" along with population growth (Mexico's birth rate is far higher than ours). Second, it's easy to goose growth with more mineral production, and to invest in already-productive sectors of the economy. Third, growth is always achieved in spite of government activity, not because of it, and Mexico's business class has the ability and access to capital to grow more. But none of this does anything to bring prosperity to the truly poor.

Your response implicitly assumes that our priority in regard to Mexico is to relieve the pressure for illegal emigration to the US. Fair enough, that's certainly the top-of-mind issue. But there is far more to the picture. Certainly if you care primarily about the illegal problem, it seems like a solution for Mexico to grow a little bit and stay politically stable. And that also fits with the objectives of Mexico's elite class, who presumably want primarily to avoid another revolution.

But there are a lot of other, longer-range objectives, including geopolitical ones, that would be served by getting Mexico into the first world economically and (eventually) annexed to the United States. This can't be done without a wholesale change in Mexico's prevailing economic (therefore its political) order undertaken with the assent of the Mexican people. As I said upthread, this is a book-length topic.

would ever happen. The Mexicans, for all their corruption, are notoriously adamant against foreign troops on their soil.

I believe America's culture and national essence are strong enough to entrain others and induce them to want to adopt it.

And I believe that the nature of tribes, nature of man, and humanity's natural prejudices, in the Burkean sense, proscribe such from ever progressing beyond want. People will always have a tendency to maintain their cultural space even if they think they have a desire to adopt some other.

Supposedly there are those who come at this from some decidedly oikophobic slant, but usually I find after probing there are econocentric ideations operating in the background rather than true hate for home and extended family.

between this election and the US elections of 2000 (in Florida) and 2004 (in Ohio)?

The ballots are hardly counted and already the left (López Obrador supporters)is claiming voter fraud. Typical! Lose a free and fair election, and throw mud at the results. If you can cast doubt on the validity of the results, you can undermine anything the government does, and (hopefully) win the next election. (Or in the case of Mexico, bring about an uprising to replace with guns, what they were unable to do with the ballot!)

Never mind that Mexico requires tamper-proof voter IDs, that include a photo and fingerprint... or that three people examine that ID before you are allowed to vote...or that they use paper ballots which can then be re-counted if necessary!

NO! By starting a campaign to bring the results into question, you can undermine the results, and (they hope) bring about change!

The López Obrador supporters are Democrats!  

is to pretend to not inderstand a point, and to argue in circular arguments that take up people's time answering and reanswering the same question over and over.

Then of course, when called on this behavior they always respond with, "Why are you trying to stifle debate?" "Are you afraid of opposing opinions?" yatta yatta yatta!

Another troll behavior, and, I might add a couple of them are online right now, is to ALWAYS take a contrary opinion in a thread. It is instructive with these types to go back and examine some of their previous posts and discover that they have taken opposite stances before!  These guys REALLY get annoying!

Moonbats are easy to recognize. They usually start out by quoting KnownFacts™ or BushLied™ or ConspiraciesRUs™

Invariably it is BushCheneyRumsfeldJews™ that is responsible for the evils of the world!

Mexico has a far more sophisticated voting system than we do. Tamper proof voter-id!! What a concept. Perhaps we can get the Mexicans to come here and help us set up something similar.

I've proposed (here and elsewhere) annexing all of Mexico and never managed to excite a complete debate. I think it would take 50 years but it could (and should) be done. The final act would be a referendum by the people of Mexico, answering Neil Stevens' question about legitimacy.

Mexico's problem is not the Mexicans. It's Mexico's corrupt, oligarchic leadership. If Calderon seriously tries to challenge it, he may end up doing for Mexico something like what Gorbachev did for the USSR.

I can only assume theyve had to deal with real fraud refers to south and central America, and not our Democrats! ;-)

Anyone who loses an election in Latin or South America tends to cry fraud (i.e. Flores in Peru's election).  But it's unfair to make a comparison to the US, because theyve had to deal with real fraud.

As a good general rule, hostile takeovers do not involve referenda.  There are numerous arguments against annexing portions of Mexico - aside from everything else, working out land rights would take forever and a week - but blackhedd was rather explicitly not calling for an invasion.

Also, there are rules about calling posters here names, and you get to be the first guy I've noticed doing it.  Retract, please.

Moe

PS: I don't care who else is doing it; I care that you are.  Life Ain't Fair.

Moonbats are what some people call the radical lefties.

Mobys are the lefties who come on here pretending to be righties, and say things that make us look bad or try to create internal splits.

Trolls are an old Internet term, going back to the heyday of Usenet, referring to people who makes posts for the sole purpose of stirring up arguments.

Meant for the Open Thread of course. My apologies.

I'll just be over on that thread retyping it........     :/

Remember there's lots of Americans that can vote in Mexican elections. And a deal could be structured so that it would be acceptable to the majority of Mexicans. 40% of them would rather live here already. Not that hard to do, if we want to.

You should be aware that the PAN is on the right side of the political spectrum.  The irony, of course, is that in Mexico the right-leaning party's pro-business agenda has tended to merely re-enforce the status quo, i.e. institutionalized corruption, the creation of private monopolies for the oligarphy, and a general disregard for the majority of mexicans who live on far less than $10 / day.

As I've said before on a few other occassions, most Americans have a very limited understanding of the complexities of Mexican society.  To map the political categories of the US onto Mexico is to lose a sense of that complexity.

Just came back inside from a beautiful launch of the shuttle Discovery. I was about 10 miles away at Patrick AFB and you could feel the ground tremble as her rockets lifted her into space. Truly awe-inspiring.

Good Luck to the Discovery and her crew

The Mexicans can hold it all by themselves for their part and we can hold the vote for our part.

If there is a groundswell of support in Mexico, then I could agree with us annexing those Mexican states that vote to secede from Mexico and join us.

I don't see it happening, though, especially since as Adam points out, it's the southern states that are the ones with the most economic problems.

your Biblical exegesis or your assumption about my doctrinal alignment. What is puzzling is your apparent attribution of either "a divine call to destroy borders" or "mandating that a nation remove its borders" to me. I don't recall saying or implying anything of the sort.

That's the short of it.

There are simply peoples and cultures who do not mix, will not mix and probably cannot ever mix except in the most superficial ways - and even then it will be only at the margins of the cultures, not within the opposing cores.  Those who posit otherwise deny human nature, usually for the sake of some dubious economic utility.  No serious student of history, of human nature or of America's historical majority ethnicity can travel intellectually far down the path laid out by any conceptual uniting of Mexico with America without figuring out that it will not work.  Only the economist with his head buried in the numbers, ignorant to or dismissive of the nature of man, can continue far with such lunacy.

Ultimately human nature would win out, as it always will, and those caught in the middle would be harmed, or killed. Having too much faith in man to behave peacefully while being chafed by some too-alien other may be laudable on some levels, but it is just flat-out stupid. Three fourths of Puerto Ricans cannot understand english, which by this time would be a good indicator as to whether they can ever be "expected" to learn it by mandate, which is something that would necessarily come part-and-parcel with statehood. Even if Puerto Ricans were to vote to petition for statehood, and they nearly did last time, Congress would be foolish to act upon it: thanks to the illegal alien invasion, Americans today have their opposition-to-balkanization-meters tuned more finely than at any time since about 1920.  Best we give that island it's independence, or give it back to Spain.  Sometimes the spoils of war are not worth the hassle keeping.

Those of us with European roots, particularly those of us of Anglo-Saxon stock, will not go quietly into the mosh pit that some fantastic, buffoon-imposed annexation of Mexico would require.  Advocacy for the Quebecuois-zation of this nation will be seen for what it is:  an attempt to render us as Jefferson so aptly warned against in Notes on Virginia  ,a "heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." Mex-America could never be other than visciously incompatible.  The fact that Mexico and most other states to our south have a hot market for things like "kidnap insurance" should be enough to give pause to those who have designs to share our franchise with these sorts of "others."  Apparently for a few it does not; I take note when someone's racialist-tinged econocentric commentary reveals no thought of what adding Mexican states to our electoral mix would do. Hint: 100 million brown faces don't have to move here to exact their ruin upon us if they have a vote.

The rest of the world does not know our true culture, it knows only of the exported and distorted Hollywood-Madison Avenue creation that is Pop Cuture.  Unfortunately, thanks to the gross negligence of government schools, there are many Americans who cannot differentiate the two.  Heck, even Senator Mel Martinez (an argument against our electing foreign-born to any station above dog catcher if there ever was one) thinks the exportation of Angelina Jolie movies is Americanizing the rest of the world.  The popular American culture the rest of the world knows is ephemeral and subject to change by the next invented fad or trend.  

The American culture of which you write has no attachment to the things that bind us.  The deeper culture is perhaps best explained by the observations of Tocqueville, not by the silly utterances of Sean Penn and globetrotting spectacle of Michael Jackson. What the rest of the world sees as "American Culture" will be totally different five years from now, the French's weird fixation with Jerry Lewis notwithstanding.

Let's say you're right. We still should annex Mexico (and don't forget, I've said it will take 50 years to do). Our superior culture will simply crush the foreign element, and a homogenous Anglophony will spread comfortably south toward the Yucatan. No problem!

I don't mean to disrespect your obviously passionately-held views, although it's hard to stifle a chuckle. Try reading your long post out loud, and you'll see why so many people refer to us as xenophobes.

To be serious for a moment: I believe America's culture and national essence are strong enough to entrain others and induce them to want to adopt it. You fear that the attempt to do so will produce corruption and even bloodshed as Americans reject it. But you really don't have to worry, because if a majority of Americans think like you, then no annexation will happen.

In a Sociology class learning that one of the problems in a society is that rising expectations alway rise faster than results. You point out that things have gotten better in Mexico under Fox. Well, that is probably part of the problem then. As conditions get better, expectations rise...but faster than conditions.

The very quote shows that God recognizes that there are various nations, tribes, tongues, and people.   And though, according to Peter, Christians a themselves a nation, that is not to be understood as a divine call to destroy borders.

Besides that, Mister Solas, I assume based on your handle that you're Reformed.  If so, then you should know that it is the elect out of those tribes, tongues, nations and people who comprise the kingdom.  

Tough to determine at the border who those folks are, isn't it?  After all, not all who say "Lord Lord" get in, do they?

Finally, one of those solas is Sola Scriptura, and I defy you to find the verse of scripture mandating that a nation remove its borders.  In fact, you'll find the opposite.

if it weren't so close to the truth.

that the Church is a universal institution, it does not follow that America should be, or even could be. Grant to Ceasar that which is Ceasars.

And you just missed out a darned blistering email, Leon.

Annex Mexico???!!!  

Heck, Americans aren't ever going to let Puerto Rico become a state because, quite frankly, it's a bad "fit" for our culture. Yet there are supposedly thoughtful people here bloviating about the wonders and benefits of our sharing the franchise with Mexico. It's as if culture has been rejected as irrelevant to America in their thought processes.  

Astounding!  Dumbfounding!

Methinks somebody celebrated the fourth by downing a fifth.

I'm in the South West here, in Texas.  And Mexico used to own us.  And as I recall, Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin weren't Indians.  Nor were they Spanish.  As a matter of fact, there was a very large German contingency here back when Mexico owned us, so to speak.

But all that poppycock about winning at San Jacinto is probably just right-wing hogwash.

but for the sake of those trailing in their wake, it must be pointed out that the "great multitude that no one could count ... standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb" are most emphatically neither exclusively Anglophones nor exclusively non-brown of face, but rather "from every nation, tribe, people and language", and all temporal policy decisions--and those who make them--will be eternally judged in light of that glorious reality.  

Katie's Daddy, your view of what constitutes America's essence is rooted in the rich but very shallow soil of shared experiences and common ancestry.

Shallow?  Your cavalier desire to annex the third world in the name of economic expediency (Comments elsewhere reveal oikophobic, econocentric and neo-corporatist sentiments) renders me doubtful, at best, that you have even the least level of respectful attachment to the kernel of which I speak.  Such shallowness of attachment to cultural soul would, I suppose, make it easy to place so little value on this nation's heritage that casting it aside is no more of a chore than taking out the trash. Your words lend credence to the concerns and admonitions about likely threats to keeping "who we are" as expressed by Jefferson in Notes on Virginia, John Jay in Federalist #2 and George Washington in his Farewell Address, which I share wholeheartedly.

It's easy to see why you make the statements you do, with the passion you have: because the American-ness that you cherish is automatically threatened by anyone who comes from a different heritage.

No, Americanism as I define it is equally threatened by disaporation due to sheer numbers (history hints that no more than 10% of our resident population should be foreign-born) as it is by the wholesale attachment-in-franchise (hint:I don't want them to help me choose a president - ever) of an incompatible other, like Mexico.

That's also why you believe America can and should only have a small percentage of foreign-born residents at any point in time: because it takes a certain amount of time for newcomers to have enough shared experiences to feel themselves part of the "tribe." You are straightforwardly and unapologetically xenophobic.

I desire to make sure that the nation my ancestors bled and died to create still exists for my daughter and descendants. You can call it what you like.  Surely, I'm no xenophile, but to brand my disgust for the balkanization of places like South Florida and parts of the southwest xenophobic is a stretch.  I happen to like other cultures...when-I-go-to-visit-them.  Not when they are imposed upon my family as a result of bad government policy decisions, Hart-Celler and Simpson-Mazzoli in this case

But this is no more or less than what the children of every nation on Earth are taught.

American exceptionalism is taught to the children of the world?  That's great!  Then the rest of the world knows how exceptional we are.  Oh, wait, no they don't (Aside: I'm mocking you here, not misunderstanding you).

My view of what makes someone an American is much more special, and more robust. Americans believe in freedom, individual initiative, self-determination, and strong communities of the like-minded. It's not enough to cherish a shared past. What's required is to cherish a shared and vital present and future. The Founding was as much a unique experiment in governance as anything else, and America is still the only nation in the world that is permanently committed to its principles.

Sorry, you're not selling me on the notion that affinity for a "shared past" is irrelevant.  Viewing Americanism solely through the lens of some shared present and future is absurd.  What you advocate is akin to a nation infected by cultural alzheimers disease in which with each new day the rules are rewritten by imbeciles.  That there are those who can call themselves American but dismiss and denigrate its foundations is indeed sad, an indictment of contemporary enculturalization practices, for a house without a foundation will soon fall. It is also an indictment of a government that for too long has shirked its responsibility to the people in favor of special interests.  The founding was an experiment in unique governing that came about due to a specific set of circumstances that were the result of things that had happened in the past. And, whether you like it or loathe it, America's shared-past foundation, it's operating system "kernel," is closed-source written in "Protestant Christian" terms. This core cannot be removed, for to remove it the whole must neccessarily become something other than America.  Similarly, subjugate America's historical majority ethnicity to instant plurality status by annexation of a monolithic other, and the nation that results is not America either.  

America is great because we have figured out a better way to organize human societies.

And any nation that submits and commits itself to a couple dozen generations of life under English Common Law and Protestant morality might actually be able to evolve into a reasonable facsimile of it. And thats a big "might."  

It depends crucially for its success on the continued independence of our people (which today is under committed and sustained attack by our internal opposition). Do you believe that this seed is built into the human spirit, and may flower in any individual regardless of his or her native land and tongue, and once attained will resist all efforts to take it away? I do.

I don't believe that our system is for every culture, nor should it be.  For instance, I believe every attempt to reform a Muslim land with the expectation of the establishment of a stable representative democracy similar and friendly to ours to be a fools errand.  It is the height of arrogance for us to expect any other nation-state to adopt and put into practice our system, which is  based on more than a millenia of cultural growth, in any vastly different intellectual medium.  What does our system look like with the old English codes stripped out and replaced by Shari'a?  Probably not much different than an America with its mores, values, standards and expectations infected by the metastastic effects of mordida and kleptocracy.

As I implied, the gentleman in question knows exactly what he is doing, and his choice is rational. (Far less rationally, most non-immigrant New Yorkers of my acquaintance try to make their pre-schoolers learn French.)

Mandarin has been the language with the most native speakers on Earth for quite some time now. But I don't think you'd be teaching it to your kids if this were 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago.

As I said, the center of gravity in human affairs has moved away from the United States.

Even the Chinese know they have a problem coming.

I'm as into pessimism as the next guy, easy. But I gotta be honest with you: I don't see a reason for long-term concern. We have children. The rest of the world either does not, or is trying to reach that point. The future lies with kids, not with present numbers. Part of why I remain a fairly big booster of certain kinds of immigration is that I'd like to import productive folks who produce kids.

The Chinese don't. The Japanese don't. The Indians are trending away from it.

Does the end of American hegemony mean the loss of American freedom?  How so?  

...wasn't about immigration. It was about annexing part or all of Mexico.

Why don't I go ahead and use a word that everyone fears. Let's imagine an American Empire, encompassing much of the territory of Mexico. (If you prefer, you can use "sphere of influence," but to me the historical baggage of that phrase is even more sinister.)

The cultural mixing which has the xenophobes and the less-principled anti-immigration types so exercised would be minimal. We would be bringing America to them, not the other way around. Is this colonialism? Maybe. Imperialism? Maybe. Is it good for the Mexicans and desired by them? Maybe.

Is such an outcome undesired by a lot of Americans? At this point, yes indeed. This is certainly a radical idea, but it may also be a good one. If it is a good idea, then we'll come around to it. That's one reason why I gave it 50 years.

Sorry to sidestep your very interesting questions but maybe on some other thread.

Re: so many Mexicans come here that the northern portion of 'Aztlan' is restored

How can you restore something that never existed in the first place?

Except for Santa Fe and parts of California the Southwest was populated only by Indians when the Mexicans owned it: there was never a Mexican majority population there. And even in Santa Fe and CA most of the European population thought of itself as Spanish not Mexican, and supported the US takeover because they were tired of misrule from Mexico City.