If we really want to bring prosperity to the masses in Mexico why not ask them to petition their government for becoming part of the US? We could call in New Texaco and would bring the things that the Mexicans say they so dearly want (opportunity, safety and economic improvement).
Why not go with their current names for those areas: Coahuila, Chihuahua, etc…
If we did voluntarily annex them and they prospered, what’s to keep the new border areas of mexico from wanting the same thing? The process keeps repeating until you have the US state of Tierra Del Fuego.
That would be weird even if everyone involved was OK with it.
Why would we annex the most problematic Mexican states? I mean, Ciudad Juárez? And can the US really “bring prosperity,” considering the state of some cities?
Chihuahua is easy to pronounce, but Oaxaca or Tlaxcala (not north) would need a change…
I suspect many would oppose bringing in so many Spanish speakers, and others would consider it too imperialistic.
I know - South America is only worth 2 extra armies per turn anyway. We should be striking north for that big 5 army advantage.
It might be interesting to see what happens when San Diego’s real estate market suddenly merges with Tijuana’s.
Messy but it would balance out. Personally I think Mexico becoming a couple more states would be very interesting. One of the biggest hurdles would be huge shifts in policing and government.
Once subject to FBI oversight, mexicos law enforcement would clean up its act in a big hurry or there will be a whole prison full of ex-police chief and city official types. Organized crime would also have to take on a much lower profile.
Federal minimum wage implementation would cause some dramatic shifts in its exonomics, but probably more to the benefit of the masses. Most traveling farm laborers become a non issue for INS.
The border At Belize and Guatemala is only like 1/10th as long as our current southern border. Allowing for much better border control with fewer resources.
Northern Mexico has already been annexed, in 1845, 1848, and 1854. What you’re talking about is starting in on central Mexico. But what the heck. What’s another few hundred thousand square miles between neighbors?
Why not just annex every country and bring peace, prosperity and general good will to everyone? This way everyone can share in the joys of being American!
Seriously, imagine how quickly the population of northern Mexico would increase once this was announced.
Here’s an opposing view: How about taking certain southern areas of the current United States and giving them to Mexico?
Would they really take Arizona?
There’s a HUGE boom there! Look at all that magnificent seafront real estate between TJ and Ensenada. Beautiful land, most of which, right now, is undeveloped. If it suddenly became open to U.S. speculation, the whole area would look like La Jolla and Malibu. It would be a windfall of more than monumental proportions (and, naturally, the rich would benefit from it disproportionately.)
First thing we do is abolish the Mexican universal health care plan. Then we abolish all the restrictions on guns. Then send in US oil companies to raise the price of gas about a dollar a gallon, to US prices. Eventually get around to putting high fructose corn syrup in Coca Cola, to bring the obesity rate of Mexicans up to the US level.
That might depend on whether Arpaio comes with the package or not.
Problems with wa/J/Aka I can see (sorry, I don’t know which is the official symbol for that Spanish J English doesn’t have), but tlasKAla? It doesn’t have any phonemes English doesn’t.
In IPA, it’s ⟨x⟩, for the voiceless velar fricative. In English, it’s usually spelled ‘ch’, as in ‘loch’ and ‘chutzpah’, assuming it exists in the dialect at all.
English speakers aren’t accustomed to seeing an ‘x’ (the letter) used that way; the ‘x’ in ‘Tlaxcala’ looks more like a /ks/ in that position.
Huh. I looked at Wikipedia and it doesn’t use the “x” IPA symbol for Tlaxcala. Although, for what I assume are some dialects, it uses the “voiced velar fricative,” (ɣ) not in English. Also, the “x” is not in most English dialects except some like Scottish, so I’m safe with Oaxaca.
I’m not sure most Americans have heard of Tlaxcala then. I don’t know how many Mexicans have; it’s tiny!
First, thank you.
As you say, those two are dialectal. The digraph “ch” is as much of a PITA in English as “x” in Spanish, because it can be (x), or ch-like-in-chocolate, or k*; the exact same problem as “x” being (x), or ks, or s. And having previously encountered chutzpah only in writing (therefore having no idea how to pronounce it), the first time I heard it pronounced it I laughed out loud, my coworkers asked what the joke was. It’s almost a homophone with the Spanish chispa (which has among its meanings one very similar to what chutzpah means in English)… that coworker certainly did not pronounce it with an (x).
thelurkinghorror, Mexicans have heard of Tlaxcala because of its historical importance. Doña Marina la Malinche, Hernán Cortés ally and lover, was tlaxcalteca.
- Can I have one coin-of-your-choice for every time I’ve had to tell someone from Philadelphia or nearby “it’s CH like in CHOcolate!” re. my lastname? They always, always, assume K.
Not for Les Nessman. 
(He pronounced it “Chy-hoo-wa-hoo-wa” and pronounced golfer Chi Chi Rodriguez as “Chy Chy Rod-ri-gweeze.”)
If the US were to annex all 31 states and the DF, it would create a rather odd situation, as there is a Mexican state called México, but there is also a US state called New Mexico. As a concession to that state, the US congress would pass a law declaring that the proper spelling for peppers is “chile”.
Because the big money’s in corporate naming rights.
So let’s welcome our new states: Texaco, Busch, Disney, Sprint, GoDaddy, and Minute Maid.
I think if Sheriff Joe became suddenly a Mexican citizen his head would explode. 