# The US should annex Mexico now! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222 "2005-12-18T23:51:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/61 "2005-12-20T02:00:29Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > So its first Mexico, then Guatemala, then Honduras and before you know it you’re at Tierra del Fuego? Whatever, dude. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/62 "2005-12-20T02:08:19Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > It’s not a comparison at all, actually. > > You threw out some words, implying that if one advocated a military action (or in this case, a political initiative that could result in bloodsheed), then one should be willing to die for that cause. > > I say that’s bullshit. And I doubted whether you thought we all had to be willing to die for the noble military causes we support. > > Answer the above if you will, or no. What’s this “we” shit? I asked if YOU are willing to spill your blood in support of your “cause”. I mean you ARE the advocate here for this annexation. You refuse to answer so I’m left to assume you support the chickenhawk style of foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/63 "2005-12-20T02:38:56Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > What’s this “we” shit? I asked if YOU are willing to spill your blood in support of your “cause”. I mean you ARE the advocate here for this annexation. You refuse to answer so I’m left to assume you support the chickenhawk style of foreign policy. Yeah dude, you got me. Rock on. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/64 "2005-12-20T03:56:45Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > We’ve continued to admit new states from the very beginning, including those that were once part of Mexico. Is California somehow not treated as the the equal of New York? After four generations, California is treated as any other state. As CBEscapee noted, the original residents of those states that became ‘equal citizens’ after the Mexican War were not treated equally. And I so no reason why history would not repeat itself. We have come far since then, but not that far. Maybe in a few more generations. So we will have to agree to disagree regarding the new polity. In the past I have sometimes rallied for ‘reunificacion’, and the return of the Southwest to Mexico. They never had a chance to develop it after their independence from Spain. Perhaps Mexico would not in its current mess if it had had that territory. “Va norte, hombre joven.” > [@](#): > > I like our flag. I guess we really disagree. I think the US has not just a great constitution and legal system, it’s also a great _brand_ and has a great story and history behind it. I think this is the center of our disagreement. I want to see a unification of the North American polities, but not outright annexation by any one polity of the others. And I seem to see more flaws in our current system than you do. You believe in reform; I believe in a Reformation. Which of us is correct? (Where is the shrug smiley?) At the same time, (and I admit I can be very contradictory at times), I think the US should take its show on the road - offering Statehood to Puerto Rico, Haiti, the rest of the Carribbean, and any and all others that wish too. I see no reason why the US is of only America, and cannot be the United States of Earth. > [@](#): > > No doubt. I decry exploitation in the US as well, but being given Wal-Mart-level wages and benefits (slight as these may be) would be a tremendous step up for most Mexicans. That’s why they’re running over here to begin with, and most illegals do not get even as good treatment as Wal-Mart offers. This is one of my greater concerns, for while what you say would be true if accurate, i.e. Wal-Mart wages and benefits would be a step up, I think that as soon as any expansion did occur, Wal-Mart would drive down their already pitiful wages to the lowest point possible. Unless this issue is addressed clearly, and before any political expansion, such expansion will be doomed to fail since it will make the average Joe and Jose worse off then better. > [@](#): > > I think it is slightly an apples and oranges thing. If Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire were their own little country, they would beat the US average too. You can talk about the dynamite Singaporean economy, when it’s really just one small city. LOL. Singapore is my favorite city, precisely because it is a city-state. And it is where I want to live eventually. (Either there or one of the larger cities of India. Hong Kong used to be on the list, but now… ) But you are correct, it is an apples and oranges comparison. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying Canada was doing anything wrong. But praise for its nice social programs and orderly society must be combined with an understanding of its geographical, political, and historical peculiarities. The same is true of the USA also. We would not even be close to being who we are today if not for our geographical isolaton, and for our historical treatment of the First Peoples. (They should be offered full statehood also. And please disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs already - eh, I’ll save that for the Pit.) But again I do agree your basic premise. Finding a way to raise Mexico up without bringing the USA down will be our greatest challenge of this century. Indeed this is the challenge for the global society. And I would say political reform is far more necessary than economic reform. To provide food for thought, what would you say to granting full US citizenship to all Mexicans now, regardless of any geographical union. Allow all citizens of Mexico the full rights and responsibilities of the Constitution and access to US courts. Any Mexicans still living in Mexico would be treated as normal expatriates. Tax collection would be a serious bitch for awhile, but, boom, no more illegal immigration. And allowing Mexicans to sue in federal courts could help eliminate alot of the corruption down there. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/65 "2005-12-20T04:14:39Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > What’s this “we” shit? I asked if YOU are willing to spill your blood in support of your “cause”. I mean you ARE the advocate here for this annexation. You refuse to answer so I’m left to assume you support the chickenhawk style of foreign policy. Not that Aeschines needs defending, but this type of arguement is bullshit. What is this “we” shit? The shit is do not accuse someone of being a chickenhawk if you are one yourself. If you are not willing to fight and die for your causes, don’t try to detract from another’s cause if they are not willing also. If the point has bearing on the arguement, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And one can ‘live’ for a cause, though not wish to die for it. It does not make them a chickenhawk. Stating that others must make a sacrifice that one would not make themselves is being a chickenhawk, (also called a Congressman. 😃 ) I have seen no evidence in this thread that Aeschines is asking for that. Instead he hopes to find a way to avoid violence. I honestly believe that he would not support ‘annexation’ if major bloodshed seemed likely. But he also sees no reason why a few rotten apples should spoil the whole barrel. I concur on this also. You will never make all the people happy any of the time. If 99% agree and 1% disagrees, and will use violence if their view does not prevail - fuck 'em. And I apologize for the language. I am not clear on the rules outside of the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/66 "2005-12-20T05:08:19Z")
> [@Agnostic Pagan](#): > > The shit is do not accuse someone of being a chickenhawk if you are one yourself. If you are not willing to fight and die for your causes, don’t try to detract from another’s cause if they are not willing also. If the point has bearing on the arguement, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether I would or wouldn’t fight for a cause? But for clarification, I would never propose sending others to die for something I believe in unless I am willing to share the same risk. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/67 "2005-12-20T07:43:17Z")
FYI, it so happens there is a (very small) political party dedictated to territorial expansion of the United States, and Mexico is definitely on the agenda. The Expansionist Party of the United States – [http://members.aol.com/XPUS/](http://members.aol.com/XPUS/) Resistance is futile. Prepare to be USsimilated. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/68 "2005-12-20T07:45:24Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > This is probably not overly helpful to the conversation, but as a Canadian let me remind you we burned your white house once, don’t make us do it again. The Canschluss **is** coming. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/69 "2005-12-20T13:31:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > FYI, it so happens there is a (very small) political party dedictated to territorial expansion of the United States, and Mexico is definitely on the agenda. The Expansionist Party of the United States – [http://members.aol.com/XPUS/](http://members.aol.com/XPUS/) > > Resistance is futile. Prepare to be USsimilated. Gee, membership would make a great Christmas gift for aeschines. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/70 "2005-12-20T13:59:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yes. We share the same common law. The US came from the UK. > > And Canada has provinces; we have states. And so on. It’s not as though Canada has dictators, caliphs, etc. Basically similar, polically and culturally.Yes, and between Quebequois and British Columbians, between New Yorkers and Los Angeleans, etc. etc.But similar to certain large segments of the US, and vice versa. We may both be democracies but our system is still a Parlimentary one. You yourself have already stated you wouldn’t want that, so what makes you think that we would want your system. You demonstrate a superficial understanding of Canada and Canadians. We are a different people. Our Geography and history have made us that way. While American’s can look to the [Frontier theory](http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US2/REF/fjt.html) as a basis for their culture and the ideal of rugged individualism, we did not go that way. For most of its history Canada grew as communities where the group was important to the individual’s survival. The culture is based on that. There is a stronger tie to some British tradition in English Canada and the Addition of French influence to the culture has added to uniquely Canadian experiences. Whether you choose to believe it or not there is a Canadian culture. Certainly over the last century American pop cuture has flowed over the boarder more freely allowing for some similarity, but it is only another component to our whole. > [@](#): > > **Sam Stone** is from Canada but seems like a regular ole (well-spoken) US conservative. While I don’t want to speak for him, I’ll wager that Sam would consider himself an exception rather than a rule. His brand of Conservatism is to the right of our own Conservative movement. Not that he is wrong or right, just not exactly an example of your typical Canadian in regards to political views. > [@](#): > > Oh yeah. Canada is more liberal and intelligent than the US average. Good for you. I can understand your not wanting to deal with our [SCs](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347326), but please be annexed by us and help us raise our mean, OK? I made no value judgement. I didn’t say we were better or smarter. I pointed out that we don’t like religion in our politics. It’s rare when a Canadian politician invokes God’s name, and rarer that they don’t get called on it. Now I ask you why would I want to become an American? What do you offer me that my country does not? Truth is Canadians want to be Canadians. > [@](#): > > Right, because you get the best of both worlds. You get the benefits of the US fighting for oil and whatnot, By benifits I’m guessing you mean the higher oil prices. In that case, thanks. You see The United States imports 17% of it’s Oil from [Canada](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). That is more than Saudi Arabia, who, by the way, you actually spend a good deal of your military funds on. You want to bitch about using your money to defend a foriegn country and prop up its governement, then bitch about them. > [@](#): > > but also get to deride the US for being a bully.Funny, but it’s the _preventing_ of conflict by US might that is of real benefit to you. Once again what conflict were you preventing from reaching us? The Cold war is over and we did contribute to that. So Who are you defending us from? The Terrorists? Last I checked the only real defense is domestic law enforcement and intellegence. Afghanistan? Well we’re there too, because that was a correct move. In fact, we had to boost the number of our troops there to free up some American troops to go to Iraq. Iraq? Forget it. That was not a threat, they were contained. So please give up this BS that somehow we are cowering under your protection and would suddenly cease to exist without it. The United States does what it does for itself. You want to exert Might go ahead, just stop asking to be thanked for it. (By the way, what is this hard on that some Amercans have with being a Mighty military power?) That all being said, you must realize that if people from a nation that you view as very similar aren’t falling over themselves to join you, then a country that is much more divergent would be a hell of a feat to “annex” They will not give up their language or culture just because you feel you are superior. Give up your dreams of conquest, believe it or not some people on this planet aren’t scambling to be Americans. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/71 "2005-12-20T14:24:00Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > We will take a much poorer country under our wing with a commitment to helping them achieve our level of prosperity. We will give them the rule of law. We will reduce the exploitation of the poor. We will exchange their pesos for dollars. We will let Spanish and their culture become and even bigger part of our own culture. > > And I think doing so is, in the long term, the best way to preserve our own culture and prosperity. If only we had an historical example of this, so we could measure how good your idea is. Some kind of Native American culture being ‘taken under the wing’ of white English-speaking Europeans, for example… ---
**Author:** ![Queuing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/90ced4/32.png) [@Queuing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queuing)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/72 "2005-12-20T14:35:56Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I just hate, hate, hate it when Canadians say this. Hate it. > > The White House was burned down in the War of 1812 by British troops. You taking credit for Canada doing it is exactly the same as an American saying that the United States won the Battle of Stalingrad. > > Here we are trying to dispel the ignorance of someone who thinks we sponge off U.S. defence spending - and you’re claiming a military victory for us that was won by another country. Ok, so you don’t consider it part of Canadian history? Are the pilgrims part of American history? Or should all that happened in the US prior to 1778 be ignored because it was prior to the US being a country? Is Riel part of Canadian history? Is Sir John A? All that happened prior to when Canada was even allowed to make its own foriegn policy decisions. Hell we didn’t have a Charter until, what 1984? No flag until the late 60’s? When did Canada exist begin to exist for you? Regardless, it was a joke. The OP is a little silly, so I answered with silliness. Hence the “this is probably not overly helpful to the conversation” line preceding the comment. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/73 "2005-12-20T14:51:25Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > Ok, so you don’t consider it part of Canadian history? Are the pilgrims part of American history? Or should all that happened in the US prior to 1778 be ignored because it was prior to the US being a country? Is Riel part of Canadian history? Is Sir John A? All that happened prior to when Canada was even allowed to make its own foriegn policy decisions. Hell we didn’t have a Charter until, what 1984? No flag until the late 60’s? When did Canada exist begin to exist for you? > > Regardless, it was a joke. The OP is a little silly, so I answered with silliness. Hence the “this is probably not overly helpful to the conversation” line preceding the comment. Being part of a country’s historical development and being a historical act by a country are not nessesarily the same thing. Burning down the capital of your opposition strikes me as an “act”, YMMV of course. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/74 "2005-12-20T16:18:31Z")
> [@](#): > > My position is that these people are here for a reason: They add something to the economy that’s necessary, and instead of sucking that up, the US is in bestowing on them a de facto sub-guest-worker status, using their illegal status as leverage to exploit them even further. The one reason that they are here is the tunnel-visioned concept of cheap labor. The money that is saved there is wasted ten-fold in paying for medical care and educating them for free in our schools. We don’t want or need them here. > [@](#): > > **All those impoverished Mexicans coming here would bankrupt the US!** Absolutely correct. They are doing it now. Your assumption that elimination of the border would somehow magically stop this from happening is seriously flawed. We need to go exactly the opposite direction: we need to slam the border shut, round up and run out the illegals that are here, and keep them out. That includes putting armed guards on the border and shooting folks until they get the message. It’s a hard line, but it needs to be done. > [@](#): > > Making 106M Mexicans citizens would destroy Anglo-American culture! > Again, the population would flow both ways: English speakers would also go into Mexico and spread English there. That won’t happen. Why in the world do you think someone would gladly pack up and leave a developed country for an undeveloped one? I live about 15 miles west of downtown Houston; what would the change in my standard of living be if I packed up and moved to a point about 15 miles west of downtown Mexico City? Sorry, your ideas are totally unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/75 "2005-12-20T17:01:36Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > What are you talking about? **Where did I say anything about whether I would or wouldn’t fight for a cause?** > > But for clarification, I would never propose sending others to die for something I believe in unless I am willing to share the same risk. That is exactly my point. You never did say. I feel that the ‘chickenhawk’ argument is only a valid criticism if one applies it to themselves as well. It is either ‘we’, or it is just so much hot air. You may feel that your position is not important. I think that it is for it to carry any weight. But after all that, I agree that then it is a valid remark. And I agree with your point of view. Far too many policies are made that require the sacrifice of parties that the policymakers would never do themselves. [/end hijack] ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/76 "2005-12-20T17:11:06Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > That won’t happen. Why in the world do you think someone would gladly pack up and leave a developed country for an undeveloped one? I live about 15 miles west of downtown Houston; what would the change in my standard of living be if I packed up and moved to a point about 15 miles west of downtown Mexico City? There are some very beautiful places west of downtown Mexico City. You might not be able to afford them. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/77 "2005-12-20T17:32:37Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > That won’t happen. Why in the world do you think someone would gladly pack up and leave a developed country for an undeveloped one? I live about 15 miles west of downtown Houston; what would the change in my standard of living be if I packed up and moved to a point about 15 miles west of downtown Mexico City? Considering I intend to do pretty much that, except that I wish to go to Asia, not Mexico. I want to precisely because of the issues addressed in this thread. The best way to raise undeveloped countries to modern living standards is to move there and assist those that are already trying to do so. And by living standards, I do not mean mere materialist goods, but education, health care, an unbiased professional legal system, free and fair elections, etc. All those things the United States is recognized as being the model for. :dubious: :rolleyes: Not bitch and moan about the affects their underdevelopment has on others. And certainly not propose shooting those who wish to better themselves. The Israeli solution is definitely not the friggin’ answer. If the US ever decides to close the border, I hope Mexico closes their side also and nationalizes every American owned factory and shop located there. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/78 "2005-12-21T04:50:26Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > We may both be democracies but our system is still a Parlimentary one. You yourself have already stated you wouldn’t want that, so what makes you think that we would want your system. I don’t see what’s better about a parliamentary system. Their governments always seem ephemeral, prone to dissolve for superficial reasons. I like a well-defined executive branch. Your reason for liking our system is that it is superior. But I would like to hear your reasons for liking your own. > [@](#): > > We are a different people. If you were absorbed into the US polity, Quebec would be the greatest cultural outlier in the country to be sure because of the language difference, but Ontario or Manitoba would be no _different_ than Utah (high Mormon population) or Florida (subtropical climate) or Louisiana (has French-speaking regions). I don’t buy that you really form a different culture than the US–not for a second. The difference between Quebec and Alberta is greater than that between Alberta and any current US State. > [@](#): > > There is a stronger tie to some British tradition in English Canada and the Addition of French influence to the culture has added to uniquely Canadian experiences. Whether you choose to believe it or not there is a Canadian culture. You’re right, I don’t. By the same token, we don’t have any special “Americanness” that you are lacking. > [@](#): > > While I don’t want to speak for him, I’ll wager that Sam would consider himself an exception rather than a rule. His brand of Conservatism is to the right of our own Conservative movement. Not that he is wrong or right, just not exactly an example of your typical Canadian in regards to political views. I wasn’t saying he was typical; but the fact that he can argue just like an American conservative implies that there are other like him who are speaking the same political language. > [@](#): > > I made no value judgement. I didn’t say we were better or smarter. I pointed out that we don’t like religion in our politics. It’s rare when a Canadian politician invokes God’s name, and rarer that they don’t get called on it. I have no problem calling you better and smarter, just as I don’t have a problem saying that the people of Maine are on average smarter (i.e., more educated and culturally sophisticated) than the people of Georgia or even my own state of Indiana. But I see this more a product of statistics than cultural superiority. You have as big a population as one of our larger states, so that makes it more statistically _likely_ that there will not be a regression to the mean. > [@](#): > > Now I ask you why would I want to become an American? What do you offer me that my country does not? Truth is Canadians want to be Canadians. Sure, and if Maine were, through some historical fluke, its own country, then Mainians would be quite proud of their Maineness and wouldn’t want to be annexed either. That’s just human nature. Again, my argument is not so much that the US offers anything you haven’t got, but that the division of our countries is completely arbitrary in the first place. Here’s the deal. Why shouldn’t you be free to come live in any state of the Union and do as you please? Because of an arbitrary border. You could, in fact, go live in California with no accent, no cultural difficulties, no problems whatsoever. But you can’t. Why? Just can’t. By the same token, I can’t go enjoy long-term living in the great city of Toronto. Why? Just can’t. Why shouldn’t the two countries share the same currency? Why shouldn’t we make the total system more efficient and of greater benefit to all? That’s the argument I’m making. > [@](#): > > By benifits I’m guessing you mean the higher oil prices. In that case, thanks. You see The United States imports 17% of it’s Oil from [Canada](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). That is more than Saudi Arabia, who, by the way, you actually spend a good deal of your military funds on. You want to bitch about using your money to defend a foriegn country and prop up its governement, then bitch about them. No argument here. Our foreign policy sucks. > [@](#): > > Once again what conflict were you preventing from reaching us? The Cold war is over and we did contribute to that. So Who are you defending us from? Even if you did contribute in proportion to your population (which I am not doubting), you would still just be like any other state in the United States so contributing. The point is that US represents a critical mass of military that frees you from even having to _think_ about many things. You don’t need nukes. You don’t need a big navy. You don’t need to worry about pirates off your coast. No, we’re not defending you from anyone. No one is a threat in the first place because the US preserves order on the continent. > [@](#): > > So please give up this BS that somehow we are cowering under your protection and would suddenly cease to exist without it. No you are _not_ cowering. But if the US were _un_friendly, then you’d have to beef up that military and worry about _us_. It’s not really far-fetched. India, China, Russia, and Japan are four countries that worry quite a bit about each other’s aims and goals and maintain quite large militaries for that reason. Historic enmities. Canada gets a free pass on all that because the US is nice. > [@](#): > > The United States does what it does for itself. You want to exert Might go ahead, just stop asking to be thanked for it. Oh, really? If we just walked in and took your land (“exerted might”), then that would be OK? > [@](#): > > That all being said, you must realize that if people from a nation that you view as very similar aren’t falling over themselves to join you, then a country that is much more divergent would be a hell of a feat to “annex” They will not give up their language or culture just because you feel you are superior. I would not ask Mexico to give up its language or culture. > [@](#): > > Give up your dreams of conquest, believe it or not some people on this planet aren’t scambling to be Americans. Liliputians. ---
**Author:** ![633squadron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/ee59a6/32.png) [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/79 "2005-12-21T05:00:35Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > Is this attitude of “we know what’s best for you” pecular to gringos or do other nationalities share this trait? Oh some others: British, French, Germans (!), Russians, Italians, Belgians, Dutch… Also Japanese, Chinese (to a limited extent). Thank you for pointing this out! However, I have a _better_ suggestion. Mexico can _have_ Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama. With the exception of Florida, we’re not really using them all that much. I figure we owe Mexico for taking Arizona, New Mexico, and California. I wouldn’t mind if you wanted New Mexico or Arizona, either. I myself would never take Arizona, thank you; the people there are nuts! I figure New Mexico wouldn’t be hurt either way. Don’t blame us completely for Texas. I know we encouraged them, but that was mostly Andrew Jackson, who also deported the Cherokees from Georgia. I live in California. If you want to have it, fine. I don’t think most Californians would notice the difference. We don’t consider ourselves part of the US, either. Now, I know you don’t want Florida. G-d knows we don’t want them either. But we have lots of your citizens here. Don’t get me wrong, I (if nobody else) certainly appreciate having them here. Lots of people are out of work all over the US; funny that only the Mexican workers stand on the corners every day _looking for someone to offer them a job_. By G-d, not even my grandfather did that! Still, having Mexican workers here causes some issues (as you can see from this thread). So it’s only fair that you take Florida from us. Do with it what you want. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/80 "2005-12-21T05:30:43Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What I want to spread is … economic equality. … you mean _from_ Mexico _to_ the USA, I assume? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222.md?page=5)