# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/101 "2005-12-25T03:38:22Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Provinces will be reduced in relative strength to the central government. That should fly like a brick. Unless you are Ontario or Quebec, you really don’t have much strength anyways. > [@](#): > > Currently professionals are able to work/live in both countries through the NAFTA. So, the elite can find jobs wherever they want. That’s a surprise. > [@](#): > > Maybe but I’ve yet to see a merger (municipal or corporate) that initially resulted in immediate efficiencies (assuming they result at all). If larger is not necessarily good, then smaller may be actually better. I knew there was a reason I’m an Alberta separatist. > [@](#): > > Does the idea of inflating the civil service from its US baseline by several hundred thousand sound good? And if not, are you planning on throwing them out on the streets? Less bureaucracy is always better than more. Less people supported through tax dollars means more money in my pocket which means I will spend it on other things which means that people will find work when businesses hire them to support my spending (or, horror, they could start their own businesses and hire people themselves!) > [@](#): > > Nope. If you look back you’ll see we hashed out just how much influence the provinces would have. It doesn’t do much. It would have been enough to ensure that Bush wasn’t elected in the last election, though. Assuming that Canadians are, in fact, as liberal as we are made out to be. > [@](#): > > Besides, the Canadian political experiment isn’t better, it simply different. Sorry, but it sounds like there is no good reasons for actually having separate countries other than that. Oh, and nationalistic pride (anyone mention burning the whitehouse yet? Thought so.) > [@](#): > > Not without better reasons for it than those presented. Even by throwing in Mexico there’s not enough counter-weight to prevent complete US domination. Why would any sane citizenry trade in some control of their government for no control? Uh, if the countries were one there would be no US domination as both countries would be the same. I would think the only concern would be for Ontario, who pretty much dominates Canada as it is, would no longer wield the control it does now. See, it makes no difference to me if my tax dollars go to Ottawa, or further south to Washington. In the west we have little say anyway as we tend to vote in the opposition (who has little to no power whatsoever in our system). At least in the combined country there’d probably be a chance that our elections of senators would be honoured (In any case think of the time savings by not having to spell honor honour!). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/102 "2005-12-25T19:30:55Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > **Resolved** > The United States and Canada should merge their polities. :eek: Come on! Mexico is one thing – but Canada? I mean, these people put maple syrup on baked beans! Are they even **human?** And besides, their beer sucks! [riot erupts] 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/103 "2005-12-25T23:18:55Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Less bureaucracy is always better than more. Less people supported through tax dollars means more money in my pocket which means I will spend it on other things which means that people will find work when businesses hire them to support my spending (or, horror, they could start their own businesses and hire people themselves!). 😕 I can at least understand the “less bureaucracy” argument as applied to economic efficiency – i.e., the idea that the economy would be more productive with less regulation. I usually dispute that argument in its particular applications, but it makes a kind of prima facie sense. But this argument – the idea that bureaucrats, or tax-supported workers of any kind, are somehow parasitic on the productive economy – is nonsense. Really, do you think bureaucrats spend their earnings any differently than you do? You spend $50 on groceries, the underclerk from the Circumlocution Office spends $50 groceries – the boost to the economy is exactly the same. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/104 "2005-12-26T03:58:23Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Unless you are Ontario or Quebec, you really don’t have much strength anyways. **Uzi** , we’re addressing the misguided OP here, not the oft malign, never equalled, Albertan separatist view. All my answers should be read with that view point. > [@Uzi](#): > > So, the elite can find jobs wherever they want. That’s a surprise. I’m a member of the elite?! Who knew getting a B.Sc would make me elite. > [@Uzi](#): > > If larger is not necessarily good [ed. Structural efficiencies in merging institutaions], then smaller may be actually better. I knew there was a reason I’m an Alberta separatist. Imagine how much better you could have it if you were a supporter of Calgary as an independent city state. > [@Uzi](#): > > It would have been enough to ensure that Bush wasn’t elected in the last election, though. Assuming that Canadians are, in fact, as liberal as we are made out to be. Barely. But at the same time the ex-Canadians would’ve been voting as Camericans on Camerican issues and the margin may have shrunk. > [@Uzi](#): > > See, it makes no difference to me if my tax dollars go to Ottawa, or further south to Washington. In the west we have little say anyway as we tend to vote in the opposition (who has little to no power whatsoever in our system). At least in the combined country there’d probably be a chance that our elections of senators would be honoured (In any case think of the time savings by not having to spell honor honour!). 🙂 You know if you’d just voted Liberal in the past 2 or 3 elections you could’ve had some representation in cabinet instead of just the deputy PM. Besides the opposition you’ve backed has dramatically altered the Canadian centre, or would you have expected Liberal finance ministers to howl bloody blue murder over potentially going into deficient 10 years ago? Ultimately the US has little to offer right now. The Scots, at least, were bribed. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/105 "2005-12-26T04:00:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 I can at least understand the “less bureaucracy” argument as applied to economic efficiency – i.e., the idea that the economy would be more productive with less regulation. I usually dispute that argument in its particular applications, but it makes a kind of prima facie sense. > > But this argument – the idea that bureaucrats, or tax-supported workers of any kind, are somehow parasitic on the productive economy – is nonsense. Really, do you think bureaucrats spend their earnings any differently than you do? You spend $50 on groceries, the underclerk from the Circumlocution Office spends $50 groceries – the boost to the economy is exactly the same. But his $50 likely costed tax payers $50\*n since there is a fair amount of fiscal friction. Now the money gets back into the system, but in a less focused manner. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/106 "2005-12-26T04:04:32Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > But his $50 likely costed tax payers $50\*n since there is a fair amount of fiscal friction. Now the money gets back into the system, but in a less focused manner. 😕 “Fiscal friction”? “Less focused manner”? “Great, stinking pile of bullshit”? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/107 "2005-12-26T04:10:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Great, stinking pile of bullshit”? Maybe. Governments buy odd things. Not very useful things sometimes, its true. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/108 "2005-12-26T04:33:25Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Maybe. Governments buy odd things. Not very useful things sometimes, its true. Do you know how many “efficient” corporations have invested in really stupid software decisions in the last few years? How about “boot camps” and similar (golf) outings for management? C_x_O salaries that _Forbes_ and _Fortune_ have called massively excessive in the last few years? Waste is not limited to government (and claims that “the market” will keep things pure or honest need to pretend that “the market” will be run honestly–something of which there is no evidence.) ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/109 "2005-12-26T05:15:47Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > **Uzi** , we’re addressing the misguided OP here, not the oft malign, never equalled, Albertan separatist view. All my answers should be read with that view point. The OP is essentially saying it is better for everyone to combine together than work apart. I’m saying the same thing. I am also saying that if the argument against combining together is because it is better for us to be apart then why shouldn’t it apply to the parts of the whole in Canada? There is no doubt that a place like Alberta would be far better off (even though it is doing quite well as it is) not sending money east than it is now. > [@](#): > > I’m a member of the elite?! Who knew getting a B.Sc would make me elite. You are further ahead than some guy without a high school education, aren’t you? And just because you have that degree should that deny others the opportunity to make more of themselves (assuming they could do that further to the south of where they are now.) > [@](#): > > Imagine how much better you could have it if you were a supporter of Calgary as an independent city state. If they voted for it, why not? > [@](#): > > Barely. But at the same time the ex-Canadians would’ve been voting as Camericans on Camerican issues and the margin may have shrunk. I don’t understand this. Are you saying people in a combined nation may vote differently? I’m sure they would. Is that a reason for not combining just because people may vote differently? The question is would our influence be a good thing for a combined nation? I think so. > [@](#): > > 🙂 You know if you’d just voted Liberal in the past 2 or 3 elections you could’ve had some representation in cabinet instead of just the deputy PM. Sorry, I don’t vote for thieves (caveat: I expect all politicians to be thieves. I just expect them to be smart enough not to get caught. So, it is probably somewhat more accurate to say I don’t vote for stupid thieves. It makes it tough to choose who to vote for, though! 😉 ). > [@](#): > > Besides the opposition you’ve backed has dramatically altered the Canadian centre, or would you have expected Liberal finance ministers to howl bloody blue murder over potentially going into deficient 10 years ago? I also don’t vote for liars. They bug me more than thieves and idiots. eg. Get rid of the GST, etc. I expect any government to understand that being fiscally responsible is a good thing. > [@](#): > > Ultimately the US has little to offer right now. The Scots, at least, were bribed. 🙂 Other than a higher standard of living. [Canada department of finance](http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2002/eca4e.html) ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/110 "2005-12-26T05:39:31Z")
Good points **tomndebb** , if I was arguing that _only_ government is wasteful. Large money collecting organizations tend to loose track of money, and governments typically being at the larger end, lose more. But I’m hijacking the OP on a subject I don’t care much about so I’ll stop. **BG** , I would guess you’ve got a thread somewhere on this topic. If you can dig up the link I’ll give it a look. **Uzi** , my point was that by voting in Reform the west heavily influenced the political fiscal centre point in Canada without holding power. It helped that we were being labelled a wanna-be banana republic but Reform pushed balanced budgets, fiscal restraint, tax cuts etc. onto centre stage. Influence is influence, but I suppose it’s not necessarily power. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/111 "2005-12-26T17:19:34Z")
> [@](#): > > If another country wants to become part of the United States, as Texas and Hawaii did, that’s perfectly OK by me. Forgive my genuinely paltry understanding of US history, but wasn’t the annexation of Hawaii an invasion at the behest of US sugar cane interests? Canadians - isn’t the directive of “peace order and good government” a bad fit with “life liberty and the pursuit fo happiness”? (_The Economist_ pondered this in its recent pulse check of Canada, about two or three weeks ago.) And wouldn’t Haiti be a better fit than Mexico? Strategic military base in the Central Atlantic? Get the locals some jobs and welfare, and sort out Haiti’s perennial problem of good government? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/112 "2005-12-26T19:06:52Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > Canadians - isn’t the directive of “peace order and good government” a bad fit with “life liberty and the pursuit fo happiness”? Where’s the conflict? ---
**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 27, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/113 "2005-12-27T00:10:42Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Do you know how many “efficient” corporations have invested in really stupid software decisions in the last few years? How about “boot camps” and similar (golf) outings for management? C_x_O salaries that _Forbes_ and _Fortune_ have called massively excessive in the last few years? Waste is not limited to government (and claims that “the market” will keep things pure or honest need to pretend that “the market” will be run honestly–something of which there is no evidence.) Hear hear! Ah, but the “market” will _eventually_ punish those wrongdoers.[/bad counterargument] ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/114 "2005-12-27T00:25:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Where’s the conflict? You mean war, chaos and fascism don’t make you happy? I really should read more about our American cousins. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/115 "2005-12-27T04:06:58Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > Canadians - isn’t the directive of “peace order and good government” a bad fit with “life liberty and the pursuit fo happiness”? (_The Economist_ pondered this in its recent pulse check of Canada, about two or three weeks ago.) [Peace, Order and Good government explained](http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/pogg.html) It pretty much means that government can do what it thinks is necessary in the nation’s interest eg, Parliament is supreme. I imagine it could mean installing cameras in everyone’s bathrooms given enough cause. I think I prefer a principle that derives from an indivuduals viewpoint vs. one from the governments perspective. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/116 "2005-12-27T05:32:27Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Hear hear! > > Ah, but the “market” will _eventually_ punish those wrongdoers.[/bad counterargument] The book _When Good Companies Do Bad Things_ suggests that in Western societies peer group pressure will do the trick. Shell’s executives only got the message when their kids were getting bulied at school and their relatives’ friends regarded them as criminals. Bit too ad hoc a system to rely upon, though. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/117 "2005-12-27T05:34:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Where’s the conflict? See above. American political philosophy, as expalined to me by a Republican, is that Americans may do as they see fit save for what the state prohibits. Those of us in British colonies may on the contrary only do what the Crown allows. Its a fundamental difference. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/118 "2005-12-27T05:56:25Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > See above. American political philosophy, as expalined to me by a Republican, is that Americans may do as they see fit save for what the state prohibits. Those of us in British colonies may on the contrary only do what the Crown allows. Its a fundamental difference. I don’t know if this is necessarily true. I seem to remember an issue in Britain a while ago where women were walking around without shirts on and were able to do so because there was no law against it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/119 "2005-12-27T22:43:05Z")
Sorry I missed this earlier. My responses below: > [@Aeschines](#): > > **Sam** , my well-spoken conservative, I’d be interested to get your take on the following: > > **Resolved** > The United States and Canada should merge their polities. The provinces of Canada should become states, and the territories should each become one or more states. In effect, Canada would be annexed, but certain aspects of Canadian government could be adopted if they are harmonious with the US Constitution. Not going to happen. Canadians most emphatically do not want to be Americans. You might convince Alberta to join the union if it got shafted hard enough by the east, but I doubt it. > [@](#): > > Reasons for doing so, in order of strength: > > 1. Greater freedom. Each country’s people could live anywhere in the merged whole. But less freedom in that Americans would either be forced to accept some Canadian laws (hate speech laws, language laws in Quebec), which would undoubtedly be unconstitutional, or Canadians would be forced to give them up. And Canadians would be forced to accept some American laws (federal sentencing guidelines, RICO statutes, many other laws) which Canadians reject. > [@](#): > > 1. Greater efficiency. One currency, no border to worry about, one government. Even Europe, full of different languages and disparate cultures, realizes that there is strength and efficiency in unity. There’s no evidence that one currency would actually be more efficient. In fact, Canada used to peg its currency to the American dollar until a Canadian economist won a Nobel prize by showing that it’s better to have currencies with floating exchange rates. The EU is suffering under the Euro now, because what’s good in terms of monetary policy in one country may not be good for another. For example, if one Euro nation has a red-hot economy, it might want to tighten up fiscally to prevent inflation and overheating by raising interest rates. But another Euro country may have a slow economy and high unemployment and debt, and would naturally want to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy and lessen debt-servicing costs. A one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t allow that. The Euro may make sense simply because there are so many small countries in Europe that there’s just too much friction between them if they all have their own currencies. I’m not sure that’s true of the U.S. and Canada. > [@](#): > > 1. Canada is sponging off the US. I agree. Especially militarily. Our health care system also benefits from U.S. drug research subsidized by Americans’ paying higher prices, and from a free health care system next door which acts as a safety valve (Canadians routinely go to the U.S. for health care when the watiing lists are too long here and/or the treatment they want is not available). > [@](#): > > 1. Disproportion between population and territory. Why shouldn’t both countries share the whole shebang? Hey, if you want to live on the tundra, be my guest. The actual habitable regions of Canada are pretty well populated. > [@](#): > > **Counter-arguments and responses** > > 1. Yuck. Canada is better than the US politically. Disagree. The U.S. has a better political system than Canada. Ours is almost an oligarchy, with the same small group of highly connected wealthy individuals showing up in power over and over again. Our government is also the most ‘closed’ parliamentary Democracy around, with extreme party discipline and little transparency. In short, our government sucks. > [@](#): > > Some in this thread think that the US is more conservative, hence they don’t want a part of our polity. However, if Canada is indeed more liberal, then a gaggle of liberal senators plus some representatives would be the result of a merger, right? You might be able to turn the tide in American politics and make the US gov more liberal and prevent the bad conservatives from influencing your country, which is going to happen anyway. You’d get two Republican senators from Alberta, maybe one each from BC, Saaskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. You might pick up the odd Republican senator in on of the other provinces, but most would be Democrats. It wouldn’t be an even split, so there’d probably be a net gain of 5-10 Democratic seats, as a guess. > [@](#): > > 1. We just don’t want to be a part of the US. Sneer. True dat. Double true! > [@](#): > > I guess it’s like Andorra not wanting to be part of France or Lichtenstein a part of Switzerland. One element of human nature has us enjoying being separate from the mainstream and doing our own thing. Absolutely. In general, I’m for more decentralization and more choices, so I’d be opposed to a merger. What I WOULD like to see is more liberal trade and more liberal immigration laws between the two so that people can vote with their feet more easily. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/120 "2005-12-28T15:48:26Z")
> [@Agnostic Pagan](#): > > And certainly not propose shooting those who wish to better themselves. I didn’t propose that. I proposed shooting criminals. If they want to better themselves, I’m all for it. But they can damn well do it through legal means. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222.md?page=7)