However, Canada is not entirely opposed to allowing states who so choose to join us. We’ll start with Alaska, Maine, Washington, easy border states like that.
There won’t be any of us left in 100 years, anyway…
French fatalism? I choose not to partake.
BTW, I’m not one of those people who knocks la France. If it weren’t for your navy, we had surely lost the Revolution. I like French culture, literature, booze. Food! I’ll grant that you are, on average, more culturally sophisticated than we USians.
But you are committing cultural suicide. I regret it because I respect your culture.
I want to state that I agree with the jist of the OPs proposal, though not his terminology. I do not want to see one country annexed by the other, but for both to join into one common union, and including Canada as well, form the “United States of North America”. I do not see it as part of any manifest destiny, but as part of the historical trend toward a single global government (which is still several centuries away, granted) by virtue of humanity living on one single planet. The European Union and the various regional organizations, including NAFTA, highlight this trend. The ultimate key in achieving this goal is as stated by the OP,a “peaceful and nonviolent” integration. One party cannot dominate the other, or it eventually falls apart, as evidenced by the British and Soviet empires.
Thus to ensure success, it would have be founded on the peoples wishes as expressed through referendum. I believe a new Constitution would have to be drafted as well. If it is merely a choice of leaving the Mexican federation for the American one, then I do not think it will pass. Mexicans do not trust our government as it is currently constituted for several historical reasons, and even if made full citizens under the current Constitution, they would still harbor suspicions of non-equality. If a new union is formed where everyone, Americans and Mexicans, becomes a new citizen of a new nation, I see a far wider acceptance. On both sides of the border. Many Americans do not trust our government as it is currently constituted for several historical reasons. I think many would like the chance to form an even ‘more perfect union’.
But…
Once the border is gone, all of Mexico would be open for unrestricted development by US firms. This is where it gets ugly though. For more reasons above and beyond any immediate political concerns, the prevention of the exploitation of the poor and underrepresented by the rich and connected will be one of the greater economic challenges, as it always has been. If the new union is seen as only a means for the continuation of status quo, it will not pass. (I do not believe NAFTA would have passed a referendum in any of the three countries, and thus will eventually fail until a common consensus is reached.)
For the record, I am half Tex-Mex and half gringo. (And I have been called every nationality under the sun and moon.) There are many things that I do not like about either country, but I do believe the best way to address those things is together, not separately. I do not expect to see a political union any time soon, but I do imagine it is possible within my lifetime (i.e. over the next forty or fifty years, (crossing my fingers and praying to Og.))
Good points, Agnostic Pagan. Some responses:
-
“America” already covers North America, so I don’t think the name change is necessary.
-
I think the US constitution is a pretty good model. I don’t know if we need a new one. If Mexico were made an equitable number of states (i.e., given as many senators as its population deserves), I think that the average Mexican would get a huge boost in self-determination and be equal to any other American.
-
I think full exploitation by US firms would be a step up for most Mexicans, but (in line with my politics), I think the US needs to become overall much more socialistic and fair to all its citizens.
What’s all this nonsense about Canada joining the US? UN surveys consistantly rank Canada a significantly better place to live (in terms of the Human Development Index) than the United States.
By the OPs thinking, Canada should annex the United States. Would you be in favor of that, Aeschines? How could you possibly object to Canada improving the quality of life in the United States by annexing us?
Canada has just 11% of the population of the US in the world’s 2nd-largest country. In essence, you have a handful of nice, large cities and a large rural population.
It makes no sense to talk literally about Canada annexing the US, since the country is already dependent on our own and in effect uses our military for its defense and our political clout for its purposes. Didn’t Ann Coulter refer to Canada as parasitic? I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s not far off the mark.
I agree, however, that in the area of socialism, Canada is further along than the US, especially when it comes to medicine. When the US annexes Canada, it should be careful to benchmark those areas in which Canada is superior.
I meant to say that Canada’s economy is dependent on ours.
That the two countries are currently separate is merely an accident of history. The only reason Canada would be against an annexation is that it gets to bum off our military might and spend that money on social programs. Sweet deal.
First, has it occurred to you Canada might not like our system ? That’s a perfectly sensible reason to oppose annexation.
Second, Canada hardly needs a big military. If the US vanished, I’m sure they could whip up some nukes pretty quick; they are hardly a backward country. Once they have those, nobody will invade, and no need for a huge military. We don’t need such a huge military; we simply like pushing other people around.
I don’t agree with this. To me, America represents only the current USA. America is a subset, not equivalent to North America. Which is why the distinction already exists. I think a name change would be necessary for political reasons also. If the new union was still called the USA, a division would exist between the ‘first comers’ and the ‘latecomers’. Equality could only be achieved by making all previous citizenship void, and everyone beginning on the same, new, page. And, trust me, a new flag would definitely be needed. And I don’t think the Stars and Stripes will be forever.
I thinks the constitution would serve as an excellent starting point. But I think major changes would need to spelled out regarding the executive branch. The all or nothing nature of our electoral system is breaking down already, increasing the population of the country by over a third also increases the number of sore losers. (I would prefer a parliamentary system myself, but thats another debate.)
Again, I think the economic policies will harder to implement than the political ones. Mexicans are already being fully exploited by US firms in the maquiladoras. Unification needs to find a way to end it, not ramp it up.
I will agree with you on this. I personally believe Canada is the greatest nation on this hemisphere. Another reason I prefer ‘unification’ over ‘annexation’. We should seek to implement the best practices we know. And Canada performs better in those that matter - quality of life and social welfare. Granted they have been able to do so since they do not spend as much as we do on defense. But that is a positive in my book. We could have done the same. We decided not to under Reagan, well, the generation before me did, I did not get to vote until '88 - still haven’t had one of my candidates win an election yet either. :mad:
Where was I… oh yeah. I agree that North America would be better served by one common government. I do not agree that such government should be the United States of America’s government, even by, especially by pure expansion and annexation. We need to spend the next few decades bickering and fussing about in commitees like Europe is currently doing. It’s not pretty, but it’s much better than the Napoleonic method they had tried.
They’re taking free medical care back to Mexico? What, are they kidnapping doctors?
It is unlikely that a significant number of people are looking for the benefit of “US citizenship without the duties”. I hardly expect illegal aliens are expectant of citizenship. They’re coming over so that they can work for higher wages than they can get back home. Yet you phrase it as if they’re coming over to rob banks or something.
Unless the Mexican government is illegally shipping its citizens over the border, Mexico is not “fucking the US bigtime and getting away with it”. If their government is useless and not providing an environment for economic development it is their issue that they need to resolve. The United States has its own issues, namely what immigration path does it want to follow? If you’re claiming that their presence is beneficial it is even less clear why you would think Mexico is “fucking the US”. If beneficial, then a policy that allows a significant population to immigrate legally makes sense. If not, then a huge frigging wall makes sense. My own philosophy would be to fine tune immigration for the benefit of the country, in other words taking in whichever education levels and skill sets that you need the most. I also have no problem with the strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
If you want to take an extreme measure and say that all Mexican citizens are eligible for Unites States citizenship, go right ahead, assuming the United States population agrees with it (ha!). It’s completely within the Unites States’ right to do so and Mexico would simply have to deal with it.
But Mexico is not yours to take. It is up to its people to decide whether they would accept annexation by the United States. My objection to annexation is the same as my objection to any dictatorship: from a Mexican’s perspective the United States government that now controls them is completely unelected. If it is so important to you that eventually they have their voting rights restored, why are you so keen to take them away in the first place? Surely if your position is the best one then a vast majority of Americans and Mexicans will currently agree on merging the two countries?
And the points about Canada leeching off the United States are ridiculous. The United States is perfectly able of deciding for itself how much military assistance it will give Canada. Any so called “leeching” is completely voluntary.
Aeschines it is obvious you know very little about Mexico or its history. Everything you think you know appears to have come from biased American media sources.
I am curious as to how Canada benefits from U.S. military spending. What specific threat has the U.S. defended Canada from? Can you point to any marginal cost the USA has incurred defending Canada?
Indeed, as Canada has joined in the defense of the United States as a result of 9/11, spending substantial amounts of Canadian money and, indeed, some Canadian lives, it seems to me the opposite is the case.
Furthermore, it’s extremely dubious that Canada spends more than the United States on social programs. The USA gets all that extra money for defense mainly by borrowing it; at least of late, Canada’s government has not run deficits.
Canada’s got its own deal, with Quebec permanently pissed off, etc. Besides, our two systems are pretty similar. Cultures, identical. A matter of time.
The US military isn’t really for defense; it’s for stablizing the world, putting out fires, etc. Canada piggybacks on the benefits. The same with US economic might.
No, they’re coming here illegally and use US emergency rooms instead of what care they would have gotten back in Mexico.
Yes, and being here, working here long term is a benefit of citizenship. Like… duh.
No, Mexico is not actively promoting it; it doesn’t have to. It can simply sit back passively and enjoy the benefits thereof. Which, in effect, is nearly as bad.
No, it is our issue too, since we are the one getting fucked… right?
You have a good point. The US doesn’t know what it wants. To some extent it enforces the laws; to a great extent it is ineffective. Some people suffer from such ineffectiveness; others benefit. Choose one or the other, I say.
Nope, I don’t agree. Refugee problems are by no means unique to the US-Mexico pair. If an ineffective or immoral regime causes people to spill into neighboring countries, then that bad regime needs to mend its ways.
If you are playing your stereo too loud and letting your kids play in my yard and take my shit, at some point I have the right to cross the property line without you crying, “Trespass!” Mexico needs to get its shit together so that it is not pumping impoverished people into our country. Instead of building a wall, I think the more humane option is to enter that country and require it to get its shit together. At the same time, it’s not worth a war, not worth a lot of bloodshed.
Not if Mexicans then become citizens.
Reread what I wrote
The US has its head up its ass and can’t even manage a no-brainer like making Puerto Rico a state. Our country has entered the arc of decline; will it wise up before its too late? Time will tell.
Irrelevent. Canada knows that it has a friendly neighbor to the south, and it knows that that neighbor will always protect it. It knows that all it has to do is nod in the direction of our foreign policy and it never need seriously consider its place in the world. Leeching it is.
Englighten me with cites, points, whatever you got. If, in fact, you got 'em.
That doesn’t quite parse as sending free medical care back to Mexico, but anyway.
It’s also a benefit of a permanent residency or a multitude of temporary work visas. Why single out the citizenship option, which can take years if not decades to do legally? What duties exactly are they shirking?
You’re not the ones “getting fucked”. Mexicans are the ones “getting fucked”. And until they elect a goverment that is effective this will continue to be their problem. You may be suggesting that if Americans took over the running of Mexico suddenly all their problems will disappear, in which case your points are so surreal they’re not even worth debating. But this would be the only way your proposition would make any sense in terms of solving this alleged “getting fucked” by illegal immigrants. My personal view is that the lack of resolution of this issue has been due to a lack of will on the part of the United States. A comprehensive strategy of punishing those who employ people illegally would probably resolve the issue to a large extent.
Actually, even if this ridiculous analogy was applicable (which it isn’t), you don’t get to cross the property line and exercise sovereignty over their property. You get to file charges against the specific individuals who cause you harm. In this case, the illegal aliens themselves. Unless you’re in favor of justice where an entire family is punished for the deeds of one of it’s members.
You wrote “BTW, I am not saying that Mexicans should not have the right to vote for any extended period of time. They would be free to move to any state in the union right away, and as soon as the various parts of the country established constitutions and were admitted as states, the people living there would be able to vote.”, which implies that they would have their right to vote taken away for a certain period. I assume they don’t have the right to leave the union once they can vote again, otherwise you would just allow them to vote on joining in the first place. Right?
It is not irrelevent. The Unites States gets to choose what it does with it’s military. What Canada knows, and whether it chooses to bet on the Unites States saving it’s bacon, is its choice. If the United States provides this security it is only because it has decided that it is in it’s best interests to do so. Otherwise it would have decided not to provide this security. Any claim that Canada is forcing the US to protect it (or even would have the capability to do so) is ridiculous, and any claim that this is a good motivation for annexation rather than simply withdrawing the military support is even more so.
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.
What are you are talking about?
Canada’s Parlimentary system is more similar to the UK’s than the US system. Would you say the UK system is like the US system?
We don’t have a seperation between executive branch and legislative. The Party who wins the most seats in the House of Commons appoints is leader Prime Minister. He/She (we have had one female Prime minister briefly) votes in the House with the Party. Our Senate members are appointed by the party in power
and have the job until they either die or retire.
As for our “Identical” cultures I think you are only looking on a very superficial level. There are a good deal of differences in attitudes between American’s and Canadian’s. Our social spending is part of that, there is not as much a distrust of Big Government. Our generakl attitudes about issues of Gun control, Religion and politics are also different on the whole.
For example we have an election going on right now. If any of the Candidates
here started spouting their love of God and country they would be looked upon as a bit of a loon. We don’t cotten to our leaders talking church. That is a private issue and is almost seen as distatful for a candidate to do so.
Now, as for Military spending this country has done the traditional correct thing. In times of War you build and army and you fight. In times of Peace you cut back and spend your money on Domestic things. Now if you are a Great power wanting to keep your influence up around the world then you spend big on your military and keep them in key posistions around the Globe. Don’t complain that we don’t want to try to excersise that kind of spending. The US does it for the USA not for the rest of us. And I for one do not feel beholden to you for your choices.
We have had to spend large twice in the last 100 years. (three times if you inculde Korea). You want to look at what we are capable of simply look at our record in WWI and WWII comparing our contribution to both conflicts and the small size of our population (much smaller than it is now).
If we need to fight we will and we do fight well. We just don’t believe we need to be on a constant war time footing when it comes to spending in our military. We did contribute to our Nato Allies during the Cold War and lived up to or obligtions.
But perhaps you are correct, and we should be thankful for the United States selflessly spending its money protecting us. So I do want to thank the US for defending us from The Iraqis, Panamanians, and of course, The island of Grenada in the last few decades.
Education through the university level is free in Mexico. Free fublic healthcare is provided to a large portion of the population.
How odd! Most scholars consider it an example of American imperialism. Here is U.S. Grant’s opinion:
" Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."
The results were spectacularly devasting to the Mexicans whom remained in the newly conquered territories. Private property rights, which were supposedly guaranteed by the Treaty of Guadalupe were completely ignored. In fact laws were passed to make it easy for the white settlers to steal the Mexican’s property. These people had held the land for several generations. They were victims of overt racism in all aspects of their lives.