« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Like it or Not: Mexico is America’s Next Afghanistan

It's time to 'man up' and face a fact that most politicians know, but few care to admit.

With the exception of, perhaps, Texas governor Rick Perry, no public official wants to publicly admit an obvious fact: The United States of America will likely be forced to invade Mexico. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.  The question then becomes: What to do with Mexico after we invade it and wipe out the drug cartels (as much as can be). Does the United States merely return Mexico to a nation state of corrupt politicians, failed economic policies, and lawlessness, or do we annex Mexico and turn it into the 51st state?

For many of us, there is a certain false security in believing that, since most of America’s streets are not filled with the murder and mayhem that is going on just South of our borders, we have nothing to worry about. The feeling that most Americans likely have is: Well, it’s their problem, not ours. However, that illusion of security is quickly being eroded with the stories of American police officers being threatened by Mexican drug cartels, of kidnappings and drug murders in Arizona and Texas, of control of certain parts of Arizona and forays into New Mexico and Colorado by drug cartels, of teenagers being turned into hitmen, and American tourists being kidnapped or killed while on vacation in Mexico.

Mexico, with its kidnappings and more than 28,000 murders in the last four years alone, is being terrorized. Now, instead of economic refugees coming across our borders in search of jobs and income, humanitarian refugees are fleeing Mexico in order to stay alive. However, despite all of that, if one thought that only certain parts of Mexico are under the control of the cartels, that illusion was shattered on Tuesday when this map (see upper right) was presented on a heart-breaking post on RedState that shows that almost all of Mexico has been taken over by drug cartels.

Mexican Authorities Are Impotent, Unable to Control the Chaos

One of the cables that the much-maligned Wikileaks exposed was the concern over whether or not the Mexican government is even capable of undertaking the cleaning up of its own nation.

Another embassy cable sent in October 2009 quotes a senior Mexican official as saying his government was worried it was losing control of some regions to the drug gangs.

“We have 18 months,” Geronimo Gutierrez, at the time Mexico’s under-secretary of the interior, is quoted as saying.

“And if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognisable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain this confrontation into the next administration.”

“It is damaging Mexico’s reputation, hurting foreign investment, and leading to a sense of government impotence.” [Emphasis added.]

That cable was 14 months ago and the violence is still raging. The Mexican government has, so far, been unable to curtail the violence and it is likely that, without intervention, the country will become far more deadly than Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Worse, Islamic terrorists have been long suspected of using Mexico as a gateway into the U.S.

While America’s national interests are certainly being threatened, not just by the flood of illegal immigrants, but by the violence that is beginning to spill across our borders, the Obama administration chooses to pander to special interests pushing amnesty, while ignoring repeated requests for troops along our Southern border. Moreoever, the administration claims about the level of deportations in 2010 have come under scrutiny, leaving many to wonder if the administration is even remotely serious about secure borders, or just playing games for the media.

Like it or not, Mexico’s problems are our problems. For decades, politicians in Washington have cowardly turned a bi-partisan blind eye to the economic refugees (i.e., illegal aliens) that have transgressed our borders until it has become an unbearable strain upon our economy. Then, rather than securing our border and addressing the problem, the immigrants are now being used as political pawns in order to create a huge pool of 8 million progressive voters.

The Politics at Play: A Humanitarian Request vs. ‘Just Do It’

Whether the Obama administration lacks the desire to keep the nation’s borders safe or is merely playing politics with people’s lives remains to be seen. In either case, though, it is highly unlikely there will be any stopping the violence on our borders between now and 2013 unless something catastrophic occurs on the U.S. side of the border, or violence ramps up significantly with many more Americans being kidnapped or killed. Further, even with something disastrous occurring, it is doubtful that the Obama administration would ever have the cojones political will to put troops into Mexico as unilateral action as it would alienate the Latino community his party has become reliant on for votes in the Southwestern states.

On the Mexico side, however, politics also come into play as Mexican authorities will be unlikely to ask for humanitarian assistance due to that country’s presidential election in 2012.

The PRI, which ruled Mexico for 71 years as a semi-dictatorship, has been in opposition for a decade after it lost power in an historic 2000 election to the PAN. It is gearing up for a comeback in 2012 with its young rising star, State of Mexico Governor Enrique Pena Nieto.

With a feeble economy and raging drug gang violence dogging Calderon’s ratings, many analysts are already putting their money on a PRI return, but Sunday’s results suggest many voters in Mexico are still skeptical of a party with a reputation of ruling with a mixture of corruption and authoritarianism.

The PAN and the PRD are unlikely to join forces again for the presidential race and either party on its own may have a hard time beating the PRI, which controls large blocks of voters from unions to farmer organizations in rural Mexico.

“The alliance was a successful bet, the results prove that,” Jose Gonzalez, the PAN’s deputy leader, told Reuters. “But for the presidency, frankly, it would be impossible.”

State-level voting in Mexico tends to focus on local, rather than national issues, yet the PRI is keen to capitalize on Calderon’s sinking popularity as a slow economic rebound and out-of-control drug killings weigh on morale. [Emphasis added.]

With the presidency of Mexico at stake in 2012, Calderon’s party is unlikely to ask for help as it would give the PRI a campaign issue to capitalize on ahead of Mexico’s election. As a result of the political ramp up to elections in both countries and using the number of killings in Mexico over the last four years as a predictor, another 10,000 to 14,000 Mexicans and an unknown number of Americans will die before either country takes decisive action.

In 2013 and beyond, though, all bets are off. If the Mexican government cannot contain the violence in that country, or more bloodshed occurs on the U.S. side of the border, either the Mexican government may request humanitarian aide, or the U.S. would be justified in acting unilaterally to go into Mexico to end the drug cartels’ brutal terrorism (it’s not like it hasn’t happened before). In fact, if the violence on the U.S. side of the border does not cease, or escalates further, whomever is sitting in the oval office will be hard pressed not to go into Mexico.

Nation Build or Annex Mexico?

The question then become what to do afterward. Is the U.S. ready for another protracted foray into nation building? Or, in the alternative, does Mexico enter the United States as the 51st state?

Now, this should not be considered an ‘endorsement’ of either idea (see note below). Rather, it is more of a cost-benefit analysis that requires much more study:

Rather than nation building, which would be much more costly to the U.S. treasury (which can ill afford it), a case can be made for statehood (albeit, not without controversy), given the amount of Mexico’s citizenry that is already residing in the U.S., as well as Mexico’s historically mis-managed economy and resources (i.e., oil, farmland, beaches, ports, etc.). Moreoever, as so many illegal immigrants work already in the U.S., but send their earnings back to Mexico, by having Mexico become the 51st state, the money exported would not leave the U.S. but would stay in “our economy” and could offset the costs of an invasion/humanitarian mission. Most importantly, by assimilating Mexico into the U.S., with the Constitution it would solve the the issue of immigration reform in one fell swoop.

Note: Being well aware of the tin-hat/NWO conspiracy theories, this is not a CFR/TC conceived idea. Instead it is an examination of current events caused by a bunch of narco-terrorists and illegal immigration, as well as an attempt to figure out what do we do about it?

Irrespective of what happens farther down the road, the violence that is occurring today in Mexico and spilling over into the U.S. is something that cannot continue to be ignored by the administration, regardless how weak it may be. If things do not change in Mexico (or if the President refuses to secure our borders), sooner or later, the U.S. will likely have to send a large amount of troops into that country to wipe out the drug cartels. Mexico, today, poses as significant (or more significant) threat to the United States than Afghanistan and, as a sovereign nation, America has the right to defend itself and its time the White House (and other politicians) get honest with the American people about what they intend to do about it.

In the meantime, the Obama administration should stop playing politics with people’s lives along the border, ‘man up’ and get Rick Perry and the other Republican governors the troops they need to keep Americans safe along the border.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • wonkish1

    The current administration will be voted out and everything will return to the way it was with the Mexican government ending the war and everything going back to “turning a blind eye”.

    The non drug private sector just isn’t strong enough yet to make progress against the cartels yet. It will one day, and that is just reality.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    Not going to happen. The clowns in D.C. (in both parties, sadly) haven’t a clue. Now people everywhere are paying the price.

    • calgacus

      George HW Bush and George W Bush are absolute traitors. They literally do not care any more about Americans than they do about Mexicans.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • pilgrim

      We do not want any new “slave” states like California and NY to join the Union.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

    Prior to the United States entering WWI, we made a foray into Mexico from 1916-1917, chasing Francisco “Pancho” Villa. Villa’s side had recently all but lost the Mexican Revolution, lost previous American support, and attacked the town of Columbus, New Mexico.

    The year-long foray was politically ham-strung and, while General Pershing claimed victory in public, in private he admitted the restrictions on his campaign kept him from real success.

    While Villa had his issues with the law, both before and after the Revolution, he was no cartel boss; however similarly, the cartel bosses are not military leaders. An invasion of Mexico seems, to me, unnecessary at this time. Rather, a covert, black-ops action seems like a more appropriate and, in this man’s opinion, will likely be more effective at dealing with the cartels.

    But first, we need a man in the Oval Office with the cajones political will to do it.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

        …motion-sensing machine gun turrets…

        I keed! I keed!

        Seriously, though, a fence on its own won’t be sufficient. There are already fences on some areas of the border, and they get cut or bypassed or somebody digs tunnels underneath. An integrated system with motion sensors, thermal imaging devices and control centers would be much more effective and can be done with off-the-shelf technology that wouldn’t cost tens of billions of dollars except that it’ll be a government enterprise that will automatically cost ten times what the private sector could do…

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          that a fence alone is not sufficient, but a fence must be the centerpiece, because its very existence deters a large number of would be aliens that live far off that would not want to deal with a physical barrier; a fence makes the use of other devices more efficient; and a fence is best at preventing shooting matched on our side of the border.

          Too much emphasis on non-fence technology almost invites violeny confrontations on US soil.

          Building a fence saves money as well. First of all, it helps save on manpower after its built and is not a prohibitive cost to build.

          fences make good nieghbors

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            we station large armies that can respond to those that run thru the free space where a fence should be.

            I’m a fence guy. There is one around my house and the White House. Both have guns inside the house as well and dogs outside!

          • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

            …just that the other technologies are a “force multiplier”. They make the simple fence far more effective.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            legal fees defending fences

          • wayne2010

            This just a thought, but why not offer some of the land to Patriotic Americans willing to put their gun where their mouth is. It would be less expensive and more affective the invading hordes knew they were going to be greeted by an array of American citizens willing to protect their homeland. In fact, contractually obligated to..

            OK, this is not a serious post, and not completely thought out (as a defense against those eager to attack it), but it seems like a worthwhile notion to contemplate more…

            My two cents..

          • acat

            IIRC, there was one American religious group who “invaded” Mexico in the last century…. forget which one…

            By “invaded”, I mean whole communities sold their North American farms, emigrated, and built new farms in Mexico .. until the Mexican government decided that they were a threat.

            The problem with all of this discussion is “exit strategy” … and I’d say the best approach is to not have one. Annex Mexico entirely, with each state starting as a territory with an appointed governor, and a choice of a path to full statehood or eventual independence.

            Mew

          • nessa

            Its a damn sight better than a bailout, for the rest of us anyway.

            All contracts with the former State are null and void, new contracts are written for necessary services and the States or States begin again as Territories that can petition for Statehood when they are properly prepared and able.

          • myron_j_poltroonian

            Especially one with a built in shooting range. “Don’t Worry – ‘Bob’s’ Here”

          • Read Chesterton

            may one day be used to keep people in.

            That’s always been one nagging thought of mine about the idea of putting up fences and armies along our borders. Militarized borders and fences along the Mexican border may indeed be necessary under the circumstances, but that doesn’t mean they don’t represent a total failure on the part of our government to manage its appointed affairs.

        • JoeG

          Land mines work very well at keeping North Korea and any potential defectors at bay.

          It would never fly politically but would be very effective.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Get serious about shipping illegals back to Mexico and cut off funds transfer from US to Mexico except for valid bank account holders who can prove their legal residency. The latter will shut down about one-third of the Mexican economy.

    Make ‘em a state or otherwise annex them? Hell no. Frankly, if we could seal the border I’d opt to ship in bulk quantities of arms and just let them shoot one another until they run out of bullets or Mexicans.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      (n/t)

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      if the administration would admit the problem in the first place.

      Chop off the money flow and the problem will eventually solve itself. Don’t chop off the money flow or effectively seal the border the problem will just grow until Mexico collapses.

      The question is if/when we invade/augment the forces in Mexico to help stabilize will we be the imperialist aggressors or will we be the great liberators of people? (likely that part depends on who is in office at the time)

      • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

        Their insistence at using the PC terminology of “undocumented workers/aliens” or “unregistered voters” (heh) or whatever the line of the day is shows their not willing to do so. Then their base goes around hollering “immigrants built this country!” forgetting those were legal immigrants, not illegal. Admitting the problem first has to start with calling it what it is, in as bluntly an un-PC way as possible.

        I’m with Becker here and Gamecock above (on the fence). Cut the money flow and secure the border. Sadly I don’t see the O-ministration willing to do that.

  • craiginiowa

    Since the people of mexico would prefer to be americans it seems inevitable that someday mexico will become part of the US. However – one state? No way – we might end up with another california. I could see mexico becoming 5 -10 individual states. Which would be good for both the people of mexico and the us.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Czech Republic, Ukraine, that other Georgia, Poland, and Columbia.

      • aesthete
        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • aesthete

            that Obama goes without support in GOP ranks :)

  • d_lamar

    Mexico should never be incorporated into any part of the United States. It is probably not capable of being governed, the same as Haiti, Somalia, and Afganistan.

    The best thing we can do is totally wall off Mexico from our border, and enforce it by military means. Land mines, machine gun towers every few hundred yards, and the will to use these devices would soon stop the spillover of lawlessness into this country.

    If we don’t have the will to enforce our border integrity, it won’t be long before we become like Mexico.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      If nothing happens to secure the border, then we might as well face the alternative.

    • sheila

      because wherever a Mexican is, as their president proudly noted, there is Mexico. They routinely cross our border, purportedly to escape not merely the poverty but also the violence of their homeland, and they bring with them their disdain for education, their machismo, their drunk driving, their gangs, and their sense of entitlement. There are hundreds of miles of our border where our own authorities dare not go and strongly advise the American people not to go. Our national parks have been turned into pot-growing plots by and for Mexican narco gangs. The Mexican army routinely crosses into our territory and fires weapons at our ineffectual (and largely Hispanic) Border Patrol.

      As far back as under Reagan, the Grace Commission noted that most of Puerto Rico was on food stamps. That is Mexico, writ large. A state? Methinks not. We do not need to invade; we need to quarantine.

      • froster

        Where should I even start?

      • BooBooKitty

        glaring down a sharp patrician nose at the bigoted perception of the unwashed masses scuttling like roaches across the border to taint our pristine land? Or am I disparaging you too with an unfair, racist generalization?

  • tngal

    Oh joy. No – best not to start a trend .

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Invade, that is. All we need to do is properly guard our border and protect our citizens. If the Mexican government wants our help and specifically asks us for assistance, that’s one thing (which would still have to be properly considered), but like Afghanistan? I sure hope not.

  • izoneguy

    Mine the border and Make a 2 mile no mans land between Mexico & the US.

    Pull all of the troops out of Iraq and South Korea and send them down to the border. We have bigger problems here and now.

    Send all the democrats in Congress to Mexico for a permanent vacation.

  • johnt

    But then we’ll be called racists anyway.
    We are paying a price, which will get much higher, for illegal and legal Latino votes. The Health Care reform travesty is aimed in part at the illegals, as are the often haphazard voting procedures.
    For the whores in Washington there is no tomorrow, so no problem.
    And if there is they’ll blame someone else.

  • C.S. McCoy

    This would be a disaster. Although many Mexicans are envious of the economic opportunities in the US, forcing all of them to become Americans wouldn’t go over well. It’s not Canada. It’s a very different culture and they are very different people. Integration would be extremely difficult and unlikely to be a success, not to mention the strains that such a large impoverished population would put on our welfare state, which unfortunately won’t be eliminated anytime soon (unless of course we actually have our own Greek-style debt crisis).

    Mexican politicians regularly campaign on anti-Americanism. It works because many Mexicans perceive the government to be under the thumb of their neighbor to the north. Regardless of whether or not this is true, the perception exists. Annexing the country would validate these claims. Like us, they simply want to govern themselves according to their own values (however flawed some of those values may be). Annexation would prevent this from happening and would therefore be viewed as an act of imperialism. It would give rise to an extremely popular nationalist movement.

    Invading the country, at least in some grand campaign, wouldn’t be successful either. The Mexican government hasn’t failed to tackle the drug cartels because of a lack of military strength, they’ve failed because the cartels often have the support of the local populace, particularly in rural locations. Like in Afghanistan, the cartels can easily blend into the landscape and population when needed. Defeating them won’t be quick or easy for us, and success wouldn’t be certain. A full-scale invasion would also face the same problem with nationalism that annexation would.

    Even if the Mexican government collapses and the country descends into complete chaos, I’m not sure there’s a whole lot we can do to help. Even if we were to solve the problems Mexico faces, those solutions won’t be viewed as legitimate by large segments of the population, which would threaten the long-term success of any plan we implement. They have to solve their problems themselves. We’re having trouble nation-building in Afghanistan, what makes us think we’d be able to do a better job in a country as large and as populous as Mexico?

    This isn’t to deny the threat that the violence in Mexico faces to our own security, both physical and economic. We should absolutely put troops along our entire border. There shouldn’t be a single foot that isn’t visible to the naked eye of an American soldier. There’s a huge difference, however, between protecting our border and rebuilding an entire country.

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      No matter what happens, large segments of the Mexican populace will believe that we caused it. They have blamed the United States for almost all their ills since the Mexican War. Even the French-backed dictatorship that took over in the 1860s was blamed on us (despite the fact that the final decision by the French to leave came AFTER American troops marched to the Rio Grande).

      So even if Mexico collapses, it’ll be our fault. If the cartels take over, we financed them. If the government finally gets its act together, it’s because we picked the winners and destroyed the losers. They’ve been fed a propaganda diet of “The United States is the cause of all your problems” for 140 years. For many of them, it’s true whether it’s reality or not.

      • CJB68

           We already have pan-Mexican nationalist movements active stateside (i.e., La Raza).  They’ve been operating on the premise that a mean, racist United States is putting the “brown” people down and illegally occupying a mythical region called Aztalan — basically, the Pacific Coast up to Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.  That it has morphed into a full-scale invasion of the entire country by Hispanics seeking for coerce us into becoming a “bilingual” nation (quite unlike their homeland, where I would be dragged into a jail cell if I walked in without learning their Spanish) is no small indication of their true motivation.

           I’ve often said this: Mexico is the “Germania” to our “Roman Empire”…

  • speciallist

    cue Coldwarrior

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      it could become another dependency and a huge drain on the budget.

      • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

        ooops…

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      first we need politicians who take this country seriously beyond what they can loot from it… the TEA party is a nice start towards that, hOpefully it will get stronger as time goes on and become a party by itself instead of staying a movement in reaction to being near the brink of collapsing the nation..

  • banzaibob

    will only work if it is left up to the Mexican people. Show them what it would take to be annexed and then let them vote on it. They should learn english but be allowed to use spanish as their primary language. Learn both American and Mexican history, much of it we have in common. And of course study the US Constitution.

    Once they know how much better they would live under our Constitution,
    Miranda warnings, carrying a firearm to defend yourself against crooks and corrupt officials, and a better future for their children if our politicians don’t ruin it first.

    • d_lamar

      It appears that most of our federal senators and congressman, and of course our current president, don’t have a clue about our founding fathers, the purpose of the Constitution, or how our system is designed to function.

      And our school system has succeeded in dumbing down the students about our system of government and economics. To think that we can somehow educate Mexicans about these things borders on the ludicrous.

      • chamberD

        Federalization (under Dept of Ed.) of Education (thank you Jimmy Carter) and the teachers unions are the culprits behind the sorry state of our education system.

        Fix these two: Eliminate the U.S. dept of ed. and forbid the unionization of teachers (merely a front for commie-type expropriation of dues to fund democrat pols and policies) and much of our education system can return to health.

        INW, turn back the clock. Return to pre-Carter and pre-union days.

  • Read Chesterton

    why the print media, especially the Sunday newspapers and their increasingly tabloid-like supplement magazines, are the dodo birds of the information age.

    The treatment given Mexican affairs and immigration by the MSM are as much to blame for the crisis as the lazy and corrupt politicians. I hope your “modest proposal” catches fire and stimulates debate from the next congress going forward.

    • speciallist

      it’s all about the old media and their refusal to hold important feet to fire

  • smagar

    The Tohono o’Odham Indian reservation runs from Mexico, across the US border to the western edge of Tucson and west of Phoenix. The reservation’s northern boundary stops a few miles south of Interstate 8, the major route from Phoenix to San Diego.

    According to plenty of news reports in the Tucson area, relations between the Border Patrol and the o’Odham are strained. The fact that southern Arizona is the most liberal portion of the state, and filled with liberals who will gleefully seize on any opportunity to take the opposite side of the Border Patrol on any issue, makes me think the Border Patrol might be finding it hard to do its job as effectively on the o’Odham reservation as it can elsewhere on the AZ border.

    Now, couple that with the fact that much of Arizona’s border is federal wilderness land….and federal wildernesses often insist that the Border Patrol use eco-friendly means to do its mission…and I think we have lots of reason to worry…

    …NOT that the Arizona border is less secure than we thought. We knew that already.

    No, we should be concerned that the defacto US border, the parts that Border Patrol can effectively patrol, extends much farther into the US, and much closer to our homes, than many of us heretofore thought.

    • smagar
  • schooky

    I currently live and work in central Mexico. I will share with all of you a couple of things about living here in Mexico. 1st: The people of Mexico are scared. 2nd: The people of Mexico love America.
    In my opinion, if the United States of America were ever going to decide to help another nation it should be Mexico. Why you ask? It is a God fearing Catholic 95% nation. The nation is 20% immigrants, mostly from Europe and the US. US businesses have already invested a lot of money here in Mexico, and would likely invest much more if things are stabilized here.
    A wall is not the answer to the problem. While having US troops along the border may serve as a deterrant, nothing will ever stop the flow of drugs to the US while demand remains. All building a wall will do is MOVE the problem.
    Mexico will always be Mexico. It is not in the interest of the US nor in the interest of Mexico to change this. Mexico has its own history, which it is very proud of and I don

    • d_lamar

      More of the blame America for all the world’s problems.

    • chamberD

      Supply creates its own demand.

      Saying, schooky, that “nothing will ever stop the flow of drugs to the US while demand remains,” misses the basic fact of economics.

      For example, there was no demand for bananas in Western Europe until “Portugese sailors brought bananas to Europe from West Africa in the early fifteenth century,” (as per about.com).

      Bananas: good importation. Drugs: bad importation.

      We should follow Singaporean-type penalties for the importation of “bad” and harmful substances. THAT would put the drug cartels out of business.

      Liberals and left intend to destroy America — therefore, having lenient drug laws appeals to those among us who seek radical transformation of our country. Lenient drug laws appeal to Libertarians who want no strictures whatsoever on human freedom placed on them by the government.

      And then of course, follow the money. Somewhere someone making political decisions is profiting from the status quo.

      Supply creates its own demand. Remember that.

      • d_lamar

        If supply creates demand, then I should be able to make a killing on bermuda grass and garbage.

        • chamberD

          You’re being deliberately perverse when you could have attempted instead to offer an alternate and well-reasoned opinion.

          • aesthete

            is incorrect. The fact that the Portuguese markets didn’t demand bananas was the result of the fact that there was no knowledge of bananas, not the fact that there was more “supply”. I could labor for years to provide massive quantities of dog poop, and I would not budge demand for it one iota. A dehydrated man in the desert doesn’t cease to demand water simply because it isn’t available. Demand must logically precede supply; otherwise, why would a supplier be motivated to look for ways to supply his product in the first place? (This assumes adequate information, of course.)

            Given that bans on drugs do not eliminate the supply of drugs (rather, they simply drive it underground and thus impose costs), your conclusion is incorrect even if one uses your formulation. It is much more accurate to say that intense demand and adequate supply will find a way to meet even under harsh conditions: this applies just as much to the repressed black markets in N Korea and the former USSR are as does to the drug market in the US.

          • chamberD

            Supply creates its own demand.

            Look it up and enlighten yourself.

          • aesthete

            I have a degree in the very field of study we’re discussing, friend :) There’s nothing to the oft-quoted axiom: it’s a gross misstatement of Say’s Law, and is ridiculous on its face for the reasons I gave above. I would recommend that you inform yourself on the labor theory of value: it relies on similar premises, and was debunked using similar arguments to the ones I gave above (which is part of what makes Marxism illogical and un-rigorous, in addition to being evil, but that is neither here nor there).

          • wonkish1

            Supply doesn’t create demand.

            Larger supply reduces prices and increases the “Quantity Demanded” though, but as long as there is demand there will be supply. There is no way around it.

            That is why the best way to shut down an industry isn’t the threat of harm for the suppliers(for they will just increase the price and profit to compensate the risk) it is to choke off demand.

          • chamberD

            And we’re going to choke off demand exactly how?

            Since in our postmodern age there are few if any “internal” curbs on destructive addictive pathologies, what do you recommend to stop the users from using?

            Imprisonment? A return to a traditional culture where we actually label things as good and evil — that could serve to promote “internal” curbs?

            Heaven knows that the liberal vision, with its ruling principle of toleration and non-discrimination, is insufficient to nurture in man a more finely honed conscience, one that would eschew destructive personal behaviors and redound to a more self-governing populace. And we can’t rely on the Libertartians in this regard either, can we?

          • d_lamar

            is not one that will instill in an individual any sense of right and wrong. Our culture has been transformed into the values of Woodstock.

            Some of us are old enough to remember when people actually felt shame when they did something frowned upon by the culture. I’m afraid those days are probably forever gone. Too bad. America had such great potential.

          • wonkish1

            The US government can try to cut the supply all it wants to, it is just going to be a proverbial waste of money. It is a fact that as long as there is demand you will not put a dent in the industry. This is true whether you want it to be or not.

            Now to answer your question, well look to what has worked in particular areas. The county that I was born and raised, is now a major meth producing county. It is still a pretty wealthy county, but away from the major towns is a lot of meth labs and that county makes the most meth busts every year for the state and yet it only appears that meth production is rising.

            What is amazing is that usage in the county is extremely low. Surprisingly, 1 of the top 50 meth producing counties still has less than 1% usage in their high schools. Why? Because as soon as the stuff hit the seen every school in the county got very proactive and every year has brought in people to scare the living **** out of the kids. This is while supposed “gateway drug” usage remains high.

            Trust me, while many on the left are defending Marijuana practically every other type of drug from Cocaine to Heroin to Meth to Ecstasy it isn’t very hard to take hard measures on the demand side. Whether that is through forced rehab at an earlier stage of getting caught, more jail time, more piss tests, or good old fashioned information is purely a matter of what works the best.

      • CJB68

           My older brother has a similar “follow the money” observation on the illegal drug trade when it comes to why we have so many liberals* pushing their views through our government and mass media.  He sees the influence of narcotics in almost all of the things that they’re doing, from anti-American rhetoric to pandering for votes using welfare state pork.

           When you see the number of people who’re voting for the Left, and then see what their habits are, you have to wonder if he’d be onto something here.

        * The term “liberal” sticks in my crawl these days… I think they’re simply the latest iteration of that proverb about power’s corrupting influence.  Hence the comparisons I can make between the United States Congress and Rome’s Senators and magistrates as that old republic began to collapse and morph into what we know as the empire.

    • NeoKong

      The drug cartels aren’t getting rich off of Mexicans buying their drugs. They sell it to Americans.
      It’s a shame to watch Mexico down the tubes like this when they have been such a good neighbor in the past.
      It’s not the fault of Mexico that their citizens cross our border illegally.
      It’s ours.
      You cannot give away citizenship and free schools and medical care plus govt. benefits and then say “Oh by the way get out”.
      I am very much against illegal immigration but this country does not do a damn thing about it except complain.

      Also the next time you hear someone say that we shouldn’t be locking up people for drug offenses anymore all they have to do is look at Mexico to see the damage that drugs cause.

      • aesthete

        You could just as easily (and with the same logic) say that the partially failed privatizations of some of the USSR’s former client states mean that the free market is the equal of socialist systems, or say that atheism isn’t that bad because of some tired stats on lower divorce rates among atheists, etc. Very few outcomes are the result of one variable, and it is silly to focus on one variable among many significant ones as a cause for Mexico’s current problems. This is a country that has had various failed revolutions and incidents of violence without drugs, so it isn’t really shocking that drugs haven’t changed that trend.

        Moreover, the US had a similar problem during Prohibition with bootleggers (remember Al Capone?). Unsurprisingly, when Prohibition was repealed, criminals couldn’t compete with the legal competition without abandoning the crime stuff (which, again unsurprisingly, cuts into profits quite a bit). This argument is by no means complete in and of itself, but it is more compelling than the fallacy of correlation=causation.

        • wonkish1

          No privatization plan anywhere in the old Soviet bloc failed over the long term.. There were a lot of cases where people it was very rocky because of larger problems in their markets that made any company in their countries pretty unattractive. That lead to less value for those companies, but they still sold off and the economy was better after a couple of years in every single case.

          • aesthete

            The few drug law liberalizations that have been attempted in the Western have been moderately successful, as well. I was merely pointing out that there there other variables responsible for the fact that those countries didn’t instantly become capitalist utopias, despite the structure of government. (Also wanted to note that Mexico does not have permissive policy when it comes to drugs, so it is an even more flawed comparison by that metric.)

  • pedrom

    The Mexicans are a proud people, most of whom are fiercely loyal to their own country, have no desire to become a part of the United States, and who would rightly resist an invasion with their lives. While it’d be one-sided, it would also result in a blood-bath of horrendous proportions, and we would go down in history as the villains. At least if it’s done at this point.

    I’m hesitant to jump into the folly of trying to analyze Mexican politics, but I think the author is correct in his assessment of the corruption institutionalized by 70+ years of PRI rule. Although the PAN party displaced PRI on the national level with the election of Vicente Fox, he was pretty much an empty shirt who first blamed us for everything. The Calder

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    I kind of like it. Blows the whole illegal immigration problem out of the water. Somehow, though, I don’t really think that’s going to fly with the Mexican people. Drastic changes to their society would have to occur.

  • luciusacius

    A nice solid wall with parapets and a road wide enough to drive at least two humvee’s abreast on the top. Guard posts and observation posts at regular intervals. It worked for Hadrian (without the humvees). Besides, people climbing over a wall cannot see what is on the other side until they get to the top, are skylined and easier to shoot. Walls are way better than fences. We could sell the idea to liberals because the Chinese have done it. So it can’t be racist or anything.

  • calgacus

    But hey dumb Redstaters this is ALL GEORGE BUSH’S FAULT. He deliberately subsidized the illegal alien invasion. Furthermore, not Romney, not Huckabee nor any others will do a thing about it. Don’t kid yourself – the Republican Party is not a patriotic party at the national level. They are internationalist.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Yeah.

    • CJB68

         Too many of us seem to have taken to Doctor Ism’s bootleg liquor.  You’re now seeing the results.

         There’s quite a distance to go before we restore the United States of that little cartoon.  As for the comparison with Hadrian’s Wall, we also have to realize that the Romans didn’t stay on guard at that wall for very long.  Within a hundred years of Hadrian having that thing put up, they were starting to hire f

  • SirGladiator

    Its good to see some folks are finally taking this problem seriously, as I have been saying for quite some time we need to send troops down there. However I don’t believe it should be called an ‘invasion’ and it certainly doesn’t mean taking over Mexico and making them a state. Did we make Iraq a state? Or Afghanistan? We should simply do what we did there, send our troops in and kill the terrorists, and then instead of staying and nation-building or whatever, just come home. Our job is to kill these drug-gang terrorists and make our border states, as well as Mexico as a whole, safe again from their evil terrorism. We have no need, and should have no desire, to take over Mexico. If they want corrupt politicians and a corrupt government, thats none of our business or concern, its their country not ours. Our concern is wiping out the narco-terrorists, plain and simple. So let’s send America’s finest in, and wipe those terrorists out, and then bring our troops home to the hero’s welcome that they deserve.

  • RZ

    We don’t have to invade every country who has problems. We need to secure our border, and to take care of OUR people. I’m sick of helping every country….. it’s not our problem.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      And, no, we don’t have to invade every country that has problems. However, Mexico’s problems have already become our problems and they are only going to escalate.

      By the time 2013 rolls around, there will likely be no other choice and, as the title says, that’s “like it or not”…

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    1. Declare war – as in a formal declaration of war.
    2. Rationale for “1″, they’ve invaded us. If you want to quibble about that come to Arizona.
    3. Round up and deport illegal aliens from Mexico, they are after all agents of a foreign power with whom we are at war.
    4. Build a big wall, mine the border.
    5. Station the National Guard on the border, do not invade, make no effort to do anything but return current foreign nationals who are here illegally and keeping more invaders out.
    6. Shut down all movement of money and assets from the US to Mexico.
    7. Nationalize all Mexican assets in the US.

    • Locked and Loaded

      and wait to see somebody argue with this. Oughta be good!

    • AceInTX

      there have been kidnappings and ransomed Americans there for years…not to mention the bodies found

      • AceInTX

    • d_lamar

      I would add amend the Constitution to prohibit any benefits from being paid to anyone here illegally. That would include the anchor babies who should not be considered US Citizens.

  • http://www.burnthekoranforfreedom.com burnthekoranforfreedom

    Take over Mexico? WTF??? When the Left accuses America of imperialism and then you use “their mismanaged resources” as an excuse for annexing a neighboring country – how do you think THAT is going to go over with anybody?

    Are you Saddam? Is Mexico Kuwait?

    Can you even begin to imagine the resistance the Mexicans and many Americans would wage? Myself included. I live in Arizona and I like it here. Any imperialist schemes you try to implement in Mexico will spill over into where I live. You ain’t turning MY state into a Bush Family war zone. The only good that can come of that is if Arizona gets an excuse to go to war with the Feds.

    SOLUTIONS – Regardless of what you might want to hear, we need to think like Americans. Where’s our American ingenuity? Our creativity? Our willingness to think outside the box?

    Here.

    1. Yes, put the National Guard on the border, and yes, invade if we must. Killl the drug gangs, show no mercy, and then do the unthinkable: turn those areas back over to the Mexican government and FREAKING LEAVE.

    2. This is the west. Start putting bounties on the heads of violent drug gang members. Seriously. Offer rewards of some kind for the capture or killing of any verifiable violent gang member (or Islamic jihadist). This ain’t the days of painted posters on trees. These ‘people’ are on video that can be downloaded from anywhere.

    3. Legalize ALL drugs in the USA immediately. The “War On Drugs” is immoral, impractical, unconstitutional, unwinnable, and a well documented disaster which has created these drug gangs in the first place. Drug dealers provide a service even if YOU don’t personally get all warm and fuzzy about it. When service providers are turned into criminals at the stroke of a pen, they must operate outside the law. They cannot turn to the law when wronged by customers or other dealers – the law is just another gang who is wronging them in the first place. Their only option is to become a law unto themselves, and in that situation the most blood-thirsty will be the most successful. Which is exactly the situation now. ISN’T IT! Our feel-good “drug war” has created a class of ‘person’ who in all probability cannot be civilized under any conditions, and must be dealt with forcibly. Their actions are their fault as individuals, but creating the conditions that forced those actions to be profitable and to flourish is our fault as a voting bloc.

    4. Let the law of supply and demand solve the drug gang problem. Drug manufacture and distribution is extremely high-risk while the product is illegal. Thus, supplies are low and expensive. Let the newly freed American drug market operate in the open, with the law as their arbiter rather than as their enemy, and they will grow it, make it and deliver it faster, better and cheaper than their Mexican counterparts who spend time and money on a war with their government. Do you think those Mexicans will come here to try to take over? That’s why we need a bounty on their heads.

    You may not want to hear what I’ve told you, but it is the CAPITALIST solution, as opposed to your IMPERIALIST solution.

    Regardless of whether you want to hear it.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Bush Family War Zone?

      Oops. Remember, you were supposed to be pretending to be a Republican.

      • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

        ;)

    • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

      put a bounty on drug gang members….

      um, logic disconnect maybe?

    • CJB68
    • HeyMikey

      Why did it take dozens of comments before anyone raised the obvious? Why didn’t the original post raise the obvious?

      Has nobody here heard of Prohibition? Has nobody wondered why are there no modern day Al Capones?

      The reason the drug trade is so violent is that it’s illegal. Legalize it and the drug producers will compete with TV ads and music-tour sponsorships, instead of with machine guns and beheadings. And their bribes, while still undoubtedly corrupting, would at least be publicly tracked as campaign contributions.

      It wouldn’t be utopia. But it would be better than the status quo. And it would beat all hell out of invading Mexico.

  • vivalamigra

    If memory serves me correctly, the Republic of Mexico is composed of sixteen “states.” With 125,000,000 people, they’d be more than 1/4 of the combined 425,000,000 of a merged US/Mexico. The Mexico people wouldn’t settle for a mere 2 United States senators…they’d want at least 12. They’d get over 100 of the existing 435 House of Representative seats…where would those come from? With each state guaranteed at least one, the theft of House seats would be brutal. Even California would see massive losses. You think the current American populace will stand for that? And, of course, Mexicans would demand that Spanish be treated as an equal with English in the courts and legislatures. You thnk Americans would stand for THAT, either? With Mexico’s infrastructure, including roads, schools, electricity, and clean water far below US standards, and the border effectively erased, Mexicans..I mean, our new fellow citizens!…would make a rush north by the tens of millions. Utter chaos. Be carful what you wish for.

  • america1st

    Neither our economy nor our culture can handle assimilating millions upon millions of unskilled illiterates. We have some 20 million or so already, and we are paying dearly in treasure, blood & security for the current invasion.

    Likewise “nation building.” Help the Mexican gov’t? Absolutely. Help the drug cartels have an epidemic of fatal lead overdoses? Absolutely. Openly cross into Mexico in force? No way.

    As others have advocated – build the wall, put the sensors in &
    back it with troops authorized to defend themselves and the sovereign territory of the USA.

    And deport ALL illegals, regardless of race, religion or national origin.

  • jarrod21

    I don’t think these cartels would have the resources to protect themselves from a Tomahawk or five.

    I say just figure out where their leaders’ are (and if TV has taught me anything, they always have these huge villas where they live like kings). Blow those up and kill the leaders. After the cartel members kill each other for a while trying to fill the power vacuum, go clean up the mess and kill whatever is left.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    As a certain gun blogger has been known to say….

    Unpossible. They have strict GUN CONTROL.

    What? It doesn’t work? But….but…..guns are outlawed in civilian hands in Mexico! It must work! Just ask th Brady Bunch and the Violence Policy Center. They wouldn’t, you know, lie…….or make up anything…..or…..get it completely and utterly wrong, Would they?

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Q. Why don’t we invade a neighbor nation that has historically and contemporaneously ignored our borders and sovereignty?

    A: Because we could wipe Mexico out in a couple of hours with just our conventional forces: it offends our delicate moral sensibilities to take on such a weak opponent.

    So, being an historically Christian, non-imperialistic, non-xenophobic nation, we sit on our hands. and explicitly take THEIR invasion. But, if anyone EVER points to our adventures in Iraq again as being a “war for Bush’s Oil Buddies”, I would point out that a much moral logical, (tangentially) moral target of such a “war” by President Bush would have been to invade Mexico. Even though it’s known oil reserves have been in decline, there is evidence to suspect there are fairly vast unknown reserves. And, border harassment has always been viewed as a strike against national sovereignty (-remember Hitler’s manufactured cross-border raids in both the Sudetenland and the Polish frontier as legal cover for invasions?). If manufacturing a “war for oil” was REALLY President Bush’s goal (which of course, it certainly was NOT), this would have made a lot more sense.

    Actually, if America ever sought out war –which it manifestly never has done, with the possible exception of the 1898 invasion of Cuba–, a lightning strike along a 50-mile deep frontier across the entire northern border of Mexico would be such a war. We could then occupy the land, and establish a defense corridor under our command. The people living there would be under martial law, but could still participate in whatever flea-bitten political processes take place there as citizens of Mexico. But, our military build-up and presence inside that corridor would be gigantic, permanent, and non-negotiable. This would ameliorate any running afoul our own posse comitatus laws.

    The rest of Mexico, having an entirely different cultural, historical, religious, and economic lineage than the United States, could be left to rot or thrive, as it chooses. It has nothing in common with the United States, and can never become part of it, unless the United States spirals down and devolves into a third-word post-Christian kleptocracy.

    • CJB68

         Basically, this is what the United States appears set to morph into even as we speak.  Washington DC and several states and municipalities are already reaching the tipping point.  It looks to me like that Russian spymaster’s theory is going to get proven, if we’re unable to hold the line…

  • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

    We need to force politicians to talk about this in a much broader context than “guest worker programs” and “college tuition for illegals”–as you point out, this may be the most tangible national security threat in many, many years.

  • http://www.kennedyroelaw.com capmotion

    We could do the logical thing of eliminating the prohibition on drugs as we did regarding alcohol, and the pendent crimes would instantly disappear. But just As Patton did not want WW II to end, so too those veritable legions of judges, prosecutors, cops, “rehab” people, public defenders, and other war profiteers do not want the “war on drugs” to disappear, because their livelihoods would be immediately affected.

    Like it or not, drugs largely affect only those using them and their families, just as with alcohol, fundamental religions, eating too much cheesecake, etc., and it is not for a government, supposedly “conceived in liberty,” to tamper with the moralistic choices associated therewith.

    People get hit over the head or burglarized or killed to acquire drugs because the market is constricted by prohibition; those who want them will get them, whether purchasing in a legal market for cost 1, or purchasing in an underground market for cost 10, and the latter results in all of the criminality and terrorism associated with illegality.

    But, too many of the “good folk” profit from the illegality to have it go away. Those who dumped tea in Boston Harbour December 16, 1773 [a date not known by most so-called "tea partiers"!] would legalize drugs; those who increased police power and banned everything the “leader” did not like in 30′s Germany would prohibit them: which sort of “conservative” are you?

    • cwilson

      if GHB were available in the corner market. [/sarc] Well, everybody except the victims of GHB-enabled rape.

      See, the “legalize all drug” folks don’t really want to legalize ALL drugs. Just the fun ones that “don’t hurt anybody else”. But…then they claim that doing so would save costs by eliminating all the useless legal and police effort involved in enforcing our drug laws.

      Only…that isn’t true, because there would STILL be some drugs considered illegal…and the profits, crime, and violence would shift to THOSE. Thus, the net effect of the pro-legalization crowd is: (1) more drug use (2) but no real cost saving or reduction in violence. I’m not sure that’s a good thing for society (except that dope heads are usually non-violent and content to sit around munching doritos, instead of going on drug-addled rampages).

      Now, I’m sympathetic to downgrading certain drug crimes into civil infractions…but on the grounds of liberty (you’re free to screw up your own life however you like, so long as you don’t hurt anybody else and don’t expect me to pay for your rehab). But it’s not a panacea for relieving the crime and violence associated with the entire drug trafficking industry, and won’t solve the problems associated with the Mexican narco-terrorists.

    • HeyMikey

      Thank you for saying something sane.

      As usual, the main thing standing in the way of progress is…the voters.

      California just voted down marijuana legalization. If it can’t happen with pot, not even in California, then it ain’t gonna happen with other drugs nationwide.

      Let’s hope that changes before some damn fool President seriously contemplates invading Mexico.

      “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

  • dwscho

    to tackle the issue as evidenced by its efforts to stomp all over the state of Arizona’s attempts to step in aand enforce the law. God forbid, we invade Mexico or, think about making it the 51st state. We don’t need another welfare state as part of the union.

    I realize this may not be politically correct but, if you remove the economic benefits available to the drug cartels, maybe things would settle down. Our drug war has been nothing but a big hole into which we shovel money we don’t have. Legalize the drugs and let the idiots who want to use them do so. The cost of getting drugs would decrease dramtically and remove the huge economic incentives. Under the present situation, the drugees will get their fix anyway but, it costs too much for the rest of us.

    The price of marijuana is already decreasing because of the number of states who have legalized its use for medicinal purposes. Legal growers are taking less for the weed. It seems like that proves my theory to some extent.

    We also need to protect our border by whatever means necessary. Unfortunately, this administration has proven it lacks the intestinal fortitude to do anything.

  • nhbuckeye

    Americans get high whether drugs are legal or not. We waste billions and billions unsuccessfully keeping drug prices high by trying to keep the supply low. All we have done is create a lucrative black market that funds psychopaths and terrorists.

    It is past time to make this problem more black and white. Legalize drugs. You get hooked, you are your own problem. You buy from sources that fund our enemies, you get tried for treason. You come into this country illegally, you are sent back, kids and all. It’s time we man-up – be free, be responsible, respect the rule of law, and make the hard decisions.

  • ihateliberals

    the Taliban or Al Queda. Re-electing McCain in AZ was a horrible mistake that AZ will pay for in the long run. I’m not sure if we need to invade but we do need to stop this Krap at the boarder. It is time to Fess Up, Man UP etc and get this problem solved. This could turn out to be Obama’s Ace in the Hole come election time. I know this is a far out conspiracy theory but it is possible that if the Mexican problem get worse then Obama could declare Marital Law and stop the 2012 elections until the boarder problem is solved. Laugh if you might but this is possible. why do you think he isn’t concerned about pacifying his own party or the Republicans. He has something up his sleeve.

    the war on drugs has been focused on the wrong people. The main effort has been on the users when it should have been on suppliers. Treat the Cartels as enemies and go after them wherever they are. Stop trading with Mexico until they get their country in order. Make them take responsibility for their problem.

  • thelioness

    I have been telling friends and family that for over a year now, but from a bit different perspective! Granted, it may be a simplistic solution…. and I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of the drug cartel wars. Just that neither the Mexican citizenry or government (or US left guard for that matter) seem to think there should be any border — or any enforcement of a border — between there and here. So why don’t we just deal with the facts as they are… our own government has been “acting as if” a border doesn’t exist anyway, . If we’re going to give them all the benefits of citizenry, then let’s just make it official We stop pretending the border stops at Texas, Arizona, et al, and just incorporate Mexico as a state. They all automatically become citizens (which should make the left delirious with joy) and the people, land and resources there contribute to the USA like all other states. . And yes, then while we’re at it, we could clean up the corruption (a relative statement if ever there was one) and take down the drug cartel’s stranglehold. Makes more sense to me than most of the other solutions I hear.

  • 2warabnvet

    In the 19th century our leaders sent Ranald Mackenzie and the cavalry into Mexico to chastise renegade Apaches who came across the border. In the 20th century our leaders sent John Pershing and the army into Mexico to punish Villa for border depredations.
    Now, in the 21st century our leaders hide in the closet while Mexican criminals run rampant over our border.

  • myron_j_poltroonian

    Note to one and all: It’s “Illegal Alien”. In law and in fact. (To paraphrase the most famous line from the movie “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”: “

  • mauro7inf

    First, yeah, it’s true that the cartels are increasingly our problem, but that doesn’t remotely justify invading Mexico. The thing is that Mexico’s government is fighting the cartels, too — we have that goal in common, here — and it wouldn’t make sense to *invade* a very populous country when we could help their military with ours instead. The US can exert pressure on Mexico to accept our help, certainly, and this rather difficult drug problem can be solved by a joint effort (the Mexican government is presumably much more in touch with the human side of the drug conflict than ours is; an invasion would only make the Mexicans who are not in the cartels hate us).

    Second, that map… It doesn’t show which areas are *controlled* by the cartels; it shows which areas are the *domain* of the cartels — the territory where they operate. All of Mexico is in the domain of one cartel or another, but that doesn’t mean that they control the local governments, just that they, exclusively, sell drugs in that region. They can do this peacefully, away from the authorities, but when they try to expand their territory into another cartel’s, the two cartels fight each other, and the world becomes drastically less safe. Now, I am exaggerating when I say “peacefully”, since what they do *is* illegal and the cartels have remarkable power, but it’s not as bad as saying that they *control* the regions on the map.

    Finally, annexing Mexico would be a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BAD idea. There’s a reason many Americans are against a North American Union, and joining with Mexico would be Step 1 in this North American Union, not to mention that the Mexicans are very patriotic and wouldn’t want to join the US, either. Besides the economic and logistical disaster it would be to suddenly have to support another hundred and ten million people, who on average are at a lower standard of living, the whole idea of the United States would be radically changed. Let go of the 51st state fantasy: we’d be adding 31 new states, all of which speak Spanish and not English. 62 new Senators and probably 150 new Representatives. Mexico operates on the same “united sovereign states” principle as we do. Short of a North American Union, that allows America and Mexico to keep their identities while linking the two (plus) countries economically and politically, there is no even remotely plausible solution, and even the North American Union is a terrible idea.

    There is absolutely no reason for us to fight against Mexico. There is plenty of reason to fight *with* Mexico against the drug cartels that plague both countries, however, and that may very well be in our future…

  • Common_Cents

    2000 miles of US/Mexico border.

    Hire 200 Mexican military generals that each are responsible for 10 miles of border patrolling and securing it on their side.

    Give each $1million at the end of the year, but deduct $10,000 from the bonus for each illegal caught on the US side.

    Done for $200million a year. Heck, give them an up front $500k budget and make it $300 million a year to solve the problem.

  • Pingback: An overview of “Middle America”. Notes on the land of maids and gardeners and some of its controversial shifts | Luis Constantino