Posted on 06/25/2006 6:41:38 AM PDT by baseball_fan
80-90% of Mexicans and Canadians are socialists. Add those to the ones already here, and we (conservatives) will be DRASTICALLY outnumbered.
Sure, more trade is fine.
Annexing Mexico [as possibly 5 or 6 separate States], would be as Sam says, an economic boom, not a bust.
Right. How much would it cost just to, for instance, bring their schools up to the level of our worst public schools. Would English be the official language of this "larger USA"? Or would we be inviting a group of dirt poor Quebecs in America?
Let me repeat, this would be a very VERY expensive mistake.
If this came true then all we would need is 5 more zones for the end times to begin. Alright.... nevermind I saw this in a movie once......
Admitting new Canadian or Mexican States would force us to address the issue of 'majority rule'.
Under our republican form of constitutional government, it does NOT rule.
-- It is long overdue to reassert that principle whether, ~or not~, we add new States.
Yeah, but the problem is that very shortly after the Mexes and Canucks are allowed to vote along with US Citizens, we will no longer HAVE a "constitutional republic". We'll be a "parliamentary democracy"--which has been the goal ever since Woodrow Wilson was president. The Constitution will be kaput.
Sure, more trade is fine.
More liberty is even better.
Millions of US citizens would invest & live in Mexico if it were part of the USA.
Annexing Mexico [as possibly 5 or 6 separate States], would be as Sam says, an economic boom, not a bust.
Right. How much would it cost just to, for instance, bring their schools up to the level of our worst public schools.
Nothing, if we abandoned our socialistic public school system, and replaced it with a capitalistc one.
Would English be the official language of this "larger USA"?
Yes.
Or would we be inviting a group of dirt poor Quebecs in America?
Are the people of Alaska 'dirt poor'? -- Ask yourself why not, toddster. Could it be because they are not bound up in a socialistic 'quebec type' system?
Let me repeat, this would be a very VERY expensive mistake.
Your mistake is in accepting that an expanded constitutional/capitalistic USA is not possible.
Nothing for anyone to worry about. FR's resident OBLs have assured us that this is all tinfoil hat conspiracy imaginings....our elites have our best interests at heart and would never sell American sovereignty and territory down the Rio Grande River!
/extreme sarcasm
Yeah, but the problem is that very shortly after the Mexes and Canucks are allowed to vote along with US Citizens, we will no longer HAVE a "constitutional republic".
Circular argument; - a 'majority' does not have the power to change our Constitutions principles, one of which is a 'non-democratic' republican form of government ruled by only constitutional laws.
We'll be a "parliamentary democracy"--which has been the goal ever since Woodrow Wilson was president. The Constitution will be kaput.
It's strange to be forced to argue that our liberties cannot be 'voted away'. -- Why do so many people on this forum argue otherwise? -- Why is the concept of majority rule supported?
Just steps towards a one world government.. a push towards less concern over actual citizens of this country, when more and more weight will be given to "oneness"..
Are the people of Alaska 'dirt poor'? -- Ask yourself why not, toddster. Could it be because they are not bound up in a socialistic 'quebec type' system?
My reference to Quebec concerned their language, not their socialism.
Are you supporting the concept that 'majority rule' can sell us down the river?
What do you have to say now? Looks like a trial balloon article to me...
I'll fetch the tinfoil for you.
" Bush's one world order supporters will arrive and show us the error of our way for not supporting his dream."
Give the Mexico/mexican loving texans their wish, give Texas to Mexico and cancel NAFTA.
You don't understand the use of tinfoil. It's for nutjobs like you who believe this conspiracy stuff.
Unfortunately, the reason you need it is the reason you don't use it.
The deep question is how do you make Mexico a first class country. This is something that Vincente Fox has brought up frequently recently.
The trouble is that no one quite sees that the very best thing we could do for Mexico is to send their now well trained citizens home.
Suddenly Mexico would have a skilled workforce who knew something about how a world class country worked.
Think these folk would propel a great leap forward for Mexico?
I do.
Basically the ruling class in Mexico is preditory to its own detriment and will not change of its own volition--even if those changes were in its own interest. But it can be forced to change.
The Mexicans in the USA have had the picture of what a well run country looks like tatooed on the back of their eyeballs. And they'll have an idea of how to get there. Send them back to Mexico and they'll get a revolution in Mexico that'll do that country some good.
The shock troops for that would be the 12 million repatriated Mexican citizens. Having seen what a well run country looks like they would not want to be stuffed back in the old wineskin.
There's something more.
I follow water desalination research pretty closely. While water desalination costs have dropped to about a third of what they were 15 years ago--the rate at which prices will drop over the next seven years will accelerate considerably. imo in even the next five years we will see desalination costs drop to 1/10th of today's costs. Or even faster than the fall the 3/4 fall that the LLNL researchers suggest.
http://www.physorg.com/news67262683.html
Basically, the foundations are being laid today to make it economically feasable to to turn all the world's deserts green. (The proper way to look at this is to recall that cars, tv's and computers were at first rich men's toys but when prices came down they changed the world. Desalinised water is still relatively speaking -- a rich man's toy. But when the price drops sufficiently--desalinised water will change the world--because most deserts are right beside the ocean. Pumping the water 1000 miles inland will require that the scientists collapse the cost cracking out hydrogen from water. I think that this nut will be cracked sooner than desalination.)
imho cheap desalinised water will do for the republicans (if they can get this on their agenda or even the democrats if the pubbies drop the ball) what the great dam building projects & the tva of the 1930's & 40's did for democrats because 1/3 of the US is deserts. We would increase the habitable size of the USA by 1/3.
Dirt cheap desalinised water will also do things like make it possible to double the habitable size of Mexico. Cheap water is no magic bullet but it will give the Mexican Nationalists a way to dream while the Mexican people do the real work.
And desalinated water in tandem with repatriation of now skilled Mexican citizens would propel Mexico into being a world class country.
Oh and one last thing. Mexico will need a stronger dose of of the Peruvian Hernando Desoto ideas. Basically DeSoto asked the question why are some countries poor and some questions rich. His answers are being implimented successfully in countries around the world. http://www.ild.org.pe/home.htm
Hernando de Soto's organization was invited to Mexico and did some work on the question. He says that only 6 percent of Mexican enterprises are legal, the rest are informal. So how do you reverse that so that only 6% of the economy is informal -- as is the case the USA. De Soto would provide the ideas around which the 12 million american trained Mexican returnees could rally.
There is a winner here. The winner is Mexico.
The US profits too by having a prosperous politically stable country with a broad middle class to the south as we do to the north.
In case you haven't seen this article.
You still believe in "Majority Rules?" hahahaha
They wouldn't stop with Texas. They also want 4-5 other states as well.
And the authors of the original Constitution were only going to amend the "Articles of Confederation", too.
"It's strange to be forced to argue that our liberties cannot be 'voted away'. -- Why do so many people on this forum argue otherwise? -- Why is the concept of majority rule supported?"
Because that's the reality. A big chunk of our "Constitutional liberties" have ALREADY been "voted away" by our own Congress. See "campaign finance reform" for the most recent example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.