Sunday, January 08, 2006


Closing the border: Is it too late?

VIA Breitbart, AP's Michael R. Blood reports on the "Stop the Invasion" protests held in 19 states yesterday:

Mr. Blood relates the rallies were poorly attended, and in many places the "pro immigrant" counter-protesters outnumbered the "Stop the Invasion" faction.

I have facetiously made this suggestion before: I'm making it for real now. Are those of us who are trying to close the US - Mexican border simply on the wrong side of history?

Is it time to consider something entirely different, even the opposite?

Should the two governments open negotiations toward unification?

I hear the shrieks...

Economically, it might spell disaster for the US, at least in the short-term. Logic and history agree the richer partner will suffer the most, and the greater the disparity the greater the suffering. Lower-income, less-skilled workers in the US would be especially vulnerable. Our social costs would grow faster than they already are.

We have the example of the German unification: Westerners bewailed wage deflation and skyrocketing social costs - Easterners bemoaned a loss of security. And that in a reunification after only a half-century separation.

But it worked, and both have a better future for it.

Demography is destiny. Hard reality:

If there were an "endangered ethnicity" list, judged by the same criteria we use on endangered species, "Western European White Man" and its descendent groups would be on it. We have too few children, we are on the average too old, and too many of us are dependent on the rest.

Short of a draconian social realignment, "we" are doomed - which is not to say the US is doomed, but rather the unique culture built upon our mostly-European roots is doomed to be greatly changed if not slowly supplanted by simple numbers.

Even if we could fiat the Mexican border closed, this would probably still be the case. It will just take longer. Since 1960 Mexico has grown 2 1/2 times, from 40 to 100 million. The US has not quite doubled in population, and almost 10% of our legal citizens were born outside the US.

And of course, Mexico isn't the only contributor to "our" dilution.

It would take many years and the costs would largely be born by the US. We would have to accomodate as we asked to be accomodated. But it would give us the opportunity to shape the new super-State. As it is, every day hence we will be more shaped by events than we will shaping them.

As it is, we're locked in an "us against them" mentality where running the border is a game and screwing Uncle Sam is a racket. Millions of new hard-working, stakeholding citizens could be a great boon to a reinvigorated Nation, and might be the one thing that could stave off "gray-America" syndrome.

Thoughts? Holler but don't hit...

Actually, I think we should have "annexed" Mexico after the war in 1849.

I agree that the only real answer to this problem is Union with Mexico. For that matter, associate status for other countries in Central America.

There are a lot of ramificiations to such a move, and it would have to be phased over, for argument, a 10 year period. The courts and Law Enforcement would have to be cleaned up, among other things.

And there would be ramifications to US companies that moved to mexico to escape US labor or environmental laws and practices.

Not an easy thing to do, but it would solve the larger problem that we now face...
Bad idea IMO. Interesting but bad. Taking on a welfare state of this size would cripple our economy. And more importantly, the inclusion of a huge (hard to overstate this) voting block that is poor by our standards, and has shown a propensity to vote populist, would render anything politically right of Hillary Clinton extinct.

The ramifications of this alone would neuter this country.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?