I received some interesting responses to my last column, “The case for imperialism,” in which I suggested that the War on Terror could have been prevented by the continuation of colonialist policies as practiced by the U.S. and European powers in earlier centuries, as doing so would have made the West more culturally relevant to Third World peoples by acclimatizing them to Western concepts and values.
One of the surprising aspects regarding the feedback received was that most of it reflected agreement. Granted, the idea was a bit of a stretch – there were lots of qualifiers involved, something of a “What if Hitler had never been born?” kind of postulation.
The column was also a little over the top even with respect to ideas dyed-in-the-wool conservatives generally espouse, thus it positively lit up the blogosphere on the left. The chatter resembled the flavor of conversations my peers and I have concerning, say, Noam Chomsky, but with far more expletives.
So here’s another stretch, but one with more contemporary flavor: The case for annexing Mexico.
Due to a variety of factors (including national security), issues surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border have been in the forefront of discussion for many months. The precise number of Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally each year is impossible to accurately determine, but estimates average out to about 1 million. The motivation for the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico is, as we are all aware by now, primarily economic.
So, I say: Annex Mexico. Handsome bribes to Vicente Fox and his underlings would no doubt bring them around to thinking it an excellent idea. As a contingency, we could probably enlist the cooperation of key players in the Mexican military fairly cheaply. A poll released on Aug. 16, 2005, by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that more than 40 percent of Mexican adults would move to the United States if they could, so I seriously doubt there would be widespread rioting in the streets of Mexico City when the mutually agreed-upon annexation was announced.
But what about here? Certainly the prospect of all 107 million Mexicans potentially streaming across the border is something no one – particularly alleged conservatives like myself – wishes to contemplate. Even a smaller scale exodus would be horrific. Leaving aside the fact that the smaller scale exodus is already under way, of course, we couldn’t allow that any more than we could allow indigent citizens to move en masse into our public parks. The oft-suggested border tightening – probably utilizing the National Guard – would need to be implemented until Mexico’s economy developed to the point where the economic incentive for relocation began to diminish.
We would gain complete and immediate legal control over both sides of the border (as well as all ports and points of entry within Mexico, a national security boon). Mexicans who are now coming here illegally would no longer be coming illegally, but safely and to verifiable destinations via public transportation paid for with their own tax dollars. The U.S. businesses that pounced on the market (partly to offset the loss of obscenely cheap labor) would be required to pay a percentage of their earnings to cover renovating the Mexican infrastructure, with a substantial allotment for education. The finer distinctions of this admittedly cyclopean feat would be determined by more knowledgeable sociopolitical and economic minds than mine. If anyone’s interested, I do have a short list.
The new government could be structured similarly to that of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. A few more prisons would have to be built – likely most of the new convicts would be police and politicians, since we could not afford to tolerate the kind of corruption currently endemic in Mexico to continue.
The question many will ask (I daresay, violently hurl my way) is that if through such action we shattered all remaining illusions relative to our role as the international big daddy, where would it end? This is imperialism, clearly, and we simply don’t do that anymore.
To which I would answer: First, we already are the international big daddy. Let’s abandon the intellectual dishonesty once and for all – if there’s going to be a biggest dog, it might as well be us. The swift and terrible retribution exacted upon the Abu Ghraib offenders offers clear evidence that we aren’t going to tolerate imperial storm troopers within our ranks. America ought to be embracing its supremacy and overall ethical integrity, yet due to the moral perversions of political correctness and international socialism, it faces a fundamental challenge merely acknowledging its right to exist.
Second, I consider the proposed actions more of a moral obligation than anything else. The government of Mexico is doing it wrong – their policies are oppressing their people, stultifying their social and economic growth and negatively impacting the United States. Just last week, the governors of New Mexico and Arizona declared states of emergency, releasing more than $2 million to help their states cope with the flood of illegals, and the financial burden on the state of California inches it closer to insolvency every month.
As far as sovereignty or national identity goes, these have already been proven to be a joke, given the number of Mexicans coming here and those who wish to. Instead of letting their system drag us down, why not use ours to pull them up? A business acquaintance of mine is already working on a Habitat for Humanity-style endeavor to implement in Mexico – I am sure that there are thousands of brilliant men and women in business who, properly motivated and judiciously monitored, could turn the Mexican economy and educational system around in fairly short order. Imagine what 20 years of social and economic development – unconstrained by Third World corruption and institutional criminality – could accomplish!
Then, we could move on to Haiti, which is essentially an African nation in the Caribbean, plagued by a level of corruption, poverty and squalor that is shameful given its proximity to our shores. I think we owe even more to Haiti than Mexico, given our government’s abysmal historical conduct there. And they don’t even hate us that much yet. In the case of Haiti, I think we could just call ahead and fly in.
Madness? Just look at how the poor devils live. I doubt a shot would be fired. You want madness? Let’s discuss attorneys and Geneva Convention protections for captured al-Qaida and other terrorists …