Would Invading Mexico Solve All USAs Immigration Problems?

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Many of the non USA born Mexicans I know would happily go back to Mexico if they could earn the same wage as they do here. So if we were to make them a US territory and prop up their economy I don't see this being a particularly huge issue with the Mexicans I know at least.

Also if they didn't want to be Americans they why do they trample over each other to get across the border?

I'm all for it as long as the cartels get screwed and the rest pay their taxes.

An unforeseen outcome could be a lot of "emigration" back to "Mexico" assuming it doesn't take forever & a day to normalize the existing social structures in line with US protocol & policy.

It might, but Mexico would have to be built up to a point where people desire to emigrate back and this means a lot of things--security, infrastructure, jobs, etc. The cost of rebuilding the place to that point may outweigh the savings.

Mexico is incredibly rich in mineral resources.

Here in the US the feds have red tape all over the mining industry. Look up MSHA

However if they were made a territory we could still collect taxes, but the US federal government wouldn't necessarily have a ton of control over industrial issues. EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc.

It may actually not be all that expensive to build up their infrastructure when it's all said and done. Especially given their mineral resources.

Kind of like the Roman and Soviet Empires--take the resources from the "client states" with less concern for the side effects. If there were no EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc to worry about, exploiting those resources would be much cheaper.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

It IS ridiculous because it is the same argument used by prohibitionists to defend the goofy prohibition laws. The fact of the matter is that prohibition laws don't work and circulating the argument of "just don't partake" is foolish, because people don't listen to it.

Go ahead in your mind and make this something that can't be undone then. It's too big too deal with! Complicate the hell out of it". BS. Dredge up the prohibition (which it is akin too, by the way, and we know how that ended).

It ended the same way the War on Drugs will end, repeal because the consequences of Prohibition ended up outweighing the benefits from making the substance illegal.

We can't control what Mexico does, but we CAN control our personal actions. I believe if American kids and adults had a full understanding (put a picture of dead people under their noses if you have to, and say "look at this. This person died in the course of smuggling this contraband" they would be affected by it, and they would understand the consequences of what they are helping to create.

Lol What do you think the "Just Say NO" program tried to do? Why "Just Say No" Doesn't Work

Krazyshot, it seems to me you will spend your days and evenings arguing over what is the best hotdog, or something, lol, and I don't have that kind of time. You have a good day, sir.

That's because your pro-prohibition rhetoric has been shown to be folly. People will do what they want to do regardless or the law. All we do by jailing them is ruin their lives for a singular mistake. It is one of the worst systems humanity has ever created and can even be pointed to modern day slave labor as prisons use these inmates for cheap labor.

PEEPS: STOP BUYING MEXICAN WEED.

Haven't since high school.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But then wouldn't there still be lots of problems there? I mean if the cartels just move to another shady business, they remain a major threat to the locals. I doubt the cartels would just slink away to regular jobs.

Perhaps, but without the huge amount of money that the black market in drugs brings them, they will have a fraction of the power and influence they have now.

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

PEEPS: STOP BUYING MEXICAN WEED.

Is that something you would ask a drug dealer?

"erm, I just want to make sure these aren't blood buds'

If you aren't buying it, you won't be asking them anything.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

PEEPS: STOP BUYING MEXICAN WEED.

Is that something you would ask a drug dealer?

"erm, I just want to make sure these aren't blood buds'

If you aren't buying it, you won't be asking them anything.

I was just wondering because you did specify 'Mexican weed'.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Many of the non USA born Mexicans I know would happily go back to Mexico if they could earn the same wage as they do here. So if we were to make them a US territory and prop up their economy I don't see this being a particularly huge issue with the Mexicans I know at least.

Also if they didn't want to be Americans they why do they trample over each other to get across the border?

I'm all for it as long as the cartels get screwed and the rest pay their taxes.

An unforeseen outcome could be a lot of "emigration" back to "Mexico" assuming it doesn't take forever & a day to normalize the existing social structures in line with US protocol & policy.

It might, but Mexico would have to be built up to a point where people desire to emigrate back and this means a lot of things--security, infrastructure, jobs, etc. The cost of rebuilding the place to that point may outweigh the savings.

Mexico is incredibly rich in mineral resources.

Here in the US the feds have red tape all over the mining industry. Look up MSHA

However if they were made a territory we could still collect taxes, but the US federal government wouldn't necessarily have a ton of control over industrial issues. EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc.

It may actually not be all that expensive to build up their infrastructure when it's all said and done. Especially given their mineral resources.

Kind of like the Roman and Soviet Empires--take the resources from the "client states" with less concern for the side effects. If there were no EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc to worry about, exploiting those resources would be much cheaper.

Hmmm, you mention Roman and Soviet (but remember, both declined and fell), but not the 3rd Reich which effectively did exactly the same - was that purely to give a concise set of examples, or an avoidance to compare such a thing with Nazi Germany?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's why I think you'd have to work with the cartels, not against them. Find ways to make them legit. Trying to get rid of them would be a losing battle. Try to bomb them, they'll just hide among the innocent citizens. They seem to be very good at adapting their shady businesses. So, let's work to offer them some legitimization. They could still make huge profits. Look at the U.S. banking industry. HUGE profits - all legal (maybe not ethical, but legal). Let them hire the locals for their now legitimate businesses. It's a win/win.

But the only way I can see that happening is if America takes over. Not by war, but by negotiation.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Maybe offering our help to oust the cartels & corrupt politicians?

I found this quote amusing. Then what, install our own corrupt politicians? We need someone to come clear out all the corrupt politicians in America, aka, all of them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Interesting. That is some new information that I wasn't aware of. I see that the article is mostly talking about The Knight's Templar cartel. I still feel that legalizing drugs would have an impact. Though with this article, it looks like it would be more of a temporary impact than a substantial one. I'm going to have to rethink my strategy for handling them...

I'm glad you found the information informative.

So invasion doesn't look so bad now does it

a reply to: kaylaluv

I just don't like the idea of annexing more territory. America has a history of mistreating the natives of the lands we annex in favor of our own settlers. This is even more troubling to me since members have already stated that they don't want to extend the same rights and benefits to the people in these territories as those in the states. Besides the racist connotations of such an idea (you know since most Mexicans aren't white), it is the EXACT same treatment we gave to the Indians and look what happened to them. Color me skeptical that taking territory from Mexico will end any way but badly.

If we want to legitimize the cartels like you suggest, then we need to work through international law. Remove international drug smuggling laws. Lobby the Mexican government. Things of that nature.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kryties

What is China going to do all the way on the other side of the world?

"Ici repose un géant endormi, laissez le dormir, car quand il s'éveillera, il étonnera le monde" - "Here lies a sleeping giant, let him sleep, for when he wakes up, he will shock the world" - Napoleon on China.

Chinas not hard to beat. they are mostly walled in by mountains and ocean. Total blockade on china would seriously cramp their style. See a huge army is a logistical nightmare. Disrutpting their command structure by say bombing their leadership in a initial attack in a surprise attack would instill chaos.

Russias not going to let the chinese march a huge army through their territory either no matter if they are allies or not because putin dont trust them to not just take over to expand their empire. CHina can be contained.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Interesting. That is some new information that I wasn't aware of. I see that the article is mostly talking about The Knight's Templar cartel. I still feel that legalizing drugs would have an impact. Though with this article, it looks like it would be more of a temporary impact than a substantial one. I'm going to have to rethink my strategy for handling them...

I'm glad you found the information informative.

So invasion doesn't look so bad now does it

Invasion is the simple barbarian response to any problem. It is the hammer viewing all problems as nails solution. Solving real world problems is more nuanced and requires more careful thought. Also, rarely does that solution need to be violence.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Many of the non USA born Mexicans I know would happily go back to Mexico if they could earn the same wage as they do here. So if we were to make them a US territory and prop up their economy I don't see this being a particularly huge issue with the Mexicans I know at least.

Also if they didn't want to be Americans they why do they trample over each other to get across the border?

I'm all for it as long as the cartels get screwed and the rest pay their taxes.

An unforeseen outcome could be a lot of "emigration" back to "Mexico" assuming it doesn't take forever & a day to normalize the existing social structures in line with US protocol & policy.

It might, but Mexico would have to be built up to a point where people desire to emigrate back and this means a lot of things--security, infrastructure, jobs, etc. The cost of rebuilding the place to that point may outweigh the savings.

Mexico is incredibly rich in mineral resources.

Here in the US the feds have red tape all over the mining industry. Look up MSHA

However if they were made a territory we could still collect taxes, but the US federal government wouldn't necessarily have a ton of control over industrial issues. EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc.

It may actually not be all that expensive to build up their infrastructure when it's all said and done. Especially given their mineral resources.

Kind of like the Roman and Soviet Empires--take the resources from the "client states" with less concern for the side effects. If there were no EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc to worry about, exploiting those resources would be much cheaper.

Hmmm, you mention Roman and Soviet (but remember, both declined and fell), but not the 3rd Reich which effectively did exactly the same - was that purely to give a concise set of examples, or an avoidance to compare such a thing with Nazi Germany?

IMHO, Nazi Germany was more the "rape and destroy everybody and take their stuff and they will never be true Germans" sort of Empire whereas the Romans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets, were more involved in the maintenance of client states as client states with an eventual aim of absorbing them into the Empire and giving their citizens the ability to become eventually full citizens. As Rome expanded, over time what used to be conquered peoples became Roman, and the next territory conquered became the newest client state. I can't imagine the Nazis doing the same due to their racial fanaticism, even if they stuck around for more than their 15 year or so run.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Many of the non USA born Mexicans I know would happily go back to Mexico if they could earn the same wage as they do here. So if we were to make them a US territory and prop up their economy I don't see this being a particularly huge issue with the Mexicans I know at least.

Also if they didn't want to be Americans they why do they trample over each other to get across the border?

I'm all for it as long as the cartels get screwed and the rest pay their taxes.

An unforeseen outcome could be a lot of "emigration" back to "Mexico" assuming it doesn't take forever & a day to normalize the existing social structures in line with US protocol & policy.

It might, but Mexico would have to be built up to a point where people desire to emigrate back and this means a lot of things--security, infrastructure, jobs, etc. The cost of rebuilding the place to that point may outweigh the savings.

Mexico is incredibly rich in mineral resources.

Here in the US the feds have red tape all over the mining industry. Look up MSHA

However if they were made a territory we could still collect taxes, but the US federal government wouldn't necessarily have a ton of control over industrial issues. EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc.

It may actually not be all that expensive to build up their infrastructure when it's all said and done. Especially given their mineral resources.

Kind of like the Roman and Soviet Empires--take the resources from the "client states" with less concern for the side effects. If there were no EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc to worry about, exploiting those resources would be much cheaper.

Hmmm, you mention Roman and Soviet (but remember, both declined and fell), but not the 3rd Reich which effectively did exactly the same - was that purely to give a concise set of examples, or an avoidance to compare such a thing with Nazi Germany?

IMHO, Nazi Germany was more the "rape and destroy everybody and take their stuff and they will never be true Germans" sort of Empire whereas the Romans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets, were more involved in the maintenance of client states as client states with an eventual aim of absorbing them into the Empire and giving their citizens the ability to become eventually full citizens. As Rome expanded, over time what used to be conquered peoples became Roman, and the next territory conquered became the newest client state. I can't imagine the Nazis doing the same due to their racial fanaticism, even if they stuck around for more than their 15 year or so run.

Kind of a fair point, although for both Soviet and Rome, both country and individual were subject to Roman/Soviet rule but I'm not sure that is really true as both had puppet governments in the annexed countries.

The premise of this post was to invade a neighbouring country for the benefit of those doing the invading. Regardless of the specifics, why is that different to the situation with Germany and for example Poland in 1939 or the Soviets and Hungary?

You mentioned ignoring certain policies that would be applicable if workers were US citizens (you mentioned EPA, OSHA, MSHA) would not stand for Mexicans so I assume you would value the life or at least the safety of any of your slaves - whoops, sorry, - lesser members of your empire as of less value as those born in the USA?

ETA: Being a Georgian (example) under Soviet rule never made you a Russian citizen, not sure a Georgian would even have wanted to be.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Well apparently it can be done. Countries can now add land they want as long as they make a BS vote happen in under 10 days, a task that would be superhuman in nature. yet it happens...LOL

Screw it, take over the world. Thats what we want anyways...according to some.

In all seriousness, no we cant. No one can in the modern world unless they are archaic and backwards. You dont conquer with passive or aggressive invasions. Not in the 21st century. I wish the rest of the world would join us.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I'm glad you asked this question. I sometimes play with the same scenario to some of my friends who don't understand what is going on in Ukraine and the importance of it. Sometimes our preconceived thoughts prevent us from understanding something unless we construct a similar situation for ourselves. Let it be know I do not support any level of imperialism but understanding things are important for you can not battle a mind set unless you understand it.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Eunuchorn

What gives America the right to invade a sovereign country?

Well they are in fact invading us already...what is the difference?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Many of the non USA born Mexicans I know would happily go back to Mexico if they could earn the same wage as they do here. So if we were to make them a US territory and prop up their economy I don't see this being a particularly huge issue with the Mexicans I know at least.

Also if they didn't want to be Americans they why do they trample over each other to get across the border?

I'm all for it as long as the cartels get screwed and the rest pay their taxes.

An unforeseen outcome could be a lot of "emigration" back to "Mexico" assuming it doesn't take forever & a day to normalize the existing social structures in line with US protocol & policy.

It might, but Mexico would have to be built up to a point where people desire to emigrate back and this means a lot of things--security, infrastructure, jobs, etc. The cost of rebuilding the place to that point may outweigh the savings.

Mexico is incredibly rich in mineral resources.

Here in the US the feds have red tape all over the mining industry. Look up MSHA

However if they were made a territory we could still collect taxes, but the US federal government wouldn't necessarily have a ton of control over industrial issues. EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc.

It may actually not be all that expensive to build up their infrastructure when it's all said and done. Especially given their mineral resources.

Kind of like the Roman and Soviet Empires--take the resources from the "client states" with less concern for the side effects. If there were no EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc to worry about, exploiting those resources would be much cheaper.

Hmmm, you mention Roman and Soviet (but remember, both declined and fell), but not the 3rd Reich which effectively did exactly the same - was that purely to give a concise set of examples, or an avoidance to compare such a thing with Nazi Germany?

IMHO, Nazi Germany was more the "rape and destroy everybody and take their stuff and they will never be true Germans" sort of Empire whereas the Romans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets, were more involved in the maintenance of client states as client states with an eventual aim of absorbing them into the Empire and giving their citizens the ability to become eventually full citizens. As Rome expanded, over time what used to be conquered peoples became Roman, and the next territory conquered became the newest client state. I can't imagine the Nazis doing the same due to their racial fanaticism, even if they stuck around for more than their 15 year or so run.

Kind of a fair point, although for both Soviet and Rome, both country and individual were subject to Roman/Soviet rule but I'm not sure that is really true as both had puppet governments in the annexed countries.

The premise of this post was to invade a neighbouring country for the benefit of those doing the invading. Regardless of the specifics, why is that different to the situation with Germany and for example Poland in 1939 or the Soviets and Hungary?

You mentioned ignoring certain policies that would be applicable if workers were US citizens (you mentioned EPA, OSHA, MSHA) would not stand for Mexicans so I assume you would value the life or at least the safety of any of your slaves - whoops, sorry, - lesser members of your empire as of less value as those born in the USA?

ETA: Being a Georgian (example) under Soviet rule never made you a Russian citizen, not sure a Georgian would even have wanted to be.

That's a fair point.

I guess the delineation was not that the Nazis were not exploitative, but that the Nazis never would welcome a non-aryan whereas under the Roman empire, anyone could become a Roman citizen. In the Soviet Union, even though they were more Nazi like than Roman like when it came to non-Russians, one could still progress in the Party if one was not Russian, Stalin was Georgian for example .

To be clear, I'm not advocating taking over Mexico or making their people slaves--just engaging in this as purely a mental exercise. I was simply pointing out, bringing Mexico up to the level of the US might be too costly to really reverse the immigration tide as was suggested and somone else pointed out that this would not be true if we had less regulation down there and I acquiesced that this was a valid point, not endorsed it.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You make a good point, we should take all of south America and the Caribbean while we are at it, and don't allow them on welfare for at least 10 years, and we can investigate after 10 years whether they meet our standards to be allowed on the system.

Or hell create a separate Welfare system, separate but equal...sorta...

Lol I starred you, because I like dark humor, BTW that was beautifully timed!!