Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are plenty of people who want the world to be truly governed without borders, but the only way to do that, is for a country to forcefully take over, so that all are covered under the same laws. The liberals don't have a stomach for this, so they would rather support total anarchy, a world with no laws at all.
The only problem with the liberal utopia, is the fact that most of the world doesn't want to live this way. People love their national identity, and those that are successful don't want to leave their homeland. So what we are left with is the stark reality that one world order will never work. Not the way that the liberals want to do it. The only way it makes sense for a country to accept a large increase in population, is if a large increase in territory comes with it.
I have said many times that the answer to the immigration problem in Mexico, would be for the U.S to annex the Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Neuvo Leon, and Tamaulipas. This is the poorest parts of Mexico anyway, and these are primarily the people that want to illegally cross the border. The U.S. helps out a poor part of the world, but at the same time, extends our protection of the environment, rule of law, and freedoms. The U.S. would also significantly expand our tax base. Imagine the land rush this would create, as U.S. Citizens would be able to purchase dirt cheap property just south of California. The entire region would be transformed within a decade.
Of course, this would never happen, as Mexico is making a killing right now by ripping off U.S. taxpayers.
The U.S. can't be the dumping ground of the world's lowest IQ people. Without a border, we will loose this country. Immigration has to be merit based, if a person wants the honor of living here, they have to bring something to the table.
There are plenty of people who want the world to be truly governed without borders, but the only way to do that, is for a country to forcefully take over, so that all are covered under the same laws. The liberals don't have a stomach for this, so they would rather support total anarchy, a world with no laws at all.
The only problem with the liberal utopia, is the fact that most of the world doesn't want to live this way. People love their national identity, and those that are successful don't want to leave their homeland. So what we are left with is the stark reality that one world order will never work. Not the way that the liberals want to do it. The only way it makes sense for a country to accept a large increase in population, is if a large increase in territory comes with it.
I have said many times that the answer to the immigration problem in Mexico, would be for the U.S to annex the Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Neuvo Leon, and Tamaulipas. This is the poorest parts of Mexico anyway, and these are primarily the people that want to illegally cross the border. The U.S. helps out a poor part of the world, but at the same time, extends our protection of the environment, rule of law, and freedoms. The U.S. would also significantly expand our tax base. Imagine the land rush this would create, as U.S. Citizens would be able to purchase dirt cheap property just south of California. The entire region would be transformed within a decade.
Of course, this would never happen, as Mexico is making a killing right now by ripping off U.S. taxpayers.
The U.S. can't be the dumping ground of the world's lowest IQ people. Without a border, we will loose this country. Immigration has to be merit based, if a person wants the honor of living here, they have to bring something to the table.
Here's where we disagree. Annexing parts of Mexico that have mostly poor and needy citizens will just increase our poverty rate. We don't have the jobs for these people and what taxes they would pay would be very little with their low income jobs and large families. So no, we wouldn't increase our tax base quite the opposite would be true.
With your last paragraph you totally contradict your first remarks. I agree only with your last paragraph.
Here's where we disagree. Annexing parts of Mexico that have mostly poor and needy citizens will just increase our poverty rate. We don't have the jobs for these people and what taxes they would pay would be very little with their low income jobs and large families. So no, we wouldn't increase our tax base quite the opposite would be true.
With your last paragraph you totally contradict your first remarks. I agree only with your last paragraph.
The last paragraph was people just coming into the country. If we are taking people, without gaining territory, it needs to be merit based.
I disagree that annexation would increase our poverty rate, and that there wouldn't be any jobs for these new citizens. These areas are poor because it is controlled by Mexico. Not because the land is worthless. Mexico severely restricts foreign ownership of property. Not so in the U.S. There would be a land rush not seen since the 1800's. The current land owners would have a windfall, their property values would skyrocket overnight. People without jobs would be able to relocate legally, anywhere in the U.S. They can't do that now. U.S. businesses would be able to rapidly expand. The tourism industry that already exists there, would expand as people wouldn't have to worry about the corruption that is currently there, and a passport would no longer be needed.
The point is that there is a trade off, yes we take their poor, but we get a huge amount of territory, and a big expanse of our economy and tax base.
Under the current system, we take their poor, and get nothing in return.
There are plenty of people who want the world to be truly governed without borders, but the only way to do that, is for a country to forcefully take over, so that all are covered under the same laws. The liberals don't have a stomach for this, so they would rather support total anarchy, a world with no laws at all.
Actually the other way to do this is to create a supra-national organization or several of them (the EU comes to mind, as well as interestingly the IMF, see The Managing Director’s Statement on the Role of the Fund in Addressing Climate Change[link] and link to full document). According to the latter IMF document on climate change, for example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Managing Director of IMF
Over 160 countries have submitted emissions mitigation pledges—‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’, or INDCs—for the Paris conference. If implemented, these commitments will substantially reduce projected future warming, though not by enough to meet the (internationally agreed) 2OC target.2 At Paris, parties will seek to agree on a legal framework for assessing progress on, and updating, these pledges.
Parties will also discuss climate finance—the advanced countries’ pledge to mobilize funds rising to
$100 billion a year by 2020, from public and private sources, for climate mitigation and adaptation in
developing countries. Flows in 2014 have been estimated at $62 billion.
The Accords, to my understanding, impose significant penalties if the (unrealistic) emissions target reductions are not met.
Through the creation of these various funds and organizations borders and accountability of governments to their citizens are eroded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
The only problem with the liberal utopia, is the fact that most of the world doesn't want to live this way. People love their national identity, and those that are successful don't want to leave their homeland. So what we are left with is the stark reality that one world order will never work. Not the way that the liberals want to do it. The only way it makes sense for a country to accept a large increase in population, is if a large increase in territory comes with it.
I don't agree. The liberals want it badly since the funds created by these "taxes without representation" are theirs to spend and not incidentally earn money from managing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
I have said many times that the answer to the immigration problem in Mexico, would be for the U.S to annex the Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Neuvo Leon, and Tamaulipas. This is the poorest parts of Mexico anyway, and these are primarily the people that want to illegally cross the border. The U.S. helps out a poor part of the world, but at the same time, extends our protection of the environment, rule of law, and freedoms. The U.S. would also significantly expand our tax base. Imagine the land rush this would create, as U.S. Citizens would be able to purchase dirt cheap property just south of California. The entire region would be transformed within a decade.
Of course, this would never happen, as Mexico is making a killing right now by ripping off U.S. taxpayers.
I trust this is a joke. I doubt you'd find the results good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
The U.S. can't be the dumping ground of the world's lowest IQ people. Without a border, we will loose this country. Immigration has to be merit based, if a person wants the honor of living here, they have to bring something to the table.
I think that the highest IQ people are the people that move. However we reach the same result by a different process. These people are culturally unequipped to adapt well to the move or contribute to our country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
I disagree that annexation would increase our poverty rate, and that there wouldn't be any jobs for these new citizens. These areas (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Neuvo Leon, and Tamaulipas)are poor because it is controlled by Mexico. Not because the land is worthless. Mexico severely restricts foreign ownership of property. Not so in the U.S. There would be a land rush not seen since the 1800's.
I'm not so sure. The climate in much of that area is similar to Arizona. Arizona has only been prosperous or even habitable by virtue of massive water imports from wetter areas and over-utilization of the Colorado River. I don't know of a water source that could make these areas usable. Desalination is a possibility but its not cheap. I think the main source of migrants is further south. I would guess that Mexican politicians get rich off of bribes paid by traffickers of Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
The current land owners would have a windfall, their property values would skyrocket overnight. People without jobs would be able to relocate legally, anywhere in the U.S. They can't do that now. U.S. businesses would be able to rapidly expand. The tourism industry that already exists there, would expand as people wouldn't have to worry about the corruption that is currently there, and a passport would no longer be needed.
The point is that there is a trade off, yes we take their poor, but we get a huge amount of territory, and a big expanse of our economy and tax base.
Under the current system, we take their poor, and get nothing in return.
The idea is definitely interesting, I'll allow that. I would need to learn more.
Another point to consider in terms of the "better world" vision.
When the doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc leave their third world homelands behind, it goes to further deprive that country of a means of establishing themselves.
Another point to consider in terms of the "better world" vision.
When the doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc leave their third world homelands behind, it goes to further deprive that country of a means of establishing themselves.
Although some Doctors, Engineers, etc, leave poorer countries, they don't leave by a large margin. Threre are plenty of medical professionals and engineers in every country. Most people who were born into a country, assume that culture, and love their national identity. Even if it is a poor country. They have pride. It's the same reason that sports fans don't simply change teams every year. Do you think the world cup is so big because soccer is such and awesome sport. No, it is because rival countries get to face off with one another, the riots after a loss are a direct result of this.
For the most part, the people sneaking over the border, breaking the law, are people who as a part of their being, don't really care about the rule of law. These are normally lower income, lower education people who have to hustle for everything they have.
I don't want this to seem like I am some racist, I'm not. I just want people to understand that there is a lot more going on other than just taking care of some poor people. Even third world countries have nice areas, an upper class, and successful businesses. For every northern Mexican that jumps the border, there is another Mexican living in a big home, with a nice salary, watching his investments grow. People seem to think the Mexico and South/Central America is some nuclear wasteland.
I also want to comment on the statement that some places don't have water. There is water everywhere on this planet. Water isn't the problem, it is having the means to make it safe to drink. What that takes is energy. So the real problem isn't lack of water, but lack of electricity. Saudi Arabia, and many other countries use de-salinization to make fresh water. So it is possible. Environmental concerns aside, it is possible to dig a man made river from the ocean right into the heart of the Sahara. So getting water isn't the problem.
The last paragraph was people just coming into the country. If we are taking people, without gaining territory, it needs to be merit based.
I disagree that annexation would increase our poverty rate, and that there wouldn't be any jobs for these new citizens. These areas are poor because it is controlled by Mexico. Not because the land is worthless. Mexico severely restricts foreign ownership of property. Not so in the U.S. There would be a land rush not seen since the 1800's. The current land owners would have a windfall, their property values would skyrocket overnight. People without jobs would be able to relocate legally, anywhere in the U.S. They can't do that now. U.S. businesses would be able to rapidly expand. The tourism industry that already exists there, would expand as people wouldn't have to worry about the corruption that is currently there, and a passport would no longer be needed.
The point is that there is a trade off, yes we take their poor, but we get a huge amount of territory, and a big expanse of our economy and tax base.
Under the current system, we take their poor, and get nothing in return.
I still don't like the idea especially as you said that their citizens in the annexed areas would be able to relocate within our current borders and take jobs, etc. You may think we'd have more to gain but I don't see it.
In those areas that would still be Mexican territory we'd still have an illegal immigration problem. Not only that but now we have many coming here illegally from south of the Mexican border so it's not just Mexican illegal immigration that is the problem.
I would also be concerned about more cultural clash than we have now and losing our identifying culture and language by this annexation.
The last paragraph was people just coming into the country. If we are taking people, without gaining territory, it needs to be merit based.
I disagree that annexation would increase our poverty rate, and that there wouldn't be any jobs for these new citizens. These areas are poor because it is controlled by Mexico. Not because the land is worthless. Mexico severely restricts foreign ownership of property. Not so in the U.S. There would be a land rush not seen since the 1800's. The current land owners would have a windfall, their property values would skyrocket overnight. People without jobs would be able to relocate legally, anywhere in the U.S. They can't do that now. U.S. businesses would be able to rapidly expand. The tourism industry that already exists there, would expand as people wouldn't have to worry about the corruption that is currently there, and a passport would no longer be needed.
The point is that there is a trade off, yes we take their poor, but we get a huge amount of territory, and a big expanse of our economy and tax base.
Under the current system, we take their poor, and get nothing in return.
Annexation would be a disaster, to put it mildly. The United States currently has about 43 million people living in poverty (12.1%) while Mexico has at least 60 million living in poverty, or 47% of the population. I'm wondering why would there be a land rush? Have you ever driven through Texas from say, Fort Stockton to El Paso or south of Tucson in Arizona? We already have huge amounts of land that are pretty worthless, and adding a whole lot more worthless wouldn't help. Corruption and crime in Mexico wouldn't magically stop either, and would likely cost a lot of American lives. In 2016, there were 8,090 more murders in Mexico than in the US, despite having only one third as many people.
Then there's Mexico's lack of infrastructure that would cost massive amounts of non existent money to build or bring up to modern standards. Water desalinization can be done, but it's expensive. California just built a plant that will provide 50 million gallons of fresh water a day, but cost a billion dollars to build and uses about 35 million worth of electricity every year. Without even considering the probable negative effects to American culture, the cost for current Americans would be gigantic, with very little or no benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
