From - Tue Jun 26 21:23:54 2001 Message-ID: <3B38ADF1.1BDFFA9A@clark.net> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:44:49 -0400 From: Tiny Human Ferret Reply-To: klaatu@clark.net Organization: copyright 2001 all rights reserved -- non-UseNet transmission prohibited. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.politics.immigration,alt.mexico,alt.california,az.politics,tx.general Subject: Mexico-US Political Merger Looming? References: <3b36a9aa.7976286@news> <0v5gjtsd5rt9366ur9fk4d2ornctflfk9r@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.205.1.226 X-Trace: vienna7.his.com 993570291 65.205.1.226 (26 Jun 2001 11:44:51 -0400) Lines: 131 X-Authenticated-User: tjh22isp Path: vienna7.his.com Xref: vienna7.his.com alt.politics.immigration:166625 alt.mexico:31468 alt.california:330276 az.politics:40287 tx.general:37810 --=Cochise |=-\\=| Guardian=-- wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:47:26 GMT, "Ken Leung" opined: > > > > >> A black radio talk show host on KRLA in Los Angeles, Terry Anderson, > >called for the placement of Claymore land > >> mines along the Mexican border on his weekly radio show this evening. I > >agree. And you? > > > >mines are inhumane. What's the point of putting some hidden shit when you > >can just put up a machine gun and shoot them in the legs when they cross the > >border > > > > Hmmm. Or for that matter, there are an increasing range of effective non-lethal weapons that could be deployed. Better to wake up back in Mexico or wherever, than to never wake up at all. But you know, I have been thinking about this for some time and I have tentatively decided that since Mexico has already successfully invaded us with about ten times the personnel that the Germans put into Poland during the Blitzkreig, we need to face up to the fact that we can either make some accomodations-with-stringent-reservations, or we have to face the fact that the only hope of repelling the Invasion amounts to a racist war in which it will have to be every person for themselves in sustained house-to-house military operations on urbanized terrain. We all know how that last one would play out. As for the "accomodations with stringent reservations", that would mean a variety of things. First, we have to face the fact that the "white race" in North America is dying out and as we will have no posterity to pass our culture on to, if we wish to preserve any of our political or cultural traditions, we can do so only by educating those who will come after us. Certainly, whether or not the industrial base passes intact from one generation to the next, the science remains and to some degree the technology can always be rediscovered, in the same way that you cannot draw a circle in the dirt without "pi" being there to be deduced. But culture and law and governance and history are not so easily reconstructed. You see, it is absolutely clear that the US does not have the political will to take the steps that would be required to absolutely ensure security of the border with Mexico; the devastation we placed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be the very minimum to make a good start at securing the border. There would have to be an impassible zone some 100Km. This isn't going to happen since on both sides of the border each nation has placed some of its most valuable pieces in the game. It would be necessary to utterly destroy a variety of targets to Deny Staging Areas. From Tijuana to Los Angeles, to Brownsville and Laredo, the financial loss would be devastating to not only both Mexico and the US, but to the world. No "maquiladoras" would survive, no transborder shipping ports, none of the engines of the present economy would remain and the US would become essentially an agrarian nation, while Mexico would become merely the northern bastion of a probable United Latin America. So, we must accept that so long as there are the vast differences between Mexico and the US, in terms of economic parity, the corporations will do their assembly in Mexico, right across the border where they can take the advantage of lax regulations, the unscrupulous employers in the US will prefer the illegal alien as an employee, again to evade regulatory costs. The argument is often made that Mexico is impoverished, but so are many rural areas in the US. For instance, there are parts of Texas and New Mexico which, outside of whatever may be extracted from the earth, are entirely valueless. Those who are born there leave as quickly as they have the opportunity. Generally they move to the cities, and the children of the impoverished rurals receive the educational opportunity to rise above the status of their parents; the opportunity is there if they will seize the day. Presently the major engine which drives the mass exodus from Mexico -- and to some degree from the rest of Latin America -- is the vast difference between the development of the instrastructure, the financial systems, the poliical systems, and even issues of social justice. _The lowest illegal alien in the US enjoys a degree of legal protections not enjoyed by other than the most-wealthy in their homelands_. Se~or El Presidente Fox of Mexico and his advisors, they seem to have the idea that we should give Mexican nationals special rights which are not given to other foreigners in the US. Some suggest that this would be UnConstitutional, and probably these persons are correct. With all of the rights that Se~or El Presidente Fox wishes to have the US extend to Mexican Nationals, they might as well be US citizens! But perhaps this is not such a bad idea. If the US and Mexico merged politically, I cannot see the US citizens giving up their Constitutional rights, but I can see that the citizens of Mexico would welcome the opportunity to be protected by the US Constitution. Militarily, a merged Mexico and US would have only one short border to defend in the south, much more easily defended than the present US/Mexico border. A merged US and Mexico would speedily see the elimination of the "maquiladoras" which were based solely on border-hopping and "cherry-picking" jurisdictions with the least-restrictive regulations on worker benefits, pay, and environmental protection. Probably many of the maquiladoras would remain, as they are already established. They would have to pay minimum-wages, but probably they wouldn't pay as much as facilities in the established cities in the US. but they would provide some flow of cash from the US economic centers into the rural areas, in the same way that the poorest parts of Texas benefitted from the discovery of oil under their land, which brought wealth where there had been only the worst poverty. I think that so long as Mexico and the US remain distinct political entities, there will always be border-hopping exploitation. Se~or Fox states that he wishes to fight corruption, but this cannot ever happen so long as the laws and standards in one country are sufficiently different from those of a neighboring state. So, to eliminate corruption, it will be necessary to have equal laws promoting equal conditions. And if the laws are the same and the conditions are the same, why should there be a border, other than as a matter of history and for bureaucratic organizational boundaries of convenience? Think about it, Se~or el Presidente, the best thing you can do for Mexico may inevitably lead to merger with the US, and eliminated the job of Se~or El Presidente of Mexico. Then again, you could always run for the position of President of the United States of North America. PS, besides, in this way the moneys flowing across the border could be taxed internal to one major jurisdiction (USNA) and properly apportioned as defined by laws enacted under political processes open scrutiny by all citizens. -- Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00 Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/