Serious Topic: USA Purchase Mexico.

[Me14k]

No joke, I have a debate tourney in a month and this is the topic.

Pro:
1. Mexico manufactures and exports a lot, we could profit from this.
2. Much more farm land, U.S. will gain a stronger hold in the Agriculture sector of trade.
-A big deterant in the use of corn ethanol is that it will drive the price of consumed corn up, with more crops we can keep the price of corn reasonable.
3. Bigger Empire (More Revenue, More Powerful)

Con:
1. Inherit all of mexico's poverty
2. Worsen our fight against drugs.
--Some would say buying mexico will allow the u.s to become more active in the drug war, I think this is to idealist. Buy being more involved in the druglands we are going to increase the useage.
3. Mexico is too underdeveloped
-Costly to rebuild

Once again this is a serious topic. I know it is a bit, a bit radical, but we still should take it with a serious tone.

 

[Crimson King]

No. I am completely and totally opposed to ANY acquisitions by the United States that further kills our economy. You mentioned we get their poverty, but they also get our dollar, which is CONSIDERABLY high in worth.

 

[Teebs]

I agree with Crimson King on this one. Our economy is just too "fragile" at this point in which we could do any such action. Besides, purchasing Mexico would get rid of illegal immigrants, but then also allow them to move into our "area" of the country, in which they could possibly degrade some of our cities, including our southern states.

 

[WuTangDude]

As sad as it is, race would also be an issue in this. Purchasing Mexico (assuming their population folds into ours, which would be extremely likely) would make Latinos the majority of the population, thus making caucasians a minority. It's no secret that the mass majority of the governemnt is caucasian, as is the US population, and the government prefers it that way.


I don't personally agree with such thinking, but that would be a major downpoint (from the government's POV, which is what I assumed you have to look through) in the acquisition of Mexico.

 

[Crimson King]

I agree with Crimson King on this one. Our economy is just too "fragile" at this point in which we could do any such action. Besides, purchasing Mexico would get rid of illegal immigrants, but then also allow them to move into our "area" of the country, in which they could possibly degrade some of our cities, including our southern states.

Illegal immigrants don't degrade our society anymore than black people do. It's just a stereotypical scapegoat that works because they can't reply to it. Illegal immigrants are the basis of our economy, and to say they aren't beneficial is ignorant and ridiculous. That being said, but making them all legal citizens, our economy would effectively collapse because American businesses thrive on paying less than minimum wage to illegal immigrants who would gladly work for that.

 

[solesoul]

Purchasing Mexico...would make Latinos the majority of the population, thus making caucasians a minority. It's no secret that the mass majority of the governemnt is caucasian, as is the US population, and the government prefers it that way.

This, more so than any of the economic reasons, is why the US would never purchase Mexico.

 

[Mediocre]

I find it hilarious that everyone's talking as if Mexico would allow itself to be purchased.

Why don't we just buy Canada while we're at it? And England?


Just because Mexico isn't a first world country doesn't mean they'll just jump at a chance to lose their autonomy because we're willing to throw them some cash. It doesn't work that way anymore, guys.

 

[solesoul]

nobody said Mexico would just roll over and take it. But this is a hypothetical situation we're discussing, so take it in that light.

 

[Archaic]

I think everyone here is right, that Mexico would most likely never be purchased, and the U.S government and economy would not support or be able to support making all illegal immigrants legal citizens who must be payed minimum wage, and thus making Latino the majority of the population. Not to mention that assimilation would be difficult. What would we do with Mexico to "americanize it?" Divide it into states? Surely it couldnt stay as one state. Things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American war were easy because the land was sparsely settled save some Native American tribes, but taking an entire developed country with its own government, customs, and population would be near impossible without force.

But I'd rather look at it on a world scale. What would other countries think if the U.S suddently controlled two-thirds of the whole North American continent? As if we werent big enough and powerful enough to have people thinking we are planning world domination. I know thats pretty ridiculous, but what would the world think if we took a step in that direction? I dont know, just things to maybe bring up in your debate tourney. Which side are you arguing for anyway Me14k?

In case my position is unclear I would be against purchasing Mexico. I just want to make everyone think a little.

 

[solesoul]

But I'd rather look at it on a world scale. What would other countries think if the U.S suddently controlled two-thirds of the whole North American continent? As if we werent big enough and powerful enough to have people thinking we are planning world domination. I know thats pretty ridiculous, but what would the world think if we took a step in that direction?

Hmm, well, I think the response from the rest of the world would be tricky. More than likely, they would verbaly condemn the action, at least. I'm not sure if they would actually take action against it though. America is still an amazingly dangerous country, possibly moreso after the aquisition of Mexico. So would they risk offending this large, dangerous nation by imposing sanctions and such? I'm not sure, but I would think not. All we have to do is look at America's attitude towards China and North Korea. I think the reactions would be similar.

 

[Peeze]

Add: "What would the national language be" to the cons list.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

While I do feel the need to aid Mexico in as many ways possible, it would not be practicle to assimilate them due to economic, cultural and (possibly?) political reasons.

All this aside, I know too little of Mexico to give a valid point. However, it seems the U.S. has more crimes (reported) each year than Mexico, over 20x more, if I am reading this right:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Add: "What would the national language be" to the cons list. (By Peez)

No way. Most people in other countries are bilingual. I think it's fairly lazy and self-centered that we U.S. citizens do not teach ourselves other languages as well. I think it should be two languages: Spanish and English. Or maybe just Spanish. I am terrible at English, despite it being my native tongue.

 

[Me14k]

Add: "What would the national language be" to the cons list.

We don't have a national language.

Mexico has a huge debt to the u.s.---just thought id mention it

 

[Peeze]

No way. Most people in other countries are bilingual. I think it's fairly lazy and self-centered that we U.S. citizens do not teach ourselves other languages as well. I think it should be two languages: Spanish and English. Or maybe just Spanish. I am terrible at English, despite it being my native tongue.

I just brought that up because if the countries became one, the legal system would be the same. What language would court cases be conducted in? Would somebody getting arrested be mirandarized(?) in english or spanish? Would you file your taxes in spanish or english? Would your parking tickete be in english?

We don't have a national language.

Mexico has a huge debt to the u.s.---just thought id mention it

Not a the federal level but its understood to be english. On a state level 28 states official language is english.

 

[Teebs]

Some thing just to throw in is goverment, since I haven't seen anything with it yet.

How would the two cope together? Would we have to create new positions, or would the whole Mexican government itself go out the door, as in leaving every Mexican official jobless? This is something that would make this not work.

Not a the federal level but its understood to be english. On a state level 28 states official language is english.

What state(s) have another language that is not English as the official language? I have never heard of that before...

 

[Archaic]

We don't have a national language.

Mexico has a huge debt to the u.s.---just thought id mention it

If we dont have a national language, why does everyone on this site just happen to be speaking english? Maybe you don't have to learn english, but if you dont you'll have a hard time getting anything done in this country.

 

[Crimson King]

We don't have a national language.

Mexico has a huge debt to the u.s.---just thought id mention it

And we have a large debt to China. --- just thought id mention it.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

And we have a large debt to China. --- just thought id mention it.

We have a large debt period.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Anyway, as the U.S. and Mexico has different cultures, some people would likely form political factions (radical in particular) that would plague the combined forces of the U.S. and Mexico, possibly resulting in a conflict similiar to that in Iraq and will be just as ineffective.

I agree with much that has alreaddy been said.

 

[Teebs]

Some thing just to throw in is goverment, since I haven't seen anything with it yet.

How would the two cope together? Would we have to create new positions, or would the whole Mexican government itself go out the door, as in leaving every Mexican official jobless? This is something that would make this not work.



What state(s) have another language that is not English as the official language? I have never heard of that before...

Just curious... anyone have any reply to this about governments?

 

[Dexter Morgan]

At the rate the US dollar is going right now, I don't think purchasing a whole new country riddled with poverty would be an ideal course of (random) action right now. Even if we bought Mexico, they/it wouldn't be states yet. After we did the Louisiana Purchase, etc. none of it was a state until that process was done, it was just a territory. When Texas ceded from Mexico, it became its own country. It realized it would be easier to join us, so it later did.

Let's just get out of this stupid Iraq War thing first... then we'll talk about Mexico later (assuming Obama doesn't want to invade Iran next.)

 

[Crimson King]

Actually, John McCain wants to invade Iran, and Mike Huckabee wants to invade Jordan, our ally.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

No joke, I have a debate tourney in a month and this is the topic.

Pro:
1. Mexico manufactures and exports a lot, we could profit from this.
2. Much more farm land, U.S. will gain a stronger hold in the Agriculture sector of trade.
-A big deterant in the use of corn ethanol is that it will drive the price of consumed corn up, with more crops we can keep the price of corn reasonable.
3. Bigger Empire (More Revenue, More Powerful)

Con:
1. Inherit all of mexico's poverty
2. Worsen our fight against drugs.
--Some would say buying mexico will allow the u.s to become more active in the drug war, I think this is to idealist. Buy being more involved in the druglands we are going to increase the useage.
3. Mexico is too underdeveloped
-Costly to rebuild

Once again this is a serious topic. I know it is a bit, a bit radical, but we still should take it with a serious tone.

How did the debate go?

 

[Ørion]

There are too many economic and cultural differences for the assimilation to be effective. The US dollar and economy are already suffering and would not profit from getting the current economic problems of Mexico.

The culture is also huge. Apart from the language, there is also food, dress, customs, etc. This might effectively keep the new super-country divided for many years to come along about the same border, but separated by cultural differences, not fences. It would take generations for the country to come together as one, if it ever did.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You have to be mirandized in your native tongue, for example, if I only spoke tagalog

For the other things, you are required to make considerations for individuals who don't speak english (translators for court cases, etc.) none of which would be necessary if we had an official language.

Not a the federal level but its understood to be english. On a state level 28 states official language is english.

States do not dictate the federal government's position. Federal supremacy still holds.
For the federal government, it is merely the most often used language.

 

[Peeze]

States do not dictate the federal government's position. Federal supremacy still holds.
For the federal government, it is merely the most often used language.

You just agreed with my statement.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You just agreed with my statement.

No, you said it is understood to be English...

There is a difference between being "understood to be English" and English being merely the most commonly used language.

If it were understood to be English then there would be no cause to afford any considerations to non-English speakers.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

..No. I wouldn't recommend buying the country where 99.99% of Marijuana comes from. Our economy would be hurt even more. To be honest, I'd rather buy Canada.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

..No. I wouldn't recommend buying the country where 99.99% of Marijuana comes from. Our economy would be hurt even more. To be honest, I'd rather buy Canada.

Oh, yeah. Canada doesn't have marijuana. Right.

 

[Eor]

Because 98% of that marijuana doesn't just come here anyways

 

[McCloud]

I'm not sure what kind of debate tournament you're taking part in, but this is ridiculous.

I'm assuming that Mexico would have to be forcefully taken:

The acquisition of Mexico would prove problematic in more than a number of ways:

1) Opens up the U.S. southern flank
2) Destroys U.S. economy (millions of people are now a part of the U.S. that weren't part of the U.S. before)
3) Entangles the U.S. in yet another meaningless and ultimately unbeneficial situation
4) Weakens security of the state as a whole, driving up poverty lines and ****** infrastructure
5) Destroys U.S. credibility with international foreign policy. The U.S. would receive so much international backlash it wouldn't even be funny.
6) Drives up the cost of living for all Americans, and with recession looming from another war we haven't even finished, this would just tighten the noose.

This topic is ludicrous. The U.S. is already overextending itself in attempting to maintain a sphere of influence outside of the Western Hemisphere. And you want more imperialist actions?

No. The U.S. should remove itself from stupid entanglements and move toward a foreign policy of offshore balancing. We have more than enough power to handle ourselves and whatever "threats" to our security. We just need to stay content with what we have. This means making actions that promote neutrality in the international game.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I

I'm assuming that Mexico would have to be forcefully taken:

Check the topic...

It's a purchase, and who precisely can one purchase an independent nation from besides itself?

So no, it couldn't be taken by force.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Oh, yeah. Canada doesn't have marijuana. Right.

So? Marijuana is legal there, and there's not nearly as much smuggled marijuana from there compared to Mexico. You might wanna check the stats before you open your mouth.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

So? Marijuana is legal there, and there's not nearly as much smuggled marijuana from there compared to Mexico. You might wanna check the stats before you open your mouth.

Ok, what? Your argument against the purchase of Mexico is that it has a lot of marijuana. Next, you say that Canada is a more preferable country to purchase. NEWSFLASH: If we purchase Canada, it doesn't matter whether marijuana is smuggled into our country or not, because we will inherit all of the marijuana in Canada! The result: We'll still have a large marijuana influx! You can't smuggle something to yourself, genius.

So, you say there's a lot of Marijuana in Canada. It's legal. They seem to be doing pretty fine, last time I checked. Now, there is Mexico, which also has a lot of marijuana. Your argument is things will get worse with the absorption of marijuana. Will it really make a bit of difference, according to your logic, if we choose Mexico over Canada?

 

[McCloud]

adum: I saw the topic prompt. I'm assuming Mexico would be forcefully taken because there's realistically no other way.

Either way, the repercussions remain the same.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Ok, what? Your argument against the purchase of Mexico is that it has a lot of marijuana. Next, you say that Canada is a more preferable country to purchase. NEWSFLASH: If we purchase Canada, it doesn't matter whether marijuana is smuggled into our country or not, because we will inherit all of the marijuana in Canada! The result: We'll still have a large marijuana influx! You can't smuggle something to yourself, genius.

So, you say there's a lot of Marijuana in Canada. It's legal. They seem to be doing pretty fine, last time I checked. Now, there is Mexico, which also has a lot of marijuana. Your argument is things will get worse with the absorption of marijuana. Will it really make a bit of difference, according to your logic, if we choose Mexico over Canada?

Canada has more more pros than cons. Canada has less poverty,, less marijuana, the only problem is the marijuana issue. Seriously, you're trying to make a small con into a major issue with pure obnoxiousness. Marijuana will be in the U.S with Canada, or Mexico, or neither.

 

[Crimson King]

You are aware marijuana is quite prevalent in the US already, right?

We cannot buy a country like Canada when their economy is more stable than ours. Mexico is more likely because their economy is awful.

 

[adumbrodeus]

adum: I saw the topic prompt. I'm assuming Mexico would be forcefully taken because there's realistically no other way.

Still, the assumption of the thread is that they are not, and as unrealistic as that might be, that's the topic.

Stick on topic.

 

[McCloud]

Originally posted by McCloud Either way, the repercussions remain the same.

U.S. buys Mexico.

problems stated in previous post.

 

[adumbrodeus]

U.S. buys Mexico.

problems stated in previous post.

Good, now let me comment...

I'm not sure what kind of debate tournament you're taking part in, but this is ridiculous.

The acquisition of Mexico would prove problematic in more than a number of ways:

1) Opens up the U.S. southern flank
2) Destroys U.S. economy (millions of people are now a part of the U.S. that weren't part of the U.S. before)
3) Entangles the U.S. in yet another meaningless and ultimately unbeneficial situation
4) Weakens security of the state as a whole, driving up poverty lines and ****** infrastructure
5) Destroys U.S. credibility with international foreign policy. The U.S. would receive so much international backlash it wouldn't even be funny.
6) Drives up the cost of living for all Americans, and with recession looming from another war we haven't even finished, this would just tighten the noose.

This topic is ludicrous. The U.S. is already overextending itself in attempting to maintain a sphere of influence outside of the Western Hemisphere. And you want more imperialist actions?

No. The U.S. should remove itself from stupid entanglements and move toward a foreign policy of offshore balancing. We have more than enough power to handle ourselves and whatever "threats" to our security. We just need to stay content with what we have. This means making actions that promote neutrality in the international game.

Most derive pretty well from Mexico's current state, but 2 issues... #1 and #5.


Having Mexico as our southern flank actually gives us a better southern flank because the narrower southern Mexico boarder is much easier to guard then our current southern boarder. Furthermore, less area make the southern coasts far easier to guard logistically.

The fact that Mexico would be part of our country should make guarding from it a non-issue, it's not an outside threat so we can use police to deal with problems, and they have considerably more latitude then immigration. Ultimately this would IMPROVE security at both our current and new southern flank.

I suspect that this would realistically only be an issue if we forcibly acquired Mexico.

The real security issue is the coastlines... our coastlines are already ridiculously porous. Adding quite a few additional miles of coastline is only going to increase an already massive problem. So while our Southern flank will definitely improve, overall security will suffer a huge set-back due to the massive increase in coastlines.


As for destroying US credibility... not really, unless forcibly acquired, it certainly makes us "bigger", which comes with negative connotations, but an agreed upon merger does not have the negative connotations attached to a forcible acquisition. The repercussions on the US image will be limited at worst.



Not that it's a good idea, but those two specific critiques don't hold.

 

[McCloud]

Hmm, I disagree. But on the overall idea of it being ludicrous I'm glad we agree and agree on most other points.


The critique would hold for #5 as such a U.S. move would be seen as an outright imperialist action and would be condemned by the international realm as such. This action would just further add to the idea of America the bully.

The southern flank remains open only now we have to deal with both west and east coasts of Mexico, a large strip of land. By flank I mean any threats that could conceivably come from the south. Of course, no Latin American country is going to attack us any time soon, but the acquisition of Mexico does not benefit our sphere of influence (The Western Hemisphere)

We're already yankee imperialists in the eyes of most of Latin America. And yeah, we think they're banana republics, but ****ed if it isn't a d**k move to assert ourselves in such as a way as to state to Mexico and THE REST OF THE WORLD "Yeah, we're ****ing rich. We buy your puny *** out."

Cause that's the kind of U.S. I like to see.


Not to mention the entire population of Mexico would hate and resent us unless we tried to adapt a "Russification" strategy: i.e. move our people to Mexico and settle among the people so as to attempt to quell public dissent.

I don't know about you, but I don't take well to another country buying my land "to make it better." We've seen what the U.S. does to make things better.

1) Guatemala
2) Iran
3) Cuba
4) Vietnam
5) Iraq

We stick our noses where they don't belong and we get caught up in stupid entanglements that cost lives. Granted the first two examples weren't entanglements per se, just the CIA going in and assassinating the freaking leader of the country in order to promote a more U.S. friendly world.

Welcome to Open Door grand strategy.

At any rate, those are only my opinions on why the two points would still hold.


The U.S. needs to shut its trap and go back home.