Should the United States Annex Mexico?

[Estado Paulista]

Well, if you're assuming "it couldn't get any worse with the Tea Party now" then yes, actually.

I don't know. Taking arms against the government and being responsible for 45 civilian casualties is not on the Tea Party's record.

[Terra Sector Union]

I think you guys are missing a major part of this: who america would be firing on. The mexican government is no big problem, with some efforts to improve education and living standards it could be beneficial for all. but the major reason for a military takeover rather than aid is drug cartels. the Mexican government is paralyzed by bribes/threats, and lack resources for taking down the cartels. if the US did it, even if not to take over mexico, just to prevent drugs from entering the states, it might not be the worst idea in the world.

Better idea.

Have Mexican soldiers supported by the U.S destroy the drug cartels.

This. The Mexican government is a failure against the Drug War.

[Corustaria]

1. Illegal immigration will largely end (obviously).
But you'll still have the people and that's part of the problem. Also, the mexicans likely won't be pleased one bit that they have just been turned into a state of the US

2. Mexico's government is but a puppet of the drug cartels, who are constantly killing each other (who wouldn't emigrate away from that?). Thus, American annexation could help topple the drug czars.
Using this logic then surely the UK should Annex the Republic of Ireland again and put down the IRA, or the US should just completely annex Afghanistan, North Korea annex south Korea or vice versa (After all, both are just puppets). Also, American annexation could help topple them how? America isn't exactly in a glowing state, it'd be putting more strain on it's economy

3. Mexico and Peru are the world's largest producers of silver. Thus, a Mexican Annexation could easily bolster the economy.
Would it be worth the trade off? Billions, maybe trillions, would be spent on war, reconstruction, law and order, fixing Mexico's problems, dealing with the people who don't want the US there, ensuring that the Cartels don't strike back (see 4) and blowing up the silver mines

4. If we legalize the drug trade and keep it under government control (no way I'd trust the private sector with this), then it would also boost the economy and completely destroy the economic empires of the cartels.
Legalising the drug trade? That's going backwards, there are a reason drugs are illegal. If you mean legalising the parts of it that aren't dangerous, the cartels will just pick up the dangerous parts and continue their economic empires. If you legalise it all and thus start to destroy the cartels, they won't be pleased at all and you will have a war with the cartels on your hands. They might hate each other, but if they see it all coming down around them they'll start attacking the US instead of each other, then you might as well have a second taliban, only this one is right on the door step. You say the silver would bolster the economy, not if the Cartels collapse the mines, attack US citizens and generally become even more of a nuisance than they are now.

5. Perhaps we would be less concerned about Mexicans "taking our jobs" (jobs that nobody wants btw) if they are all U.S. citizens.
So if a countries citizens are 'taking' another countries jobs then that country should invade them? Also, would the US citizens be happy that they just got a bunch of the Mexicans they hate for taking their jobs as US citizens, making it even easier for them to take their jobs?

6. Mexico is in the midst of political and economic chaos, even more so than America, so if we just go in there and make Mexico a bunch of U.S. territories, then later states, we could fix their problems. Right? We did it with Iraq and sort of with Afghanistan.
No, the US fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan even more and they are still struggling to recover and are, in some ways, worse off now as they were before. Ask the Afghanistan people how happy they are that their country is now a war zone. And that is assuming the Mexicans would even want to be a US territory or state

Also, consider the more widespread implications. This would send a message that Imperialism is alright because one of the most powerful countries in the world can do it and get away with it.
How long after that before Russia decides it wants more than Crimea?
How long after that before China wants more land, before North Korea and South Korea try to annex each other again?
What if the UK decides that, actually, they don't want to acknowledge a Scottish Independence if it succeeds and annexes Scotland, stamping out resistance?
How long before Spain decides that they can just stamp all over resistance in Catalonia?
How long before European and North American countries decide they want Empires again, and start to nabs bits of Africa and the middle east? How long before Argentina tries to seize the Falklands again?
How long before Sri Lanka erupts into Civil War?
How long before Japan decides it wants it's imperial empire again?

After all, they'll all be thinking that if America can get away with it, why can't they? And that's a dangerous message to send. It may sound extreme and unlikely, maybe it is, but you risk opening the door for it. If even one of those happens and is left untreated, then more could fully will realise it can happen and try it. Because why obey international law when other people aren't?

[Vashta Nerada]

Heck yeah. Go in, kill 10% of the population in carpet bombings and gas attacks, hunt the cartel members to the ends of the earth, and set up "Southern New Mexico" in the aftermath. Anybody with an opinion on Operation Enduring Occupation III gets shot. And besides, its not like anybody's gonna tangle with the world's most powerful nation, especially a nuclear one. China's not going to sanction us since it would be the death of their economy, and few of the other nations in the world would do the same since the import too much from us that they cannot or simply do not produce. With Russia's oil pipelines blocked by Europe to a degree, Europe slowly coming to rely on the United States for gas. Africa won't do a thing, and South America can only scream about it in the end. The U.S. will get away with it and nobody will care about it. Seriously, riots wouldn't be an issue since the United States police and military "play nice" increase of crack down on protesters for PR reasons. Now imagine if the United States didn't give two @#%!$ about public relations. Then the world would see how much of a "great Satan" the U.S. could really be.

[Estado Paulista]

I think you guys are missing a major part of this: who america would be firing on. The mexican government is no big problem, with some efforts to improve education and living standards it could be beneficial for all. but the major reason for a military takeover rather than aid is drug cartels. the Mexican government is paralyzed by bribes/threats, and lack resources for taking down the cartels. if the US did it, even if not to take over mexico, just to prevent drugs from entering the states, it might not be the worst idea in the world.

Better idea.

Have Mexican soldiers supported by the U.S destroy the drug cartels.

...that's exactly what the US and Mexico are doing. Or at least, trying to.

[Lamaredia]

No, Canada should annex both the US and Mexico. Let's get an actually good country to lead the place. (Fuck the currrent prime minister of Canada with a rusty pole right through his pupil though)

[Wolfmanne]

The biggest flaw in this is that illegal immigration would end because it would be legal to move from Mexico to the original US, due to the fact that Mexico would be a part of the US. So, in effect, illegal immigration ends, but theoretically 100% of Mexico could move from Mexico to the US legally. Nice work OP.

Of course, there are reasons other than that for why I am against, but I'm pretty sure that they have been pointed out already.

[Fireye]

So this is what I've gotten from this, it is kind of hard to understand with the horrific grammar:

"We should threaten Mexico with war if they don't get their people in line and if immigration continues then we should invade and annex Mexico. Immigration problem solved."

Personally, I don't have a problem with immigrants, speak English and obey the law and you can stay, but I do see the advantages to this. It would be mutually beneficial as for the following reasons.
1. Illegal immigration will largely end (obviously).
2. Mexico's government is but a puppet of the drug cartels, who are constantly killing each other (who wouldn't emigrate away from that?). Thus, American annexation could help topple the drug czars.
3. Mexico and Peru are the world's largest producers of silver. Thus, a Mexican Annexation could easily bolster the economy.
4. If we legalize the drug trade and keep it under government control (no way I'd trust the private sector with this), then it would also boost the economy and completely destroy the economic empires of the cartels.
5. Perhaps we would be less concerned about Mexicans "taking our jobs" (jobs that nobody wants btw) if they are all U.S. citizens.
6. Mexico is in the midst of political and economic chaos, even more so than America, so if we just go in there and make Mexico a bunch of U.S. territories, then later states, we could fix their problems. Right? We did it with Iraq and sort of with Afghanistan.

And there are more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head right at the moment. So, Should the United States invade our neighbor to the South? If so, why? If not, why?

The grammer is bad because im typing fast on my phone so.....
Also your number one point on taking mexico is what i said in my post that you quoted

Phones make grammar bad the same way spoons make people fat.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

And the Leftism in general.

Hahaha, Netherland is leftist!

Oh my, you sure are great at making jokes.

Netherlands is more left-wing than America.
Just look at our taxes 52% for everyone that earns more than 5200 euro.

[The Emerald Dragon]

Better idea.

Have Mexican soldiers supported by the U.S destroy the drug cartels.

Because that's working out well in Afghanistan. Oh wait…

It's better then an all out invasion, which worked *cough* amazingly well.

[Estado Paulista]

The biggest flaw in this is that illegal immigration would end because it would be legal to move from Mexico to the original US, due to the fact that Mexico would be a part of the US. So, in effect, illegal immigration ends, but theoretically 100% of Mexico could move from Mexico to the US legally. Nice work OP.

Of course, there are reasons other than that for why I am against, but I'm shall they have been pointed out already.

Well, as you said, it does end illegal immigration. Isn't Hammetism great?

[Benuty]

Canton seems to remind me of a certain outlandish DEAT because of their nonsense posting.

[Terra Sector Union]

1. Illegal immigration will largely end (obviously).

Like illegal immigration only happens by Mexicans. There's people sneaking in from other continents. Canadians can be illegal immigrants too.

[Nervium]

Hahaha, Netherland is leftist!

Oh my, you sure are great at making jokes.

Netherlands is more left-wing than America.
Just look at our taxes 52% for everyone that earns more than 5200 euro.

That's alot, but isn't "leftist", the Netherlands, much like most of Western Europe, has pretty damn centrist politics.

[Herrebrugh]

Hahaha, Netherland is leftist!

Oh my, you sure are great at making jokes.

Netherlands is more left-wing than America.
Just look at our taxes 52% for everyone that earns more than 5200 euro.

So? Netherland isn't leftist. Tell that to the Royal Dutch Shell.

[The Fascist American Empire]

1. Illegal immigration will largely end (obviously).
But you'll still have the people and that's part of the problem. Also, the mexicans likely won't be pleased one bit that they have just been turned into a state of the US

2. Mexico's government is but a puppet of the drug cartels, who are constantly killing each other (who wouldn't emigrate away from that?). Thus, American annexation could help topple the drug czars.
Using this logic then surely the UK should Annex the Republic of Ireland again and put down the IRA, or the US should just completely annex Afghanistan, North Korea annex south Korea or vice versa (After all, both are just puppets). Also, American annexation could help topple them how? America isn't exactly in a glowing state, it'd be putting more strain on it's economy

3. Mexico and Peru are the world's largest producers of silver. Thus, a Mexican Annexation could easily bolster the economy.
Would it be worth the trade off? Billions, maybe trillions, would be spent on war, reconstruction, law and order, fixing Mexico's problems, dealing with the people who don't want the US there, ensuring that the Cartels don't strike back (see 4) and blowing up the silver mines

4. If we legalize the drug trade and keep it under government control (no way I'd trust the private sector with this), then it would also boost the economy and completely destroy the economic empires of the cartels.
Legalising the drug trade? That's going backwards, there are a reason drugs are illegal. If you mean legalising the parts of it that aren't dangerous, the cartels will just pick up the dangerous parts and continue their economic empires. If you legalise it all and thus start to destroy the cartels, they won't be pleased at all and you will have a war with the cartels on your hands. They might hate each other, but if they see it all coming down around them they'll start attacking the US instead of each other, then you might as well have a second taliban, only this one is right on the door step. You say the silver would bolster the economy, not if the Cartels collapse the mines, attack US citizens and generally become even more of a nuisance than they are now.

5. Perhaps we would be less concerned about Mexicans "taking our jobs" (jobs that nobody wants btw) if they are all U.S. citizens.
So if a countries citizens are 'taking' another countries jobs then that country should invade them? Also, would the US citizens be happy that they just got a bunch of the Mexicans they hate for taking their jobs as US citizens, making it even easier for them to take their jobs?

6. Mexico is in the midst of political and economic chaos, even more so than America, so if we just go in there and make Mexico a bunch of U.S. territories, then later states, we could fix their problems. Right? We did it with Iraq and sort of with Afghanistan.
No, the US fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan even more and they are still struggling to recover and are, in some ways, worse off now as they were before. Ask the Afghanistan people how happy they are that their country is now a war zone. And that is assuming the Mexicans would even want to be a US territory or state

Also, consider the more widespread implications. This would send a message that Imperialism is alright because one of the most powerful countries in the world can do it and get away with it.
How long after that before Russia decides it wants more than Crimea?
How long after that before China wants more land, before North Korea and South Korea try to annex each other again?
What if the UK decides that, actually, they don't want to acknowledge a Scottish Independence if it succeeds and annexes Scotland, stamping out resistance?
How long before Spain decides that they can just stamp all over resistance in Catalonia?
How long before European and North American countries decide they want Empires again, and start to nabs bits of Africa and the middle east? How long before Argentina tries to seize the Falklands again?
How long before Sri Lanka erupts into Civil War?
How long before Japan decides it wants it's imperial empire again?

After all, they'll all be thinking that if America can get away with it, why can't they? And that's a dangerous message to send. It may sound extreme and unlikely, maybe it is, but you risk opening the door for it. If even one of those happens and is left untreated, then more could fully will realise it can happen and try it. Because why obey international law when other people aren't?

Are you an author?

[Lamaredia]

Hahaha, Netherland is leftist!

Oh my, you sure are great at making jokes.

Netherlands is more left-wing than America.
Just look at our taxes 52% for everyone that earns more than 5200 euro.

Being more left-wing than America isn't that hard really.

More to the left =/= Leftist

[The Fascist American Empire]

1. Illegal immigration will largely end (obviously).

Like illegal immigration only happens by Mexicans. There's people sneaking in from other continents. Canadians can be illegal immigrants too.

Am I the only one whoa can read the letters l-a-r-g-e-l-y together as one word?

[Terra Sector Union]

Netherlands is more left-wing than America.
Just look at our taxes 52% for everyone that earns more than 5200 euro.

That's alot, but isn't "leftist", the Netherlands, much like most of Western Europe, has pretty damn centrist politics.

Alright. I guess European Centrism translates into Leftism in America. I'm still trying to catch up on the differing political spectrums between the continents.

[The Emerald Dragon]

Like illegal immigration only happens by Mexicans. There's people sneaking in from other continents. Canadians can be illegal immigrants too.

Am I the only one whoa can read the letters l-a-r-g-e-l-y together as one word?

Nope, i'd be mildly disturbed if you thought that.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Am I the only one whoa can read the letters l-a-r-g-e-l-y together as one word?

Nope, i'd be mildly disturbed if you thought that.

I was starting to since nobody seems to be.

[Lamaredia]

That's alot, but isn't "leftist", the Netherlands, much like most of Western Europe, has pretty damn centrist politics.

Alright. I guess European Centrism translates into Leftism in America. I'm still trying to catch up on the differing political spectrums between the continents.

It pretty much does, yeah.

It's fun really. What is generally considered a Nazi party in Sweden is more Leftist than the Republicans.

[Benuty]

The thought occurs to me aren't a great percentage of displaced persons coming in from mexico actually from other countries fleeing the rather harsh policies Mexico has in place?

[Terra Sector Union]

Like illegal immigration only happens by Mexicans. There's people sneaking in from other continents. Canadians can be illegal immigrants too.

Am I the only one whoa can read the letters l-a-r-g-e-l-y together as one word?

I can read those letters too. Your #1 point is implying that most illegal immigration LARGELY end with Mexico being annexed by the US. Remember, El Salvadorans illegally immigrate into Mexico including other Central Americans nations. It's like a chain. The rest of Central America will illegally sneak into Mexico. Mexico will sneak into US. US sneaks into Canada. (I personally don't know what kind of Americans sneak into Canada but it's probably the ones that threaten to move North because of George W. Bush back in 2001-2008)

But anyways, there's always a lot of people that want to illegally immigrate into the US no matter what.

[Pilotto]

I think we should lead "drug busts" on illegals as in find them and deport them. let no one immigrate if their home country always turns up immigrates(you know what im talking about). we should also threaten mexico with a declaration of war. and then if illegals continue to come we take over mexico, thus ending illegal immigration(well a big chunk)

So this is what I've gotten from this, it is kind of hard to understand with the horrific grammar:

"We should threaten Mexico with war if they don't get their people in line and if immigration continues then we should invade and annex Mexico. Immigration problem solved."

Personally, I don't have a problem with immigrants, speak English and obey the law and you can stay, but I do see the advantages to this. It would be mutually beneficial as for the following reasons.
1. Illegal immigration will largely end (obviously).
2. Mexico's government is but a puppet of the drug cartels, who are constantly killing each other (who wouldn't emigrate away from that?). Thus, American annexation could help topple the drug czars.
3. Mexico and Peru are the world's largest producers of silver. Thus, a Mexican Annexation could easily bolster the economy.
4. If we legalize the drug trade and keep it under government control (no way I'd trust the private sector with this), then it would also boost the economy and completely destroy the economic empires of the cartels.
5. Perhaps we would be less concerned about Mexicans "taking our jobs" (jobs that nobody wants btw) if they are all U.S. citizens.
6. Mexico is in the midst of political and economic chaos, even more so than America, so if we just go in there and make Mexico a bunch of U.S. territories, then later states, we could fix their problems. Right? We did it with Iraq and sort of with Afghanistan.

And there are more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head right at the moment. So, Should the United States invade our neighbor to the South? If so, why? If not, why?

Y'know, when I clicked on this thread, I expected to read an fallacious OP with terrible grammar and excessive use of exclamation marks. However, I'm impressed with your logic.