Tag Archives: mexico

Obama v. NAFTA

Obama, fresh from signing two buy-American laws and quoting from the Book of Revelations, tried to put a rest to the confusion in the West Wing by giving our trade and diplomatic program a clear direction: protectionism and unilateralism:

Mexico Imposes Tariffs on U.S. Amid Trucking Dispute (Update1) – Bloomberg.com

March 17 (Bloomberg) — Mexico set the stage for the first trade war of President Barack Obama’s administration by slapping import tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods in retaliation for a ban of its trucks from American roads.

The tariffs, on about 90 items from 40 states, were imposed by Economy Minister Gerardo Ruiz Mateos yesterday after the U.S. suspended a program to allow Mexican 18-wheelers to deliver goods across the border. U.S. Republican lawmakers said Mexico, which didn’t provide details, would impose tariffs on farm goods such as rice, beef, wheat and beans.

Long-time readers of this blog know that fear of the latin boogey-man is an animating force in Democratic Party politics, and so should not be surprised.

While George Bush spent his last days in office trying to sign a trade deal with Colombia, Obama spends his force by rolling back one with Mexico.

The New Country

Catholicgauze, gnxp, and Voxeu all link to a map of Old and New countries… that is, regions where most of the ancestors of today’s populations lived in the same region 500 years ago, and those that did not. Predictably, Europe, Asia, and Africa are all old countries, while United States, Canada, much of South America, and Australia are new countries.

But look at Mexico. Mexico the largest ‘old country’ in the new world, and exception to her neighbors


The United States is three times larger than Mexico and has a faster population growth rate. The integration of Mexico into North America is a generational effort in the spread of globalization, and the building of a stable North America. America will enjoy more political, educational, and social safety and stability — and more control over her own destiny — when the effective borders of the culture, education, and polity of the United States are sensible.

Whether the 30-some Mexican States are added to the Untied States ultimately matters less than whether it is as easy to move between the US and Mexico, find work, and do business as it is between Germany and France, or Colorado and Wyoming. The legal, cultural, and educational apartheid between the United States and Mexico is perhaps the greatest long-term threat to the United States in the western hemisphere. It must be done away with. Our absorption of Mexico must continue.

Congress to Help Unify North America?

Congress open to passing bill on immigration,” by Charles Hurt, Washington Times, 4 December 2006, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061204-122448-1240r.htm.

Though there are missteps, such as John Bolton losing his job, all in all I am glad that the Democrats have won control of the House. Their crazier ideas, such as giving Murtha or Hastings power, have come to naught, and all in all they have been a good influence. First it was the remasculinization of George Bush’s Iraq rhetoric, and now:

Congress will approve an immigration bill that will grant citizenship rights to most of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. after Democrats take control next month, predict both sides on Capitol Hill.

While Republicans have been largely splintered on the issue of immigration reform, Democrats have been fairly unified behind the principle that the illegals currently in the country should get citizenship rights without having to first leave the country.

Years of dawdling have worsened our border security and made it harder to fix this broken system,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who will lead the Judiciary Committee next year. “We should not let partisan politics and intolerance continue to delay and derail effective reform.”

Democrats in both chambers say they will start with some form of legislation first drafted by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, which was the basis for the bill that was approved earlier this year by the Senate.

This is great news, and will help unify North America. Mexican labor will flow to the United States, becoming American labor, while remittances sent back to Mexico will help tie together our economies.


The alternative to a growing United States is joining dying Europe — a land of low birth rates and low national hopes.

That is not America’s destiny.

Mexaphobia: An "I Hate Linux" Special Report

Brendan of I Hate Linux, who recently penned the editorial on the Fair Tax Revolution, returns to share his views on Mexican immigration. You already know mine.

Brendan is a Noted Fan of Mexican Immigration

Alright… I’m pissed again.

As a rule of law sort of guy, I believe that for this great country to continue to exist the current law on the books needs to be enforced and I find it reprehensible that a group of people who have already shown complete disregard and their disrespect for the laws of this country have the balls to demand ‘rights’ in these anti-American protests that are occurring throughout the country today, but also to effectively engage in economic-terrorism in their attempts to shut down so many American cities.

Brendan continues…

The one good thing I think that will come out of this is that it will help to polarize not only the American people but also the American government against these invaders and together take steps that would weaken the existing trespassers socially and politically as well as make it harder for more to come across.

Maybe I’m just naïve… but last I checked rights come with responsibilities which amongst other things includes obeying the law. Giving rights or easy paths to citizenship to those who have so blatantly disregarded our laws sends a clear and dangerous message to the rest of the world that we do not respect our own laws and don’t really care if people break them.

What’s next? Giving amnesty to home burglars, bank robbers or corporate crooks?

Those who say that there is no way we can round up and deport the 12 some million Mexican aliens are right… but not why you’d think.

Imagine for a moment the number of planes, trains and automobiles that would be required to transport the estimated 12 millions illegals if we could round them all up. Because of a pesky little issue related to national sovereignty and border security, each of these vehicles would require the permission of the Mexican government to enter the country… something they would never give for two very important reasons:

First up, the Mexican economy would suddenly lose a huge influx of effectively free money (to them) that is sent from illegal workers in the US to their families back in Mexico.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Mexico would have to deal with some 12 million out of work people who would be a major drain on the already weakened Mexican economy. To add insult to injury this new 12 million, likely disillusioned people would represent a large voting block that could lead to major political change, something that Mexican President Vicente Fox surly wouldn’t want.

So unless we decide to invest in 12 million parachutes and invade their airspace… we are not going to forcibly remove them… but there is still a way which I will get to in just a moment.

While President Bush pushes big on his amnesty program, he has done virtually nothing to enforce existing immigration laws or secure our borders against this ongoing invasion and until our borders are secured, any guest worker program is a waste of time and money as it will still be relatively easy for these invaders to come into the country and get work illegally, after all why go legal when it’s so much easier to stay illegal?

When such discussions come up I often think back to a cousin of mine who a number of years back married a wonderful man from Germany (an anesthesiologist even) and despite being married to an American citizen, it took a great deal of time, work and money for him while following the rules to eventually be able to legally work in this country.

Sure, having some or all of the 31 Mexican states join the United States under our constitution might resolve these issues in the long run, until we can show our resolve in the face of this adversary, most actions that have been advocated would simply be capitulation to those threatening us with harm.

I’ve heard many theories on how the current issue can be fixed and the best I’ve heard so far is this four point plan:

  • Close the borders – Deploy the National Guard and build a wall along the US/Mexican border making it impossible for anyone to get across without our permission.
  • Actively fine employers – Make it extremely painful for a company to knowingly hiring an illegal alien or other individual who does not have the right to work in this country.
  • Lose the freebiess – Deny ALL tax funded social services to persons illegally in this country EXCEPT for life-saving medical treatment.
  • Tax wire transfers
  • – Add a 30-50% tax/fee/fine on all money transfers from people illegally in this country to someone in another country.

(Note: The fines/fees collected from point #2 and #4 would go directly towards border security)

Under such a plan the United States would be able to effectively fight back against these invaders in a war of attrition where we would make it so miserable for these people to stay in our country that they would have no choice but to leave.

The United States has granted amnesty to trespassers like these several times before and as a result we ended up with the same problem over and over again of countless new invaders ignoring our laws, violating our sovereignty and demanding things which they have no right to.

History has shown that amnesty is not even a temporary fix to this predicament and until our borders are secure, all other discussions of any kind of ‘rights’ for the estimated 12 million invaders is moot.

Mexico Decriminalizes Marijuana. Good.

Mexico to Decriminalize Pot, Cocaine, and Heroin,” by Noel Randewich, Reuters, 29 April 2006, http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-29T010531Z_01_N281836_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MEXICO-DRUGS.xml.

President Fox, of the Mexican United States, isn’t only repealing almost criminal laws that destroy families

Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if they are in small amounts for personal use under new reforms passed by Congress that quickly drew U.S. criticism.

The measure given final passage 53-26 by senators in a late night session on Thursday is aimed at letting police focus on their battle against major drug dealers, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law.

The Mexican United States: Lands of Freedom

He’s also mimicking Chief Justice John Roberts.

Like John Roberts, who correctly saw no reason why “international law” should decide a nation’s drug policies, Mexico’s policies are likewise being enacted without kowtowing to foreign powers.

The legislation came as a shock to Washington, which counts on Mexico’s support in its war against drug smuggling gangs who move massive quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines through Mexico to U.S. consumers.

“I would say any law that decriminalizes dangerous drugs is not very helpful,” said Judith Bryan, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. “Drugs are dangerous. We don’t think it is the appropriate way to go.”

She said U.S. officials were still studying the reforms, under which police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

Fox has been seen as a loyal ally of the United States in the war on drugs, but the reforms could create new tensions.

A delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives visited Mexico last week and met with senior officials to discuss drug control issues, but was told nothing of the planned legislative changes, said Michelle Gress, a House subcommittee counsel who was part of the visiting team. “We were not informed,” she said.

Unfortunatley, it is on drug policies where our federal government acts most profoundly against its Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees individual rights and states rights, but the federal government runs over both in order to enforce “the one right way” over our fifty United States.

This isn’t just anti-federalist. It’s against our long term interests, too, by making territorially expansion more difficult and hampering the Continental adoption of the English language.

Instead, our central government is wrapped up in Health Mullahism, going the wrong way on free market medications.

Mexico City gets freedom. Does Washingon?

A Border Runs Through It: A Strange Frontier in North America

Federalism. Small government. Freedom. Wealth. The Constitution. Power. The benefits of admitting the 31 Mexican United States to our Union seem almost endless. But there’s one more that must be mentioned: secure borders.


Defend America. Annex Mexico.

In a humorous piece on using Jack Bauer to achieve Continental Union,

Our new southern border would be 696 miles long as compared to the 2,000 miles that we currently must defend


This is a real concern. The length of our border is a structural weakness in our defenses


It is very easy to enter our nation over this long, flat, dry stretch. The border even includes twin cities, such as San Diego / Tijuana, Calexico / Mexicali, El Paso / Ciudad Juarez, Laredo / Nuevo Laredo, and Brownsville / Matamoros. Given that cities, as complex adaptive systems, need interaction to grow, the location of the border forces of to choose between growth and security. We’ve chosen growth.

By drawing a line across our continent, we have put ourselves in this situation. The solution is obvious: untie with Mexico. Instead of an irrational border through the middle of our great island, this will be the border:


Only 753 miles of inhospitable border. Instead of two-thousand miles of wide-open frontier.

We all want border control. We get it best by admitted Mexico to the United States of America.

The Manifest Destiny of the American Nation

Christ’s words, “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.,” don’t just help explain why his political revolution swept the Roman Empire. They also explain why, from the perspective of power, America must unite with Mexico.


To expand the English language and empower the American Nation, admit the 31 Mexican United States to our Union. To expand the Spanish language and weaken the American Nation, keep the status quo. Or better yet, support an “enforcement only” immigration bill.

The context for Christ’s words was a discussion on epistemology that is found in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. His students are asking why he speaks analogically, instead of logically. Jesus responds that the human mind is not optimized for logical reasoning, and that analogies are a better method of communication.

The human brain, being a complex adaptive network, works on the “rich get richer method that Jesus described. For instance, take two neurons in the brain: one with three incoming paths, the other with one. The neuron with three incoming pathways will become even more popular, and will increase its influence. The one with a single pathways, however, may be shunned and even die.

Similar dynamics exist in many systems. When I was a student at the University of South Dakota, my colleague Doug Jennewin looked at popular ant paths becoming superhighways while the roads less travelled fall into disuse.. Prokaryoyes with no neighbors die, while more popular prokaryotes divide and thrive. Lock a dog in a room and the canine’s body will shut down, the same way as a prisoner’s in solitary confinement well. Give them a group to belong too, however, and their health goes up. Protectionist states, like late Qing China or late Tokugawa Japan, fade while merchant states, such as Britain or America, thrive.

Over and over again, in any integrated system of competition, the most popular choice wins and the least popular choice loses. It’s very unfair and very predictable.

Integrated Mexico with America, and you will begin an death spiral for the Spanish Language on the North American continent. Give Mexicans the right to live where they can, work where they can, and play where they can, and the same complex, adaptive processes which rewards popular neurons and popular ant paths will reward the popular North American language, English. The language of Beowulf, Shakespeare, Locke, and Lincoln will reign from Alaska to Oaxaca.

At every stage, Christ’s “rich get richer” words will tip the balance from Spanish to English. Children, hearing English as their language centers are forming, will build the neural nets that allow proficient English usage later in life. Playing with English-speaking friends as their social centers are forming, they will build the neural nets that allow proficient English socialization later in life. Working for money, they will see that English gives them the most opportunities. Intermarrying with Americans, they bring English into the home.

Over and over this process has displaced minority languages with majority ones. Throughout the British Isles it is English that is commonly spoken, not Gaelic. Throughout France is is French, and none of the languages of oc.

This is not just some idealistic enterprise: it would increase the power of every American. The power of networks is a function of the square of its numbers of users. The difference in power of a net of 300 million (the current USA population) and of 400 million (USA + MUS) is astronomical.

Indeed, as national identity is closed tied to language, this rise of English in North America will directly correspond to the rise in power of the American Nation.

Want to know how to screw this up? Want to know how to weaken the American Nation. Here’s a clue:


If you wanted to sabotage America, prevent any sort of expanded union with Mexico that would encourage Mexicans to come here and mingle with ordinary Americans. That would involve making their labor illegal, to ghettoize them and take away many of the incentives of learning the language of business. it certainly would involve preventing Americans from owning property and moving down there for the same reason. Of course, you want to keep Mexico under a Constitution separate from ours, to impede general business growth.

In other words, if you wanted to prevent American power from spreading into Mexico and even lose American power in the southwestern United States, the FristTancredo plan is just fine.

The worst of the coffee house lunes are hoping we do just that. Every picture we dislike from the rallies — all those BS placards by rich college kids — are calls for apartheid and separateness. Their grand ideal is on the same moral level as al Qaeda. And as with al Qaeda, if we integrate them first, we win.

If you want a middle of the road policy, then keep things the way they are. Don’t enjoy anti-American pictures like this? Then annex Mexico.

Unless you prefer la reconquista.

Annex Mexico

Annex Mexico?,” by Glenn Reynolds, Glennreynolds.com, 10 April 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12132529/#060410 (from Instapundit via Purpleslog, also at Riehl World View).

It would make us more federalist. It would make us freer. It would make us richer.

For all of these reasons, I have been calling for the United States to absorb the Mexican United States as the 51st to 81st states of our Union.


Now Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit is too:

Reynolds’ piece is so well written that I will quote it nearly paragraph-by-paragraph, giving my opinions along the way:

One difference between the demonstrations in France and the demonstrations in America: The French are demonstrating for the right not to work hard, while the demonstrators in America mostly want to work.

Exactly. America’s immigration situation is nothing like Europe. We attract the best and the brightest, and immediately put them to work (though with civil fines for those who don’t go through the paperwork hoopla).

At least part of our better solution is the fact that our immigrants come from a sister nation, who also spans our continent, with roots in Western European colonialism, and holds to a federal republic as the best form of government.

In fact, they’re leaving Mexico because its corrupt and thuggish political culture stifles economic growth and opportunity. The people there are smart and hardworking, after all, and they tend to do just fine when they get here. They’re leaving because being smart and hardworking is enough to get you ahead in the United States, but not in Mexico. And I suspect that if the Reconquista advocates somehow did get their way, and the Southwest United States became a new Northern Mexico, we’d soon have illegal immigrants crossing over into Kansas and Oklahoma for opportunity, because the Mexican political culture would have ruined things in Arizona and Texas just like it’s already ruined them further south.

In other words, they are running towards our Constitution and political system. While local conditions differ — it would be insane to have a Continental education policy for both Oregon and Oaxaca, for example — our economic system works, too. Our system of property rights, our system of Constitutional rights, and our system of getting things done is what Mexicans want and need.

Oh, we don’t need to turn Mexico into a state, or several. At least not right away. But as part of any immigration deal, the United States needs to demand reform in Mexico. Serious political reform, and serious economic reform.

Here Reynolds is referring to what TM Lutas called an “acquis communitaire” — a European style harmonization of basic laws before the Union. That’s fine. If America offered eventual Constitutional statehood to the “free and sovereign” members of the Mexican United States , we would be able fix any serious problems before they join us as voting members. For example, the much-needed privatization of Pemex (Mexico’s state oil company).

And reciprocity. If we’re going to make it easy for Mexicans to come to the United States to live, work, hold property, and get public benefits without too much paperwork trouble, we need to make it easy for Americans to do the same in Mexico. Right now, as several people have noticed, the environment there is considerably less friendly to foreigners than America’s is.

Exactly. Openness is a two-way street. Interstate disputes handled by federal courts, not NAFTA courts. Property rights ultimately enforced by the American Constitution. Travel and home-ownership rights, for our retirees.

But as the Mexican government has been free to express opinions about how the United States should set immigration, economic, and educational policy, it seems only fair if we do the same for them.

It’s an interdependent world, after all. And that works both ways.

Bravo Glenn!

James Madison Wants Union with Mexico (to avoid becoming like France)

Federalist No. 10, or, The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” by “Publius” (James Madison), Daily Advertiser, 22 November 1787, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10.

Back to Federalism,” by David Gelernter, Weekly Standard, 10 April 2005, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/062fkzaa.asp (from Bench Memos).

The United States of America should absorb the Mexican United States, creating an 81-state economic and political union. I’ve argued this will shrink the size of government and unite the North American people.

Uniting States of America

Another reason to marry the united States of America and Mexico is that it help build the America of our Founders’ dreams.

In the tenth blog post of a series that would later be published as The Federalist, James Madison (writing under the name Publius) wrote

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. … the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it

In other words, large unions are preferable to small ones because special interests find big unions harder to take over. With a bigger and broader population, ideological minorities can find safe niches to retreat to, and have longer to use asymmetric strategies against their larger competitors.

For most of American history, this worked fine. Under the explicit ruleset of the Constitution, Americans increased their freedoms and their prosperity over the lifetimes. A serious oversight in the Constitution — whether or not States could leave our economic and political union — was resolved at some cost in the mid-19th century. Otherwise, however, the internal strength and happiness of the American States have been the envy of the world.

However, much of this progress was undone in the mid and late 20th centuries. Nationalists — American Gaullists — succeeded in throwing much of American policy into judicial tyranny. The same geography-reducing forces that allow bloggers to community — and allowed the Ottoman Sultans to destroy home-rule in that country — let men like Earl Warren undermine the logic of Federalist 10. With safe local niches destroyed by judicial fiat — and asymmetric strategies rendered impossible due to a Judicialization of the police force — our Madisonian guarantees of freedom were swept away.

Today this undemocratic centralization is seen by our National Judiciary’s leftist stance on abortion…

But the collapse of federalism has ruined this valuable arrangement. The collapse gathered momentum with the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion and was a tragedy for reasons beyond those that are usually discussed; a tragedy even for Americans who believe in completely unregulated abortion.

Roe was a power grab in which uniformity was imposed on a facet of society that had been allowed to vary. “Diversity” is a big selling point on the left, but not among believers in an activist Supreme Court.

— as if the Gaullist belief that South Dakota would be happy with the same abortion laws as the people of Massachusettes was true.

However, such a Gaullist view of America’s economic & political union of sovereign States would be untenable if the 31 southern Continental states and united with the 50 northern ones. The issues extend beyond abortion to homosexualist marriage, education politics, contracting laws, hand-guns, and other issues. It is a mistake – a Gaullist, France-style mistake – to assume that all American people should hand their fortunes to a distant National Government, when they live in states which are closer to their values.

Protect Federalism. Protect Democracy. Let the Mexican States, if they so choose, join our Union under our Constitution.