Raving Conservative


Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Expanding the US

This may sound imperialistic, and maybe it is, but am I the only one who wants to se the US get geographically bigger?

Before you go haywire let me explain. The US has several territories that get all of the welfare benefits of being part of the US, but pay no taxes and have no representation in our government. Puerto Rico in particular has had several votes on whether or not to become a state, and it is always voted down because the people enjoy all the rights and benefits of a US citizen, but pay no federal taxes. I firmly believe that these territories need to either become states, or we kick them out and quit letting them drain our tax dollars.

Also, as a second generation American descended from a Canuck (Grandpa is originally from New Brunswick) I happen to have a special affinity for Canadians. Not those separatists from Quebec, but the main population. However, full integration of Canada would be foolish since the nation has very nearly gone socialist. Rather, I would welcome those provinces who are tired of their government mucking up their lives. If they vote to cede from Canada and join the US I say we welcome them with open arms.

The big prize is Mexico. The way I figure it, since so many Mexicans want to be Americans we should give them a chance to let their entire country become part of the US, broken down into several states, of course, probably by province or region. This will instantly solve the border problem, and we can sweep out their corrupt government entirely, replace corrupt military and police officials, and fold the rest into our own. The language problem could be solved by making English a mandatory subject in grammar school, and the only language used in middle and high schools, while offering free English classes to adults. All living Mexican citizens would immediately be considered naturalized US citizens, and all Mexicans born after they join the Union would be native-born citizens. There would be enormous challenges, but with work and dedication, and the willing joining of the Union on the part of the Mexican people it can be done. Done correctly it can be a win-win for all since they get improved schools and services along with greater freedoms and better law enforcement. We get improved national security, a smaller national border, and vast tracts of excellent agricultural land and oil fields.

I am not one for conquest. But the way I see it every state in the Union voted and applied for statehood. I see no reason why this practice has to end just because we have 50 states. Imagine this: the states of Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, Virgin Islands, and possibly several Canadian provinces and numerous Mexican provinces all as states. All doing so willingly and with a general desire to integrate into American culture. Before this can be done right however we need to decide on a national language. Since every American citizen speaks it I nominate English.


  • Wow. I've actually made this exact same case to others in the past. If we offered other countries full membership in the US, we'd be expanding at an unbelievable rate.

    The obstacles? The companies that make unbelievable profits from the undemocratic regimes we'd be supplanting. There are reasons why US companies are moving their production to Haiti and El Salvador and other wonderful places -- because those lovely governments are willing, for example, to look the other way when labor organizers turn up dead.

    What you're suggesting isn't imperialistic at all, in fact, it's the opposite of imperialism. And that's why the imperialists are against it.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 12:22 PM  

  • Stop, step back, and think about what a mess it would be -- and for the sake of brevity, let's just consider Mexico, a nation with a long history of corruption, police brutality, and entitlement for upper classes. We'd inherit all that, then have to clean it up. Isn't Louisiana enough for us right now?

    By Anonymous rightwingprof, at 1:04 PM  

  • Professor,
    I have considered your points before I posted this article, though I failed to address them. The changes we would have to enact would be so sweeping that we would surely be met with resistance from well-armed quarters. The biq question is whether or not the current population of Mexico would be supportive enough of integrating with the US that they would make the neccessary sacrifices not just within their power structure, but in their national identity and the evry way they do business.

    Indeed, the challege would be immense, but I wonder if the payout might be worth it for everyone.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:23 PM  

  • Interesting suggestion. Mexico would be problematic, though, mainly for the rampant poverty. It would be somewhat like when East and West Germany reunited. The governmental structure would be helpful though. Mexico's already a federal republic; we'd just be adding a whole lot of states. No need to make English the national language: there are already more Spanish speakers living in America than in any other single country on Earth. Not a big challenge here in the lower 48.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 1:37 PM  

  • Obviously the change couldn't happen overnight. You'd want to insist that the prospective state start observing federal laws and the Constitution prior to being admitted, not just throw the doors open and then expect reform.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 1:43 PM  

  • daniel, this is a really impressive idea...and how could it be 'imperialistic', especially concerning mexico?? thousands of people sacrifice their lives every year just to live here & possibly WORK here...illegally! so what could possibly be wrong with 'integrating' them legally into our society?

    By Blogger Libby, at 2:00 PM  

  • Conservatives believe in limiting government, not expanding it. Taking in new "states" would expand it

    As such, I am totally against this idea.

    By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 2:33 PM  

  • Oh no, a catastrophe has occurred. For the very first time I have to disagree with Phantom. I think Daniel's idea is brilliant. It would, in the long run, solve so many problems, not only our problems, but the problems of others as well, especially of Mexico and those provinces of Canada that are miserably overrun with socialism, like Alberta for instance.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 2:41 PM  

  • Eck...

    I'm not totally against this idea because you make you good argument. But there is something to be said for "spreading yourself thin." When you integrate new territories as states (I may not be using the right terminology, but I hope you get my point) you're integrating new cultures, philosophies, value systems, etc. and it's hard enough to satisfy the diversity of people we have in the US already. What I'm saying is that it would be hard to expand to the degree you are suggesting and still have a democratic republic.

    That, and the "statehood or else" mentality concerning our current territories seems to ask for an open armed revolt. I may be wrong though, and it may help the situation, but I am skeptical.

    And maybe it's just my own rampant imagination, but reading your post I had an image of a world map with only one color and one name: The United States of America.

    That kind of power and influence could be bad all around.

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 2:54 PM  

  • Mr Robbins,
    I think A united North America is a definite stopping point. However, even within North America there is a definite difference of cultures that would creat a host of unique challenges, but thw willing integration of new states should help alleviate this problem since the majority of people would be actively trying to integrate. On the other hand, we already have such an immense of cultural crossover between the US, Canada, and Mexico that the worst integration problems amy never materialize.

    I don't know if such an expansion would neccessarily expand the government. There would be more representatives, but there would also be new tax revenue from the newly created states to cover them. I don't forsee any new agencies needeing to be craeted, although the initial Elglish lessons for non-english speaking peoples would be a big initial investment. Could you please explain to me how ganing new states would expand the Government in the long term, beyond the obligatory representaion of course.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:12 PM  

  • My first thought is, hell no. But keep in mind I always fly off the handle before thinking things through. But I do like the thought of the U.S. being larger geographically, but the politics that would follow and the work and I just don't like including other people in my little party. Yeah, I'm selfish like that. ;-) All in gest, all in gest.

    Oh for your prize at guessing what letter at my site? I'm blogrollin' you, but wait, that would only benefit me. Again, with the "me" thing. I'll think of something, maybe.

    By Blogger Alabama, at 7:32 PM  

  • The premise you propose would increase government size drastically and flies in the face of the basic nature of conservatism. The fact that catastophile agrees with the premise should tell you something.

    Socialists: Big Gov.
    Conservative: Minimal Government.

    Our gov. is already too large. If Mexico became a state, with it's corrupt politicians who'd have to be included, you're looking at a disaster of biblical proportions.

    I may have to rethink my support of your candidacy on this issue :-)

    By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 1:50 AM  

  • I think the beggest problem would be that they would not give up their culture but would readily sign up to become a state. I'm not sure if people would assimilate to American culture. Even those that risk their lives to come here and work ilegally have no desire to become "American"

    By Blogger Dr. Phat Tony, at 4:15 AM  

  • Maybe instead of beggest I meant biggest. It's hard to say now.

    By Blogger Dr. Phat Tony, at 4:45 AM  

  • Any ideas on how this could be done without violating conservative priciples? I was already figuring we would simply sweep the existing Mexican government away and break the country in managable-sized states. It would also be essential that the conditions of statehood be very strict to include assimilation our terms if the want to join the Union.

    Anyway, I sincerely doubt that Mexico, as mesed up as it is, would ever vote to sacrifice it's national sovereignity and identity to joint the US. So I really don't think this part of the scenario is even possible. On top of that, without the support of the current US population we would simply have to deny them their application for statehood.

    There are many problems with this idea. There are many potential benefits for all, and some gigantic obstacles. This is just a possible aliternative to NAFTA and a possible way to solve to border problems we are having.

    I'm glad I floated this idea though. All of your input has given me a great deal to think about. Also, something for you all to think about; have you noticed that the only real bone of contention in this whole discussion has been Mexico? Am I to take that to mean that our existing territories (with one noted exception) and the English speaking Canadian provinces have general support?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:07 AM  

  • My biggest problem with this is Mexico. It's an extension of what Phantom Driver is saying. With out of control poverty in Mexico, would we gain enough revenue to cover welfare, and medicare, and foodstamps, etc. to take care of the Mexicans? If we did, wouldn't the agencies that supply these "services" (more like disservices) have to expand?

    I would support this idea if we could strip our federal government to "bare bones," so to speak, prior to any annexation, and put an end to the idea that the United States must change to accomodate immigrants instead of immigrants changing to accomodate the US.

    Take the willing Canadaian provinces first, since that seems to be where the most revenue will come from (That's just an uneducated assumption, I could be wrong) and then add willing territories as funds permit.

    By Blogger fmragtops, at 6:52 AM  

  • One more thing, if we did raise enough revenue to cover the social services for the impoverished Mexicans, wouldn't that just increase the vile and unholy redistribution of wealth?

    By Blogger fmragtops, at 6:54 AM  

  • Take a look at how ungovernable California is and then multiply that times 20.

    That's my take on it.

    By Blogger Drew, at 9:09 AM  

  • Daniel: "This is just a possible aliternative to NAFTA and a possible way to solve to border problems we are having."

    Indeed. There seems to be a consensus among the two parties that this whole "free trade" thing is going to happen, one way or another.

    The way it's currently going, of course, corrupt states with the ability to repress their citizens have a definite advantage.

    If we decided that rather than simply dropping all trade barriers and letting the dirtiest player win, we were going to encourage states to raise their standards, we could use globalization to further our principles rather than hinder them.

    The argument that we'd need to strip some federal government programs and put them back in the states' hands has a lot of merit. Of course, I live in one of the top ten states who pay more taxes than we get back, so I may be biased in that regard.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:39 AM  

  • I have to chime in with something here; globalization bad! I have no interest in being part of a globalization effort. Most of the globe is opposed to the US and therfore supporting globalization is against our own interests. The idea of expanding the US through voluntary statehood is purely an effort to expand our economy and security. As such it MUST be done on ourterms and without violating conservative American priciples.

    What al of you have said her has given me much to think about. Since the only real bone of opposition here is Mexico I will consider the problem in more depth and post a follow up to this idea.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:32 PM  

  • On what basis do you suggest that most of the globe is against the US? I don't know that this is true. While I'm not much of a traveler, I have friends who've been many places around the world and they tell me that many people they run in to are intrigued to meet them and gracious towards them.

    Where there IS global public opinion is in opposition to many US policies (NAFTA under Clinton, pretty much everything that Bush has done, for instance).

    And that opposition has derived from us taking actions that we perceive to be "efforts to expand our economy and security" and to hell with the rest of the world.

    So, as you consider your options, consider that, as well. The word I hear is that the world loves Americans. They just hate our leaders and their policies.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:04 PM  

  • Daniel:

    I'd argue that globalization has a lot to do with why so much of the world is opposed to us. When we sign a "free trade" deal with a developing nation, it allows our multinationals to go in and wreak havoc on their weaker local industries, and the population has nowhere to turn for relief.

    It's like dropping a shark in a fishtank.

    And we get blamed for it, because if some national government decides to start restoring some economic power to its own people, guess whose military gets sent in to protect the investments of those multinationals?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 1:05 PM  

  • I have a better idea, lets build a freaking wall (like the one in China) along the U.S./Mexico border (with a high powered electric fence on the top, and guards at 300 yrd intervals). Then lets round up ALL the illegals in this country and ship them BACK to Mexico (whether their Mexican or not, don't care). Then slam the damn gate. Then lets take all the money spent on health care, housing, food, ect for illegals and try repairing some of our own ills.
    Mexico has NOTHING to offer us and the last thing we need is more poor, homeless, and criminals.
    Yes, I know that sounds racist. Heck it is racist. But it's how I feel.

    As for Canada, that's a moot point. If Canadians don't like Canada they can move here(like your granddaddy did). Mostly they don't. Because at it's worst it's still more to their likeing than the U.S..

    By Blogger wanda, at 1:22 PM  

  • Well Daniel, as a Albertan, surrounded by a socialist sea of sludge in BC, and out east, we've discussed this at length up here. The consensus is that we would go it alone. As stated here, we in Alberta hate big government. The best government is an almost invisible government. This would still give you the economic boost, as we would need port access through Montana and Washington, and would be a more stable energy reserve. Primary reasoning is to control our own immigration, health, military, etc. etc., that better suites our needs.

    By Blogger ABFreedom, at 4:27 PM  

  • Mexico is already invading the western US. I am an American, and do not like it one bit. These folk s may be nice, but they do not assimalte well. They keep speaking spanish, demand voters info in spanish, now near every thing I buy is in two languages, it disgusts me. We are diluting America by not insisting on English. Foriegn languages are just plain stupid to have around, it is a waaste of resources, a waste of time, and costly to have more than one language. Kids waste time taking spanish class rather than advanced math or science. One language si more efficient. i do not put up with aliens coming over here and screwing up our system of a big nation with a common language. If there heritage of spanish is that important too them, then they ain't loyal enough to be trusted in my nation.

    I say know way to Mexico. I also know some "conservative " canadians. Them conservative canadians are more socialist than many US liberals. i don't want a bunch of them coming over here and voting, no way!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares