| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Mexican Ambassador: need EU-style union in 8 years | |
| 2006-11-06 | |
Nor have they called for returning to European colonies. Same reason, too. In a panel discussion on U.S.-Mexico relations last Tuesday at the University of Texas at San Antonio, Enrique Berruga, Mexico's ambassador to the United Nations, came right out and said a North American Union is needed – and even provided a deadline. Berruga said the merger must be complete in the next eight years before the U.S. baby boomer retirement wave hits full force. The discussion of was organized by the UTSA Mexico Center and the San Antonio campus of Mexico's National Autonomous University. Noting that both countries depend on each other economically, Berruga urged leaders to put petty politics aside for the region's benefit. He said the U.S. should abandon plans to build border fences and instead "invest" more in Mexico so the country can do a better job standing on its own. "We will be together forever and we need to make the best out of it," Berruga said, as reported in the San Antonio Express News. Another panelist, economist Mauricio Gonzalez, who works for the North American Development Bank, created as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, explained that illegal immigration was actually good for the U.S. economy. While it's true, the said, that the immigrants bring down wages in the U.S., it is only by about 2 percent and besides, they aren't his wages. In addition, he cited studies showing illegal immigrants do not drain U.S. social services. SO a law banning them would be no problem. Es verdad? | |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #21 Harold Coyle's "Trial By Fire" is an interesting read about what a Second mexican War might look like (though IMO it does devolve towards the end into a hostage rescue scenario instead of a full-fledged knock-em'-in-the-dirt war). IMO the fact is that the Mexican border can be defended and would be if it came right down to it. If the US could do it against the Apaches, the French/Mexican revolutionaries, and the Mexicans, we can sure as hell do it today if a shitstorm starts down there. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-11-06 18:21 |
| #20 No to the tri-state union-don't hurt the red-blooded American worker by pushing for a union that will decimate his standard of living. If anything, statehood for Mexico as the 51st state of the US, in which case our economy would be dynamic, having both inflow and outflow instead of primarily a capital drain. Otherwise, just try to build good relations with our neighbor while making sure not to weaken our sovereignty in determining our laws or ensuring our economic security. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-11-06 15:51 |
#19 The CIA fact book describes Puerto Rico's "dependency status as :unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status; policy relations between Puerto Rico and the US conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President Four of the 50 United States are also commonwealths, MA,PA, VA and KY. I'm not sure where you're heading on this, lotp. Further social, legal integration with Mexico in an EU style is not in the interest of the US. There may or may not be an opportunity for defence cooperation. But social or legal? No thanks. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-06 14:49 |
| #18 Okay, territory is the right word and Puerto Rico the wrong example. I'd prefer the US Government determine the Governors, at least until things are cleaned up a bit. Then perhaps they can become Commonwealths and then vote for leaving the Union or Statehood after a century. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-06 14:46 |
| #17 The whole notion of turning parts of Mexico into American territories is interesting. Never happen, of course, but interesting idea -- 20 to 50 of that and they'd be ready for statehood. We generally don't move them to states quicker than that (Texas being the big exception). But a correction -- Puerto Rico is NOT a territory, it's a commonwealth. That's why they elect their own governor; territories have a governor appointed by the president. lotp: we already have a joint defense perimeter around the US and Canada. Adding Mexico wouldn't be a huge burden if it was politically desirable. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-06 14:26 |
| #16 So we should cave in to blackmail? Nope, just looking at things pragmatically. Integrating Mexico politically would be a huge and probably debilitating effort. Hell, integrating half the provinces of CANADA would be. Territory works. So too MIGHT a joint defense arrangement for the hemisphere that tries to push the defensible perimeter around the outer edge of our 3 countries. Like, um, the one that has been signed off on, in theory .... |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-06 14:14 |
| #15 These Mexican/U.N. officials are getting incredibly delusional. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-11-06 13:57 |
| #14 On our long hard-to-defend border. So we should cave in to blackmail? I don't mind trade with Mexico, but we've got very little in common with it politically. We need to make the border easier to defend and make it clear we intend to defend it. If they want a taste of '46 again, we should give it to them bigtime. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-06 13:47 |
| #13 He said the U.S. should abandon plans to build border fences and instead "invest" more in Mexico so the country can do a better job standing on its own. Jeebus, hasn't Ford and others built plants down there? We've invested PLENTY of our money back into Mexico, through tourism, trade (oil), and the illegals sending US $ back home, amigo. Erect the wall, now! |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-06 13:40 |
| #12 lotp. I'd accept all of Mexica as territories, not as any kind of equal partner since they are unequal in every meaningful way. Let them be like Puerto Rico write large. The PUerto Ricans seem to like their status enough that they can't get a majority to change it. Yeah the US is at a disadvantage regarding Territories but it does mean we can control the borders and fix the problems in Mexico without the claims of "illegal war" and other nonsense. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-06 13:18 |
| #11 I hear y'all. OTOH .... A failed Mexican state means a state which will become dominated by the far left like Subcommandante Marcos in Oaxaca (who is rumored to have embraced Islam). On our long hard-to-defend border. The southern border of Mexico is much smaller, easier to defend and has been defended historically. Just saying .... |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-06 12:48 |
| #10 Berruga urged leaders to put petty politics aside for the region's benefit "C'mon, let's be reasonable. We're all adults here. What's a constitution anyway, it's just a piece of paper, and an outdated piece of paper at that. I wish you'd stop being so damn petty about this..." |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-11-06 12:41 |
| #9 That reminds the little joke I play when I meet a moonbat here in France. I tell him: "I think we should become part of the United States". |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-11-06 11:52 |
| #8 Invade, enslave, and steal the oil. |
| Posted by: texhooey 2006-11-06 11:49 |
| #7 How about this counter-proposal. Mexico creates an EU-style union with the nations of Central America and we'll see how that little experiment in similar cultures works out. Otherwise simply cede soverignty and admit Mexico is a failed state and hopes to become a territory or two in the USA. But don't even attempt this bullshit of part of equals EU-style union nonsense. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-06 11:42 |
| #6 Look, guys - we'll take BC, Sask and Alberta. They at least pay their own way. Quebec? Not a chance in hell. You can keep your froggy morons, thanks. Same deal for Mexico - Baja, Sonora and Chihuahua, maybe. The rest of 'em can kiss our ass. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-11-06 11:07 |
| #5 European Union style merger? How about finishing the jobs started in 1812 and 1846? More along the lines of the unification of Germany? A full blown trade embargo would hurt who most? There's a plan. |
| Posted by: Procopius2K 2006-11-06 08:26 |
| #4 WND.com > TRANS-CONTINENTAL HIGHWAY will likely be built. What I like to belabel the TREE/BANYAN design - NORTH-SOUTH AMERICA will be the trunk, NORTHERN EURASIA = SOUTHERN AFRICA-"AUSTRALASIA" will be the Head = Roots, depending on world view. The Lefties should like it becuz of the resemblance to Vietnam/early 1970's-era Peacenik "Y" or "Yippie" logo. NEW MATH > MSM > SEVEN YEARS = FIVE, or less, D***ng it. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-06 03:54 |
| #3 Anything to get their hand into the American till. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-06 02:08 |
| #2 ART BELL/C2CAM.com Caller > allegedly believes [as an alleged LTime GOP'er]that Repubs should vote for Dems this time around, but also believes that USA will be a de facto SOCIALIST NATION in circa 5-10 years, wid future Socialist Amer to be followed again afterwards by Corporate-based FASCIST AMERIKA = FASCISM/FASCIST NATION. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-06 01:39 |
| #1 The wise man waits to see where the EU goes after that formation of socalist bunk. Want to keep your people stupid, poor, and dependant, follow them. |
| Posted by: closedanger@hotmail.com 2006-11-06 00:19 |