« "America's Best Colleges" Forbes Magazine | Main | "Crash survivor doesn't recall unusual noises" Kyle Hopkins »

13 August 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


How about a $100,000 penalty for the employer of each illegal hired? Same penalty for those who indulge in 'the herb' & other 'products' that come to us via Mexico?

However, I feel that all these measures will fail. Walls never work in the long run - they don't deal with the underlying problem. Like it or not, we are "Americans" in the greater sense of the term. Is that so bad?.


A merger would accomplish what?
Creating a really big dysfunctional narco-terror state?
Turning the current Mexico into a middle class democracy would take infinite blood and treasure; who's willing to pay that?


National ID cards coupled with mandatory minimums for hiring illegals is imho the way to go.

Many, if not most, western European states have had a national ID requirement for years, so what's the big deal? Well, the Left would hate it because it would penalize immigrants, period. The Right, i.e., the teaparty crowd would think it the first step on Hussein Obama's road towards Islamic Stalinism.

Let's do it, and see how serious folks really are about illegal immigration.

The real problem is that current immigration enforcement vis a vis Mexico is motivated by a parasitic, symbiotic relationship: powerful US business interests receive cheap, non-unionized labor, while the Mexican oligarchy receives a social relief valve precluding real Mexican reform of its onerous economic system.

Since those illegals already here--12 million?--cannot as a practical matter all be deported, I agree that some process of legitimation should occur, but only as you say, in the context of secure borders and criminal penalties with teeth on employers.

Patrick Lang


You have no guts, and don't think the US would triumph in a competition. pl

Medicine Man

I can think of worse ways for the United States to spend its blood and treasure; in fact, the ruling elites are fixated on several at the moment.

Hmmm... I wonder what would happen with the US War on Drugs (tm) if Col. Lang's preferred solution were adopted?


Col Lang,

I don't think Mexican nationalists would be the only ones angry at a merger. There are plenty of Americans who would be horrified at the suggestion. Ironically, many of these Americans are from the SW and SE, regions which had no problems with US expansion to its south during the 19th century. Of course the US was more self-confident in those days.

A merger makes sense in the long-run if the theoretical US-Mexican government would do something about its trade imbalance with China and legalize various substances. But then the question will be Mexico's southern neighbors, a source of many of the "Mexican" illegals.


Col., I completely agree with you in both respects, but in reality our political class is so corrupt and morally bankrupt that "This is all a lot of political c---p."

Steve, we can send the 1st ID into L.A., the 10th ID into New York City, and the 82nd ABN into Miami to deport all illegals if we really wanted to...


"A federal law which makes it a felony to knowingly hire illegals."

Who will enforce it? Congressmen won't fund any agency that annoys employers and impinges on their campaign resources.

Patrick Lang

My family has bled into how many grounds? How can you imagine for anything else from me? PL


It's not a question of guts.
Why enter into a needless competition?
And, I don't want to pay the bill.
Very high risk;mediocre return...at best.


3- Fund a barrier system all across the Mexican border that will make it as difficult as possible to cross the border the border illegally.

4- Once that has been done, enable a program for the eventual, penalized progress of present illegal residents toward legalization. In the absence of a secure border any program like this is merely encouragement of more illegal immigration. Many on the left are merely scofflaws concerning US law.

The problem with this formula is that the new nativists on the whacko right will never consider the Southern border secure enough to say "that has been done" so it's time to consider legalization of the 12M here. It's just not going to happen.

Gibbs was at his absolute worst in the presser today, blathering that CIR (comprehensive immigration reform) will only take place when there is "bipartisan" leadership from the Congress. Sure, just like there was "bipartisan" support for HCR and financial reform.

If Gibbs really believes this talking point he's even stupider than I thought: "Way to run up the white flag, Idiot!"

I think Obama today basically signaled that CIR is no longer a goal of his Administration. He can kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye with this kind of posturing: If he doesn't watch it, he'll wind up being a one-termer.

My own disillusionment with him is in freefall.

BTW, I think a merger of Mexico and the USA is a hideous idea. Mexico is a third world disaster, and right on the cusp of being a publicly obvious failed state due, among other things, to narco-cartel takeovers of critical border areas. I heard on the PBS Newshour tonight that there have been 28,000 murders in Mexico along the US border this year.

Merging with Mexico would be like making Haiti the 51st State, but on a MUCH BIGGER scale. WHY would you want to do this, Col. Lang? Seriously. Don't we have enough home-grown basket cases to deal with?

Paul in NC

I don't understand why those on the left are scofflaws. The employer who knowingly hires the illegal immigrant is a scofflaw. I suppose some qualify as "leftists", but not many. And there are the illegals themselves, scofflaw by definition.
What did the left do that I missed?


I wish you would explain further how what the US would gain by such a merger would begin to make up for what we would lose.

Also I cannot imagine the Mexican drug lords and the tiny but powerful upper classes would even give up their hold over the rest of the country.

They want the stacked deck to continue to be played -- because it's so unfairly stacked in their favor. Do these people want to compete with us, on one turf? NO -- they'd lose in a heartbeat and they know it.

They only talk about justice, fairness and the rights of Mexicans to lead productive and safe lives when it comes to Mexicans living here illegally. They do not talk about such things when it applies to the poor and oppressed Mexicans living in Mexico. No, the Mexicans in Mexico must tolerate things as they are or go North. Then once they are here, they are to send money home and make no demands of the Mexican government or leaders of society -- the ones whose indifference lead them to make the costly and dangerous journey here.

The Twisted Genius

I think an effective barrier system would have to consist of an effective border guard force. It would be cheaper than our current foreign adventures. I know I've ranted about this before.

For an idea of what it would take to merge Mexico and the U.S. into one entity, look atthe recent history of Germany's Reunification. It was extremely expensive and difficult, generated a lot of ill feelings. IMHO it was worth it in the end. A unification in this hemisphere would undoubtedly be much more expensive and difficult, generate even more ill feelings and be bloody. However, I also think it would be worth it in the end.


Honestly I think a border wall is a waste of resources compared to internal enforcement and deportation efforts.

Unless your fence is an active defense (simple as land mines, soldiers and dogs or complex as those nifty south korean sentry guns) and you're willing to kill people who try to get across, it's basically just a speed bump for anyone seriously trying to get across, and a potential bonanza for scrap metal dealers.




A fence sounds good, fits on a bumper sticker, but the US isn't (to it's credit) cold blooded enough to put the kind of border defense in place that would be a real deterrent.

Byron Raum

Some numbers: Mexico population is 100M. By comparison, the population of California is 36M. Mexico would be the dominant state if it joined as a block. From an economic standpoint, the per capita GDP of US+Mexico would essentially decline by a factor of 1/3rd in comparison. Essentially, the combined country's per capita would be about equal to Greece or Spain.

I am a firm believer in the equality of the human race. I doubt that any random population sample is any smarter than any other. Mexicans are as stupid, lazy, intelligent, brilliant, good-looking and enteprising as US Americans. However, we have erected an artificial barrier in terms of the US/Mexican border that is difficult to cross. As a consequence, the US gains the benefit of being able to employ the most enterprising, hard-working and physically fit Mexicans. Were we to include the rest of Mexico, we would be including lesser than the best.

This means that much to my surprise, I find myself more in agreement with graywolf than the good Colonel. I don't think the US would benefit economically from including Mexico. It's another question whether we actually have the moral right to have the benefits we currently do.

In an unjust world, I would suggest our current setup isn't too bad. If a Mexican hops the fence, he might work as a day laborer at near-slave wages. He is exploited by his employers and is a member of an underclass. However, I would argue that the presence of an underclass, in of itself, isn't a sign of great injustice. It becomes so only when the underclass is permanent. Even if our hypothetical Mexican doesn't have opportunities afforded to US citizens, his children will still have citizenship, and will have the same rights as everyone else.

William R. Cumming

PL! Aquote from your post! "Many on the left are merely scofflaws concerning US law."
I would add on right right and the middle also. How many vacation rental home's income is fully reported as an example.

Patrick Lang


You seriously underestimate the efficacy of barrier systems when employed as part of a larger strategy of discouragement of illegal immigration. pl

Yellow Dog

"This is all a lot of political c---p."

I don't disagree, but of course the Arizona immigration law is also pure political posturing in an election year. I've previously called out both sides for their cowardice on this issue, and the Right's motives are no less suspect than are the Left's.

Only those with no concept of the extent to which the economy of the border states is dependent on illegal labor wish that they would suddenly disappear.

I actually rather like your plan, but I'd oppose the invasion of Mexico for the same reason that I opposed the invasion of Iraq - there are more conservative steps that can be taken first that may have a positive impact. But unlike Iraq, the U.S. actually has some compelling interests in the situation in Mexico.

Patrick Lang


I was not excusing the right. Throughout our history manufacturing interests have sought to import cheap labor legal or not. pl


We have caused a lot of these immigration problems with our foreign policies. When we impoverish local farmers for the benefit of American agri-business they are forced to migrate.So along with Col.Lang's suggestions we need to change our own policies, but that's not likely to happen.

Allen Thomson

> I heard on the PBS Newshour tonight that there have been 28,000 murders in Mexico along the US border this year.

Probably not. See

Allen Thomson

This seems to be where the 28,000 figure came from


Mexico drug cartels thrive despite Calderon's offensive
By Tracy Wilkinson and Ken Ellingwood, Los Angeles Times
August 8, 2010


"Since [Mexican President] Calderon announced the offensive when he took office in December 2006, more than 28,000 people have been killed. Most of them have been traffickers, dealers and associates. But innocent civilians account for a growing portion."


I have a patchy knowledge of American history, so I may be wrong about this: did not the US Senate debate the possibility of merging - annexing - Mexico at the end of the 1846-1848 war? In effect, this would have been a merger of the two states, though one being absorbed into the other driven by a belief in its manifest destiny to control the whole continent. Was it President Polk himself who sough this union, and was it a senator named Linclon who argued against this peoposed act of American imperialism? As it was, sizeable chunks of Mexico were annexed by the US: why do states like Colorado or Nevada have Spanish names? I daresay there may be some Mexican illegals in Arizona who would see thir immigration into the South West as merely taking back what had belonged to their forebears prior to 1848.

Russ Wagenfeld

Hi Pat,
Twisted Genius is right about the costs of German reunification. Bringing East Germany up to the standards of the West was far more costly and prolonged than was anticipated. And East Germany was hardly a Third World nation. Moreover, my neighbors in the town of Babenhausen bitterly resented seeing their taxes Marks being spent in the East.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Blog powered by Typepad