It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would Invading Mexico Solve All USAs Immigration Problems?

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Maybe it actually be the first step into bringing an end into the drug war that America so fears, yet reaps from profits. As for invading Canada, well there's a reason why more then half is barren...Its cold and far.

Besides, you guys get tax free tariff for our metal, and resources that you sell back to us when it manufactured into a product. Who f;d that one up?
edit on 24-3-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kryties

That's cool. China still has to cross the ocean to get to us. Too bad they don't have a Navy that can compete with ours or one that can utilize their superior numbers.


They don't need a navy to lob several hundred nukes at you then follow up with an invasion of 2 billion people.


Lol!!!


Really?

OK they nuke us, we don't nuke them back, they send billions into certain death in a radioactive crater?

They nuke us ( over mexico? Ya ok) we nuke them back, nobody left to send.

See how dumb that sounds?
edit on 24-3-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thanks Doc, good post. I do have to wonder how American services - both private and public - would continue to operate without resort to those considered illegal immigrants currently who they exploit by paying wages well below any acceptable standard if those Mexicans knew that they could claim a higher standard of wage as they were now for all intents and purposes US citizens............... or would they be expected to accept that although they were now part of the US they would not be allowed the same protection in law as those who choose not to accept the same jobs?

Not sure that this OP was really thought through that much. I'd recommend giving Texas back to Mexico personally, but that's just me ;-)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It seems to me that suddenly adding a hundred million or so to our welfare roles would be disastrous. The vast majority of Mexico's population live well below what the US considers poverty. We make them citizens, we become responsible for them.

If we are going to have a mental exercise on this, it would serve us better to take over and make them a "protectorate" like we did with the Philippines.

Purely for the mental exercise/discussion. I'm opposed to an Imperialistic US. OTOH, if we are going to be an empire, we might as well do it right.


Do we have to label them as citizens right away? Couldn't we theoretically created a temporary second tier citizen with some but not all rights for a "buffer time"?

If we did that and made them ineligible for welfare, at least not right awAy, would that solve the problem?


I guess if you convince the people of the US to allow such an invasion, you could also convince them to allow this process, sort of like the way the Romans treated the annexed provinces--they were subjects of Rome, but not Citizens, and could earn citizenship over time through service.

I think that modeling the Roman empire would be the course of action in this hypothetical exercise.


The single problem with the roman model war must be continuous, when it ends your country ends.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

Well they are in fact invading us already...what is the difference?


Are you seriously telling me you don't know the difference between refugees fleeing to another country and military invasion?

Seriously??



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
Are you trying to oppose my point or help it?

If they were made a US territory or part of the US then the cartels would be up against US firepower. Hence they wouldn't have to run anymore! It's a win win win for everyone.


I was making the point that Mexicans aren't coming to America purely because they want to be "American". They would flee to any safe harbour, America just happens to be one of those and the closest and easiest to get to.

I'm still not seeing it as a valid reason to invade them though, even hypothesizing about it is wrong.


Why?

That is how one looks to the future and makes hard choices.

It is called leadership.

"We can't drop A bombs on Japan, that us just too much"

" ok then we loose 1 million taking and have to kill 10 million to passify it."

" or we drop 2 bombs kill hundreds of thousands and that is the end of it."

" so several millions or a couple hundred thousand?"

"Yes"

"Drop the bombs"


This is his leaders actually think and work.

Do some reading....



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It seems to me that suddenly adding a hundred million or so to our welfare roles would be disastrous. The vast majority of Mexico's population live well below what the US considers poverty. We make them citizens, we become responsible for them.

If we are going to have a mental exercise on this, it would serve us better to take over and make them a "protectorate" like we did with the Philippines.

Purely for the mental exercise/discussion. I'm opposed to an Imperialistic US. OTOH, if we are going to be an empire, we might as well do it right.


Do we have to label them as citizens right away? Couldn't we theoretically created a temporary second tier citizen with some but not all rights for a "buffer time"?

If we did that and made them ineligible for welfare, at least not right awAy, would that solve the problem?


I guess if you convince the people of the US to allow such an invasion, you could also convince them to allow this process, sort of like the way the Romans treated the annexed provinces--they were subjects of Rome, but not Citizens, and could earn citizenship over time through service.

I think that modeling the Roman empire would be the course of action in this hypothetical exercise.


The single problem with the roman model war must be continuous, when it ends your country ends.


Excellent point. All invasions/annexations in past models were to the largest part built on a standard that created a war on attrition and aggression which is what led to the downfall of the Roman empire in the end. The European models gave way - rightfully - due to a desire by the countries that had been invaded (peacefully or otherwise) to express their right of independence, again, peacefully or otherwise.

We already have this history lesson, don't know why we need to keep repeating it.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted
Can you explain to me why you would want that to happen? Also, we would secede before we would let you give us away.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: DAVID64

Your hatred of America is making you blind.


I don't hate America, I do hate what it has become though - and the blind way the American people let it happen all in the name of "The Great, Infallible and Almighty America".

Please stop using nonsense terms such as "hatred" to further your argument, it shows a lack of understanding and really only serves to prove my point.


You keep saying "it proves my point"..... Most if us dont see your point.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: doompornjunkie

It is YOU who seems confused about the difference between legal right and moral right. Perhaps a dictionary would help you?


Legal is not necessarily moral.

Moral right can still get you thrown in jail.

Legally right is absolutely fine all the time.

One is ill advised the other is fine.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: CaptainTwig
a reply to: uncommitted
Can you explain to me why you would want that to happen? Also, we would secede before we would let you give us away.



Are you referring to my comment on Texas? It was tongue in cheek but why is that any different to America invading Mexico? Because (I assume) you are Texan?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Hell,we wouldn't need to invade-just occupy and assimilate.

Btw:anyone that thinks it is racism to consider taking over mexico needs to educate themselves on la raza.(The Race)

It is the the type of invasion that the mexicans are currently dumping on the U.S.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The true solution to the illegal immigration problem is to end the war on drugs. The war on drugs creates the violence that the Mexicans are fleeing to our country. Then, once drugs are legalized, we need to work with the Mexican government to try to root out the corruption within it. If we can help build Mexico up as a country that can stand on its own. Only THEN will the immigration problem stop.


That has to be the most sensible thing said in this thread.

Well done.


I can't believe I starred you, but I did.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted
It appears we've misunderstood each other. I thought you were throwing that idea into the discussion seriously, and(the way I view it) you viewed my post as me attacking your ideas. I just wanted to know why you thought that way. But as it was TIC i withdraw my questioning, as it doesn't add to this thread IMO.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: CaptainTwig
a reply to: uncommitted
It appears we've misunderstood each other. I thought you were throwing that idea into the discussion seriously, and(the way I view it) you viewed my post as me attacking your ideas. I just wanted to know why you thought that way. But as it was TIC i withdraw my questioning, as it doesn't add to this thread IMO.



No worries Captain, it actually does add though, not sure why America would think it has the right to 'annex' Mexico when it went full on to stop Mexico annexing what it already thought was Mexican land.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: johnwick

Well they are in fact invading us already...what is the difference?


Are you seriously telling me you don't know the difference between refugees fleeing to another country and military invasion?

Seriously??


BTW refugees have a status called "refugees".

It is a law of the UN.

Illegal invasion by unauthorized people is the classical definition of an invasion.

Say I just move my family into your home. Am I a refugee or an illegal occupant?

There is no difference.

America is not beholden to accept or keep these people.

They can leave or be put out, I don't care.

If they go home and die, I don't care.

It is their fault their retarded culture allows the cartels to abuse them.

They out number them thousands to one.

They could stop all the idiocy tomorrow if they were smart enough to realize it.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommented
Texas didn't like being part of Mexico. So it became sovereign. Then we joined the US. I don't believe they(USA) stopped Mexico from doing anything. At least that's what I remember of the situation. So I see no correlation between then and the topic at hand.


edit on 3/24/2015 by CaptainTwig because: forgot something



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: CaptainTwig
a reply to: uncommented
Texas didn't like being part of Mexico. So it became sovereign. Then we joined the US. I don't believe they(USA) stopped Mexico from doing anything. At least that's what I remember of the situation. So I see no correlation between then and the topic at hand.



Uh, ok, I was thinking battle of the Alamo, but I will be the first to say I am wrong.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted
I do see your point now. The American volunteers in that could be compared to the "volunteers" in the wars today. We could annex Baja California(or any other region) and say they voted on it. Plus the alphabet boys own the cartels(which everyone seems to ignore), so it wouldn't be that hard to take whatever we wanted.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CaptainTwig
a reply to: uncommitted
I do see your point now. The American volunteers in that could be compared to the "volunteers" in the wars today. We could annex Baja California(or any other region) and say they voted on it. Plus the alphabet boys own the cartels(which everyone seems to ignore), so it wouldn't be that hard to take whatever we wanted.


I'll leave this thread with a nasty taste in my mouth, feel free to goose step on with whatever you think you want. The quote that has been appropriated to many is 'whoever forgets the past is condemned to repeat it' - seems quite appropriate here.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join