Originally posted by The Vagabond

I suggest that illegal immigration only becomes a military problem if it cannot be solved by other means. My suggestion from the beginning has been an economic solution. The motive for their coming here is, afterall, economic.

It hasnt been able to be solved by any other means, nor is there any sign of anything else working in the future.

As for alternate ideas, I have to rest on our previous agreement that war is as unlikely as enforcement of current laws- I hesitate to use the word "never" in regards toe either however. What must be remembered is that the world fundamentally operates on the fact that people take actions, and actions have consequences. Governments don't take actions, laws dont take actions, decreees dont take actions- people do. Governments can only ask people to take actions. It's our perogative to make things happen as we like, particularly in a democracy. Whether we think we will or think we won't, we're right either way.

given the tremendous support by we the people of securing the border, why do you think the feds are attempting to do everything but that?

While dictionaries provide for multiple meanings of the word invasion, the context of the constitution, especially with the reinforcement of the federalist papers, clearly indicate that the word was intended in the military since in this particular application.

No, I make a point by way of hyperbole, and the point is proportional response. Have the Army attatch a squadron of Apaches to the border patrol, and next time they shoot at our boys, blow up the guys who are doing the shooting. I'm not a pacifist- if a guy shoots at me I strongly advise him to make the first shot a hit, because I do believe in shooting back. But I believe in shooting back at him. I don't believe that I should shoot back at him, then also go into his neighborhood and kill his family and all his friends and burn his house down (have you ever seen Unforgiven? I love that line).

I agree with the Apache idea, but if we were to make an example out of a few, dont you believe that would act as a deterrent to the many?

And lets not kid ourselves, destroying the government and military of Mexico is destroying the people of Mexico. The lagging civilian casualties of such operations are well documented realities of post Desert Storm strategic analysis. Smart weapons level populations and leave cities standing. It's a great for enabling people like George Bush to tell you "what a good sense of Iraq" they gained by flying over it, but it doesn't make things any better at street level.

Hasnt the mexican government done that already?

The last issue is what a war would do for the MIC. Do you seriously claim that the MIC has not advanced during these wars? The increasing role of private military contractors? The proposal for a "Civilian Reserve Corps" in the State of the Union? (Justin Oldham did a great piece on that for us, you should look it up).

Of course the MIC has profited greatly during the past few years, but so have numerous other industries.

I admit I dont know much about the civilian reserve corp, although it sounds like something I would be completely against, I will research the issue and check out Oldhams piece on it as well.

As for the PMC's: I must recuse myself from commenting on them due to some past work I have done Anything I say will obviously have a personal slant on it.

By which means has their been any attempt to stop illegal immigration Slackerwire? You have agreed that the government is complicit in the problem. They've never been seriously interested in solving the problem to being with (nor are they interested in invading- they're pushing the NAU instead). We've been over that already.
Until the government has actually taken action against employers who exploit illegal immigrantion, it's far too early to be talking about war.

Your argument in regard to last resort reminds me of what we heard before Iraq, "we've reached the point of last resort because nothing else is working... of course nothing else is exactly what the Bush administration has tried, but still".


No offense, but I will not be rebutting your argument that Mexico's people area already as deprived of support as they would be if we completely destroyed their military and government. It is ridiculous on its face and history has spoken.


In regards to the military industrial complex, we are not only talking about profit but profit gained at the expense of America's best interests and also about influence. We're talking about the president suggesting that we privatize rear-area military functions, essentially giving private corporations control of a significant part of our force structure.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
By which means has their been any attempt to stop illegal immigration Slackerwire?

There hasn't been, that was my point. Our government is responsible for this problem, first and foremost. They need to be held accountable, but the likelihood of that ever happening is nil.

No offense, but I will not be rebutting your argument that Mexico's people area already as deprived of support as they would be if we completely destroyed their military and government. It is ridiculous on its face and history has spoken.

I look at it as the mexican government is the primary reason millions of mexicans are coming here every year.

In regards to the military industrial complex, we are not only talking about profit but profit gained at the expense of America's best interests and also about influence. We're talking about the president suggesting that we privatize rear-area military functions, essentially giving private corporations control of a significant part of our force structure.

When was the last time the federal government acted in the best interests of America? They are the problem.

Your first two statements contradict your arguments for a war on Mexico, so I'll be calling it good enough on those.

Your third statement is more interesting. You defend a move that concentrates the powers of an elected government in the hands of the rich instead saying that the government is the problem.
Has it not occurred to you that the problems with government in many cases stem from the fact that government spends more time stooping and bowing to narrow, well-financed interests than it spends serving the interests of the people?

Yeah, let's give up on government and be governed directly by the people who have been corrupting our government.

I hate to be Mr. Negativity, but I really don't think that's gonna turn out so well.

My appologies for not seeing your post initially TKainZero.

I'll answer the easiest question first: Walmart is Hannibal. It's the most noteworthy manifestation of America's largest enemy (China) currently on American soil. The analogy is far from perfect, but that's my take on it.


On to the supposed parallels between the Barbarian incursions into Roman territory and illegal immigration.

The fall of the Roman Empire is almost constantly being attributed to something new. Whatever people fear in their own nation seems to become the reason Rome fell.

When there's dissention against state religion, Christianity killed Rome, even though the Byzantine empire was more affected by Christianity and still survived.

When the British Empire is growing too heavily extended, it's the degradation of the military that killed Rome.

When Socialism is in vogue, decadence killed Rome.

So surprise surprise that today in America, conservatives say that immigration killed Rome and liberals say that soil erosion and Krakatoa killed Rome.

But when you get right down to it, scholars can't even agree on when Rome died. Popular events which are claimed as "the death of Rome span a period of about 100 years, from Adrianople to the split of East and West to the barbarian invasions, the disintegration of the legions, all the way up to the rise of Odoacer (and some would even say all the way up to the coming of Islam or the fall of Constantinople). Hell, if you ask the right people (who, ironically, are wrong), they'll tell you Rome didn't fall.

Here's what we really know about the decline of Rome:
During a period, the economic situation of which we cannot be certain of, Rome, which had endured and even flourished because of it's diversity, experienced a political split, saw the military become immensely powerful politically, and endured a series of rebellions and coups, in the process losing the means to defend itself and ensure it's own prosperity.
Those are symptoms of deeper problems, not primary causes.

America is full of distinct identities which were incorporated into this country only recently, much like Rome near the end, yet it flourishes. The Irish came streaming into America, and in a period of military need, they were drafted. Yet they were not an American equivalent to the Goths. A strong America endured the New York draft riots and incorporated the Irish over time. There is no danger of an Irish-American equivalent to Alaric getting miffed that he didn't make the general and deciding to march on Washington.

(An aside on the subject of Irish immigrants: would you say that the Irish were America's barbarians in days past? You seem comfortable enough deciding that the Mexicans are barbarians.)

No, something else would have to happen to America for that kind of thing to become even remotely possible. Our "barbarians", of every ancestory, are domesticated. Getting the downfall of America out of them would require for things to start heading downhill in other ways first. It takes a weakened nation for people to start falling back into their cliques and determining to get whats theirs at the expense of others. When it comes to that, Mexicans will not be the only problem.
The people you wouldn't classify as barbarians will do it too.

Rome's problems went deeper than foreigners. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but let's be realistic. Let's not inflate one aspect of an imperfectly documented series of events and pretend it's perfectly applicable to a situation happening thousands of miles and thousands of years away among different people.

That's not to say that immigration isn't a problem, it's just to say that it's not the mother of all problems which will surely destroy our country in short order unless we underatake a military response. (speaking of which, the military was never the key to Rome anyway. Had Rome not had its gentler virtues, it never could have mustered the forces to control an empire of the size that it did for any appreciable length of time)

Originally posted by The Vagabond
On to the supposed parallels between the Barbarian incursions into Roman territory and illegal immigration.

(An aside on the subject of Irish immigrants: would you say that the Irish were America's barbarians in days past? You seem comfortable enough deciding that the Mexicans are barbarians.)

Well being 1/4 Irish and not speaking one damm word of my ancestors besides english there is a bit of diffrence. I could give you more reasons and examples of aspects of life that are being imported from the 3rd world into ours, then i have charecters left to type. OUr boarder is one of the only one in the world that is 1st boardering 3rd world, and what do you think is going to happen at the middle. There is a mix, the 3rd gets better and we go down. WEre at teh point is something really goes bad some cities aren't going to know what to do, they will have 10 poeple talking at the same time in 10 diffrent languages, pure chaos.

No, something else would have to happen to America for that kind of thing to become even remotely possible. Our "barbarians", of every ancestory, are domesticated.

Rome's problems went deeper than foreigners. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but let's be realistic. Let's not inflate one aspect of an imperfectly documented series of events and pretend it's perfectly applicable to a situation happening thousands of miles and thousands of years away among different people.

I had never considered WalMart the greatest enemy of our country. That is an intresting idea though, but when Rome Vanquished Hannibal on the fields of Zuma at about the year 200 BC, this victory the secured Roman Way of life through out the medetrrienian. At the end of the 2nd Punic war the history of Europe was directly changed, forever deciding in which way the Euopean socitety. The three Punic Wars Betweeen the city states of Rome and Carthage between 300 BC and 180 BC. Without pouring out all of Hannibals story, but here is how it goes...

At the end of the 1st punic war, Hannibals father, who was a genereala in the 1st war, was furious at the carthienagain goverment for not supporting him, he contained he never losty a battle to the romans... the result of the 1st punic war, which was mostly fighting on the island of sicialy and at see, was he destruction of Carthiegian Navy, which was by far the largest of the time, trading all over the meddertrrian. With no navy to only way to attack rome via sea, the plan was to go to spain and attack on land, a 9 year old Hannaibal wants to go along, his father makes him take an oath to destroy rome. The carthigenians did not have thier citizens fight, relying only on mercenary forces, this means that they had to convince towns to join thier casue.

In Spain, Hannibals father commists suicide during a battle and Hannibal assumes control. Hannibals March from Spain to Rome is perhapes the most famuuas military campain in histroy, his army was almost 100,000 men by the time they got to the Alps, and when they emerged on the other side, gthey rode into Italian cities, with Hannibal on top of an Elephant. Hannibal then moved down the west side of italy attacking and gaining support where he went. Hannibals regin in southern Italy hit its high point when he took the City of Caupa, a large supply city that could keep his forces fed for years. Hannibal never had the man power to take Rome, and was forced to defend southern Italin soil under his control for several years, in small skirmishs, in which be began to lose support from the towns and people that had deserted the Romans...

Hell broke loose while hannibal was seperated from his main fources at Caupa, and when the city fell under siege, Hannibal did not have the Man power to stop the forces that had him under siege... his only choice was to put Rome under siege and hope that the Roman forces would move off Caupa and towards Rome, which would have let Hannibal reunite with his forces, but the Romans did not bit, and Capua fell and Hannibals 'siege' siege of rome did not work. But the fear of as you said, Hannibal at the gates, a string of words that were made into a phrase that defined terror to the world of rome.

Then in the Battle of Zuma, Plubius Sicpo commanding the Roman forces smashed the Cartheigains, and handed hannibal his only military blunder... Hannibal became the leader of the broken Carthigean city, and in later had to flea as rumors were that He was going to take Rome... Hannibal fled to the Turkish area, living in hiding until the end of his life...it was only after Hannibals death was their the 3rd Punic war which destroyed Cathriage all together... But it was the defeat of Hannibal, that brought Rome to the stage where it could command the world. Before the Punic wars most of the islands in medertrrien were under Carthige control, Sicialy, as well of the islands of the west coast of Rome, Much of Africa, and parts of spain, the Carthage empire was a large trade-rich society, while Rome was still uniting Italin cities and fighting Gauls to the north. After the Punic wars Rome was it in the world and it ruled for several hunred years.

So now the hard part, where was the moment that raised the US to a posistion of Domminece for hundreds of years??? When was it the Civil War? WWI or WWII? Cold War? Who is Hannibal and who is our Scipio? Could Hannibal be Geranimo?

I appreciate your knowledge of history but this Hannibal analogy is getting way bigger than it's purpose.

This came up when I said there wasn't technically an "invasion", and you said that Romans might have claimed the same thing.

Using Hannibal as an example, I made the point that invasions of Rome were usually quite distinct.

Whether it's Hannibal tearing the Roman legions all sorts of new orifices, as at Cannae before his final defeat, or the Goths causing such a tremendous problem that the Romans not only can't beat them at Adrianople, but in the aftermath have to hire them as mercinaries, or it's the Romans being unable to make a stand against the Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine because they've got their hands full with Alaric I laying siege to Rome, it was hardly questionable that Rome was in trouble, which completely breaks down the analogy to America. Where is the Mexican seige of Washington D.C. as an abortive final gambit or anything else? It's not happening.

The problem with Rome was not merely hostile, less developed neighbors or incompletely integrated new arrivals. There were underlying causes hampering integration (which had gone fine in past expansions of the empire), and allowing that problem to flare into violence because of additional stresses.

The fate that befell Rome will not befall America merely because of immigration, but as in the case of Rome will require a confluence of extreme misfortunes. Should those misfortunes come, America will go the way of Rome with or without the immigrants. It wasn't the immigrants who split the Roman empire or caused the Western emperors to become figureheads for military commanders. Those things would be greater threats to America than immigration if we did fall into such dire circumstances that we were subject to the kind of social fracturing that would make our immigrants a problem comporable to the barbarians in Rome.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I appreciate your knowledge of history but this Hannibal analogy is getting way bigger than it's purpose.

This came up when I said there wasn't technically an "invasion", and you said that Romans might have claimed the same thing.

Using Hannibal as an example, I made the point that invasions of Rome were usually quite distinct.The fate that befell Rome will not befall America merely because of immigration, but as in the case of Rome will require a confluence of extreme misfortunes.

The Hannibal storey may have gotten out of hand, but i'll be the first to admit i have a Man-Crush on Hannibal. But there're are some aspects that can't be ignored. The most importatnat part is that after the defeat of hannibal, ROme expanded unchaallenged for sevral centuries, with territory form Great Britian to West Turkey. The duties that came with being a citizen were teh marvel of the anceint world. Thier were many people in the empire that were not citizens of the Empire, they had a standard, most important an alligiance to Rome, and a promise to serve in the Legions.

After the slpit of the Empire (into a east/west, that is something that the United states has not done yet, and i don't forsee) The western part of the emipre was not as rich as the east. (on a side not the Eastern Roman empire became the Byzentine empire and lasted over a 1000 years longer) The western epire had asborbed more land thru treaties in the north and abosorbed portions of the Germanic tribes and britanic/celtish tribes. Soon, after the empire had begun to lose control, the rules changed, citizenship no longer was earned, it was bought cheaply, and when time came to Serve Rome, these people turned, and rebeled against the Roman nations, Many cities and regions turned, and new nations were formed from the remnets of the Romans. There are more notches on the slide downward, notably the banning of the Olympics in the ancient world by the year 300 AD. That is one point that we are also not at in the US yet, once we ban the NFL/MLB/NBA we wo-uld be at that point.

The point is, an inlfux of people that are rejecting aspects of this culture, and bringing thier own Language and Culture, and refusing to adapt is in no way a good thing for the populace of the people in the area, nor for the country as a whole.

I didn't want to leave you hanging without a reply, but at this point I'm content to stand on the contention that diversity is not the problem, and that social fracturing along demographic lines depends upon other stresses which would destroy even an extremely homogenized society.

Its been fun.

Well, I think that we should just declare Mexico part of the US, and divide it into several smaller states. We, by all accounts, purchased it in the 90's when Clinton bailed them out of debt, and made the NAFTA and GAT deals with them. Talk about selling out!! We should own them right now.

Come to think of it, there might be something to that....

TheBorg

No I don't think we should declare war on Mexico, of course not. But that country aggravates me so much I could chew coal and spit out diamonds.

Mexico acts like the U.S. has some type of literal obligation to their people, they literally think we should just fling open the borders and let them all swarm across. As for the illegals here that are sent back, Mexico takes it as a personal insult to receive back it's own people. They have absolutely zero respect for the United States or it's laws.

This issue burns my butt so bad I need to put salve on it and sleep on my stomach. Getting a handle on illegal immigration needs to absolutely be a top priority and stay a top priority for the U.S.

I know America extends an open invitation to anyone in the world who wants to come here and that's ok with me, I accept that. But if people can't get here legally and pay taxes like the actual Americans have to do then they need to keep their stinking butts at home.

I definately see where cawfee is coming from here. There certainly is a problem to be solved here.

Although the reconquista is little more than a decades-old fantasy, no longer held onto by anyone with the means to bring it about, both Mexicans and Americans have felt an entitlement to this land for close to two centuries. Our people moved in, failed to respect their laws, some followed with arms and the specific intention of conquest, and eventually our government followed them. The government changed, and the area was developed and more securely controlled, but the mutual feeling of entitlement remains.

There are essentially two possible solutions:
1. Consolidate economic control to the point that there's simply nothing here for illegal immigrants, which will eventually force them out and keep them out far more effectively than force of arms.

2. Combine our two governments and peoples and share it.


Each has serious drawbacks.

The first option doesn't end the conflict, but only ensures the dominance of one of the two sides for a time. That means the resolution is only good as long as the US is strong enough to continue enforcing it. In the event of a major economic disturbance creating a significant black market, the problem would resume, and whats worse, would resume in the presence of the kind of aggravating factors that do tend to fracture societies- in other words, it keeps things good when things are good, but if we ever reached the point where the Rome analogy applies better, the problem would reemerge exactly when it finally had the opportunity to be the greatest danger. Odds are that it would work well for us for 30-50 years before there was a challenge to that success that could go either way.


The second option is highly destabilizing politically, economically, and socially.
The expansion of the United States has always posed serious challenges for the balance of power in congress and the electoral system, even when the states were populated by Americans who had moved West.

Mexico has a population approaching 109 million. That would be roughly 25% of the US if Mexico and the US were unified. Assuming we reapportioned congress rather than expanding it, Mexico would have roughly 109 congressmen. Assuming current internal boundaries of Mexico were used for state borders, the former Mexico would comprise 32 out of 82 American states, and control 64 out of 162 US Senators. Mexico's 32 states would have a combined electoral weight of 171 out of 600 electoral votes. Notice that this is greater than 25% of the electoral votes. The strength of Mexico would be exagerated in the Senate and the Electoral College because their states are less populous than US states on average. Another oddity would be that the Mexican Districo Federal (Greater Mexico City) would have more electoral votes than Michigan- almost as many as Ohio- which would almost certainly create severe tensions if D.C and NYC were denied statehood.

This radical alteration of the electoral landscape would not only upset the political balance of power between Republicans and Democrats. Existing Mexican political parties would be able to achieve ballot access in the new states, and they would be likely to win. If every Mexican state went to a Mexican party, but no American state did, and the current partisan leanings of American states remained close to what it is today, there would be no electoral winner and the selection of the president would fall to congress, likely pitting a Republican against a Mexican, because less populous red states would lose less political clout than more populous blue states. The prospect of the Democrats giving us a Mexican president within 4 years of the annexation of Mexico would probably precipitate the secession of red states. At that point the question becomes who really conquered who, and the very people who favored annexing Mexico would probably attempt seccession from the United States.

The political geography of the United States makes that a very ugly prospect. It would basically divide the country into thirds- East, West, and South (Mexico) separated by the seceeding states, which would have to defend themselves on 3 fronts.


Even if this didn't outright rip our nation apart, there is another departure from past expansions of the US. The areas being annexed are already heavily populated and developed in some cases. We were able to develop most of our current states as they grew. This time, overnight we would become responsible for implementing our tax system, our minimum wage, our pollution standards, etc on a trillion dollar economy spread out across 750,000 square miles. Tens of thousands of miles of highway to maintain and patrol, thousands of law enforcement officers to retrain and screen against the rampant corruption in Mexico, etc etc etc.

And that's only if we annex them. An NAU style arrangment would be even more traumatic.

Any way we go there are serious obstacles, either now or later. The question in my mind is what we can do in the long term to not only secure the border, which needs doing, but to end the underlying conflict.

This is a ridiculous topic!
But interesting thought. I give you that.

1st. Mexico has being a pacifist (never agrees with US conflicts) nation and is currently part of the UN.
2nd This would create a world conflict since Mexico is one of the strongest economic powers in Latin America, and will gain a lot more of world support since the current US world politics aren’t very pleasant.
3rd. Mexico is south of US border, remember? This would be an assurance of American citizen’s casualties. Not what we want.
4th I don’t have much time but I can keep going on…and on.. and on…

One more point: There is a big difference on the majority in population of the American continent. If you dont stop the "INVASION" soon... you would have to learn ESPAÑOL.

Ridiculous.

IlllglImmgnt.

While I dont think an outright war is necessary, a few air strikes on key Mexican military bases in the border area is definitely need to make it clear to Mexico that they need to f--k off. Or maybe if we return the bullet riddled bodies of the next Mexican Army patrol that "accidentally" finds itself 15+ miles into the US they would get the hint.

This is not a new thing, I have been hearing about raids like this for about 5 years now and I have also seen reports dating back to the late 1990s. The longer we let these go unpunished the bolder they will get and before we know it, they will have US Border Patrol stations and whole border communities under siege.

While we're at it, why not just declare war on the whole damn world. Seems to be all that will satisfy some of you...