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.

 

Annex Mexico or All of Central America?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

It was the Texas dispute that provoked the Mexican War. Americans had settled in Texas, they didn’t assimilate, they became the majority, and seceded from Mexico in 1836.

That was not the first time that Mexico lost territory. Upon independence in 1821, Central America had been part of Mexico, but Mexico lost that territory in the 1820s. Funny, I never hear about a Mexican "reconquista" of Central America.

Even the Mexican Constitution doesn’t claim the Southwest! That’s right. The Mexican Constitution, in articles 42—48 spells out the extent of Mexican territory. It mentions Mexican islands, continental shelf, and airspace, Mexico’s 31 states and federal district, but it never mentions California, Texas or Arizona

Today our leaders apparently see no problem in merging us with Mexico, despite the differences between our societies.

They are merging our countries on several levels. At one level is the mass migration of Mexicans into the U.S. coupled with a multicultural ideology which encourages non-assimilation and retention of their Mexican identity. At another level, inter-governmental agreements are moving us closer to some sort of North American Union.


www.vdare.com...


Due to a variety of factors (including national security), issues surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border have been in the forefront of discussion for many months. The precise number of Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally each year is impossible to accurately determine, but estimates average out to about 1 million. The motivation for the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico is, as we are all aware by now, primarily economic.


www.wnd.com...


The fact of illegal immigration presents us with an unappealing choice: either we must grant amnesty to immigrants who have come here illegally, or we must erect a barrier along our southern border that would be comparable to the Great Wall of China. Amnesty would reward criminality, and would make citizens of many who no doubt deserve it, but it would also grant the sacred rights of citizenship to a great many scoundrels and criminals who, having no respect for the laws of their own nation, have come to ours illegally, where they crowd our jails and prisons.


www.democraticunderground.com...

There is a third choice also, in conjunction with building a Wall, spending millions to locate and deport all illegal aliens.

My questions to all here at ATS are:

Would both countries be better off if the U.S. Annexed Mexico or not?

Would it make more sense to annex every country all the way to the border of Panama and Colombia?

Or Neither and why not?

In either case it would mean war if not with the government forces, at least with the Drug Cartels.

I am calling for Opinions based on Facts so please site sources and be polite.


[edit on 5-6-2010 by RedmoonMWC]




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
ain't gonna happen as long as some of us
are still breathing.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Wolf
 


That's is some kind of statement to make. Unless of course you
made a statement directly threatening the president, or another
type of government official, which is a stupid thing to do on any
online forum, not just ATS. There is a major difference in expressing dissatisfaction with the current administration, and a direct threat. Of course that may not have been the reason you alledgely served time for statements made here on ATS. You could also be a disinfo agent trying to discourage active ATS discussions on a variety of matters.


You are showing as a new member as of today, but can you reveal your
handle from your previous time here, acknowledging that the threads are now deleted?



[edit on 5-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
ain't gonna happen as long as some of us
are still breathing.


This addresses neither of my questions.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Jim Wolf
 


That's is some kind of statement to make.


yea, I'll say.
I did read Jim's post and saved it for future
reference. I knew it was gonna get deleted
when I read it.

I would also like to hear more of that story
as well.

And of course my stance is still the same as it was.
I don't think America should annex or add any
other territories.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I don't think the U.S. should either, I'm just asking the questions, because they will come up again sooner or later.
I really couldn't find much against the Annexation of Mexico on line either.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
This addresses neither of my questions.

maybe not, but you sir should realize your
thread's intention was to only give 2 choices.
Add Mexico or All of Central America. You
denied anybody from giving you other choices.
So that means you have a fixed agenda for posting
this thread.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
It's very difficult to answer in this thread without seeming like I hate Mexicans. Which I don't in the least.

You have mentioned illegals, always a 'hot' debate, then your article goes onto say that Mexico is largely the problem in terms of illegals, which is not the angle many of us in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration want to make. So I guess the best way to answer this is --

What are we going to do? Annex every country that illegal immigrants come from? What about Cuba? Haiti? Dominican Republic?

The list goes on and on.

This is a ridiculous idea in my opinion and absolutely nothing good will come of it. Except, of course, more wars. Which is just what we need right now.



The fact of illegal immigration presents us with an unappealing choice: either we must grant amnesty to immigrants who have come here illegally, or we must erect a barrier along our southern border that would be comparable to the Great Wall of China.


I would argue that these are not the only two choices. There is no reason we can not crack down on illegal immigration without giving them all amnesty. It's called deportation. If someone in the Federal government would actually remember what it means, perhaps it would actually begin happening on a larger scale. That would certainly send a message for starters. Instead of the blind-eye they are currently getting.

Besides, forget the wall for a moment. We are currently in need of jobs. Perhaps a privately owned -- no need to grow government -- border security company should be started and begin hiring. Obviously the government is incapable of handling it, so lets farm it out.

I'm sure there are Federal guidelines in place preventing an outside company from handling border security, but why should there be?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
This addresses neither of my questions.

maybe not, but you sir should realize your
thread's intention was to only give 2 choices.
Add Mexico or All of Central America. You
denied anybody from giving you other choices.
So that means you have a fixed agenda for posting
this thread.


Original Post modified to your specifications?
second line.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


I did mention the third choice in my post as well.
I looked for any documents against the Annexation of Mexico on line and could not find anything newer than the arguments presented after the Mexican American War which were mostly prejudicial. All of the other info I was able to find seemed to be pro Annexation.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


Even if the annexation issue ever came up for a vote on a formal basis, and was agreeable to a required percentage of Americans, and citizens of the Latin, Central and South American countries,(how probable is that?) I would ask just one question, and that is can we afford it?

And if you look at the definition of annexation in the traditional sense as mentioned here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. the process by which an incorporated city expands its boundaries to include a specified area. The rules of annexation are established by state law and generally require a public ballot within the city and the area to be annexed. Other incorporated areas are generally protected from annexation by an adjacent city. Example: Annexation is generally sought by a city to expand its boundaries by taking in an area to which it may already be providing services.

Many unincorporated suburban areas, however, resist efforts to annex them into the city because of possibly higher tax rates and loss of local control over schools and other services."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the current financial condition we are in right now in the United States, the answer is no.




[edit on 5-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


Even if the annexation issue ever came up for a vote on a formal basis, and was agreeable to a required percentage of Americans, and citizens of the Latin, Central and South American countries,(how probable is that?) I would ask just one question, and that is can we afford it?

And if you look at the definition of annexation in the traditional sense as mentioned here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. the process by which an incorporated city expands its boundaries to include a specified area. The rules of annexation are established by state law and generally require a public ballot within the city and the area to be annexed. Other incorporated areas are generally protected from annexation by an adjacent city. Example: Annexation is generally sought by a city to expand its boundaries by taking in an area to which it may already be providing services.

Many unincorporated suburban areas, however, resist efforts to annex them into the city because of possibly higher tax rates and loss of local control over schools and other services."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the current financial condition we are in right now in the United States, the answer is no.




[edit on 5-6-2010 by manta78]


Mexico fits, the people of Mexico are voting with their feet by moving to the U.S. in record numbers and we are already providing services to them.




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Mexico has 30 millions on US soil...
A quiet slo mo invasion powered by the PTB.

Mexico's el presidente just asked congress to take away your semi autos, and do I get this right - Obama just signed a TREATY which will give him the legal right to take away your guns if ratified?

Never happen?
90 per cent were against bailing out the foreign banker cabal...
you bailed out the foreign banker cabal.

Obama was going to bring the troops home
you just sent Special Forces to 75 countries...
etc

Say...who's minding the store?
Sleep tight America



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Gee, thanks for the incouragement.
If they try to take our guns they will be in for a very big surprise.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Man,
I mean to be really encouraging
from the bottom of my heart
We were betwixt you and the ruskies...(good people just like us..pawns)

now
you (good people just like us... pawns)
are betwixt the Mexicans ( good peole just like us ...pawns)
and us Canuks..(good people just like you ...pawns)

I was more thinking the whole flotilla and Korea and the oil spill deal may have been a distraction
for the move on the American peoples...
look at the propogenda lately...a thick blanket

I have reason to think so ...
should we dig into this new treaty alittle
just to see?

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Mexico fits, the people of Mexico are voting with their feet by moving to the U.S. in record numbers and we are already providing services to them.



Excuse me, but the high estimate is that one million cross the border and stay in the US each year. How is that the voice of the people?

There are more than 106 million people living in Mexico. Since when does less than 1% = the voice of the people?

This is beginning to scream 'agenda'.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



lpowell0627 you can scream 'agenda' all you want, read some of my other posts and you will see all I want is the borders secured.
When you have a dam that has many leaks, you plug the largest first, correct?

Danbones, If I knew the name of the treaty I would love to dig into it a lot deeper.
I have said before that everything seems to point to a hidden agenda.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
last years treaty:

www.washingtontimes.com...
with mexico

would this explain why the guv lets the door open to the Meicans
throws border guard in jail for doing there jobs
hog ties the borderdefences?

do the Mexican really not have their own guns?

this years gun treaty
www.washingtontimes.com...
Friday, April 9, 2010

me thinks AGENDA also

bi partisan support:

The office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who last year said he would push for its ratification, did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the panel's senior Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, referred to a March 2009 statement in which he said his colleagues "should consider ratifying" the agreement during this session of Congress

Mexico's president is appealing directly to the American people and their elected leaders to reform immigration laws, and strengthen gun control along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The Mexican president was cheered as he entered the House chamber, and was introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you, his Excellency Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, the President of Mexico," said Nancy Pelosi.
www1.voanews.com...

Mexico's president said his government is making an all out effort to go after criminals and drug gangs responsible for the bloodshed. He said America must do its part by re-imposing a ban on the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons.

Mr. Calderon said these assault weapons are fueling the violence.

"We have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the last three years," he said. "On more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace, [they] came from the United States."


sure seized?
who bought em?
the guv by proxy?
the drug cartels are the guv down there are they not?
now they are well armed, did they return the guns?
nope they kept em( I bet)

PS
by agenda I'm mean
HEADS UP AGENDA!
how do you seize 75000 guns without getting your head blown off down there?
the gangs blow your head of for sneezing the wrong way

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


So what you are proposing is that we welcome the North American Union?
2nd line............



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join