Mexico: Annexation or Desolation
By Erik Rush (05/07/07)
In my various treatises addressing the prudence of the United States government initiating overtures toward a negotiated annexation of Mexico, I attend to the oft-considered tribulations that have been thrashed out in political circles and media venues since September 11, 2001, when issues of national security gave vibrant new life to the predicament concerning our southern border. What to do about the border is a question Americans have been asking for decades, with Republican and Democrat administrations sharing equal blame in their failure to provide answers. In the book 'Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation', I present comprehensive research on the subject and a proposal - radical though it may seem at first blush - delineating precisely how this annexation might be accomplished and the impressive benefits to both nations.
I was motivated to write this column in part due to the incomprehensibly audacious, grotesque and profane “May Day 2007” marches that were held mere days ago in many American cities (ostensibly in support of “undocumented migrant workers”), but there are other critical aspects vis-a-vis illegal aliens from Mexico which I believe merit deliberation and even further validate the case for annexing Mexico.
Over the last two years, I have had the opportunity to converse with hundreds of people on this subject through the course of media interviews, speaking engagements and face-to-face encounters. Individuals’ reactions have been widely varied (as one may expect), but seldom fell along the lines of political affiliation or identification, which initially surprised me.
The volume of feedback has increased dramatically of late; one group of people I’ve spoken with who proved to be among the most enthusiastic apropos the strategy I’ve outlined have been – guess who – Mexican immigrants.
Now, many informed folks have found this to be no surprise; 10% of Mexico’s population have voted with their feet and are already here, then there’s the August 2005 poll by the Pew Hispanic Center that indicated more than 40 percent of Mexican adults would move to the United States if they could.
One might be surprised, however, if one’s exposure is limited to major media accounts and well-funded campaigns of those who claim to represent Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans at large, such as MEChA, La Raza and the Mexica Movement.
The fact that organizations such as these possess the temerity to support nebulous “civil rights” for people who entered the United States illegally notwithstanding, it is generally known by a relative few that these groups not only don’t represent the majority of Mexican immigrants, but they take their marching orders from American socialists (whose sentiments parallel those in the farthest-Left vicinity of our new congressional majority). What I find appalling is that a high school student on several bong hits could easily research this and come to the same stark, undeniable conclusion based upon the associations these groups have claimed for years and the political leanings of other organizations and prominent individuals support them. The reason most Americans aren’t aware of this, of course is due to the alignment of major media outlets and the modus operandi of these activist groups.
These concerns are racist, plain and simple, and the majority of the marchers we’ve seen (who resemble newsreel mobs of anti-American Islamic radicals more than anything else in attitude and countenance) are not migrant workers, those who either the border back and forth as laborers or those who seek more permanent socioeconomic asylum and want to assimilate. Those folks were probably at work during the marches. The bulk of the sneering chanting haters we’ve seen are Mexican-American Leftists; they’re already assimilated (socioeconomically if not culturally), spoiled victims of the same entitlement mentality the Left sold to blacks. They have little concept of the struggles those who live in the Third World oligarchy just across the border endure and why so many wish to be here. If they did they would realize how fortunate they are, how tolerant America has been, and that the key is to Americanize Mexico rather than Mexicanizing America. Go ask a few Mexican immigrants if they want The U.S. to become more like Mexico if you still stand in doubt.
The methodology of these so-called immigrant solidarity groups consists of impelling the Latino community toward misplaced action and inundating the airwaves with their propaganda; platitudes, slogans and placards are lent credence by sympathetic politicians and co-conspirators in the media.
How can one chant an asinine phrase like “No Human Being is Illegal” and expect to be taken seriously? When one has politicians who operate out of either fear or lust for power and those who rely on cheap labor on the north side of the border, and politicians legendary in their corruption on the south all fighting to maintain the status quo: A porous border. The far Left at large is only interested in leveraging its socialist agenda.
Like the black civil rights activists who answer to the same masters and also stage-manage those they allegedly serve, these champions of Mexamerica keep indictments of racism ever-ready in hip holsters for those rash enough to criticize their actions or their mission. And they’ve become frighteningly fast on the draw. Terrified to incontinence at the prospect of being so labeled, Americans who should vehemently condemn the marches and their organizers sit feebly by while these gangsters gain ground.
This being the case, comparisons of these marches to communist commemorations occurring during the month of May is an apt comparison and a sad irony, but one which will be overlooked by freedom-loving Americans at their extreme peril.
Which brings us to another even weightier matter that has nevertheless gone without discussion; it’s the sort that shortsighted American political and corporate power brokers typically overlook or ignore until it develops into a situation that warrants military action. I shall assume I needn’t even approach that issue in detail at this juncture.
Mexico has a fast-growing socialist contingent. Who’d have guessed? Civil unrest has exploded in pockets and through mass demonstrations in favor of Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the PRD (Partido Revolucionario Democratico), a socialist whom a disturbing number of Mexicans believe was beaten by the current Mexican president Felipe Calderón in a stolen election. The PRD has ties to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator whose dream it is to ignite a socialist revolution throughout Latin America. This includes Mexico, to be sure; should such efforts succeed, we’ll have much more to worry about coming across our border than illegal immigrants. Chavez has ties, albeit loose ones at the moment, to Iran and individuals involved with Islamic terrorist groups.
Given the current makeup of Congress, the annexation proposal will likely be a more difficult sell to our lawmakers than a year or two ago. The 8% or so of predominantly Spanish-descended Mexicans are the ones our government will need to approach, as they’re the ones with the real power in that country and those whose throats will be slit first if a popular socialist revolution does take place in Mexico. They are internationally invested, educated, and savvy. The frank yet grim appeal should be: Throw in with us now and prosper together, or see your children and grandchildren butchered, as usually happens when the “oppressed masses have their day”.
The greatest tragedy given the existing cultural similarities between the U.S. and Mexico and the affinity of Mexicans and Americans for each other if this takes place will be that – like other nations in which our government’s foreign policy has proved abysmally lacking – the leaders of the new socialist Mexico will point to the United States as a complicit partner in their socioeconomic oppression.
And they’ll be right.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
