You're looking at a permanent, national, Democrat majority if you let (to steal Bill Kristol's words) the yahoos in the GOP drive our party off a cliff.
There are some distinct advantages to stateship for Mexico. Years ago, I was expecting Canada to crack up, and that we might offer statehood to Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (three Republican states) and make three Democrat states out of the Mexican states. You could subdivide Tejas -- I mean Texas -- if you need to even it out further.
A big, powerful, continental nation with substantive oil reserves and a diverse economy -- President Polk would be proud!
Namely, if it were so great, people wouldn't be fleeing it.
At least before the the Civil War, our union was a voluntary one, so people could petition to join it (ala Texas)...
But could you imagine the enormous sh!tstorm that would erupt? Depending on how you gerrymandered the states/provinces you could give a bunch of seats to Dems or a bunch to the GOP. It would make the Missouri Compromise look like cupcake time.
I can imagine, but we are encouraged to think big at ThreeSources.
I always contend that people are poor because of bad government. If we brought our far-less bad government, their economy would skyrocket. Folks aren't leaving because the Tequila is bad; they're searching for American opportunity.
It would be very tough to add all those likely Democrat districts, yup. That's why you need Canadian provinces and subdivision of Texas (for the Senate). Most of our oil comes from these places -- it'd be Nafta on Steroids!
Before I'm accused of "going all Sam Houston" on our neighbors, I agree that it is a right and a privilege to be admitted into the Union and I want nobody who doesn't want to go and doesn't prove it by referenda.
Nobody pointed out that if we need more GOP districts, we can always offer statehood to Iraq...Silence? LatteSipper?
(rising to the bait ...) After all we've done for Iraq, I don't think they'll be anxious to receive any more gifts from us. Perhaps Iran would be interested.
Posted by: LatteSipper at April 11, 2006 2:39 PM
If Mexico joins the union you can bet it will be voluntary, because you can also bet they'll get more out of the deal than the other 50 states will. I just hope the public restrooms in Mexico become more like ours instead of the other way around.
You're looking at a permanent, national, Democrat majority if you let (to steal Bill Kristol's words) the yahoos in the GOP drive our party off a cliff.
Posted by: jk at April 10, 2006 3:00 PMYou're looking at the 28th and 51st states in the Union.
Posted by: johngalt at April 10, 2006 3:29 PM51st state? Holy cow! Are we invading Mexico?
Posted by: LatteSipper at April 10, 2006 4:22 PMThere are some distinct advantages to stateship for Mexico. Years ago, I was expecting Canada to crack up, and that we might offer statehood to Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (three Republican states) and make three Democrat states out of the Mexican states. You could subdivide Tejas -- I mean Texas -- if you need to even it out further.
A big, powerful, continental nation with substantive oil reserves and a diverse economy -- President Polk would be proud!
Posted by: jk at April 10, 2006 5:58 PMJK, how about the distinct disadvantage?
Namely, if it were so great, people wouldn't be fleeing it.
At least before the the Civil War, our union was a voluntary one, so people could petition to join it (ala Texas)...
But could you imagine the enormous sh!tstorm that would erupt? Depending on how you gerrymandered the states/provinces you could give a bunch of seats to Dems or a bunch to the GOP. It would make the Missouri Compromise look like cupcake time.
Posted by: AlexC at April 10, 2006 8:32 PMI can imagine, but we are encouraged to think big at ThreeSources.
I always contend that people are poor because of bad government. If we brought our far-less bad government, their economy would skyrocket. Folks aren't leaving because the Tequila is bad; they're searching for American opportunity.
It would be very tough to add all those likely Democrat districts, yup. That's why you need Canadian provinces and subdivision of Texas (for the Senate). Most of our oil comes from these places -- it'd be Nafta on Steroids!
Posted by: jk at April 10, 2006 8:52 PMBut LatteSipper thinks:
51st state? Holy cow! Are we invading Mexico?
Posted by: LatteSipper at April 10, 2006 04:22 PM
Why not? Those people are obviously leaving for the US because life in Mexico sucks under the current regime.
I think its high time GWB took charge and set things right south of the border! Maybe then, those people will leave us alone!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 10, 2006 9:11 PMBefore I'm accused of "going all Sam Houston" on our neighbors, I agree that it is a right and a privilege to be admitted into the Union and I want nobody who doesn't want to go and doesn't prove it by referenda.
Nobody pointed out that if we need more GOP districts, we can always offer statehood to Iraq...Silence? LatteSipper?
Posted by: jk at April 11, 2006 10:34 AM(rising to the bait ...) After all we've done for Iraq, I don't think they'll be anxious to receive any more gifts from us. Perhaps Iran would be interested.
Posted by: LatteSipper at April 11, 2006 2:39 PMIf Mexico joins the union you can bet it will be voluntary, because you can also bet they'll get more out of the deal than the other 50 states will. I just hope the public restrooms in Mexico become more like ours instead of the other way around.
Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2006 3:12 PM | What do you think? [10]