6 ms·

Maybe the US and Mexico should merge? Would not be easy but could bring huge benefits, solve Drug violence, solve Southern Border problem and bring a massive r

Maybe the US and Mexico should merge? Would not be easy but could bring huge benefits, solve Drug violence, solve Southern Border problem and bring a massive reduction in Mexican poverty since it would unleash a tremendous wave of dynamism and growth. Would also maintain US lead over China as the world’s dominant economy for much longer.

MadSudaca 4y ago
This would make sense, but for the US’s sake, it should be a veeery gradual process taking several generations to complete. Maybe in one or two hundred years. But who knows.
coldtea 4y ago
>solve Drug violence How does that figure? It's not like the US doesn't have its own drug violence, and lots of it. A lot of Mexican drug violence would probably move to the north, where the more lucrative markets will be, especially since movement would be much easier. >solve Southern Border problem It wont solve it in the sense of addressing the concerns behind those seeing it as a problem today: it will just declare it not a problem. It also ignores these being two different nations, with different cultures, priorities, etc., as if the peoples in them are mere assets to be managed/merged/unify/etc for economic benefit. I'm not so sure Mexican native "indians" for example will be very happy with their most likely treatment from WASP Americans (given how the latter treat and view their "own" minorities).
- skissane 4y ago
  > I'm not so sure Mexican native "indians" for example will be very happy with their most likely treatment from WASP Americans (given how the latter treat and view their "own" minorities). You speak as if Mexico doesn’t have its own problems with racism/discrimination/prejudice/etc against its indigenous peoples Latin America has its own history of racism. On the whole, more subtle, less in-your-face, less over-the-top extreme, than that of the US, but still very real
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >You speak as if Mexico doesn’t have its own problems with racism/discrimination/prejudice/etc against its indigenous peoples Mexico can and does have its own problem against its indigenous people, and the situation under a supposed "merger" (not that it will happen) can still get much worse. Mexico has its own equilibrium and power balances regarding its racial issues, developed over the centuries, that wont be transferrable to a whole added country of 350 million different people, a good chunk of which already considers the whole population, latinos and natives, as inferior and "not belonging here", and has worse skeletons in the closet regarding the treatment of its own natives.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > and the situation under a supposed "merger" (not that it will happen) can still get much worse Well, hypothetically speaking (given we both acknowledge a US-Mexico merger is rather unlikely to ever actually happen): yes, it could be worse, maybe even “much worse”; but it could also be largely the same; it could even be better. One way in which it could be largely the same: the remaining racism in the US is largely of the subtle/systemic kind rather than the blatant apartheid/Jim Crow kind, which makes the racism problems of the US and Latin America much more alike today, despite historically the former being drastically worse than the latter One way it could be better: for all their limitations, American tribal governments actually have significantly more powers than their Mexican equivalents - federally-recognised US tribal governments are partially exempt from state jurisdiction, while all Mexico has is indigenous-controlled local governments with significantly less legal autonomy. So you could argue that the US shows greater (albeit still limited) respect for indigenous peoples’ rights to autonomy and self-governance, and if a merger of the US and Mexico happened, it might result in that US approach being adopted in Mexico too, resulting in improved rights of autonomy and self-governance for Mexico’s indigenous peoples
oh_sigh 4y ago
How would that solve drug violence? US Army vs cartels?
- rizky05 4y ago
  [dead]
- anthk 4y ago
  Former US Army solders joining the cartels, as in Mexico. Now you have a bigger problem.
wunderland 4y ago
Since NAFTA, corporations can already essentially treat US and Mexico as one nation for most purposes— with the added benefit that labor cannot! Workers in Detroit are now competing with workers in Chihuahua; Ford can move jobs across that border but workers cannot similarly move to chase better wages or favorable laws. It wouldn’t make sense for the nations to further merge; the government’s true constituents (the corporations) already have the best of both worlds.
- mcv 4y ago
  I think that's a big reason why the EU's common market has freedom of movement for not just goods and services, but also people. So people can also move to where the wages are highest, eventually levelling out the differences, rather than letting corporations exploit those differences.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Is that difference being leveled out? From what I can tell, young people move to where the job market is hot (e.g. Germany) to work and that's pretty much it. They might return when they retire (but let's face it, after 30 years, they'll have a life and friends and a family in Germany, and they'll likely stay), or, if you're Spain or Portugal, you might get some German retirees in return, but it doesn't seem to do much closing the gap. Essentially, local companies just can't hire people locally, and they can't raise their wages easily, because it's still a single market, so they'll compete with every other company on that single market, and the most efficient one (or the one where government subsidies are hidden the best) wins. If you have fewer people to hire, your best chance is probably to move your company to where the people are.
    - mcv 4y ago
      If people move out of lower wage countries to where the well-paying jobs are, then it will become harder in those countries to hire people at low wages, driving the wages up. Of course that shouldn't be the only factor, and it isn't; the EU also invests in its poorer members. Ireland in particular is a massive success story in that regard. It was poor when it joined the EU, and now it's rich. I hope more countries will follow that path, but obviously there are tons of other factors at work as well; government policies, corruption, etc.
dustypotato 4y ago
Probably not very good for the world if the US gets even more powerful
- schrodinger 4y ago
  Why, we just spread democracy around the world benevolently?
469386456 4y ago
I realize this comment was probably made in good faith but I can't help but feel it needs to be called out as egregiously ignorant if not derided for the same reason. Solve the southern border problem? What year is this? Most illegal immigrants aren't Mexican. If they were then the "Remain in Mexico" policy wouldnt have been as wildly effective as it was. Most illegal (if you're Republican)/Undocumented (if you're a Democrat)/Whatever immigrants heading to America aren't Mexican and haven't been for a bit now. And that's just the issues with the presented idea on the border front.
- mjevans 4y ago
  It would actually 'solve' the problem by limiting the border to a manageable size. However that's the wrong solution to the wrong problem. It should never have been about blindly stopping everyone. America used to have the right idea, paperclip in the best and brightest to fuel the next business revolution. A rational policy isn't about denial, it's about control and management. To legalize, to tax (profit from), to regulate. Seasonal labor work visas, documented workers; and for the workers, safer working conditions and better pay (though still not the pay a farm would have to give Americans to make them want to do that job). Even a real process for identifying an applicant's history so that refugees can be integrated, positive influences can be allowed through, and criminals can be (mostly) stopped at the border.
  - FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
    > It would actually 'solve' the problem by limiting the border to a manageable size. The natural southern border is Panama. That's where you want your bunkers and siege tanks.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Most illegal immigrants aren't Mexican, but Mexico is the only country with which we share a southern border, and all illegal immigrants crossing the border come through Mexico.
seri4l 4y ago
The US has been a rich democracy for its entire existence and its homicide rate is on level with those of third world countries. I don't see how bringing a country that has been enduring constant poverty, unrest and revolutions into the equation will make anything better regarding violence.
kristopolous 4y ago
Maybe the US should give back all that stolen Mexican land first. * ducks and exits conversation *
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  The land that Mexico had from 1821 - 1848, only the farthest 27 years out of the past 200? That no ones great great great grandparents were even alive for? That makes the most sense to you?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sanxiyn 4y ago
It won't happen. But I agree this would be good for the world, because I expect the merge to make US politics a lot saner. Mexico's population is more than California, Texas, and New York combined, and since US electoral college votes are apportioned according to population, people living in Mexico will have tremendous influence on US politics, unlike today. I expect such influence to be greatly positive for the world.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Wouldn't the idea be to merge USA to Mexico and adopt the Mexican system in whole of USA? Might make lot of sense really.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Wouldn't the idea be to merge USA to Mexico and adopt the Mexican system in whole of USA? Might make lot of sense really. The Mexican political system isn’t really that different from the American - both are federal presidential republics. If you are looking to give the US a better political system, merger with Mexico wouldn’t make a huge difference A merger with Canada would be a different story. Many political scientists argue that parliamentary systems (a Prime Minister, with the executive de facto subordinated to the legislature) provide superior political stability and effectiveness compared to the presidential system found in the US and most of Latin America. Allowing the executive to be independent of the legislature instead of subordinated to it results in ineffective governance due to legislative-executive conflict, and centralising so much executive power in a single individual with very limited accountability promotes the development of strongmen with personality cults (caudillos) such as Peron, Bolsonaro or Trump. So if the US adopted Canada’s political system (whether by merging with it or otherwise), that would arguably be a big improvement. Of course, Canada is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and many Americans may object to coming once more under the British Crown. But you can have a parliamentary republic, with a figurehead/symbolic President with little real power, and a Prime Minister making the big decisions - as in Ireland or Israel or Finland. You can even have a federal parliamentary republic, with states, as in Austria or Germany. Australia voted on switching from a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to a federal parliamentary republic in 1999-the republican side lost, but most people expect there will eventually be a re-run in which they win. If Australia goes down that road, it increases the odds that Canada may eventually follow. The thing about Canada’s system which would arguably really improve the US is the parliamentary vs presidential distinction, not the republic vs monarchy one
mdp2021 4y ago
Why not having a single banking system - possibly a bad one? Why not having a single statal system - possibly a bad one? Why not having a single computer operating system - possibly a bad one? Why not having a single cuisine - possibly a bad one? Etc.
quickthrower2 4y ago
Transitioning the former US people to Mexican law and dismantling the constitution, federation and states might be the hard part. Oh you didn’t mean like that…
laratiede 4y ago
[dead]

MadSudaca 4y ago

This would make sense, but for the US’s sake, it should be a veeery gradual process taking several generations to complete. Maybe in one or two hundred years. But who knows.

coldtea 4y ago

>solve Drug violence How does that figure? It's not like the US doesn't have its own drug violence, and lots of it. A lot of Mexican drug violence would probably move to the north, where the more lucrative markets will be, especially since movement would be much easier. >solve Southern Border problem It wont solve it in the sense of addressing the concerns behind those seeing it as a problem today: it will just declare it not a problem. It also ignores these being two different nations, with different cultures, priorities, etc., as if the peoples in them are mere assets to be managed/merged/unify/etc for economic benefit. I'm not so sure Mexican native "indians" for example will be very happy with their most likely treatment from WASP Americans (given how the latter treat and view their "own" minorities).

skissane 4y ago
> I'm not so sure Mexican native "indians" for example will be very happy with their most likely treatment from WASP Americans (given how the latter treat and view their "own" minorities). You speak as if Mexico doesn’t have its own problems with racism/discrimination/prejudice/etc against its indigenous peoples Latin America has its own history of racism. On the whole, more subtle, less in-your-face, less over-the-top extreme, than that of the US, but still very real
- coldtea 4y ago
  >You speak as if Mexico doesn’t have its own problems with racism/discrimination/prejudice/etc against its indigenous peoples Mexico can and does have its own problem against its indigenous people, and the situation under a supposed "merger" (not that it will happen) can still get much worse. Mexico has its own equilibrium and power balances regarding its racial issues, developed over the centuries, that wont be transferrable to a whole added country of 350 million different people, a good chunk of which already considers the whole population, latinos and natives, as inferior and "not belonging here", and has worse skeletons in the closet regarding the treatment of its own natives.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > and the situation under a supposed "merger" (not that it will happen) can still get much worse Well, hypothetically speaking (given we both acknowledge a US-Mexico merger is rather unlikely to ever actually happen): yes, it could be worse, maybe even “much worse”; but it could also be largely the same; it could even be better. One way in which it could be largely the same: the remaining racism in the US is largely of the subtle/systemic kind rather than the blatant apartheid/Jim Crow kind, which makes the racism problems of the US and Latin America much more alike today, despite historically the former being drastically worse than the latter One way it could be better: for all their limitations, American tribal governments actually have significantly more powers than their Mexican equivalents - federally-recognised US tribal governments are partially exempt from state jurisdiction, while all Mexico has is indigenous-controlled local governments with significantly less legal autonomy. So you could argue that the US shows greater (albeit still limited) respect for indigenous peoples’ rights to autonomy and self-governance, and if a merger of the US and Mexico happened, it might result in that US approach being adopted in Mexico too, resulting in improved rights of autonomy and self-governance for Mexico’s indigenous peoples

oh_sigh 4y ago

How would that solve drug violence? US Army vs cartels?

rizky05 4y ago
[dead]
anthk 4y ago
Former US Army solders joining the cartels, as in Mexico. Now you have a bigger problem.

wunderland 4y ago

Since NAFTA, corporations can already essentially treat US and Mexico as one nation for most purposes— with the added benefit that labor cannot! Workers in Detroit are now competing with workers in Chihuahua; Ford can move jobs across that border but workers cannot similarly move to chase better wages or favorable laws. It wouldn’t make sense for the nations to further merge; the government’s true constituents (the corporations) already have the best of both worlds.

mcv 4y ago
I think that's a big reason why the EU's common market has freedom of movement for not just goods and services, but also people. So people can also move to where the wages are highest, eventually levelling out the differences, rather than letting corporations exploit those differences.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Is that difference being leveled out? From what I can tell, young people move to where the job market is hot (e.g. Germany) to work and that's pretty much it. They might return when they retire (but let's face it, after 30 years, they'll have a life and friends and a family in Germany, and they'll likely stay), or, if you're Spain or Portugal, you might get some German retirees in return, but it doesn't seem to do much closing the gap. Essentially, local companies just can't hire people locally, and they can't raise their wages easily, because it's still a single market, so they'll compete with every other company on that single market, and the most efficient one (or the one where government subsidies are hidden the best) wins. If you have fewer people to hire, your best chance is probably to move your company to where the people are.
  - mcv 4y ago
    If people move out of lower wage countries to where the well-paying jobs are, then it will become harder in those countries to hire people at low wages, driving the wages up. Of course that shouldn't be the only factor, and it isn't; the EU also invests in its poorer members. Ireland in particular is a massive success story in that regard. It was poor when it joined the EU, and now it's rich. I hope more countries will follow that path, but obviously there are tons of other factors at work as well; government policies, corruption, etc.

dustypotato 4y ago

Probably not very good for the world if the US gets even more powerful

schrodinger 4y ago
Why, we just spread democracy around the world benevolently?

469386456 4y ago

I realize this comment was probably made in good faith but I can't help but feel it needs to be called out as egregiously ignorant if not derided for the same reason. Solve the southern border problem? What year is this? Most illegal immigrants aren't Mexican. If they were then the "Remain in Mexico" policy wouldnt have been as wildly effective as it was. Most illegal (if you're Republican)/Undocumented (if you're a Democrat)/Whatever immigrants heading to America aren't Mexican and haven't been for a bit now. And that's just the issues with the presented idea on the border front.

mjevans 4y ago
It would actually 'solve' the problem by limiting the border to a manageable size. However that's the wrong solution to the wrong problem. It should never have been about blindly stopping everyone. America used to have the right idea, paperclip in the best and brightest to fuel the next business revolution. A rational policy isn't about denial, it's about control and management. To legalize, to tax (profit from), to regulate. Seasonal labor work visas, documented workers; and for the workers, safer working conditions and better pay (though still not the pay a farm would have to give Americans to make them want to do that job). Even a real process for identifying an applicant's history so that refugees can be integrated, positive influences can be allowed through, and criminals can be (mostly) stopped at the border.
- FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
  > It would actually 'solve' the problem by limiting the border to a manageable size. The natural southern border is Panama. That's where you want your bunkers and siege tanks.
rayiner 4y ago
Most illegal immigrants aren't Mexican, but Mexico is the only country with which we share a southern border, and all illegal immigrants crossing the border come through Mexico.

seri4l 4y ago

The US has been a rich democracy for its entire existence and its homicide rate is on level with those of third world countries. I don't see how bringing a country that has been enduring constant poverty, unrest and revolutions into the equation will make anything better regarding violence.

kristopolous 4y ago

Maybe the US should give back all that stolen Mexican land first. * ducks and exits conversation *

reducesuffering 4y ago
The land that Mexico had from 1821 - 1848, only the farthest 27 years out of the past 200? That no ones great great great grandparents were even alive for? That makes the most sense to you?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sanxiyn 4y ago

It won't happen. But I agree this would be good for the world, because I expect the merge to make US politics a lot saner. Mexico's population is more than California, Texas, and New York combined, and since US electoral college votes are apportioned according to population, people living in Mexico will have tremendous influence on US politics, unlike today. I expect such influence to be greatly positive for the world.

Ekaros 4y ago
Wouldn't the idea be to merge USA to Mexico and adopt the Mexican system in whole of USA? Might make lot of sense really.
- skissane 4y ago
  > Wouldn't the idea be to merge USA to Mexico and adopt the Mexican system in whole of USA? Might make lot of sense really. The Mexican political system isn’t really that different from the American - both are federal presidential republics. If you are looking to give the US a better political system, merger with Mexico wouldn’t make a huge difference A merger with Canada would be a different story. Many political scientists argue that parliamentary systems (a Prime Minister, with the executive de facto subordinated to the legislature) provide superior political stability and effectiveness compared to the presidential system found in the US and most of Latin America. Allowing the executive to be independent of the legislature instead of subordinated to it results in ineffective governance due to legislative-executive conflict, and centralising so much executive power in a single individual with very limited accountability promotes the development of strongmen with personality cults (caudillos) such as Peron, Bolsonaro or Trump. So if the US adopted Canada’s political system (whether by merging with it or otherwise), that would arguably be a big improvement. Of course, Canada is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and many Americans may object to coming once more under the British Crown. But you can have a parliamentary republic, with a figurehead/symbolic President with little real power, and a Prime Minister making the big decisions - as in Ireland or Israel or Finland. You can even have a federal parliamentary republic, with states, as in Austria or Germany. Australia voted on switching from a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to a federal parliamentary republic in 1999-the republican side lost, but most people expect there will eventually be a re-run in which they win. If Australia goes down that road, it increases the odds that Canada may eventually follow. The thing about Canada’s system which would arguably really improve the US is the parliamentary vs presidential distinction, not the republic vs monarchy one

mdp2021 4y ago

Why not having a single banking system - possibly a bad one? Why not having a single statal system - possibly a bad one? Why not having a single computer operating system - possibly a bad one? Why not having a single cuisine - possibly a bad one? Etc.

quickthrower2 4y ago

Transitioning the former US people to Mexican law and dismantling the constitution, federation and states might be the hard part. Oh you didn’t mean like that…

laratiede 4y ago

[dead]