On Tuesday, Congress postponed the vote on some attempt at immigration reform, with House Majority Leader Harry Reid hoping that by pushing the vote off until the coming Monday, there would be more time for a compromise. This heated issue has been the subject of many a loudmouth political pundit, with Oregon’s Rush Limbaugh-wannabe Lars Larson joining in to sound off against the plans for reform.
Given the strong emotions on both sides of this issue, it seems there is only one plausible middle-ground solution: the annexation of Mexico. This moderate, centrist position would meet the needs of all parties, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is, simply, the answer we need. As Senator John McCain once famously said in 2000: “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics.” What McCain failed to realize is that if you go far enough out on “the outer reaches of American politics,” sometimes you can find a place where they actually connect. And so by simultaneously pleasing the extreme positions of both left and right, this solution logically has to be the middle ground.
By annexation, I mean adding Mexico to the United States (or vice-versa, but that’s a detail we can hammer out later). Immigrants from Mexico would no longer have to cross international borders in order to achieve the benefits of living in the United States, as the current international border would become nothing more than a state line. We also would resolve the issue of the 12 million so-called “illegal” immigrants living in United States right now, as many (those who immigrated from Mexico) would now simply be living out of state.
As for border security, this predicament would also be simplified. Currently, the border with Mexico is nearly 2000 miles, and some conservatives are adamant about building some kind of wall across this incredible length (or at least about half of it). This, to me, seems like a very costly proposition, with some estimates for its construction as high as $3 billion. Some argue that increased border patrols will also be necessary to provide better border security, and this surely adds more to the cost. All of this will have to be paid for by taxpayers, possibly through unfortunate tax increases.
It seems that invading foreign countries, however, can be paid for entirely on credit, and requires no financial sacrifice from the average American. The recent war in Iraq, to cite one example, was even done during a period of tax decrease. Why would we ever want to fork over all that cash for a border wall when this option is available?
That’s right, there is no reason.
Furthermore, the border would be shortened by this moderate measure. The southern border of Mexico would serve as the new southern American border, which is only about 700 miles long. Excellent! We cut the border in half with no financial cost. This would be far easier to secure, if we still wanted to. In this way, annexing Mexico will no doubt please the conservative interests on this issue. As an added bonus, we’d no longer need a passport to go to Cancún for spring break. Fantastic!
In exchange for this increased border security, conservative immigration commentators like Lou Dobbs would have to make some sacrifices – in the spirit of compromise, if you will. For example, illegal immigrants could no longer be mistreated by corporate employers or human traffickers. In fact, all immigrants – now only moving from state to state – would be entitled to all of the human rights that are protected for Americans: life, liberty and all that. I understand this might be a hard pill for some conservatives to swallow. But what’s wrong with giving more human beings the same rights we enjoy, especially if you get some land out of it? I think that’s what Manifest Destiny was all about. Or not. I really can’t remember.
Anyway, this is definitely the best solution, for all of the reasons mentioned. It’s time to put aside our differences and agree on the middle course.
[email protected]