-17

How is a country incorporated peacefully by another without governmental conflict? Maybe a vote to join can take place between the 2 countries. The only real problem would be drug warlords and I believe we are still at war on drugs. A border at the Panama Canal would be easier to maintain.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Alexander O'Mara, grovkin, Jeff Lambert, Giter, ohwilleke May 9 '18 at 18:06

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    Mexico does not border Panama. It borders the Belize and Guatemala – hszmv May 9 '18 at 17:52
  • 2
    Okay... so now you're proposing... in addition to the three discussed, annexing El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, AND THEN, Panama... home of the Panama Canal... which we did once own before we gave it back to Panama? – hszmv May 9 '18 at 17:56
  • 5
    @Muze You are making blanket unsubstantiated claims in your question, and make a giant leap in assuming people in Mexico would want to join the United States, when only around 25-30% of people in Puerto Rico voted to become a U.S. state. – Jeff Lambert May 9 '18 at 17:59
  • 3
    Problem #1: unproven assumption that US wants to, or in any way would benefit from, taking over. – user4012 May 9 '18 at 18:43
  • 3
    "Maybe a vote to join can take place between the 2 countries": Interesting idea. If Mexican states joined under the US constitution, its 31 states would send 62 new senators to the US senate, over a third of the enlarged body. Mexico would also account for over a quarter of the merged country's population. It would certainly change the dynamics of federal government considerably. – phoog May 9 '18 at 18:53
2
  1. Not all Mexican officials are "dirty" as in corrupt. If you look closer into Mexican politics you will see that there are quite a few politicians who try to get their country back on track. However, they have to fight US sponsored crime syndicates. And yes, they are US founded, not directly, but indirectly by the war on drugs, which provides them a huge source of money.

  2. The US taking over Mexico won't do anything. Not only has the US Mafia shown very impressively in the years of Prohibition that the US isn't any more capable of getting rid of organized crime than Mexico, it has shown that the more brutal you go against crime, the more brutal and strong it becomes.

The best way to help Mexico would be legalizing drugs and pulling the financial rug under the feet of the crime cartels that way. Then you could create a trade agreement between North and South America that includes high wages, high job security, very high environmental standards, a strong tax system that allows both states an effective infrastructure rebuild, and import taxes towards states outside the agreement so the overall wealth in both states can grow.

  • Great analogy with Prohibition. Wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply, and that supply will fight for its existence. – Michael_B May 9 '18 at 19:40
  • Legalization (of drugs) is one potential solution. Except the Mexican cartels are now diversified. Even if the drug money vanished, they are already profiting from human trafficking, arms trafficking, prostitution, kidnapping, extortion, gambling, counterfeiting, piracy (IP), and even mining. So I'm not sure how useful the traditional drug legalization proposal can be at this point. – Michael_B May 9 '18 at 19:51
  • So when you say: "The best way to help mexico would be legalizing drugs and pulling the financial rug under the feet of the crime cartels." I think it's too late for that. The financial rug would not be pulled. – Michael_B May 9 '18 at 19:59
  • people die from cocaine in every metropolitan statistical area of the US. Unlike locally-produced marijuana, it's relatively difficult to produce usable drugs from the coca plant. Therefore legalization might not lower street prices to incentive-less levels, unless companies of scale were to brand it, which they likely wouldn't because it can be deadly. I think the "war on drugs" is misguided, but you should think long and hard about the mortality of hard drugs before lumping them with weed. – dandavis May 10 '18 at 2:34
  • I used the drug problem as the main one, you are right that that the cartels are much more wide spread, but then again so was the mafia in the US, they where basicly everywhere, but when the main source of income fell, they lost alot of power, and it was enough, so more resistence towards crime could build itself. Legalized prostitution would be another great blow and many of the other crimes. Also in a trade agreenment, that helps Mexico to get better, human trafficking would loose it's profitability. Of there are more problems, but with those big ones gone, it is easier to fix the others. – Etaila May 10 '18 at 16:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.