The new man in charge of Mexico�s side of the U.S. � Mexico border announced that he ultimately wants to eliminate the border between the two nations. In the meantime, though, he wants to add new crossings and add travel lanes to increase traffic between the two nations.
This has a lot of conservatives up in arms. They point out the millions of illegal aliens already here, the problems associated with them, and argue that the first duty of any government is to secure the borders against invasion of any sort — if a country can’t control it’s own borders, it essentially has no defined boundaries and therefore isn’t arguably a free nation.
While my sympathies are with the conservatives on this matter, occasionally like to find the silver lining in situations. Here, on the topic of dissolving the border with Mexico, I can see a few huge benefits. And all those benefits revolve around a single word:
Dissolving a border goes both ways. While it means Mexicans can freely pass into the U.S., it also means we can go south without being challenged. And I’m not just talking about tourism. Let’s give the Mexicans the full benefits of being indistinguishable from the U.S.
A Mexican commits a crime in the U.S., then flees south? Let’s send cops after him. They’ll arrest him (in a country that doesn’t recognize Miranda rights) and haul him back across the border to face trial.
Revenue agents will also be able to travel south. Someone owes money in the U.S., we’ll go after their assets in Mexico. We’ll seize them and sell them off to pay what they owe. And if they’re working under the table here, I see no reason the IRS can’t go after them there.
Another big problem with the border has been cars stolen in the U.S. and taken south. With LoJack and OnStar, we can go after them, and bring them home — along with the thieves. I see the wholesale rounding up of criminal rings and seizure of their assets.
And let’s not forget the fact that roughly one-half of Mexico’s population lives below the poverty line. What better way to help them and ourselves by sending them all our surplus social workers, social engineers, social scientists, and the like (but I repeat myself — “surplus” is entirely redundant in this context) and let them “help” the poor? I figure if we ship them all off and give them, say, half the money we seize above, we ought to be free of them for at least a couple generations.
Mexico is a huge source of cheap, unskilled labor, and as one might expect, is rife with exploited workers. Let’s also round up a bunch of organizers from the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the UFW, and the NEA and let them loose in the fields, sweatshops, and factories of Mexico. And to properly document the horrendous conditions of these poor, abused laborers, let’s send in Michael Moore and his cameras. “Roger y mi,” anyone? How about “¿El tipo, donde es mi país?”
And don’t even THINK of getting me started with the thought of exporting the cream of the legal profession.
Let this serve as a warning to Mexico: be careful what you wish for. For every parasite you ship north, we can send ten of our own back. And Jose in the lettuce field or Maria in the Emergency Room can not possibly cause one fraction of the chaos on a society that a Johnny Cochran or a Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. can inflict. Besides, our society is much more resilient than yours.
And if you’re not scared yet, Mexico, I have three final words for you. Three words that ought to terrify you into fortifying the border on your side, putting up huge electrified fences, digging ditches, planting land mines by the bushes, and arming your guards with bazookas. Three words that can cause more damage than all the nuclear weapons in the world.
Hillary Rodham Clinton.