The Instigator
PolicyDebateBob
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jdoe0
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The case for the US invasion and annexation of Mexico

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,247 times Debate No: 43289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

PolicyDebateBob

Pro

This is a restart of an older argument, but that one had a poor pro debater and was not very well researched as a whole.
My case is simple: the US should invade and annex the United Mexican States and absorb it into a single nation, with the constitution of the United States of America.
Contention 1:
There is considerable support for this move in both the US and in mexico. Remember when the president made the case for attacking Libya? He said the people there are oppressed and need our help. You could easily say the same thing about Mexico, and drug violence has begun to spill into the US as well. Also, a poll released by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that there is considerable support in Mexico, and that over %40 of Mexican adults would move to the US if they could. The invasion could be done cheaply, with key members of the Mexican military paid off to limit the fighting time to the minimum.
Contention 2:
The drug trade is destroying the world. It is constantly increasing, and threatens more nations every year with its instability and violence. Also, the Amazon rain forest is being cut down at an astonishing rate - more than 3 US football fields a minute - all for the drug trade. We need the rain forest, as it generates over %20 of the entire planet's oxygen. These drugs flow through Mexico before reaching other nations. We need US security forces and police in Mexico to stem the violence and stop the drug trade and oppression there.
Contention 3:
Mexican standards of living and quality of life are degrading rapidly. It is on the verge of being declared a failed state due to the corruption and open drug trade. The people there are unable to defend themselves, as their entire government has been bought off. Not only the current president, but all of the presidential candidates for this year's election have been bought and paid for.

We need to annex mexico and stop the drug war at its source - we can't let the people there go on living the way they do - and we can't afford a failed state on our border.
jdoe0

Con

Due to logistic, economic, and social issues, as well as overall differences between the countries, annexation of Mexico would leave the US in a worse position than it started in.

Refutations:

A1: Mexican support for American annexation is irrelevant. Mexicans would support the US donating $1 million to each individual there as well, but the citizens of the United States wouldn"t. Mexican support would only matter is if the US already was already planning on annexing Mexico. Pro gave no sources showing US citizens support annexation. Pro also stated, "The invasion could be done cheaply, with key members of the Mexican military paid off to limit the fighting time to the minimum." Where did this claim come from? Why would Pro assume that the invasion would come cheap or quickly? There is a huge amount of corruption already in Mexican police, and drug cartels have massive amounts of money to fund it. For example, "Mexican authorities said at a forum that drug-trafficking gangs pay around $100 million a month in bribes to municipal police officers nationwide (1)." Mexican police officers also admitted to "selling information and victims to organized crime syndicates."

A2: I agree with Pro that drug trade is a detriment to the world. However, his assumptions are irrelevant. It should be clear that there are far better alternatives to slowing the drug trade than annexation of an entire country. Pro stated that the Amazonian rain forest is being cut down "ALL FOR THE DRUG TRADE." (3) shows the real causes of deforestation. Pro stated, "We need US security forces and police in Mexico to stem the violence and stop the drug trade and oppression there." This has nothing to do with annexation. Cooperation is preferable to annexation. Of the world"s top 5 drug producers, 3 are outside the Americas, and only 1 is in Central America (4). Is invading Mexico the solution to all drug problems? No.

A3: Mexico is 61st out of over 150 countries with regard to the Human Development Index (5). That"s very high and very good. Please cite sources for your outrageous claims.

Pro, I"ll explain why annexation of Mexico will hurt the United States. We already got the best part of Mexico in the Mexican-American War. Mexico is 20% the size of the US, and their addition will be a huge burden. Do you realize that there are states in Mexico? Would Mexico eventually become a new mega-state in America? Would they deserve representation? Because deep down, every American citizen would feel that they aren"t real Americans. Why? Because they aren"t they"re Mexicans. Mexicans have different laws and extremely different standards for everything in their culture. How would the US bring Mexico up to standards without spending billions of dollars. Would the people lost their culture to Americanize? Would they resent this? Religion is a major part of their culture and will conflict with US freedoms. Need I go on?

Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 1
PolicyDebateBob

Pro

PolicyDebateBob forfeited this round.
jdoe0

Con

jdoe0 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PolicyDebateBob

Pro

PolicyDebateBob forfeited this round.
jdoe0

Con

jdoe0 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No votes have been placed for this debate.