I've been saying for a long time that the solution to illegal immigration is to annex Mexico. First it's no longer illegal to immigrate then. Second, we might actually improve the local economy in Mexico, making there less of a population drift from south to north.
We need the population to create the worker base that we're lacking in the US. One reason that unemployment has been historically low (until very recently) is because we simply grow our economy faster than our population. Hence outsourcing to other nations. It's not just that it's cheaper, often you actually can't find people who want the jobs here.
That's hard to believe to anyone who looks at the unemployment statistics, I know. But I was involved in moving a call center to India, which we felt no guilt in doing, since the outsourcing company that we were using in the US could not keep itself properly staffed. Nobody wants that job, apparently. In the US, part of the unemployment statistics are based on people passing on jobs that they consider beneath them, demeaning, or just which they feel don't pay enough.
I mean... if you want to work at McDonalds, are you telling me that they're all out of positions there? I don't think so. But we need people to work there, because that brings profitability to the shareholders.
Interesting fact, the Asia Times recently reported that, while China's GDP has gone up substantially in the past decade, their average income has not budged one iota. Think about that, how can that be? Where is the money going? You get one guess.
Right, it's coming to the USA. To the companies doing their factory outsourcing in China. The only problem with this is that, since their economy is still developing, and wages have yet to rise, this causes local issues with wage deflation. Same with jobs sent to Mexico.
The solution to this? Put all of the countries on a level playing field, and have wages everywhere balance out in the long run (yes, after dealing with the tough questions of infrastructure and the like). The people in the developing nations benefit by higher wages, and then wage depression doesn't occur with outsourcing here. Already jobs are moving out of India because their economy has boomed so much that the wage differential has become less and less (I have first-hand figures on this).
I think that we're a ways off yet. But it's the eventual solution to the world's economic woes to have them all - more or less - be "Americans" at some point. We're not importing tribute, we're exporting productivity. An easy way to do that locally and equitably in North America is to all be playing by the same rules, because we have one elected body representing all of us. Enfranchise Mexico and Canada.
Yes, small-minded people will worry that the specific form of the liberties that they have become used to will be abrogated. But it won't happen until there's a compromise. Let's not adopt the Canadian Constitution, nor the Mexican, nor the US Constitution. Let's adopt a well constructed NAU Constitution. We did it before, when we needed something new to separate us from the English crown. Now it's time to do it once again to deal with the realities of a world made smaller by the technologies of our time, and economies of grand scale.
Yes, the US Constitution has never been improved upon... yet. But it's not a perfect document, as Jefferson et al were merely human. Let's make a new document to form an even more "perfect union."
What would be sinister is if the people meeting in secret suddenly came out and said that they were taking over, and putting their rules into place, and we all had to accept them. But, really, what are the chances that they could make that work? You'd have the American Revolution all over again. Except that the army would side with us in this case, and they'd all be dead in 24 hours. They're not stupid enough to try.
No, they'll have to come up with a marketing campaign, and sell it to the people. And once out in the open, we'll have the choice to buy or not.
Looking closely at the three constitutions in question, they are remarkably similar in general (you can't be surprised, considering that both were modeled after the US Constitution), and the specific variations don't look too problematic. Here are some potentially contentious areas.
1. Why it should be contentious, I don't know, but the right to bear arms is different in each country. The US is the most liberal on this, in theory, but in practice the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to arm bears does not extend to just any sort of arms. In practice the debate goes on around the level of assault weapons. Few people actually support a ban on all arms (Kitchen knives, anyone?) and few support allowing any weapon (home nuclear defense?). In practice it's pretty reasonable on both sides.
In Canada, there is no constitutional right, but in practice people do have some rights to have arms. Often they are very restrictive locally (some are required to keep them at gun clubs, etc), but, again, few enough are pushing for complete bans that it's unlikely that it'll ever happen.
In Mexico, there's a right to bear arms in the home, which arms to be determined by what is reserved for the military - in practice determined by federal law. The supreme court rules on the decisions, so it's effectively like it is in the US. Like in the US there is a lot of gun regulation in Mexico (even more, perhaps), but also even more non-compliance with these regulations. But gun fans in the US will like it if the language of the constitution specifically mentions guns in the home instead of just "for purposes of creating militias."
Basically Mexicans would be fine, I think, with our system, or we with theirs. The government would be less worried about the guns being in the hands of the rebels, I think, because there would be less rebels (I could be wrong about that, however). Canadians would be like "do we really need a specific right to bear arms? Eh, well OK. As long as it's interpretable reasonably."
I don't think it's really much of an issue.
2. Multiculturalism/Language. The constitution would have to recognize Spanish as an official language of the union. This is, to me, a fait accompli in the US anyhow. We would also have to recognize french, or let Quebec go it's own way. I'm pretty ambivalent there. In any case I have no problem with three great languages being the languages of the Union. I can already speak Spanish, however (and a petit bit of French), so I may be biased there. We'd also have to accept language that made multiculturalism equality part of the constitution. This would be, essentially, a final adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. This, too, is a fait accompli in the US, with lots of legislation that's already occured to enforce it.
What... we're thinking we want to be able to take away somebody's rights with less than an ammendment? The harm involved? I find hilarious conservatives who, on one hand, harp about abrogation of their liberties, but then on the other hand, don't want language specifically giving rights to specific groups. Seems a tad hypocritical. But, that said, I think that if you had some strong language about how the constitution applies to absolutely everybody, that might well suffice. With Obama in office you can aruge "what glass ceiling do we need to shatter with specific language?"
3. Freedom of the Press - we might have to adopt this. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such freedom in the US, but there is in Canada and Mexico. In the US, such cases are argued as extensions of the freedom of expression from the bill of rights. And they usually lose, in fact. The press doesn't have the right, for instance, to refrain from telling the police their source if it relates to a case (popular TV scenario). They might with a freedom of the press ammendment.
I think American's could swallow this if it were well crafted. As an extension of protecting the general freedom to communicate without government interference.
4. Separation of church and state might change slightly. If worded well, I think this would be both acceptable to people, and would get rid of a lot of the current controversy over things like decorating public parks and buildings, school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, etc. The "establish a state church" clause is simply too interperable as it stands. What constitutes that? Let's spell it out more clearly.
5. Native American rights. These might have to be strengthened in a new constitution, over the US model, as Canada has some specific language, and in Mexico being a Native American means being part of the citizenry by definition. That is, the goverment would probably not have the current pretty much complete authority to do whatever they want in terms of dealing with treaties and such. We might have to honor our word. Heaven forfend.
Can anyone else see any big differences? Yeah, sure, lots of small details to bang out. But folks already talk a lot about modifying things like the Electoral College system to bring it up to date.
Where the real difference would occur is that, I would hope, enforcement would change. Hopefully to comply with the standards of the RCMP.
Once you have fair and effective enforcement of rights and laws, that's where the balance begins, and the payoffs start.
Mike