The Case for Annexing Mexico and Canada

My first argument is Manifest Destiny—the most Alpha political theory doctrine ever conceived.

Why should the United States expand? Because it is evident that expanding is excellent, and we are excellent, therefore we must expand. Consequently, we should expand. QED. Public political thought isn't what it used to be.

More specifically, Manifest Destiny says that the exceptional dynamism of the United States makes American expansion across North America a foregone conclusion. There's nothing to debate or discuss. It's a political theory doctrine that says there's no need for philosophical reflection or justification—pure Thrasymachian assertiveness, with a literary bent to boot. You have to love it.

The question is: Why did we stop at Mexico in the south and Canada in the north? In the 19th century, the real theoreticians of Manifest Destiny had in mind the entire continent from Baja to the Bering Strait. Unfortunately, this vision, which captivated the minds and ambitions of a whole generation of American men, has been entirely memory-holed.

Today, kids are taught that Manifest Destiny was an old program, executed unjustly and completed in the late 19th century.

I say that Manifest Destiny is a timeless idea, which was once attempted timidly and then aborted.

I say that Manifest Destiny has never been tried.

It's not as farfetched as it seems. There are many reasons why we might consider it ethically sound and politically pragmatic for the United States to annex Canada and Mexico.

Let's start with Mexico because it's the more straightforward case.

The Case for Annexing Mexico

First, the current Mexican government does not possess sovereignty over its claimed territory. Mexico is in a low-key civil war where drug cartels have more power than the Mexican government in some parts of the territory. Since there is not one sovereign government but rather competing factions, it would be ethically defensible for the US military, or a large band of American vigilantes, to join the mix and become one of the factions competing for sovereignty.

Second, there is a defensive warrant for the United States to annex Mexico because the drug cartels are now conducting offensive military operations against the United States. The cartels have now industrialized the human trafficking of illegal immigrants across the US border for profit. They recently introduced a wristband system to optimize their pipeline.

US law enforcement watches this happen daily. Whatever you think about immigration, this is a systematic affront to US sovereignty. If the Mexican government cannot stop it, the United States military has every right to stop it. Assuming neither the Mexican government nor the cartels would abide by this intervention, the US military should consider invading and conquering all of Mexico.

Third, the sheer number of Mexicans who want to migrate to the United States suggests that the American annexation of Mexico is the will of the Mexican people. Annexation of Mexico is the democratic solution that best respects Mexican popular sovereignty. Every day we do not invade and conquer Mexico, we exclude millions of poor Mexicans from a better life in America. If you support Mexican migrants illegally crossing the border into the US, and you think it's inhumane to prosecute or deport them, then you cannot oppose the American annexation of Mexico; that would be a brutal denial of fundamental human rights to millions of Mexicans.

Now, let's turn to Canada.

The Case for Annexing Canada

Many Americans would laugh at the idea of annexing Canada, which is seen as a first-world country. But Canada is not a first-world country. The overwhelming majority of Canadian people live right on the border of the United States, which shows that the majority of Canadian vitality is drawn directly from the United States.

Many Canadians, including government officials, explicitly believe that the Canadians stole the Canadian territories from Indian tribes. If Canadians believe their land rightfully belongs to Indian tribes, as the government frequently attests, then annexing that land would not be an offense against Canada but an issue to take up with the Indian tribes. Surely there is some deal the United States government could make with the Indian tribes, which would improve the sovereignty and resources of the Indian tribes relative to the status quo. Therefore, if the Canadian government truly respects the claims of the Indian tribes, then the Canadian government could not object to the United States annexing the land in partnership with the Indian tribes.

If the Canadian military does not agree, they are welcome to war with the United States military. Still, ethics would be on the side of the United States in cooperation with the tribes, in so far as the Canadian government itself prostrates itself before the Indian tribes. Anyway, the Canadian military would have no chance, so it's a moot point. Just as Canada depends on the American economy, so too is it dependent upon the US military, which is the effective provider of its security.

Finally, much of the uninhabited terrain of Canada (the overwhelming majority of its terrain) goes completely unused. It's a waste of natural resources and a great deal of beauty.

If we annexed Mexico, we would have more people traveling northward in the United States. All of the currently unused land of Canada could be settled by those Americans and Mexicans who still have a lust for life and a taste for exploration. Many Canadians living in the Canadian hinterlands are not ambitious pioneers but complacent drunks. Some are undoubtedly impressive and noble men sustaining vigorous local communities, but many are drunks doing not much at all. Ambitious and pioneering Americans and Mexicans would be good for the Canadian drunks, perhaps reawakening them from their torpor.

These are just a few reasons why the United States government should seriously consider the prospect of annexing Canada and Mexico. It's an exciting opportunity, which is far more ethically and pragmatically justified than most American policymakers currently believe.