It's obvious that the Conservative Establishment has dropped the ball on the National Question. That, in fact, is one of the main reasons VDARE.COM exists, and why you should support it. (Donate here ).

The Conservative Establishment, though it might pay some attention to illegal immigration from time to time, is either blissfully unaware about defending our sovereignty—or dead-set against it.

And some Establishment conservatives just tell us outright toc surrender.

For example, there is an absolutely horrible piece by Boston University professor Angelo M. Codevilla  in the June American Spectator, which I used to really enjoy but I don't read much anymore. TAS mostly ignores the Mexicanization of America. This article openly calls for it.

To begin with, the article's very title, "Pro-Mexico" is misleading. Does Codevilla mean to say that, if you oppose the Mexican takeover of the U.S., you are "anti-Mexico"? Are those the only two options? How about a conservative, old-fashioned belief that the U.S. and Mexico are separate nations and ought to remain so?

That happens to be my view—and I lived in Mexico for many years, my wife is Mexican and my children were born there.

Just read the article's first paragraph and you can already tell where it's going:

"For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, whether anybody likes it or not, the United States and Mexico are joined at the Rio Grande until the stars fall from the sky. What Geography hath joined together, let no man even think of putting asunder."

Yes, Angelo, we already know Mexico is our neighbor. However, if things continue as they are, Mexico will not be our neighbor; we will become part of Mexico. Is that what you want?

After the introductory paragraphs, the author provides some historical meanderings, about the Monroe Doctrine, etc., and discusses the U.S. takeover of the Southwest (which I have written about here). But then he writes that the reversal of that conquest is also inevitable:

"Twenty-first-century Americans would be well advised to keep in mind that the peaceful underlying mechanisms that ensured that this area would be Anglo are now working in the other direction, seemingly just as inexorably."

In other words, the Southwest—if not the whole country— is going to be Hispanic and that's inevitable.

Codevilla is aware of the enormous and rather recent explosion of the Mexican population in the U.S.:

"… by 1990, only some 2 percent of the U.S. population was Mexican-born. This changed rapidly. By 2008 12 million native Mexicans lived in the U.S. Together with 13 million persons of Mexican origin, Mexicans made up 9 percent of the U.S. population. By 2050, about one in five Americans will be Mexican or of Mexican ancestry. In sum, our Mexican neighbors are also part of us. They are unique among America's constituent ethnic groups in being numerous neighbors as well as relatives. There is nothing optional about this. The only question is whether our familial relationship will be functional or dysfunctional."

So Codevilla says the U.S. is being Mexicanized and there is nothing we can or should do about it.

Not only that, says the author, but this is all necessary. In so doing, Codevilla repeats the standard, insulting myths about our economy:

1. The myth that Mexicans do jobs Americans won't do.

2. The myth that, as Codevilla says, "…American young people's avoidance of serious science and math means that if we are to have scientists and doctors, they will have to come from India or China."

3. The myth that immigration will save Social Security and Medicare.

It's sad, though not alas surprising, that the writer for a supposed conservative magazine would be a purveyor of such misleading propaganda.

Regarding the old saw that Mexicans do the jobs Americans won't do, is Codevilla not aware that they work for much cheaper than Americans can? (For labor/immigration issues, see previous VDARE articles here, here and here.)

For the myth that all our science workers have to come from China and India, needs a good dose of Rob Sanchez articles, here, here and here.

And as far as the ridiculous idea that mass immigration is going to save social security, check out these previous VDARE.COM articles here.

In the next paragraph Codevilla says how great emigration supposedly is for Mexico.

But does emigration really help Mexico? In a number of past articles I've pointed out some negative effects: Does Emigration Really Help Mexico?, Deadbeat Dads Don't Stop at the Rio Grande, Mexican Emigration Versus Economic Development, and How to Help Mexico—Close the Border!

Even Guillermo Ortiz, chief of Mexico's Central Bank, has said that a stricter border would help Mexico.

The bottom line for those who truly want to help Mexico: there are many ways to do so besides flooding the U.S. with Mexicans – that is, unless your real goal is to transform the U.S.

And that says more about your attitude to the U.S. than your attitude to Mexico!

This part of Codevilla's article is really ridiculous:

"For millions of ordinary Mexicans, a certain idealized image of America is the measure of things as they should be. This is as excellent for America as it is for Mexico. This is most visible in Mexico's northern regions, which have taken to calling themselves el norte, 'the north,' the popular name for the U.S."

Uh, actually, they call northern Mexico "el norte" because that means "the north" and it's the northern part of the country!

Codevilla celebrates the idea that northern Mexico and the U.S. border region could merge:

"This is in part because life around places like Monterrey does approximate what one finds just north of the border. Indeed, anyone traveling within 200 miles or so of that line is likely to see less and less difference between life on the two sides. A plebiscite on the southern side of this band would likely indicate a preference for joining the U.S., while on the northern side the increasing proportion of Mexicans might tip the balance in favor of accepting accession."

Northern Mexico is definitely more prosperous than southern Mexico. But it's still part of Mexico and its people still identity with Mexico.

Also, note that Codevilla notices "the increasing proportion of Mexicans" north of the border—and doesn't even seem to care if they assimilate and identify as Americans.

The next section discusses Mexico's diversity and the political scene. But like so many American commentators on Mexico, Codevilla sees the currently-ruling PAN (National Action Party) as "conservative" and "pro-U.S.". But, although in many ways the PAN may be preferable to other Mexican parties, it is not a Mexican version of the Republican Party. Economically, it is a left-wing party by U.S. standards.

As far as being "pro-U.S.", the PAN is still a Mexican political party. It's not the job of a Mexican political party to be pro-U.S.

I'd just settle for an American political party that was pro-U.S.!

When Vicente Fox was elected in 2000, we heard a lot of excited rhetoric about his being "pro-U.S.". And throughout his presidency, we were told that we had to do what Fox wanted or the anti-Americans would get in power. In the 2006 election, people like Dick Morris (who was on the payroll of Vicente Fox and probably Felipe Calderon) assured us that if Calderon didn't win, then Hugo Chavez was on the verge of taking over Mexico. So, Morris told us, we needed to support more Mexican immigration pronto!

But how "pro-U.S" was Vicente Fox really?

The pro-American Vicente Fox administration opposed us in international forums, meddled in our labor law and in our military , offered Mexico as a haven for murderers, worked to win the loyalty of Mexican-Americans, threatened to negotiate with wartime enemies, flooded our cities with dubious documents to aliens, used Mexican consulates to meddle in our internal affairs and in general, did everything possible to sabotage our immigration laws.

Is that "Pro-U.S."?

Anyway, Codevilla says that different Mexican political parties (all of whom, by the way, agree that Mexico should meddle in U.S. immigration policy) have different visions, and then he says it's our fault if the wrong "vision" prevails in Mexico:

"Which vision prevails among Mexicans in the future, what kinds of neighbors we will have south of the border, as well as the character of our Mexican-American relatives on the north side, must depend to some extent on how we Americans handle some of our thorny problems. The beginning of wisdom about this is that they are ours. So far, the U.S. body politic has handled them in a way that seems calculated to turn Mexicans into enemies."

Oh, so it's our fault if the wrong vision prevails. And as for the Mexican-Americans he mentions, aren't they Americans? Or is Codevilla admitting (again, tacitly) that many of them are more Mexican than American?

Codevilla follows up with three of these problems: Drugs, Trade and Immigration. On drugs, I agree with Codevilla. Our "War on Drugs" has been a failure and our drug users are financing the Mexican drug cartels. Maybe legalization is the best option.

As for free trade with Mexico, that's a mixed bag with winners and losers on both sides of the border. The bottom line though is that in today's environment it's being used to merge the U.S. and Mexico, which is apparently what Codevilla wants anyway. After all, he writes that "Increasing the economic integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico makes even more sense politically than it does economically."

Near the end of his article, Codevilla sums it up and assures us we'd just better accept integration:

"Note well, however, that current U.S. policies on trade, immigration, and drugs cannot possibly stop or even slow appreciably the integration of the U.S. and Mexico. Much less can they separate the United States' well-being from Mexico's.  All they can do is continue to make the two peoples' growing interdependence into a source of trouble for both. These three sets of policies have in common that they cannot achieve their stated ends, and that they tend to make Americans and Mexicans each others' enemies. "

Note that Codevilla says that U.S. policies "cannot possibly stop…the integration of the U.S. and Mexico."

This is disputed by the fact that his own article makes clear that immigration from Mexico was effectively prevented at various points in U.S. history, with the result that the Mexican-American population is historically quite new.

We must be careful when an "expert" assures us that something is "inevitable". Often, what he calls "inevitable" is just what he wants to happen anyway.

There is nothing here about the differences in culture between the two countries, and what a Mexicanized U.S. might be like. That's simply off the table, you better just accept what is happening, you have no say in the matter.

That is Codevilla's decree to the conservative peasantry.

Thankfully though, not all of The American Spectator's readers are buying this hook line and sinker. A good letter (scroll down, entitled Hechos, Por Favor) by Charles Johnson eviscerates the piece.

Furthermore, there are plenty of reader comments taking Codevilla to task for this arrogant piece of defeatist propaganda.

Here's a comment by Dave Lincoln,

"If you want the truth on this issue, you've got to go to www.vdare.com.  Obviously, the Spectator is not up to the task on this issue. "

Bravo! I recommend that VDARE.COM readers scroll down to the bottom of the article and add their own comments. (Be polite of course!)

We shouldn't allow Establishment "Conservatives" lead us into surrender without a fight.  

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here and his website is here.