James K. Polk, the 11th president of the United States and UNC-Chapel Hill alumnus who was less appreciated by Americans, unintentionally solved today’s ongoing controversial and troublesome immigration problem. Bearing the ideal of “manifest destiny,” Polk intended to expand the U.S.’s territory to the coast of the Pacific Ocean. Inevitably, United States went to war with Mexico in 1846 in defense of Texas’ independence from Mexico and its statehood within the United States.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed as the war ended. Under the treaty, Mexico recognized the U.S. annexation of Texas, and agreed to sell California and the rest of its territory north of the Rio Grande for $15 million plus the assumption of certain damages claims. Under Polk’s administration, the United States also acquired the Oregon territory from the hands of the British. This tremendous amount of land in the southwest and on the west coast later formed the states of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.
Annexation of the southwest territory, in fact, solved the problem of illegal immigration all in once: residents in the original territory were able to become the citizens of the United States and allowed to travel, settle and work in other states freely. There is no such thing as “illegal immigration” or “undocumented workers” anymore in one country. Of course, in order not to break the record of a peace period lasting more than one century, voluntary annexation is still possible and doable.
If Mexico voluntarily joined the Union and Congress agreed, it would save both countries plenty of money dealing with the influx of migrants and controlling the border. Now, the border between the two countries is approximately 2,000 miles, compared to a few hundred miles under the “treaty” of annexation.
In contrast, building a wall along the border is extremely costly. First, what height should the wall be and what material should be used? If too low, undocumented immigrants could still make ladders and climb over, or just dig a hole underground to get around it. Second, building a wall does not mean that the government is able to reduce the employment of border patrons. Instead, more people would be sent to the border to monitor the wall climbers. Third, even if the wall is secured, illegal immigrants could take risks and travel through the ocean to land in the America soil. Basic psychology says that humans by nature want to see what the other side of the wall looks like.
A wall along the border is a symbol of weakness, timidity and protectiveness. The Great Wall of China was built to fend off the Mongols attempting to invade the empire. However, the Great Wall had been proven to be very ineffective as it did not bring a prolonged period of peace in China, nor did it save the empire from being trampled by Mongols’ fearless fleets.
People seeking immigration are motivated by dreams of a better life, a better standard of living at least. Economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson are right by comparing an American town and a Mexico one along the border in terms of their standard of living and other development criteria. Yes, I believe the United States has better institutions and laws than Mexico that provide grounds for individuals who work hard and thrive. Under the U.S. rule, California and Texas are the most successful states in terms of business and economic growth. This might not have happened if the territory were still under Mexican control.
A wall of protection has never been as effective as it claims. China ultimately abandoned the Great Wall as a defense facility. The Berlin Wall has been torn down, as it failed to stop Eastern Germans from fleeing. Therefore, annexation of Mexico is a good deal for both countries, though the Star-Spangled Banner might be a little crowded with 31 states added to the Union.
