The problem with this approach is that illegals will still come from countries further south. Just like they do today.

But, but those are brown people. You really think that the US will send $20 billion to Mexico when it spend $20 billion on a border wall and prisons. Please. It's nice to have a selective memory. Look at the coded racism that occurred during Katrina and is occurring now in the so-called immigration debate. We can't even rebuild New Orleans and we supposed to help Mexico. Yea right.

The idea that we could neutralize the immigration problem by improving the lot of the common folks in Mexico seems to be worthy of a hard look.

Even if as a consequence the more skilled and upwardly mobil Mexicans would continue to be drawn here, this would be a vast improvement over the current situation. These would not be fence jumpers.

For this to happen in a republican administration, though, it would be necessary for us to first attack and defeat Mexico.

To help Mexico raise its living standards is a laudable idea, and would in all logic decrease the flow of mexican migrants (about 70% of all illegals), who risk death to come to the US because of the impossible living conditions they are caught in. But while it may have worked in Europe for Portugal and Spain, these countries didn't have the culture of corruption which is now engrained in Mexico. Any large foreign aid plan to Mexico would run the risk of getting diverted into the pockets of the rich and super-rich Mexican ruling classes.

Some caveats should be added to this European success story, though.

While it's true that the European integration programme was a success for Spain, Portugal, Italy and -- especially -- Ireland (the "Green Tiger" of Europe) it has not been that successful for a country like Greece. And Germany has been throwing money at its formerly communist eastern part like there is no tomorrow (we are talking several trilion euros here), and is only now starting to reap the benefits.

What's more, the integration of several East European countries already risks to overstretch the European integration programme. One reason the UK and Tony Blair were easily out-manoeuvered (again) by France and Germany (even though it was, at the time, presiding over Europe) is because it threatened to lower the amount spent over the former Eastern bloc countries. Integrating the poorest would-be candidates, countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, will probably be a huge burden for Europe for decades.

Finally, it is sad to note that many european politicians (Vlaam Bloks in Belgium, Front National in France, National Front in the UK, etc) are also playing the race and immigration card these days, even among the mainstream conservative parties. It may well be that the countries that are the most in need of a Marshall plan are the African and North African countries. Most of these countries are full of smart, hard-working people who cannot make a living in their countries, and are forbidden to emigrate to Europe, even for studying.

The shame of Europe is probably that it is spending so much money helping poor Europeans, and so few helping poor Africans. Many of whom end up dying in horrible conditions, trying to reach the European "Eldorado".

I agree that more U.S. and Canadian involvement in Mexico is a necessary step in eliminating the cause of illegal immigration. The disparity in the standard of living between Mexico and Canada/U.S. is undoubtedly the cause. However, something that has to be acknowledged is Mexico's shadow economy: drugs. The drug trade is a trillion dollar business and permeates all levels of Mexican government. U.S. drug policy makes trafficking a very lucrative business and Mexico cannot wean itself from the drug trade and its corrupting influences until the economic incentives of insane U.S. drug laws are eliminated.

Now we are supposed to give aid to Mexico to keep it from exporting its workers to the US!

Instead, how about spending that $20 billion in the US to retrain American workers who are displaced by Mexicans? How about the Mexican government raising taxes on its richest citizens -- and enforcing its own tax laws so it can invest in its own economy? How about Mexico eliminating its own corruption and the incompetent management of its oil wealth?

Facts: The Mexican GDP is about the same as Canada's. Mexicans in the US send about $20 billion per year to Mexico. Why doesn't the Mexican government help its own people? Answer: it's easier and more profitable to send them to the US so they will send money home. Any comparison between the EU assisting its poorer members and the US assisting Mexico is laughable. There are requirements that must be met before joining the EU. Mexico wouldn't get to first base.

Ever since we started talking about NAFTA the inequality of the partners has been stark. When we make this kind of pact between really strong economies and very exploitive economies, the 'averaging' that occurs will not leave the stonger economy as strong. I don't understand why so many really smart people ignored this simple reality. I doubt that in the long run, any of the advocates of this will have benefited. Only in the short term -- the next earnings report, the next election. Not ever considering things in the context of our future as a country.

-Or South Africa...in those days...and the rest of Africa.

-Really a matter of concentrations, osmotic gradients

and membrane/borders..all going, of course,to demographic shifts.

-Another point for 'self-organizing principles' and their 'emergent phenomena'.

Wow, this topic has produced a goldmine of ideas! The comparison of Europe/Africa and US/Mexico made my mind explode. After picking up the pieces of my shattered gray matter, I read on and yet again, my brain got blown inside out. Alas, I'm afraid there may be nothing left remaining in my head to write a comprehensible post that can top all this. However...

On the topic of Mexican government corruption, I always have to laugh when people in all their glorious naivety say this with a trailing implication intended. You know what I'm talking about. That unsaid politicoreligious doctrine lurking in the statement -- that their own country of origin has somehow magically outgrown corruption. That their country is above it all.

I have to chuckle particularly when Americans say it because it shows that there are as yet far too many still terribly uneducated people in the matter of how blatant their own political corruption is. Keep spreading the word. Recap for naive shmucks since 2000: Ballot box scams; suspicious relationship of 9-11, Bush and Saudi family; imaginary WMDs; defiance of UN council by doing a "pre-emptive" strike (aka killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians for one lunatic dictator which will now naturally aid in a growing fight against American imperialism); Halliburton and the war machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton); Katrina; Iraq; Offending Canada; Offending Mexico; Offending multiple countries at once; ... et cetera ad nauseum infinitumque).

In Canada, people would find someone daft if they were to actually suggest that they believe Canada were above it all, considering former Prime Minister Paul Martin's own under-the-table dealings (http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000307.html). Then again, perhaps our cultures are such where Canadian comedy is usually in the form of political satire, whereas in the States people wish to burn comedian Stephen Colbert (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml) as the Antichrist after poking fun at the Commander-And-King.

So in the case of Mexican corruption, let's all grow up together. Has it ever occured to anyone that the insane U.S. drug laws as a previous poster puts it, those laws that even Canadians have wildly different views on (eg: medical use of cannabis), is really just another example of US government corruption? A sensible person with an IQ above 12 will eventually start to realize that the US drug laws have gone well beyond simply protecting the public from harm and have mutated into a demented fascist agenda to control with clockwork-orange precision the lives and individual choices of what are supposed to be mature adults. Remember the good ol' days when people over 18/19 (21 in some countries) had personal choices? The US is now an overextended Evangelist church with Bush as the once-alcoholic-turned-righteous Saviour. He has a vendetta against personal choices so kiss abortion and woman's vote goodbye. Say? Isn't alcoholism a form of drug abuse? While we're on that crazy train, is there a connection between steroids becoming a controlled substance (http://www.steroidlaw.com/images/steroids_0002.wmv) and the rise in obesity? Governor Schwarzenagger likes to tell obese kiddies in their public school gym how steroids are bad... but wasn't it steroids that eventually got him his government position in the first place via decades of oiling his unnatural pecs in front of a camera to the admiration of a drug-naive audience? Could I be the only reasonably sane person left on the planet? Now, the next generation of fat schoolchildren will lump Arnie's advice in with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Reverse psychology. Get it? Brilliantly played, Arnie, brilliantly played. I wonder if Arnold secretly owns a Mexican farmacia. That would be sweet! Ah, what an idea trove the Drug War scam is. I could go on forever.

We may find all the excuses in the book to justify why we think our country is above it all, but unless you would like to continue to live George Orwell's literary dystopia (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/), I think you're probably ready to unplug from the Matrix (http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/) and join a new war. A war on intellectual complacency. There's a reason why the Athena Goddess of Wisdom carries a spear. Don your armour.