On NRO the other day, the estbalishment Right's sometime immigration maven fantasized about colonizing Mexico:
Does Schlesinger actually think the Mexican War was a bad idea? I suppose we can debate its origin. As for its outcome, it seems indisputable to me that it made possible the spread of liberty over a large portion of North America. The tragedy is that the United States didn't grab even more territory back when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed — today, Baja California could be like a southwestern version of Florida, Monterrey could flourish like Phoenix, etc. Do the ends ever justify the means? Seems to me that in 1848, they sure did. Good thing Schlesinger was not a member of the Polk administration.
But why stop at Baja California? Why not go all the way down to the Tierra del Fuego?
What Miller has given us is a good example of why Latin Americans (also Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, Africans, and just about everyone else) don't much like the Yanqui. In order to make the world more like Phoenix — Miller might as well have said Dallas or Houston — the United States should run roughshod over other countries' sovereignty and other people's property rights. The ends, as Miller admirably admits, justify the means. We'll invade your country and seize your land for your own good, so you, too, can have the privilege of living in flourishing exurbs.