Mexico Is Gonna Sue Us.
On Fox News today, I have been hearing about how Mexico is going to sue the United States of America, if we put National Guard troops on the border.
The only thing I can say is what a crock!:turd:
"We want the assurance on the part of the U.S. government that the National Guard will not, in any case, do the work of the Border Patrol," said Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal.
Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station that if the Mexican government detects such activity it will "immediately" file a lawsuit in U.S. courts through local Mexican consulates.
My main TV news down here comes out of Alb., New Mexico. Naturally, NM is one of the states on the front lines of all this. The Alb reporter explained that in order to do a proper job, they would need 6,000 National Guard members to do the task. Currently, New Mexico has 70 guardsmen assigned to do duty with "La Migra." The NM officials expressed the hope that Guard units from "interior states" would be sent down to help out, and the NM officials are complaining that W. has not suggested how his plan can be implemented.
Hmmmm, then we'll just have to start watching Mexico [:bitching:] for activity indicating the development of WMD. I'm sure we could find some. I expect that the new government we establish for them wouldn't be interested in such lawsuits. :eyebrow:
They're getting
billions of dollars a year sent to them by the illegals here...you don't expect them to give that up without a fight, do you?
Hmmmm, then we'll just have to start watching Mexico [:bitching:] for activity indicating the development of WMD. I'm sure we could find some.
Why? We couldn't find any in Iraq. What makes you think Dubya and his arrogant fucking crowd have learned anything?
For about the 1,000th time, people here in the US (legitimately) need to step back and ask "Quo bono," who benefits?
Try looking through this
series of eye opening articles from the Palm Beach Post.
I am not advocating that ANYONE come here illegally, but the people who make the profit off the illegals are the ones who should be stopped. US companies can pay substandard wages, treat illegals as little better than slaves, use children in the fields, provide substandard or even lethal living conditions and no one cares because the people who are treated this way are illegals.
The shame is far more at the doorstep of corporate America and the US Congress than it is at the illegals'. Corporate American benefits from the flood of illegal workers. Corporate America doesn't care that the rest of us have to pick up the tax bill in social services costs or that the illegals themselves are often treated worse than the avergage US born dog.
If Congress were to make an enforce a law that any employer found to be using illegals would be fined $100,000/worker for the first offense and $500,000 per worker for every offense there after, there would be no illegal immigration problem. And you can bet that the people doing the hiring would become very good at recognizing counterfit documents.
The Soviet Union had an excellent method of preventing its people from escaping through its borders. It shot them or sent them to the Gulag. The US could shoot to kill any one crossing the border in New Mexico, Arizona or Cali and ask questions later. Don't tell me that this xenophobic country doesn't have the stomach for that.
A better solution would be to go after the employers as outlined above. Either way, the US does not have an illegal immigrant problem - it has a greed problem and a congress that answers to corporate America, not the people.
Cut them off, completely, not just from cash, from all help, technology, military; all forms of scientific, economic, intellectual, pharmaceutical, agricultural, you name it... no help.
Until they can pay back ALL they owe us and then pay for anything they ask for, after dropping any suit, NOTHING, EVER...no matter what.
Ingrates.
Also, don't just drop people off across the boarder, air-lift their ass all the way down to an island off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula.
Sure, but make corporate America pay THEM back, first.
I love xenophobic, racist comments such as yours. Did you know that a significant percentage of illegals come from CANADA? (God knows why). Wanna drop them off in the Yucatan, AS WELL?
How is my comment racist?
Canadians come here and work without a visa for less than min. wage?
If we find illegal immigrants, fine, get rid of them, but the Canadian government is not actively trying to undermine our attempt to reclaim our nation.
Racist? I really want you to explain that one? Mexico is a nation not a race. LOL!
Oh, please. Being disingenuous does not suit you. :eyebrow:
Ironic, that post is the disingenuous one.
Every time someone in this illegal immigrant argument gets backed into a corner they yell racism.
I asked you specific questions. If you can't answer them, fine, slinging insults, just makes you look bad.
they are called ILLEGAL immigrants for a reason , they broke the law and should be delt with accordingly . Period.
What the hell is Mex going to sue us about , securing our borders !!!!
FUCK THEM !!!
if life was better down there then folks wouldn't HAVE to sneak accross the border just to make enough money to support their familys .
Hell we should sue THE MEX GUBMENT for back pay for takeing care of their citizens !!!!
Just my little rant , as this WHOLE issue Pisses me off !!!
Originally posted by Elspode
Why? We couldn't find any in Iraq. What makes you think Dubya and his arrogant fucking crowd have learned anything?
Exactly, I was being sarcastic by implying that we still have a bungling administration to unleash that will find a way to do to Mexico's government what it did to Iraq's, if push comes to shove with Mexico's interference in our domestic security. :comfort:
Wait, if there is a lawsuit who is going to pay for the translators? Gotta say I agree with Mari. It wouldn't stop them all but until there is a good reason for them to come through legally the problem will persist. Doesn't sound like ANYBODY is happy with Bush's plan either.
Originally Posted by MaggieL
They're getting billions of dollars a year sent to them by the illegals here...you don't expect them to give that up without a fight, do you?
Of course not. They took the Alamo; then, they lost the Alamo. I expect history to repeat itself at new level. If Mexicans could fight, they would have something more recent to celebrate than Cinco de Mayo. My sympathy goes out to the US casualties of the battles; but, I'm confident we will win the undeclared war on illegals. It simply isn't going to happen under this administration. It might not even have been an issue with this administration if we could still afford to support the illegals; but, we no longer can. We've blown too many of our resources on botched wars.
On Fox News today, I have been hearing...
"Well, there's your problem right there!"
I've been searching for news on this supposed lawsuit and managed to find
this goldmine of information in a Fox News article. (Really, try reading this article and see if it makes any sense to you. Mexican lawsuit! More buzzards than people! Texas speed limit shocks people from the east coast! What the hell was Hill smoking when she wrote this?
They call this news?)
Well, I did manage to find
this, too.
Jim Kouri, a security expert and staff writer for TheRealityCheck.org, warned in a column that the Bush administration could face a federal lawsuit over its plan to use National Guard troops to supplement Border Patrol agents.
So
therealitycheck.org is where this rumor is coming from? Someone from this slightly slanted website is
suggesting that Mexico
could file a lawsuit? Can we get some more information than that? Ah, here we go:
"A representative from Mexican President Vicente Fox claims that if the U.S. National Guard troops detain illegal aliens crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, the Fox government will file a lawsuit against the Bush Administration in U.S. federal court," Kouri wrote. "There are some political observers who believe that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is preparing to assist the Mexican government in such a lawsuit."
Really? Can we get a name of that representative? A quote, maybe? Whatever.
The ACLU, as I understand it, is simply trying to keep the administration in check for violating the posse comitatus act for not getting congressional approval, not file a lawsuit on behalf of Mexico. But, hey, it isn't as if there isn't precedent for the president bypassing congress on anything, lately... :rolleyes:
Okay, fine. Mexico sues us. The judge takes one look at the case and throws it out of court. Everyone goes home. The end.
Okay, fine. Mexico sues us. The judge takes one look at the case and throws it out of court. Everyone goes home. The end.
Depends where it's heard and by whom. I couldn't swear to you that there isn't a judge somewhere who wouldn't listen to arguments that
commitatus applies, or that the illegals are entitled to only have to go up against the unassisted Border Patrol or some such nonsense....especially given some of the whiney "they've earned the right to be citizens by sucessufully flouting the law for so long" arguments offered in all apparent seriousness by some in this debate.
The little thing that everyone forgets is that most of our national guard units are being kept busy in a place caled Iraq. Once again, the New Mexico governor said that it would take 6,000 guard members just to patrol the border of Mexico/New Mexico alone. New Mexico currently has 70 guard members who are are working down at the border. The other guardsmen are engaged elsewhere. Right now the entire thing is a moot point.
I agree it's unlikely to have much impact. To my mind the significance of this story is that Mexico actually feels entitled to sue over it.
Why can't we just move toward securing our borders and enforcing the laws that we already have?
*Anything* the US does is racist, or imperialist, or wrong somehow unless we are kowtowing and pandering to everyone else. We have a right to police our borders. People who are legally entitled to go back and forth will do so. People who aren't, won't. Anyone ever tried to get into Mexico illegally? Are they pretty much cool with that?
And playing the race card is just wrong. How is this racist? How is it wrong to enforce immigration laws, especially those which are the least restrictive in the world anyway? How in the world can anyone make a legal case against securing your own borders?
Patrick, it FEELS racist to me when 6% of illegals come from Canada, yet no vigilantes are patroling the Canadian border the way they are the Mexican one. It FEELS racist to me when during the depression era, there was a "repatration" act that rounded up AMERICANS born in the US of Mexican ancestry and illegally sent them "back" to Mexico.
It FEELS racist to me when the legal authorities go after the Mexican illegals but not the upper/middle class executives of US hotel chains and agribusiness who illegally hire these workers knowing full well that they have no green cards.
I have a friend I have mentioned before - he a Mohican Indian who grew up in Canada, has dual US/Canadian citizenship and served in the US military for 7 years. He tells me that every time he goes home, he had no problem with the CANADIAN officials at the border, it is the AMERICAN officals on his return trip that make his crossing miserable. He drives a high end sports car. Last crossing back to the US, the US border officials stopped him and said, "That sure looks like an expensive car. How'd you get it?" "I bought it" my friend replied. "We'll need to do some checking" was the response. My friend waited 5 hours while they desperately tried to prove his was a stolen car. Finally, they had to concede that the car appeared to be legally his and he was allowed back into the US. This FEELS racist to me.
Take a look at the
following web site and tell me if the whole thing doesn't FEEL racist to you.
I'm sure glad we don't run the legal system based on "feelings". Just possibly some of the difference between how things "feel" at the two borders has to do with the ways that they are and are not abused or violated. If only 6% of th eillegals are coning through from the north, I can certainly understand why the focus is on the 94% coming though from the south.
Attributing that to "racism" seems disingenuous, y'know? It "feels" that way to me, anyway...
Oh...by the way...the high-end Mohican sports car? Where was it registered? Can we assume your friend had the registration papers for it? Five hours to check the ownership of a US- or Canadian-registered vehicle certainly seems excessive; one has to wonder if there aren't some unusual circumstances involved.
Just a "feeling"...
I'm sure glad we don't run the legal system based on "feelings".
Could have fooled me. The sudden demand for new laws that comes from the American public seems to be based entirely on a newly fueled passion for a problem that has existed for years but only recently hyped up by distraction-oriented politics.
I don't think this was sparked by racism, mind you, but it is undoubtedly an element today.
Could have fooled me. The sudden demand for new laws that comes from the American public seems to be based entirely on a newly fueled passion for a problem that has existed for years but only recently hyped up by distraction-oriented politics..
Well, that's your feeling. :-)
If you think this is a new issue, consider the possibility that it's only new to you.
Perceptions on many matters is heavily colored by what elements of the culture you interact with, and if you spend a lot of time with people and media where anything negative about hispanics is silenced with the cry of "RACISM!", it might take a while for concern about the issue to filter through the self-censorship.
Also, not every concern that isn't on your personal political agenda qualifies as a "distraction".
Actually, according to a long-haul trucker friend who travels to the 49 contiguous states and Canada, the border between Canada and the US was tightened drastically following the 9/11 attacks. Whereas he was formerly able to quickly and easily pass both ways, the crossing is much tighter now. After 9/11, there was some speculation (now believed to be false) that some of the bombers slipped into the US from Canada because the border is so unguarded.
My trucker friend had to obtain a special ID card which involved a full background check so that he didn't spend hours at the border coming back into the US (the program is called F.A.S.T. - Free And Secure Trade). For a while there, before he got his card, it was ridiculous as he would sometimes cross back and forth several times a day. I listened to long cell phone rants about it :( .
The possibility even exists that passports or special ID cards will be required of everyone as of 2008 in order to visit either country.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=12192918&src=rss/domesticNews
Stormie
Perceptions on many matters is heavily colored by what elements of the culture you interact with, and if you spend a lot of time with people and media where anything negative about hispanics is silenced with the cry of "RACISM!", it might take a while for concern about the issue to filter through the self-censorship.
Or, it could be that I don't watch sensationlist 24-hour news programs or listen to AM radio talk shows enough to be as informed as the guy that had "deport these mexican invaders NOW!" lettered on the back of his pickup truck.
Also, not every concern that isn't on your personal political agenda qualifies as a "distraction".
Of course they aren't. This now highly emotional topic would never have been suddenly introduced to the American public as the #1 priority on the congressional agenda to take our attention away from middle eastern security issues or plummeting presidential approval ratings in order to give some republic party members some distance from their failings of their head man. It is important that we pay attention to this now. Not in 1998, not in 2000, and not even in 2001 when border security was a major issue following terrorist attacks. Illegal immigration is a priority in 2006, just because!
Patrick, it FEELS racist to me when 6% of illegals come from Canada, yet no vigilantes are patroling the Canadian border the way they are the Mexican one.
So...which is the bigger problem? Taking race completely out of it, which border is the bigger problem? I think it makes at least a little sense to focus on the biggest problem which happens to be our Southern border, which happens to be crossed by Hispanics. We don't need to secure our Southern border *because* they are Hispanics, we need to secure our Southern border because it is laughably porous. If millions of Hispanics can get across it, so can a couple of dozen malcontents with a suitcase full of plutonium. If nothing else, they'll be lost in the shuffle.
As to no enforcement of business, well, that's changing, too. In fact, I was just ordered by my corporate masters to review all my I-9 procedures and files and identify anyone who isn't legally qualified to work in the US. This is patently not racially biased, because there are people of foreign origin who work here who are *going* to have a problem, and people of foreign origin who aren't.
Is this whole mess an economic issue? Yup. Is it a security issue? Damn straight. But a racial issue? Hell, no.
Patrick, it FEELS racist to me when 6% of illegals come from Canada, yet no vigilantes are patroling the Canadian border the way they are the Mexican one.
What vigilantes are you referring to? I must have missed something.
Mari is referring to The Minutemen, the newish group of self-appointed border patrollers whose stated purpose is to help stop illegal immigration.
I'm pretty sure they have a web presence where you can read and join up, if memory serves. I'm not a fan of vigilantism, for the record, but then I'm not sure these guys have actually broken a law yet, so the jury is out on what they are doing.
Or, it could be that I don't watch sensationlist 24-hour news programs or listen to AM radio talk shows enough to be as informed as the guy that had "deport these mexican invaders NOW!" lettered on the back of his pickup truck.
Maybe. But who's dealing in stereotypes now? Would that be "racist" if you werent talking about white people? Surely it's as much a caricature as "the Frito Bandito"
Do you beleive you have fairly described the people who care about this issue
and have for quite some time? Was it on your radar before it got Congressional attention
and the illegals (and the US citizens who have found steady employment by NGOs serving them, themselves a not-inconsiderable political force) began demonstrating? Or were you (and they) content to let it languish until it looked like something might actually happen to jeopardize the status quo?
I'm pretty sure they have a web presence where you can read and join up, if memory serves.
You can apply. They're
quite selective about who they will allow to join.
Oh...by the way...the high-end Mohican sports car? Where was it registered? Can we assume your friend had the registration papers for it? Five hours to check the ownership of a US- or Canadian-registered vehicle certainly seems excessive; one has to wonder if there aren't some unusual circumstances involved.
Just a "feeling"...
Well. you can't get NOTHIN by me, I FEEL there is a mild hint of sarcasm in your question. :p My friend retired from the US army with the rank of Sargent, is a Microsoft certified programmer and always keeps his car plates and registration (in the US) up to date. The US officials claimed the delay was due to "computer" problems. While he waited, he counted the number of white folks with high end automobiles who were waved right on through. He stopped counting at around 200 or so.
While he waited, he counted the number of white folks with high end automobiles who were waved right on through. He stopped counting at around 200 or so.
Sounds like he should have filed a complaint. Of course,
I would have given him a hard time just for being an MCSE/MCSP or whatever. Come to think of it. I do still hold a MSFT certification myself. I'm a Product Specialist in Windows V3.1. :-)
...it FEELS racist to me when 6% of illegals come from Canada, yet no vigilantes are patroling the Canadian border...
It seems the Minutemen site is seeking volunteers for operations in Vermont and Minnesota...so apparently it's not true that there's nobody on the Canadian border.
Five hours to check the ownership of a US- or Canadian-registered vehicle certainly seems excessive;
Only if they were actually
doing something for those five hours.
Maybe. But who's dealing in stereotypes now? Would that be "racist" if you werent talking about white people? Surely it's as much a caricature as "the Frito Bandito"
That's funny -- I don't remember mentioning anything about anyone's race. But, stereotypical thinking is strange that way, isn't it?
Do you beleive you have fairly described the people who care about this issue and have for quite some time?
No, I don't think I've been fair in describing the people who have cared about this issue for sometime because I'm not aware of anyone other than the local produce companies in my area who have held an interest in it beyond the previous two months. This issue hit my radar the moment people here, and elsewhere, began debating it. Prior to that, I had heard very little concern about illegal immigrants and there was certainly no uproar/protests/anger until it hit the mainstream media. This doesn't mean that I find it to be a non-issue -- I do find it something to be concerned about, but I question the timing and genuine purpose behind it. For an crime that has
always been illegal, I find it suspect that there is more interest in the immigrants themselves rather than the corrupt law enforcement agencies that have turned a blind eye to it. Does that not "feel" strange to you?
I'm sure glad we don't run the legal system based on politics.
For an crime that has always been illegal, I find it suspect that there is more interest in the immigrants themselves rather than the corrupt law enforcement agencies that have turned a blind eye to it.
I don't think there's anything suspect about being interested in criminals when the subject is crime. Which law enforcement agencies do you believe to have "turned a blind eye to it" out of corruption?
I don't think there's anything suspect about being interested in criminals when the subject is crime. Which law enforcement agencies do you believe to have "turned a blind eye to it" out of corruption?
Exactly. It would really help with the debate if everyone stopped, took a breath, removed thier emotions from it (including any ideas about race), and just look at this issue for what it is. A crime.
We have laws. There is a reason for them, and until the laws either changed or are abolished, then the laws need to be enforced. Obviously, with an estimated half a million people crossing illegally every year, the job of enforcing our immigration laws is very, very difficult, however, they still need to be enforced to the best of our abilities and to the extent provided by our laws.
Now, you may not like those laws, and that is perfectly fine. Its great that in the US you can take whatever point on an issue and exercise your rights to say whatever you want about it. But if you don't like those laws, it doesn't mean that you can just disregard them, or break them, or help people break them. Because at the end of the day, it is still the law and illegals, wherever they are from and whatever race they are, are still breaking our laws and disrespecting our country. So if you don't like the laws, do something about it. If you don't like it, get em changed, or try to at least. Just do it legally. Take some notes of how civil rights leaders used our legal system to get changes that favored them. Do it peacefully, do it legally, and do it respectfully. But until that time comes, you better damn well expect that our law enforcement, our national guard, our immigration service will continue to enforce our existing laws the best they can!
I don't think there's anything suspect about being interested in criminals when the subject is crime. Which law enforcement agencies do you believe to have "turned a blind eye to it" out of corruption?
It’s called the Federal government. Even the State of Oklahoma had to start an Enron prosecution before Feds would prosecute. Or AIG - the NY State Attorney General had to prosecute because Feds would not investigate major campaign fund contributors. As a result of that investigation, we later learned AIG management even pilfered a trust fund setup by AIG’s founder just to enrich themselves.
Where are so many that intentionally 'fixed' CA's (West Coast) energy markets only for self serving profits? Not prosecuted and not even investigated. Where is the government following many $billions siphoned off by keeping power plants off line? Where is the prosecution of those people?
Where is prosecution of 1st Energy who intentionally - by repeated negligence - created a NE electric blackout?
Or who outted a CIA agent? So they throw in a fall guy - deja vue Watergate?
Or torture and international kidnapping approved of that the highest levels of government. Even Gen Miller, who is central to outright torture, is trying to retire early - probably to save any pension - before the criminals of one political party get removed from power.
Do you think Ambramoff is the whole K street corruption? Are you that naive to believe only Ambramoff and his closest friends were doing it all?
Funny. Same people who demand blind and total prosecution of immigration laws don't want those big criminal prosecuted. Show me where MaggieL strongly demands those above criminal actions be prosecuted. Why does she, instead, want to punish little people? Nazi - sorry - Republican/Democratic party member?
Is it criminal when a president goes off on a campaign fund raising trip to CA and to a birthday party in AZ for John McCain as New Orleans is attacked (as predicted) by Katrina?
It’s rather silly to blame immigrants for doing what is necessary when those who are criminally negligent at the highest levels of government and industry are not prosecuted (unless public outrage causes change). Laws currently written make illegal immigration necessary. Ameircan efforts even to undermine the Doha round of GATT also make illegal immigration necessary. Why do so many here ignore reasons why - and instead demand a Nazi like attitude only to blind law enforcement?
Those who have a political agenda and must avoid all underlying reasons, then blindly demand all laws be enforced. Fine. Laws say mandatory 5 years for marijuana possession. Another law we also should be prosecuting as if America was under terrorist attack. Oh. More Americans are in jail (by percentage) than any other nation in the world - mostly for drug possession. Therefore there are no jail space left for illegal immigrants. Just another little fact completely avoided by those who advocate blind Nazi justice. The purpose of American laws that make illegal immigration necessary and that make immigration laws so difficult to enforce are the problem. Therefore we must even blindly enforce immigration laws with jack booted agendas, but ignore one of the biggest cash crops from many states? Why a double standard? Thinking with a head hanging between the legs rather than use the one between shoulders?
A law is not just enforced because one has a 'big dic' and self serving political agenda. A law is enforced because it has a purpose. Even in this discussion are people blinded by propaganda so as to forget why we are more concerned with ‘purpose of the law’. Illegal immigration does not hurt America. And illegal immigration is due to other laws and political leaders who get rich from such laws that violate American principles.
Notice not once does MaggieL, et al discuss massive and anti-free trade laws that subsidize sugar, corn, cotton, etc. She, et al is not honest if she does not include WHY illegal immigration exists.
Most posters here have become so myopic as to not even discuss why America created its own illegal immigration problem. Blame others. Myopia and decisions based only in emotion is easier.
Previously, we even enrich lawyers at the expense of legal immigrants. Thousands of dollars to lawyers just to fill out forms intentionally written to require lawyers. Illegal immigrants are only a symptom. Why do what a scam auto mechanic does – fix symptoms – not fix the problem? A problem is demonstrated right here where MaggieL, et al did not start and finish by defining reasons for illegal immigration.
American leadership even advocates torture and kiddnapping - and denies they are even doing it. Therein lies the same reasons for illegal immigration - and corruption of CA energy markets, and pension fraud in GM, and K Street, ...
Well at least PA voters finally got balls. In a primary, they did something that PA voters never do. Never.voted out two most powerful They voted out incumbants. IOW they finally voted for America rather than a ‘nazi like’ allegiance to party power brokers. Those same party power brokers (and their mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh) even have many here avoiding why illegal immigration exists.
Are you a loyal communist (,et al) party member. Zieg Heil. You demand blind enforcement of laws rather than first learn why laws are broken and defective? This thread is full of posters who refuse to deal with the problem – a classic example of “85% of all problems are …”
Let's see. Anyone working a minimum wage (or less) job will end up in those Norristown welfare and hospital doles. But since most who do those jobs are illegals, then clearly the illegal immigrants are the problem. Kick out the illegals, and those same doles are going to other legal or illegal low wage employees. So why do we cover them? Illegal or legal - they are all the same future of America. Just another little fact ignored when citing who gets public assistance in Norristown - or how political agenda brokers spin the truth. All that money in Norristown for the working poor is what America always did. Why? That poor are some of the greatest future Americans. Notice how spin forgot to mention that important fact - who are some of America's most productive future citizens? Not long time legal Americans - who do the most complaining about immigrants.
Where do so many complaints about illegal immigration come from? From those who are America's least productive - those who are well beyond third generation immigrant. They don't look like us, don't sound like us; therefore must be evil. Deport them. Which head is being used to promote a political agenda?
It would really help with the debate if everyone stopped, took a breath, removed thier emotions from it
That cannot happen. Emotions are the only reason why this illegal immigration 'debate' exists. Logics, such as president who perverts international trade - making illegal immigration more necessary - just never gets discussed by those who avoid logic - the reasons why.
It’s called the Federal government.
Ah,
those guys. Should have known. Thanks for clearing that up.
We can always count on tw for a clear, succinct, dispassionate summary of...whatever it is he's always on about.
Are you a loyal communist (,et al) party member. Zieg Heil.
Congratulations...surely that is the most mixed metaphor of the year.
I don't think this was sparked by racism, mind you, but it is undoubtedly an element today.
That's funny -- I don't remember mentioning anything about anyone's race..
Short memory? :-)
Another thing is that the Rep party has brought up this debate at a most interesting nexus in our history. Someone (Kit?) has already made allusion to this. Lets deflect criticism from the war in Iraq; lets give the Rep's an issue to disassociate their affiliation with a president who is taking a nose dive in the polls. I know! Illegals! But God, forbid, lets not involve any Rep party contributors to war chests. As usual, we'll go after the group of law breakers least able to defend themselves; not the group of law breakers who sponsor all those expensive election year ads on TV and radio.
Hello?:eyebrow:
Ah, those guys. Should have known. Thanks for clearing that up.
We can always count on tw for a clear, succinct, dispassionate summary of...whatever it is he's always on about.
Your numbers from Norristown tell us anything logical? Those numbers demonstrate how dependant all low wage workers are on social services. Those numbers demonstrate how much government invests in the future of America. Those numbers tell us nothing about illegal immigrants getting a free ride. And yet you tried to make that claim.
Facts - dispationate and without emotion - repeatedly go right back to the source - the problem. Like it or not, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. But those who love a scumbag president instead say there is plenty of blame to go around. Are you one of the latter?
You have the option of defending reasons for massive illegal immigration - laws that make such immigration necessary. Instead you post:
... whatever it is he's always on about
Is that suppose to be logic - or emotion charged insult? You have posted diatrbes based in emotion. Now is time to be logical.
Cited are repeated examples of how government creates a need for illegal immigrants. Should I infer from your response that you cannot be logical - cannot dispute reasons for illegal immigration? Or that you simply don't want to address the problem - because it imlies Rush Limbaugh lies?
Numerous logical interpretations of your posts exist. Which one should we be using? Clearly you are diverting criticism of a president with long history of undermining America. Should we assume you are defending a scum bag president? Or do you have no defense of those who created this illegal immigration problem? All logical questions begging a "clear, succinct, dispassionate" reply. Why does this illegal immigration exist? Do we blame the symptoms - too many illegal immigrants?
Where do you once define a reason for problems? I did. So I am to be insulted? Or can you post a logical reply. Where is this reason(s) for illegal immigrants? So they can live off the citizens of Norristown?
Maggiel - you have long posted emotionally charged accusations of illegal immigrants. I have provided reasons why the problem exists and now challenge you to do same. Why does this problem exists- which should be easy if opinions were based in logical, dispassionate facts.
You have posted diatrbes based in emotion. Now is time to be logical...Should we assume you are defending a scum bag president?
Is your idea of "being logical" demonstrated by your last two posts? Because they sure look like "diatribes based in emotion" to me. Or is this just a demonstration of your "
Read? I only know how to write" tag line?
In fact, I think Bush's position on this issue sucks rocks. But then, if you'd read what I've already written extensively on the subject (instead of whipping yourself into a blind raging froth about Bush...
again), you'd know that.
Short memory? :-)
Small misinterpretation on my part.
I don't think this is based on racism, but I do hear a lot of comments suggesting it.
I'm still waiting for someone to actually suggest expansion of the INS beyond the mere 2,000 agents they have.
I've crossed the Canadian border many, many times. Never a problem going in, always a problem coming back.
I want all the illegal Nigerians out of MA so I guess I'm racist.:rolleyes:
The illegal immigration issue has grated on a lot of people for a very long time. So it's not surprising when it finally comes to the spotlight, so many people are eager to jump in with their long ignored opinion.
In fact, I think Bush's position on this issue sucks rocks. But then, if you'd read what I've already written extensively on the subject (instead of whipping yourself into a blind raging froth about Bush...again), you'd know that.
I asked a simple question. It is asked again because you (and others) never answered that question. Why does this illegal immigration problem exist? Are they just flocking across the border because we offer free hospital care in Norristown? Or does the problem exist for same reasons that created so much violence and smuggling even during prohibition? Arguing about symptoms - the numbers of illegals - tells us nothing. Why must they come to America? Why do we not, instead, employee (and get rich) so many productive people where they live?
Why must so many risk so much to come to America? A question not just asked of MaggieL. A qustion to everyone who has been posting only about symptoms of a problem called massive illegal immigration. A question asked because so many posts don't even consider that question. So many want to cure symptoms instead of first asking the real question - why must they come here in such great numbers?
Just reposting the same question bluntly - and without insults. MaggieL, you were never insulted. Just challenged to post what you have not posted. Same question posted - three times now - without a logical reply. Why must they come here in such great numbers?
I've crossed the Canadian border many, many times. Never a problem going in, always a problem coming back.
I want all the illegal Nigerians out of MA so I guess I'm racist.:rolleyes:
The illegal immigration issue has grated on a lot of people for a very long time. So it's not surprising when it finally comes to the spotlight, so many people are eager to jump in with their long ignored opinion.
Originally Posted by Kitsune
Could have fooled me. The sudden demand for new laws that comes from the American public seems to be based entirely on a newly fueled passion for a problem that has existed for years but only recently hyped up by distraction-oriented politics..
You
obviously have not spent
any time in FL or Southern CA, ever.
I asked a simple question. It is asked again because you (and others) never answered that question. Why does this illegal immigration problem exist? Are they just flocking across the border because we offer free hospital care in Norristown? Or does the problem exist for same reasons that created so much violence and smuggling even during prohibition? Arguing about symptoms - the numbers of illegals - tells us nothing. Why must they come to America? Why do we not, instead, employee (and get rich) so many productive people where they live?
Why must so many risk so much to come to America? A question not just asked of MaggieL. A qustion to everyone who has been posting only about symptoms of a problem called massive illegal immigration. A question asked because so many posts don't even consider that question. So many want to cure symptoms instead of first asking the real question - why must they come here in such great numbers?
Just reposting the same question bluntly - and without insults. MaggieL, you were never insulted. Just challenged to post what you have not posted. Same question posted - three times now - without a logical reply. Why must they come here in such great numbers?
Because people are not willing to take care of their own nation. They are not willing to buckle-down and do what they have to do the fix their own nation like we did during our hard times... they abandon theirs instead.
IWhy must they come here in such great numbers?
In summary: because as criminals here they get a vastly better deal than they can legally in their homeland. Medical care is just a part of that.
My guess its *that* is because their homeland is completely in the hands of thugs and crooks, and ours largely is not. Mexico is awash in oil, yet they bring in more money ($20 billion last year in reimttances) pimping their citizens here under the table to do yardwork, clean offices and pick crops at bargain basement rates.
Your question was answered long ago in the other two or three immigration threads. Your willingness to harrangue endlessly trying to hijack every thread to your favorite topic doesn't create an obligation on the part of others to respond. Have a nice day.
Now we're cracking down. (but it was on the US side headed into Mexico? Wha?)
We get more than Canadians coming across the border from the North.
About a month ago, US Customs caught 2 illegal aliens from Guyana as they were smuggled in by a Trinidadian truck driver in his trailer.
But a high dose of Gamma radiation was able to see them through the sides of his trailer. I wonder what their odds of getting cancer will be?
Now we're cracking down. (but it was on the US side headed into Mexico? Wha?)
Handy safety tip:
If you try to run over an armed cop with your SUV, he may shoot you.
Handy safety tip #2:
If you hide in cargo, you may be X-rayed.
You obviously have not spent any time in FL or Southern CA, ever.
You obviously don't know me. :p
Anyways, back to the point of the thread... if Mexico thinks they can sue the US for enforcing our immigration laws and protecting our borders, then to that I say "Bring it on"
I mean, the implications in the fact would be huge. The US has the right, and the responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders. We haven't done anything wrong in doing so, we're just making it more difficult for immigrants to come here as criminals. Any court should see that we, as a soverign nation, can and must do what must be done, within the limits of the law, to protect ourselves and our borders. With that in mind the lawsuit should be thrown out, but assuming it isn't then the next logical assumption would be that we are only taking a reasonable response to Mexico's lack of responsibility to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. If Mexico enforced their borders and acted to create jobs in their own country, there would be less incentive for immigrants to come here illegally.
[QUOTE=MaggieL]My guess its *that* is because their homeland is completely in the hands of thugs and crooks, and ours largely is not.[QUOTE]
:lol:
god, that's precious.
:lol:
[QUOTE=MaggieL]My guess its *that* is because their homeland is completely in the hands of thugs and crooks, and ours largely is not.
god, that's precious.
[/QUOTE]
If you really believe that's not the case, you're invited to move and let us know how much better it really is down there. If their government isn't crooked, where is all the oil money?
That's always the come back: move. come up with something fresh, will you?
"My country--Love It or Leave It"--right? :lol:
Ah, so you don't *really* beleive it.
As for "something fresh", you don't seem to be doing too well in that department yourself...one trivial disparaging sentence and a smilie won't get you very far.
"My country, love it or leave it" sounds like a pretty hollow accusation considering the topic of the thread is millions of Mexicans willing to break the law to leave it and come here.
You obviously don't know me. :p
Then you
know it has always been a problem and an issue.
Then you know it has always been a problem and an issue.
That is absolutely correct, but the one thing is that some how in the whole grand debate of things, it has become both the United State's fault for illegal immigration, as well as our responsibility to fix it. Why doesn't anyone take a look at the policies and practices south of the border and understand that they are promoting the illegal immigration of millions of people. Hell, for a while there, Mexico was supplying maps of the US at crossing points for illegal immigrants, among other things. There may be an economic incentive to come to the US, but there is just as much of an economic incentive to just get the hell out of Mexico. Mexico needs to do more to create jobs there, increase thier own standard of living, clean up their government, crack down on drug trafficing, and start enforcing their side of the border as well. Because if they don't, then it will be up to the United States to unilaterally move to protect our borders, whether it be with walls or the national guard or even making it a felony with jail time.
My guess its *that* is because their homeland is completely in the hands of thugs and crooks, and ours largely is not. Mexico is awash in oil, yet they bring in more money ($20 billion last year in reimttances) pimping their citizens here under the table to do yardwork, clean offices and pick crops at bargain basement rates.
IOW they are all evil because Americans pay corruption for the oil. Meanwhile the little guy for gets nothing for oil and tried to start his own business - agriculture being a best way to start a third world business. So he plants cotton. The US government issues massive subsidies to American cotton farmers (corporate welfare) so that American cotton sells in Mexico for less than he can grow it.
So he tries corn. But American subsidies intentionally applied to subvert free markets at the expense of foreign producers again quash that Mexican's business. He tries sugar. Same thing. He tries cattle. Same American government 'corporate welfare' quashes his business.
Meanwhile the Doha round of GATT to stop this American 'corporate welfare' is on the verge of collapse. Those 'so good and decent' Americans fear that evil countries will make us conform to free trade. And MaggieL, from her previous posts, completely approves.
Jose Mexicana and most of the world go to Cancun to demand that America stop quashing foreign businesses by enriching Archer Daniels Midland, et al., America, and France instead say FU. Cancun breaks up three days early. MaggieL does not care. Those evil Jose Mexicana got his just due.
MaggieL instead blames all this on Jose Mexicana. It’s all their fault. Because he cannot grow crops, he grows and exports drugs. After all, he is only providing what Americans desperately want. He is selling a product not massively subsidized by American corporate welfare. Or he goes to America to get a respectable job. No matter what he does, MaggieL still calls him evil. It is all his own fault.
One cannot blame Americans. They are the good guys. Rush Limbaugh tells me so. MaggieL cites her previous posts that says this is exactly how she thinks. Or maybe next time MaggieL will answer the question with an answer or a specific URL. Meanwhile I am simply summarizing MaggieL's latest answer.
Jose Mexicana now has no choice but to find jobs in a country that creates jobs by issuing corporate welfare.
What happens if we were a free trading nation? Archer Daniels Midland, et al either must sacrifice their record profits due to no corporate welfare AND move to Mexico and Central America where crops grow better. But we can't let that happen. Americans will lose jobs. And so we need millions of Mexicans and other Central Americans to do those jobs.
MaggieL instead blames it all on those evil Central Americans. She don't need no stinkin' facts. Somehow she just knows American oil companies don't pay corrupt Pemex officials for the oil. It’s all Jose Mexicana's fault that he cannot start a productive farm and that he does not get Americans to pay him oil money. Sounds like a repreaching of what Rush Limbaugh (drug addict and money launder like those evil Mexicans) preaches.
MaggieL - did Rush even mention Cancun? Or is Cancun too messy for a propagandist to mention?
Meanwhile oil industry corruption is widespread where American oil companies operate in other third world nations. Nigeria. Indonesia. the K'stans. How to stop corruption? Many companies nationalize their oil industry in a desperate effort to stop corruption that American oil companies (and MaggieL) turn a blind eye to.
But it’s all Jose Mexicana's fault. MaggieL says its so. Therefore it’s all his fault that he must also flee to America where corporate welfare has created too many labor jobs and immigration laws don't permit enough workers to take those jobs. But again, MaggieL tells us this is all Jose Mexicana's fault. He's (not George Jr) is the sucmbag.
Or maybe MaggieL would like to post a logical reply next time rather than making back handed comments. MaggieL, are you a Rush Limbaugh type who only need declare something - and then it must be so. Since you still provide no reasons, then you authorized me to state exactly how you think. Maybe this time, answer the question - why must they come in such massive numbers? Previously MaggieL blames it all on Jose Mexicana. MaggieL is invited to this time maybe answer the question that she repeatedly fears to answer - complete with supporting reasons for his opinions.
I didn't authorize you to do dick. You're just as boring as ever. Everything is Bush's fault...except it takes 5k of text per post to drone through it.
The US is the cause of all this evil because they buy oil from Pemex, and Pemex gives all the money to the Mexican government. Obviously not buying their oil would solve all these problems, and suddenly all the Mexican "little guys" would be rich and happy. Maybe they should sue us to make us stop buying their oil
Yes, you're right about it all, tw. Every single thing that's wrong on the planet, (and some places in orbit) is the fault of the US in general, and Bush and his big business cronies in particular.
And yet again we reach that magical point in time where Maggie ignores tw for a while because life is too short to spend it all feeding a dreary troll, and tw claims the victory won by dint of his unassailable...erm...logic. Yeah, that's what it is. Logic.
That's always the come back: move. come up with something fresh, will you?
"My country--Love It or Leave It"--right? :lol:
Bri, we already know you think Maggie is a bitch. Come up with something fresh to add to the argument or go back to complaining about an education in English Lit that forces you to read AE Houseman. If you can't get the beauty of A Shopshire Lad, you're in the wrong major. If all you can add to political disussions is name calling, why don't you start dating UG? If all you can do about the evil professor is to continue to read his e-mails and take his phone calls, maybe you deserve him. Meanwhile, get your head out of your ass before you start making comments to Maggie in political debates.
Sober up and move on yourself.
How come people's solutions to personal attacks are always even lower personal attacks?
I didn't authorize you to do dick.
Dick are the only facts you have provided. Based upon MaggieL's post, she has no idea why illegal immigration exists. That would be true if Rush Limbaugh propaganda is being used. She blames Jose Mexicana for all his problems and does not even deny it. Just so easy to lump all Mexicans together to blame them all; stereotype to promote a racist or biased attitudes. You were accused of stereotyping previously by another and are now doing the same again. You even blame Jose Mexicana for his problems?
Your willingness to harrangue endlessly trying to hijack every thread
Amazing that when myths are confronted by facts, then suddenly those facts
hijack a thread. Amazing how facts can harangue when they are only guilty of being denied. Denial based in personal bias, Rush Limbaugh logic, and myths. So far myths and bias being only reason for this massive illegal immigration.
MaggieL - you are speculating -stereotyping - almost to a point of racism or hate. I stayed out to see how far these myths and speculations go. Immigrants stealing social services from Norristown is a classic Rush Limbaugh propaganda ploy – big on hype and little on substance. Money invested in America's future – low wage workers irrelevant of where they came from. Somehow you forget that Norristown social services are invested where the most productive Americans will come from.
All I asked for are "reasons for why illegal immigration exists". I even provided facts - such as Cancun. Since you don’t know about Cancun and a world wide outcry, you then attack? Attack to mask no knowledge of Cancun, et al? You don't know what GATT and Cancun are, do you? You have no idea why illegal immigration exists - and don't want to know. Again, classic of hate promoted by Rush Limbaugh reasoning. Blame Jose Mexicana because our government uses corporate welfare to drive farmers in other nations out of business. Are such details too messy? Do they make posts too complex for Rush Limbaugh logic?
But show me corrected. Answer but one question with logical facts this time. "Why does illegal immigration exist?" Do we blame it all on corruption in Pemex (which is mythical nonsense)? Or do we blame Jose Mexicana as you have done? After so many posts, those are the only reason you have provided. Do you even know what GATT and Cancun were about? But maybe that is asking too much in one post. "Why is massive illegal immigration so necessary?" - the still unanswered question that begs for a simple irrefutible fact. Not bias. Not personal attacks. Just a same question still not answered.
How come people's solutions to personal attacks are always even lower personal attacks?
Where do repeated requests for an answer to a same question constitute lower personal attacks? It's not difficult. Either MaggieL has an answer or she does not know why massive illegal immigration is necessary and exists. Provided were numerous hints to a few reasons - ie Cancun, GATT, corporate welfare, why Jose Mexicana cannot even start a farm. And yet still we blame Jose Mexicana for all his problems. We blame him if he finally makes a productive business in drugs. We blame him if he responds to underground advertisement for employment in the US. And we blame him because his children - America's future - get educated in America. At what point do we not get emotional, answer the question, and therefore understand the problem?
Where does any of that constitute lower personal attacks? Hopefully the spirit of Rush Limbaugh and posts from Limbaugh's disciples will eventually be exorcised from this thread. It's a simple question that MaggieL has yet to answer. Maybe I should be asking why she does not answer it? No. It is such a simple question so easily answered if that fear of illegal immigrants was based in logic.
Whoa, slow down cowboy, that was aimed at Mari.
Whoa, slow down cowboy, that was aimed at Mari.
Well, gee, that hadly matters...he's got to have *somebody* to harrangue.
After all, he stepped in to answer a question addressed to someone else so he'd have an excuse to once again engage in that endless colloquy whose sole function is to serve as an expository platform for "Economics, Ethics and Geopolitics according to tw".
As I said, life's too short...
Whoa, slow down cowboy, that was aimed at Mari.
Time to start establishing some facts; eliminating political rhetoric, myths, Rush Limbaugh decrees, and unsubstantiated rumors. Your post also applies to others who have a problem answering a simple question. MaggieL (and others) has strongly opinionated solutions for a problem she cannot even define. She cannot even say why massive illegal immigration exists. Instead, she complains about being harangued when she is the one who apparently is blaming Jose Mexicana and other victims. How is one harangued when a question only demands logical answers? All she need do is post a logical answer to a simply question.
Instead, she complains about emotions while this question that will not go away still remains unanswered. "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
Well, gee, that hadly matters...he's got to have *somebody* to harrangue.
MaggieL was posting so many strong opinions. Now that I have asked only one basic simple question, suddenly MaggieL is a victim? How curious that she cannot even provide minimal facts, therefore is a victim? Bull. MaggieL - if you blame illegal immigrants for their plight, then you damn well better have logical facts to support your accusations. Otherwise, others will rightly assume you are stereotyping or racist.
And so we have this so simple question: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?" Why do you have a problem demonstrating to all that your opinions are based in facts - not in stereotypical bias? Why can you not even answer a simple question that you should have asked yourself long ago; before having an opinion? Why not just answer the question to prove your opinions are based in something more than emotion and stereotyping? Jose Mexicana, et al is the victim here if your opinions are only based in personal bias. "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
How come people's solutions to personal attacks are always even lower personal attacks?
You're right. I was out of line to tear into Brianna like that and I apologize.
Carry on with the tw vs MaggieL match.
At least you can admit when you're wrong and apologise, a very admirable attribute, and one that too few have.
~snip "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
Why does it exsist?
I am not sure but I think it is because of a ' you can have all this if you go over there' mentality. America is rich in benefits.We make it easy to get it. OR Some just want to send back to Mexico the american dollar. You can live well there for cents on the dollar. Well so can the people starving in Africa but they are separated by an ocean. Same with Cuban people. They leave to escape something.
Why is it necessary? I think it is only nescessary to the mexican government? It brings money in without having to put any out? The Mexican dream seems to be the US.
My only solution and I said it before half in jest was to invest in Mexican property. I think if I was rich I would move there and start building. Probably resorts. I don't know. There is just something that says. This thing you don't want ( your mexican land, your home) I could use. I would take it and make it grow if I could.
but why dosn't the government in Mexico invest in itself? I think that is a big part of the problem.
edit [I know my post is simplistic and nothing you all havn't already gone over already. Just adding my two cents. Or penny :P]
How come people's solutions to personal attacks are always even lower personal attacks?
In all my time on the net I never ever heard anyone say that before. I am glad it isn't the norm at the Cellar.
...right on....:)
What gets me is when things that have nothing to do with anything are brought up, not to win an argument, but out of sheer spite.
IDEALLY:
One person posts an opinion on the subject at hand.
Another posts with their opinion on the subject, and on thefirst person's opinion.
They discuss, in a civil manner, why they have their views.
REALLY:
One person posts an opinion on the matter at hand
Another posts with an opinion soley on the first person's opinion
Another posts with an opinion on person 2 due to their opinion of the first person's opinion
Person 2 posts back about person 3.
Person 1 gets pissed at person 2 and posts things about them too.
Person 4 comes and defends person 2
Persons 5, 6, and 7 egg on both sides
Person 8 comes in with an opinion on the subject at hand, and is promptly ignored in the lust for blood.
Person 2 actually posts about the subject at hand too, and is promptly attacked for their view, regardless of what it is
Person 2 fights back with something about person X, who didn't like their opinion
Person X posts back with a scathing post about person 2, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but is a very well laid-out attack on everything that makes person 2 who he or she is.
Things escalate from there.
Attacking the foundation of someone's opinion is a perfectly fine way to discredit their opinion. Attacking the person to make them look bad in general to discredit their opinion is an awful, low thing to do. There's a reason why Samma-Vaca, Right Speech is one of the steps in Buddha's 8-fold path... though that wont mean a thing to a lot of you...
Just think before you speak. If your words may harm someone, don't say them.
"Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
That used to be called "begging the question" before morons started using it to mean what it sounds like it should mean. Now you have to call it
petitio principii to avoid confuising the dimwitted.
Massive illegal immigration isn't "necessary". And clearly the "plight of illegal immigrants" is indeed "their fault" unless they were drugged, kidnapped, and dumped on this side of the border...in which case they're not immigrants, and (lacking criminal intent) arguably not even illegal.
But that's not what happens, of course.
If you in fact actually meant "the plight of poor Mexicans" (which is what they are regardless of what side of the border they're on), then that's a different question...so that question is really "Why is there poverty?"
I'm sure you have lots of explanations (with attached utopian solutions) for it. But if your solutions involve giving away things that belong to other people, you may have trouble finding support for your position (except of course among the recipeints of your proxy-based largesse). But it's an excellent answer to the "why illegal imigration exists" question. Speaking of "giving away things that belong to other people", I agree with you that agricultural subsidies are indeed a huge problem. All we have to do is get everybody to agree to give them up all at once. (Good luck with the Europeans on that one.)
I just don't buy "eliminate agricultural subsidies and corruption in the Mexican and US governments" as a practical solution to illegal aliens.
Why does it exsist? ... America is rich in benefits.We make it easy to get it. OR Some just want to send back to Mexico the american dollar.
Which returns to a basic economic concept paraphrased in the book "The World is Flat". For example, The Economist has a famous index - The Big Mac index - that measures currency inequities using something that would otherwise cost same everywhere - MacDonald's Big Mac. Economic distortions are the only reason a Big Mac does not cost same everywhere because economic forces make the world flat.
Another example: labor prices are constant everywhere in the world where a worker is paid what he is worth (a reference to a WSJ article on an American manufacturer who returned from Mexico to save his company). Political (self serving) agendas such as government trying to fix economies (tariffs, stopping flows of labor, things that GATT attempts to eliminate) cause economic distortions. And so we have a massive economic distortion between North and Central America. A symptom of government or other forces that create problems. A problem that we will foolishly solve with a 250,000 troops on the border? Nonsense. 'Force based' solutions (ie Vietnam War, Great Wall of China, tariffs) begs the obvious: people have not a clue what the real problem is.
A simple question suggests how naive many posters were. How much do you know about that Cancun conference that broke up because US and France are now so anti-free trade? How much do you know about this Doha round that has recently missed another milestone; that may be the first free trade round to fail - and directly traceable to a nation once a bastion of free trade. Curiously two countries that also have immigration problems. Countries blamed for being anti-free trade. If economic forces were not being distorted by anti-free trade forces, then a massive immigration problem would not exist.
My only solution and I said it before half in jest was to invest in Mexican property.
Well you are long behind times. A large American community (I believe north of Mexico City) is popular with American retirees. But again, the world is flat. Let economic forces determine where jobs are needed, homes are desired, etc, then those economic forces create equity, equality, and monetary stability.
And so we return to authors of posts who would demand, instead, a 'big dic' solution. Blame the victims of economic forces that create those victims. Jose Mexicana is a classic victim when governments, political and hate based biases, and other anti-social forces create this need for massive immigration. A problem only made worse when the 'powers that be' (governments), their mouth pieces (Rush Limbaugh political extremists), and the naive (those who have strong opinions but cannot even answer a simple question) conspire to make Jose Mexicana (and others throughout history just like him) the victim. AND then blame Jose for his own plight.
It simply takes us right back to a simple question. A question that anyone who makes decisions only after first learning facts would have no problem answering: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
Demonstrated after watching for so long so many Cellar Dwellers with such strong opinion: then why can no one answer this so obviously simple question? MaggieL who posted most often a strong opinion has simply made herself a 'poster boy' for those who have opinions but did not bother to first learn facts.
"Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?" A question so easily answered if one first learned the 'what, why, how, and whos' long before having opinions.
That used to be called "begging the question" before morons started using it to mean what it sounds like it should mean. Now you have to call it petitio principii to avoid confuising the dimwitted.
Well MaggieL, if your only response is to insult, then that puts you in a category with famous dimwit - Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh's technique, when exposed as a liar - is to attack the messenger. This was also how Nazis did it in 1930s Germany.
You are posting personal attacks so that you don't have to answer the fundamental question on illegal immigration. You are demonstrating reasons why massive illegal immigration exists. Too many Americans so hate America - the definition of anti-American - as to have opinions without first learning facts. If you had facts, you would not repeatedly post insults.
However, and again, why not just answer the simple question? I only post a simple question that you apparently either fear or just cannot answer. "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
Well MaggieL, if your only response is to insult...
I didn't insult
you.
(As an aside, I insulted the ignorant who say "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question" rather than "assumes the truth of the proposition at issue", which is what the phrase means. You didn't do that. Did you? Or did you just go off half-cocked again?)
My answer to "Why are there illegal aliens in the US?" was "Because there's poverty in Mexico". My answer to "Why is illegal immigration necessary?" was "It isn't necessary". Sorry if you don't like my answers, or if they don't lead the discourse where you want it to go, but that doesn't entitle you to ignore them and then rant that they're unanswered.
I don't buy the idea that a Big Mac would cost the same everywhere if there werent evil men manipulating markets. There are other factors at work. Jared Diamond explores some of them in "Guns, Germs and Steel", although I certainly don't buy into
all of his explanations
My answer to "Why are there illegal aliens in the US?" was "Because there's poverty in Mexico". My answer to "Why is illegal immigration necessary?" was "It isn't necessary".
Well, if immigration is not necessary, then why must millions suffer so much only for jobs? Why are those same jobs not created where these same people already live? Why does Jose Mexicana take great risks, spend massive sums, leave their families, etc only because they want to make life harder? No. Immigration is made
necessary by economic conditions where free markets (ie NAFTA) are mostly still mythical.
Yes, poverty is a reason they are leaving. But poverty is only a symptom. Why are countries (so full of resources) not able to create jobs for their people? Poverty does not exist on its own. Poverty is created; poverty is only a symptom.
Burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Thus in the long run, the exchange rate between two countries should move towards the rate that equalises the prices of an identical basket of goods and services in each country.
That assumes free markets exist. But the dollar does not buy same in both NAFTA countries. Forces (not evil because evil has no existence in a real world) forces in America pervert free market economics. Whereas the Big Mac is $3.15 in the US, the same Big Mac is only $2.66 in Mexico. Free markets - as NAFTA was suppose to create - does not exist. If a free market really existed, then the dollar would be approximately same in both nations. Free markets that would eliminate poverty just do not exist.
At $2.66, then Mexico is a superior place to create jobs - employ those exact same people. Why are those same people (who are so productive in the US) not employed in same jobs in Mexico? US firms could easily make jobs where their employees live? Mexico having superior climate for many agricultural products, then why can Jose Mexicana not start his own farm?
Again, the United States has perverted free markets. WTO has repeatedly ruled against America, time after time, for violations of World Trade agreements. A latest violation being steel - intentionally created by George Jr's administration to pervert free market economics. So how many people even heard of the massive world wide walkout in Cancun because the US and France were opposed to free trade. How many somehow know Jose Mexicana is a victim of his own making rather than learn that America has become so anti-free trade?
Why, if their ppp index is so low - and therefore a perfect place to create new jobs - complete with an economy full of people who need jobs - then why does the US not create jobs there? In a free market, America would create jobs where impoverished and productive people live.
NAFTA is suppose to be about free trade between US, Canada, and Mexico. Then why did the US close borders to Canadian lumber for so many years? America restarted that trade only after Canada - under American pressure - agreed to impose tariffs on its own exporters. Why is that called free trade? Of course every lurker here knows that story? If not, well, how anti-free trade is America? Do you really know?
How can poverty exist in Mexico if NAFTA is one big free trading zone? It cannot. As burgernomics demonstrates, Mexico is clearly economically better to make things - $3.15 in US and only $2.66 in Mexico. Same productive people who would rather have jobs at home only need those jobs where they live. Due to American laws, many of those jobs cannot go to the workers. Illegal immigration made necessary by a nation that promotes the propaganda of free trade and makes laws against it.
Amazing how those who blame Jose Mexicana somehow forget why that poverty exists. Burgernomics demonstrates why those poverty regions should be home to so many new jobs.
And if that were not bad enough, what happens when Castro dies. Suddenly we have a whole new influx of Cubans also seeking jobs. Do we fix American laws before the problem gets worse? Or do we instead blame Jose Mexicana AND Carlos Cubana for being victims?
Give George Jr credit. His heart is in the right place when he talks about illegal immigration. To neocons, he sounds like a very lefty liberal. But his actions are completely devoid of useful objectives. George Jr's supporter get rich when free trade is restricted in their favor (ie tariffs). Review massive bonuses given to the only reason why America steel manufacturers are so bad. Top steel management gets rich when America restricts free trade for the advantage of overpaid and anti-American corporate management (not to be confused with other industries chock full of patriotic management).
Government can create problems - not solve them. Illegal immigration is a classic example of a problem created (in part) by government. If government cannot eliminate problems it creates and impose on Jose Mexicana, then what will government do when Carlos Cubana joins the influx?
Why does poverty exist? Are these same so productive people the reason for poverty at home? Of course not. Not for one minute. And yet so many Americans still believe this myth that free trade economics exists between America and its neighbors. Not for one minute which is why illegal immigration is obviously
necessary. Poverty is a symptom (in part) of anti-free market laws. Poverty is only a symptom of the same reasons why illegal immigration is necessary.
Is this long? Of course. If it was short, then it would be lies (half truths) for Daily News readers – who actually believe America has promoted free markets this century. The question asks why illegal immigration exists and is necessary. The answer is (in part) in economic conditions that so many American don’t even know exist. Americans so ill informed as to not even know of that massive world wide walkout in Cancun. American so ill informed as to have trouble with a simple question: why does this illegal immigration exist? Why does free market economics not create new jobs in a fellow NAFTA nation? Are you ready when Carlos Cubana joins the influx? It’s only going to get worse if we American don’t address our anti-free market attitudes – and start asking some other embarrassing questions.
OK, that is perhaps the dumbest post you've ever written here, and I say that with some due respect.
I don't even know where to begin with it. We could examine why free
trade does not mean free
markets in either trading country. We could look at the massive facilities in Mexican border towns, sprung after NAFTA, where the US has very obviously created thousands upon thousands of manufacturing jobs in Mexico. We could point out how since you agree protectionism doesn't create wealth, you can't argue that protectionism creates incentives for illegals. We could point out that most jobs for illegals are construction and farm work and those jobs have to be done in the US. We could visit the
seven signs of non-competitive states and figure out why some societies grow while others stagnate. We could take $1000 down to Tijuana and see how long we can keep it before losing part of it to police bribes.
Or we could just say it's W's fault - which would be
great news, because that means the problem ends in two and a half years. But that just begs the question - if he's fucking this country up so badly, why do they still want in?
But that just begs the question...
Oh, no...UT! It was such a great post until you said that, now it's all ROOOOND! :-) I was
just bagging on people who misuse "begging the question". :-)
It's especially appropos where tw is involved...he loves burying his tallking points in the
petitio principii assumptions behind "just a simple question", and then accuses you of dissimulation and cowardice when you won't take the bait.
:blush: You were just saying it, that must be why I used it... oops :p
I think tw and maggie are both saying the same thing only in different languages.
Poverty is a symptom. Poverty is the fault of the government and so it is their fault they are comming here instead of staying there and making it better.
See how easy that was. :P
Frankly I don't want to sit here and pretend to have much of an opinion. I will try to learn more but that's all I can do.
Mostly I think about that retirement community and think. Well if they want my country and don't want theirs I'll take it.
sorry, that's just my honest take on it this am.
* yawn *
I think tw and maggie are both saying the same thing only in different languages.
I think tw and I have extremely divergent views on the nature of and proper purpose for government.
Then you know it has always been a problem and an issue.
Isn't that what I said?
The illegal immigration issue has grated on a lot of people for a very long time. So it's not surprising when it finally comes to the spotlight, so many people are eager to jump in with their long ignored opinion.
I've bitched about this for years, long before 9-11, but I found myself preaching to the choir. Everyone would nod in agreement then look at the floor and shuffle their feet, helplessly.
Now that it's reached the spotlight, the stifled have become vocal, seizing an opportunity they thought might never come. :cool:
but why dosn't the government in Mexico invest in itself? I think that is a big part of the problem.
As noted previously, lack of free trade would only be part of the problem. Mexico has a law that only Mexicans can invest in their oil industry - Pemex. This creates a serious shortage of investment money even for that industry. Oil industry cannot generate enough for investment because they need so much more. Even Mexico's oil industry needs foreign investment.
Government doing investment? Mexico must create jobs for millions. Government cannot (and should not) do that. Investment comes from free market investors. Mexico has a shortage of investment and a shortage of citizens creating new business such as exportable agriculture products.
UT cites what appears to be major investments on Mexico's US border. What looks like major investment on Mexico's border is trivial compared to what Mexico needs to create a million new jobs.
Mexico needs capital - investment - job creation. Shortage of investment (due to other factors including US laws) is but another reason why Jose Mexicana must take a least desirable path - illegally immigrate into the US for employment.
What looks like major investment - what really are the numbers? One number that is obvious - Mexico has no labor shortage even though millions of workers leave for work. Jose Mexicana needs jobs - not blame.
That is the difference from what so many have posted here. Some blind nonsense about enforcing laws does not solve anything but an ego itch. Major economic problems exist. Major and obvious. Anyone who thinks these people flock to America only for an easy life are lying to themselves or worshipping Rush Limbaugh. Many are in denial. Therefore this problem will only fester. Big walls and armed troops will never cure a problem by attacking symptoms. Massive illegal immigration and poverty are only symptoms of ignored and denied economic problems. Problems that truly free markets have a bad habit of curing. Problems that could not exist (on this scale), in part, if NAFTA was really a free market trading zone as believed.
I think tw and I have extremely divergent views on the nature of and proper purpose for government.
How is (why, where, or what is) that so?
Isn't that what I said? I've bitched about this for years, long before 9-11, but I found myself preaching to the choir. Everyone would nod in agreement then look at the floor and shuffle their feet, helplessly.
Now that it's reached the spotlight, the stifled have become vocal, seizing an opportunity they thought might never come. :cool:
Nope... It is not what you said, you stated the opposite. I made the statement that I made in response to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I've crossed the Canadian border many, many times. Never a problem going in, always a problem coming back.
I want all the illegal Nigerians out of MA so I guess I'm racist.
The illegal immigration issue has grated on a lot of people for a very long time. So it's not surprising when it finally comes to the spotlight, so many people are eager to jump in with their long ignored opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitsune
Could have fooled me. The sudden demand for new laws that comes from the American public seems to be based entirely on a newly fueled passion for a problem that has existed for years but only recently hyped up by distraction-oriented politics..
If the Mexican/Southern American Nations want a better life they need to take their nations back for themselves and make them worth staying in, period... not act like cowards and leave, going to another country for a quick cash-grab.
Imagine what the US would be like now if we had done that during the depression.
It smacks of cowardice to me.
Take your meds and read what I wrote again. Not what Kitsune wrote Just what I wrote. Where do I say it's not a problem? :eyebrow:
Ok, well there are just a few issues I would like to raise about tw's posts. It seems to me that in many of his posts, he raises the same issues or arguements in order to support his position. Tariffs, quotas, free trade, etc...
One that stuck out to me has been his "burgernomics", big mac index, and the economic concept known as "Purchasing Power Parity". For those who are unfamiliar with this, it is defined as "is an estimate of the exchange rate required to equalize the purchasing power of different currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes, most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic products (GDP) using market exchange rates does not accurately measure differences in income and consumption."
tw assumes that, given you may buy a big mac in Mexico for $2.66 compared to $3.15 in the U.S., then Mexico would naturally be a superior place for companies to invest were it not for U.S. barriers to free trade. To use this as an example though, of why illegal immigration exists is not appropriate however. There are more forces at work here which influence the PPP between given countries. Yes, trade barriers are a part of what cause disparity in the PPP, however much more goes into it which both complicates and moots his point. For example, could not a big mac cost more here simply because we Americans demand more of them? From the law of supply and demand, we can tell that as demand rises, so does the cost. Maybe Mexicans demand less so the price reflects that. Also it is easy to say that the sum of the parts (of the big mac) given PPP should be the same across borders, but what about those things considered "non-traded goods", such as the cost of the service and preparation of the food, as well as the productivity of the workers at any given McDonalds across the globe. It seems that tw only introduces these topics to confuse and try and support his position, but a firm understanding of the concept actually works against that. So, for a better understanding, here is a research report put together by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on just this topic. I recommend the part starting on page 6, titled "Why does PPP fail?"
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/11/pakko.pdf
Now, he also refers much to GATT and the US failure to support it's side of NAFTA to promote free trade between the US and Mexico. First, it is a slow and tedious process to create a Free Trade Area, or FTA, and while we may not be there completely with Mexico, we are definately making progress. Since 1995, the WTO has received notification of more than 100 FTA's, more than double that which were formed under GATT between 1947 to 1995. tw would like you to believe that because the US subsidizes our agriculture industry, then we are in an unfair advantage over Mexico, however almost all developed countries, including Mexico, provide some sort of support towards their farmers. You may want to check out thier "PROCAMPRO" program, which is the only program in the region which provides direct cash to their farmers. Also, as of 2003, nearly 900,000 jobs have left the United States to either Mexico or Canada as a direct result of NAFTA. While it is true that NAFTA has created jobs in the US, the net effect is negative, namely because what NAFTA has done is do away with most of the barriers to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico. You can read all about it here:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147
And for anyone who thinks I'm just bullshitting to prove a point against tw, then here is the other sourse I used, primarily starting at page 9:
http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf
Sorry for the long post, but it is something that I felt that needed to be said.:eyebrow:
One that stuck out to me has been his "burgernomics", big mac index, and the economic concept known as "Purchasing Power Parity". ... There are more forces at work here which influence the PPP between given countries. Yes, trade barriers are a part of what cause disparity in the PPP, however much more goes into it which both complicates and moots his point.
From the first paper:
The attractive feature of the Big Mac as an indicator of PPP is its uniform composition. With few exceptions, the component ingredients of the Big Mac are the same everywhere around the globe.
That eliminates a supposition that different countries demand major differences from Big Mac. Minor differences can account for a $3.15 verses $2.66 disparity? Of course not. That difference is so great as to be explained by factors that distort free markets.
Figure 1 demonstrates a correlation between the Big Mac index and the Penn World Table (PWT) that measures same PPP using a larger data set. PWT also demonstrates Purchasing Power Parity in Mexico and other Central / South American nations is ever
worse than The Economist suggests. Whereas 2000 data using Big Mac says difference is 88% (84% in 2006), PWT says disparity is worse - 61%. If we replace the "Big Mac" index with PWT, then reasons for illegal immigration are more obvious. Let's stay on topic. Topic is not minor variences in how PPP is measured. Topic is that PPP also explains illegal immigration.
The paper does demonstrate a Big Mac index will be less accurate. Of course and obvious. A Burgernomic data set is smaller - only one product. But still a Big Mac index agrees with the PWT. Trivial variations of $0.11 and 7% are not relevant to the topic: illegal immigration. PWT says economics disparities that would create illegal immigration are even worse. Data from Pakko and Pollard only support points made in this discussion that economic disparities exist where NAFTA should have eliminated them.
Such wide disparities would exist when external factors distort markets. Pakko and Pollard demonstrate why 7% and 14% differences could exist between "Big Mac" and PWT. But PWT cites a 35% difference between Mexico and US whereas "Big Mac" only claims 20%. PWT confirms price disparities so great as to only be explained by market factors not found in free markets. After a decade plus, we still don't have market parity? This is a same problem that caused virtually every nation to storm out of Cancun in anger and disgust.
Instead of aruging over micro difference in how PPP is measured, why not address the topic - illegal immigration?
BTW it does not matter is Mexico also applied price supports to their agriculture. No other nation so subsidizes agriculture so much by percentage or by dollar amount. No other nation in this discussion even comes close to what the US does to dump agriculture products onto other nation markets and to restrict agriculture trade. How much tariff do we put on ethanol? 54%. That is free trade? But again, this is why virtually the entire world walked out of Cancun, in anger, three days early. Where else has such a mass walkout ever happened?
A paper from Robert E. Scott says NAFTA has moved almost 1 million jobs to Mexico. Good. That means another 1 million that need not immigrate illegally AND that are not ready to join subversive activities. But then if Scott's data were relevant, then why are so many coming to an America that has lost so many jobs? Why does America need millions of illegal immigrants to do jobs that Scott's data says does not exist?
There is this well proven economic trend that contradicts Scott's paper. How do you make more jobs? Each company does same with less people every year. That job loss means more jobs in the economy. Scott's logic pretends that economic trend does not exist.
Yes these are good peer review papers. Pakko and Pollard suggest economics disparity is even worse - thereby suggesting that illegal immigration is due to even worse economics disparities that should not exist with NAFTA. Scott's paper claims job loses in an economy that has not seen job losses. Scott's paper suggests free trade would actually lower illegal immigration by some 800,000 jobs. IOW Scott suggests that without NAFTA, then illegal immigration would be even worse.
Finally Shocker, why does illegal immigration exist? Why is it so necessary? With so much economic data, why do you not answer the question? Why do you instead argue over how PPP is measured? Why do you ignore a fundamental fact - virtually then entire world walked out of Cancun in anger and disgust blaming only two nations who refuse to be free traders - US and France?
We have an illegal immigration problem created, in part, because America has so changed - is not the free trade advocate it once was. Why does virtually then entire world walk out of Cancun three days early complaining speicifcally about US undermining free trade? We give the airlines $8billion without string attached and call that free trade? We put up tariffs of up to 400% to protect some of the world's worst steel manufacturers - and call that free trade? We put 54% tariffs on ethanol when we want to become less dependant on oil from unstable regions? We force Canada to put tariffs on their own lumber exports - when NAFTA is about trade without tariffs. Is that because we want to promote free trade? We apply corporate welfare to sugar, cotton, corn, and so many other agricultural products thereby making it impossible for other countries to create jobs in those industries. Those illegal trade distortions mean more immigrants must come illegally for jobs created in the US by trade restrictions.
Shocker - why do you ignore Cancun and the threatened collapse of the Doha round? Why do you argue minutia on how PPP is measured rather than address illegal immigration? The question is simple: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"
I think tw and I have extremely divergent views on the nature of and proper purpose for government.
How is (why, where, or what is) that so?
:sigh: Time to speak up as the one person here who lives knee-deep and shoulder to shoulder with illegal immigrants every day of her life, talks to them constantly, knows their families, watches the Hispanic newscasts and reads the editorials out of Mexico every day. You can talk about Economics and market dynamics all you want, but what it REALLY boils down to is that every company, every farm, every bank, every media outlet, every industry and every hiring process is under the control of "the 23 Families". Not the Mafia concept, it's an oligarchy. Those 23 Families (a term explained to me by one of the Longorias, one of the more powerful units of this oligarchy) collect all the money in Mexico. They make W's version of trickle-down economics look like grade school. They set all the prices, determine the wages and who will be hired, collect all the money, and control all the ecomony as far as what is available for distribution. They own practically all the politicians, directly or indirectly, so no laws will every be passed concerning monopolies or unfair practices. They have also instigated a policy which forbids the hiring of citizens who are of other racial or national groups, even though they are born in Mexico or have received citizenship; i.e., a Mexican-Korean citizen will not be able to get a job as a policeman or firefighter, and he may not run for public office. I find this situation particularly odious because Señor SLIM, head of one of the Families, is a Lebanese immigrant; he now owns the entire communications industry of Mexico (every phone and cell phone and internet connection pays into his bank account) and most of the department stores. THIS is why there is such a horrible crisis in Mexico and why everybody is running for the border. Everything existing in the country is no longer available to 95% of the population on a legal basis. What is the only other option? Revolution. Either that or miraculously managing a change through the ballot box even though the elections are as rigged as everything else is. That is why Vicente Fox has failed his country so monumentally. He was claiming his administration could fix all that, but nothing whatever has changed as far as most Mexicans can see. We can also thank Fox for encouraging them all to leave and move up here, and he just got through making speeches here about how we have to lighten up on our immigration stance. Right now, money earned in the US and sent to relatives back in Mexico is the only thing preventing a total collapse of the Mexican economy, it is their largest source of disposable income even though it originates outside their borders and no taxes on this payroll are paid to the Mexican treasury. It's obvious why Fox does not want that flow to stop. He will not be getting anything like it from the people/families who are REALLY ruling Mexico.
UT previously cited a good paper entitled
Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States. Symptoms of the malaise started with
Traditional indicators of noncompetitive performance still apply: corruption (the most seductive activity humans can consummate while clothed); ...
After having tried most everything in Africa with little success, the World Bank and IMF are slowly changing their opinions. Corruption is a reason for the malaise; not just a symptom. The '23 Families' example would be just another reason for inequity between Mexican and US economies. Inequities that are also suggested by a PPP disparity.
Listed as one reason for illegal immigration is US economic policies that stifle overseas job creation - 'corporate welfare' that has increased with the George Jr administration. Corruption ('23 families') would be another example. IOW instead of blaming and prosecuting Jose Mexicana (the victim), and instead of big fences and military operations; we should be identifying and addressing reasons for illegal immigration.
Curing symptoms never solves problems. Curing symptoms is the solution advocated in Washington and was also advocated by many posters earlier in this discussion.
Kudos to Tonchi. Posted is what others did not: identify another reason for an illegal immigration problem. A major difference between posts that blame Jose Mexicana as a problem; rather than view Jose Mexicana as the victim.
Kudos to Tonchi. Posted is what others did not: identify another reason for an illegal immigration problem. A major difference between posts that blame Jose Mexicana as a problem; rather than view Jose Mexicana as the victim.
Oh, OK...I get it. When I refer to the corrupt Mexican government, I'm not identifying a reason, I'm "blaming Jose Mexicana". When someone else referrs to the corrupt Mexican government, citing details, they're being insightful and courageous.
Dunno about you, tw, but I don't have to cite which capo a footpad is working for to know when I'm being mugged. Of course the illegals are victims individually are victims as well as street-0level criminals. But collectively--illegals
and their south of the border exploiters-- it's their country.
The greedy capitalists
north of the border are making a smaller profit exploiting the illegals they hire at the expense of legal workers. But, as Tonchi points out, the
big winners aren't in the US. Follow the money...about $20 billion last year, as far as we can tell.
TW, you're driving me up the wall by writing Jose MEXICANA. Mexicana is an airline. Mexicano is what a male from the country of Mexico is called. So please write José Mexicano and María Mexicana from now on. Oh, and ICYC, the Mexicans themselves call these designated representative names "Fulano(a)" (or "Fulano de Tal" when they want to be fancy) ;)
Well, you don't have to actually know anything about a culture you are adopting as an Official Victim. You just use them as long as is politically expediant, and then discard them...as the labor movement, blacks and gays have already discovered. Illegal aliens will eventually discover this too if the liberals have their way.
"If we make you citizens through amnesty you'll vote for us, right?"
You just use them as long as is politically expediant, and then discard them...as the labor movement, blacks and gays have already discovered.
Well, they may discover that if the conservatives ever stop attacking long enough for the liberals to be able to discard them. I doubt we'll ever know.
Well, they may discover that if the conservatives ever stop attacking long enough for the liberals to be able to discard them.
What a joke....being under attack from conservatives never prevented liberals from discarding an Official Victim Group when it was convenient. In fact it's usually used as the excuse....remeber "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Not to mention DOMA.
That's one big problem with collectivism...once you're "collected" you're unecessary.
I guess that shows the conservative mindset - compromise is betrayal.
I guess that shows the conservative mindset - compromise is betrayal.
I guess that shows the liberal mindset - conservatives are bad lol
My big question is exactly how people are going to rationalize the argument that 'we' (citizens of the US) need to fix Mexico's problems in order to solve our immigration problem. I'm not opposed to the idea, in fact in principle I think it speaks very highly of our country if we can wield our power for the benefit of others. However, we've been ousted from the position of benifactor in most cases that of a sort of perverse UN. It's <I>assumed</I> that we should go in and fix other peoples problems. Of course after we spend billions of dollars and hundreds of lives in the problem country we are sent packing with no reparations whatsoever and a warning that we had better not try anything sneaky. Frankly I think we should take an extended hiatus from our role as global bitch, and simply enforce our own rules, protect our own assets, and do a proper job of not meddling where we don't belong.
Of course this also means stopping our billions of dollars worth of 'aid' to the worlds war lords and dictators.
I guess that shows the liberal mindset - conservatives are bad lol
"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape,' Norquist, a onetime adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said, citing an axiom of House conservatives....
Conservatives press for something horrible, and liberals give them something bad.
Good point 9th engineer, but even then, we can fix our side of the border in any way we want, we can make it more difficult to cross the border, we can do as tw says and create a truely free market in the United States, but even then, the problem of illegal immigration into the United States will still be there.
There are those that think that illegal immigration is only caused by solely economic reasons, and yes that does play a part, but there are also causes within the originating country which we in the U.S. cannot fix. Ultimatly, Mexico will have to take responsibility for thier own problems and inequalities which are driving their citizens to cross illegally into the U.S. To say the U.S. and it's policies are responsible for the flow of illegals is only looking at one small part of the problem. Of course, indirectly the policies of the U.S. are drawing people here illegally, but it isn't the policies you may think. Instead they come here because as they are right now, our immigration laws as well as our society are promoting illegal immigration. First, if a person is successful at getting into our country illegally, they can either steal someones social security number fairly easily and get a job or just do work "under the table". They run the risk of getting caught, but the INS does not have the resourses necessary to go after everyone, so unless they are caught at the border by the border patrol, they will more than likely go for some time without raising too much suspicion. Even then, if they do end up getting caught, what is the worst that will happen to them? Well if they haven't broken any more laws in the US, then they get a slap on the wrist and a free ticket back home, just so they can come here again. So this tells us that we are not strict enough, not consistent enough, and not providing our enforcement agencies with enough resources to effectively do their job.
Also, with the political and social climate the way they are in the US today, now more than ever is there an incentive to come illegally to the US. To do it legally costs money and time, but with talk of amnesty and other "paths to citizenship" makes it much easier and cheaper to do it that way. Also, the disconnect between agencies of the government as well as the relative ease for illegals to recieve government assistance and healthcare not only cost us millions each year, but also take away from what could be used for legal citizens. And of course, because of the high standard of living and the relative laxness and ease that I mentioned already make the US an ideal place for them to come. Now, if the socioeconomic environment of the US were similar to that of Mexico for instance, don't you think that people trying to escape Mexico would instead go somewhere else?
I guess that shows the conservative mindset - compromise is betrayal.
Thanks, I'll reserve to myself judgement on when I've been betrayed.
If liberal support for DOMA and DADT are "compromise", they're awfully hard to distinguish from a careful crafted blend of betrayal, denial, hypocracy, expediency and disingenuousness.
I know the "religious" right is openly homophobic...but at least it's open. That's easer to confront and combat.
It certainly would be novel if people went to the voting booth with the intension of doing what's best for the country instead of making "me/myself/I" the center of the universe. :eyebrow:
It certainly would be novel if people went to the voting booth with the intension of doing what's best for the country...
I certainly don't think liberalism is "what's best for the country". YMMV.
I have no doubt about that.
Is that because you pick up the paper, turn on the news or just look around, and like what the Conservatives have done for this country in the last 6 years?:right:
I have no doubt about that.
Is that because you pick up the paper, turn on the news or just look around, and like what the Conservatives have done for this country in the last 6 years?
My memory's actually longer than six years, so I have a basis for comparison. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer; I remeber how the liberals played when they were in the game.
It's scary to think of how the last six years would have fared in liberal hands. Al Gore on 9/11? Please. And I voted for him, too.
I know the "religious" right is openly homophobic...but at least it's open. That's easer to confront and combat.
Combat? By doing...?
Combat? By doing...?
Missionary work, for one thing. Interestingly, we encounter
much less discrimination among the right wing gun nuts than we do among the liberal queers.
It's scary to think of how the last six years would have fared in liberal hands
Just think, there wouldn't be 150000+ US troops in the middle east causing the biggest strategic fuckup since operation AJAX! how terrible!
how terrible!
Easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer...
And who could be more on the sidelines than young Jag here...
Hey! Who let you shoot their AK? I'm thinking about getting one for my birtyhday.
It's either than or a
KelTec Sub-2000. I can't afford a
PS-90 or a
tricked-out M1A.My memory's actually longer than six years, so I have a basis for comparison. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer; I remeber how the liberals played when they were in the game.
It's scary to think of how the last six years would have fared in liberal hands. Al Gore on 9/11? Please. And I voted for him, too.
My memory is longer than yours and I've never been on the sidelines, so don't tell me about history.
Gore might have surprised you/us by gathering a consensus rather than following a script written back in the 90s......but I didn't vote for him. ;)
My memory is longer than yours...
Maybe. I kinda doubt it.
I remeber Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. (I actually *remeber* Eisenhower but I wasn't hooked into politics at that age. )
...and I've never been on the sidelines,
No, but the liberals have.
Gore might have surprised you/us by gathering a consensus rather than following a script written back in the 90s....
"Gathering a consensus"....delightful. Maybe he'd try to "conduct a dialog" or "raise conciousness", too. Clearly not CinC material...and to my shame I was willing to overlook that. Never again.
I seem to recall Gore was on the payroll when the script-writing was going on in the 90's.
Of Carter, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I wouldn't want to have seen any of that lot at the helm on 9/11. For all his flaws Kennedy might have been able to handle it... he did OK with nukes in Cuba. But it's a highly subjunctive stretch... 2001 is not 1963.
And to get back on topic:
For too long, Mexico has boasted about immigrants leaving, calling them national heroes, instead of describing them as actors in a national tragedy; and it has boasted about the growth in remittances as an indicator of success, when it is really an indicator of failure.
And who could be more on the sidelines than young Jag here...
Hey! Who let you shoot their AK? I'm thinking about getting one for my birtyhday.
It's either than or a KelTec Sub-2000. I can't afford a PS-90 or a tricked-out M1A.
The Sub2K is a hell of a lot of fun in an inexpensive gun package. Make sure that you get the grip config that matches your carry piece and you are good to go. I had one fairly soon after they hit the market and caused quite a stir at the range I took it to ... nobody had seen one before. KelTec's customer service is awesome, btw.
I seem to recall Gore was on the payroll when the script-writing was going on in the 90's.
No, the script was written by the PNAC.
looks like it's easier to meander off-topic than answer my point. You threw out a spurious remark, I replied in kind, quelle horreur!
looks like it's easier to meander off-topic than answer my point.
You didn't make one.
No, the script was written by the PNAC.
I meant the episode where you deceide to let Bin Laden go because he's vacationing with friends. I don't see any reason to have expected anything different from Gore.
Make sure that you get the grip config that matches your carry piece and you are good to go.
Yeah, well...my P-11 takes S&W mags. I'm seriously thinking about the Glock 17 version though because I wouldn't mind at all a pistol-caliber carbine with 33-round magazines.
That's why I have the Glock 22 Mag grip ... I have the stick for the .40, and I like the better one-shot stop percentages.
Maybe. I kinda doubt it.
I remeber Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. (I actually *remeber* Eisenhower but I wasn't hooked into politics at that age. )
We got an "I like Ike" bumper sticker in the mail so I stuck it on the family car. What I didn't know was Pop was refused endorsement by the Republicans for reelection two nights before, so he was pissed. He ran as an independent and won handily.
No, but the liberals have.
That's a pretty broad brush.
"Gathering a consensus"....delightful. Maybe he'd try to "conduct a dialog" or "raise conciousness", too. Clearly not CinC material...and to my shame I was willing to overlook that. Never again.
Yes "gathering a consensus", isn't that what the Congress is for......advice and consent?
I seem to recall Gore was on the payroll when the script-writing was going on in the 90's.
Not of The New American Century.
Of Carter, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I wouldn't want to have seen any of that lot at the helm on 9/11.
Because they wouldn't have driven the bad guys out of Afghanistan, back to Pakistan....temporarily?
Because they wouldn't have gotten us into this Iraq fiasco?
Because they wouldn't have pissed off half the world?
Because they wouldn't have swiss cheesed the Constitution?
Because they wouldn't have secured our borders?
At least Bill doing Monica was consentual, W doing me, is not.
Nixon and Bush piss me off the most, because I voted for both (once) and I feel personally betrayed. :mad:
I meant the episode where you deceide to let Bin Laden go because he's vacationing with friends.
I meant the bit where you decide to let Bin Laden go because you really wanted to attack Saddam all along.
I meant the bit where you decide to let Bin Laden go because you really wanted to attack Saddam all along.
Hardly comparable...Clinton/Gone didn't even take the shot when it was stone easy. Bush at least
tried when it was much harder. His mistake was trying to appease the gang who was criticizing him for "acting unilaterally" and "being a cowboy" by letting the locals take Bin Laden on in the mountains.
Not the same thing at all as a clean shot in open desert in 1999.
Yes "gathering a consensus", isn't that what the Congress is for......advice and consent?
Read II.2 as to what "Advice and Consent" applies to.
What I didn't know was Pop was refused endorsement by the Republicans for reelection two nights before, so he was pissed. He ran as an independent and won handily.
No kidding...what office?
Not the same thing at all as a clean shot in open desert in 1999.
To what are you referring?
{*}In response to these attacks, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people. The U.S. offered a US $25 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's apprehension or conviction and, in 1999, convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him.
Hardly comparable...Clinton/Gone didn't even take the shot when it was stone easy. Bush at least tried when it was much harder. His mistake was trying to appease the gang who was criticizing him for "acting unilaterally" and "being a cowboy" by letting the locals take Bin Laden on in the mountains.
Not the same thing at all as a clean shot in open desert in 1999.
C'mon, Clinton was playing Battleship. Try to figure out where he is and shoot that coordinate......long shot at best.
Bush blew it, when the whole world understood Afghanistan was expected, by sending in a small force to take Kabul, instead of doing it right and committing enough resources to seal the borders.
Probably, not to ofend the Pakis
He did the same thing in Iraq.:(
No kidding...what office?
Small town politics.:D
C'mon, Clinton was playing Battleship. Try to figure out where he is and shoot that coordinate......long shot at best.
Well, when Clinton *did* shoot (post Monica) he hit (mostly) empty tents and a baby food factory. Perhaps an incremental improvement over Desert One, in that at least there were zero US casualties.
They knew where the hunting party was; had it on satellite...until somebody decided to talk to the Emirs about it. Didn't want to queer the F-16 sale. Next satellite pass everybody was gone...big surprise there.
Funny how that story didn't get any legs until there was a spin on it to criticise Bush over the port management deal. "Lap dogs" indeed...
None of which has anything to do with illegal aliens, of course.
Elspode, I gotta break this to you: it isn't arrogance. Are we faced by a sea of troubles? I think so; how about you? Has any Administration in living memory, besides the Reagan Administration, done much of anything about draining that sea? I don't see any reason to breathe a word of complaint about the current Administration taking "arms against a sea of troubles/And by opposing, end them."
It's not arrogance to take out the totalitarian-propelled, religiously-bigoted creep with a bomb and a grudge, regardless of how many "brothers" he claims. It strikes me as mere good sense. When the fascistoids are all dead and decayed, they can't oppose the one legitimate form of governance: by, for, and of the people. All the other forms of governance do naught but oppress.
In fewer words, all of our foes are all fucking wrong. Defeat them. Don't allow us to be the defeated.
Marichiko: Cui bono, if you please.
When the fascistoids are all dead and decayed, they can't oppose the one legitimate form of governance: by, for, and of the people. All the other forms of governance do naught but oppress.
In fewer words, all of our foes are all fucking wrong. Defeat them. Don't allow us to be the defeated.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? How do we lose our own soul by ruining anti-democrats and anti-libertarians????? Jee-zus, Griff!
First, if a person is successful at getting into our country illegally, they can either steal someones social security number fairly easily and get a job or just do work "under the table". They run the risk of getting caught, but the INS does not have the resourses necessary to go after everyone, so unless they are caught at the border by the border patrol, they will more than likely go for some time without raising too much suspicion. Even then, if they do end up getting caught, what is the worst that will happen to them? Well if they haven't broken any more laws in the US, then they get a slap on the wrist and a free ticket back home, just so they can come here again. So this tells us that we are not strict enough, not consistent enough, and not providing our enforcement agencies with enough resources to effectively do their job.
This tells us we also have created other problems - such as one in every 1000 Americans are in jail - majority for drug offenses. We imprison for marijuana - and then have no place to put captured illegals. Therefore many illegals were given a court date and left to their own recognizance. Being too strict or not strict enough is again missing the problem. We have too many people in jail for nonsense. Marijuana possession is a more violent crime than illegal immigration. Look what being more strict (rather than first learn the problem) has done.
No one is saying American economics policies are the only reason for illegal immigration. Americans laws take years to apply for immigration (totaly that only a strict extremist could love), numerous forms each written to require $500 lawyers, and immigration quotas, based in politics rather than in reality, are additional contributing factors.
So instead we cure the symptom with big walls and big guns.
Jose Mexicana would more prefer to get a job or create a job in his own country. Agriculture being the easiest and could be most productive in all countries south of the Rio Grande. And yet America even puts up a 54% tariff on methanol - so that foreigners cannot make jobs and businesses growing sugar et al to make ethanol. This is but one of hundreds of examples of what America does to need more immigrants - and to stifle overseas 'competitive' businesses. 54% tariff on methanol? Tell me why that exists? For the same reasons that big walls and big guns will also solve a problem.
Reminds me of the computer repairman who fixes computer hardware by reloading Windows. No idea what is a problem, but he will fix what is not working.
Ultimately, illegal immigration problem is a problem that WE Americans have created. Unfortunately if we lower barriers to illegals (make it reasonable to immigrate legally), then those same immigrants will demand tax refunds and social security benefits they have always been paying for but not getting. Money not spent on illegals today makes America richer. We created those jobs. They are coming to fill those jobs whether we like it or not - despite big walls and big guns.
How do we lose our own soul by ruining anti-democrats and anti-libertarians????? Jee-zus, Griff!
If the process we use is anti-libertarian, we have ruined ourselves.
Griff, destroying ultra-statists isn't an anti-libertarian act, but one of the strongest possible pro-libertarian actions: dead oligarchs can neither rule nor oppress, nor act to impede libertarianism. This means a good chance for us, no?
All this is the plainest of horse sense. Is it not so that if you want libertarianism to succeed, you shouldn't shrink from implementing it just because the opposition gets violent beyond a certain threshold? I should think the contrary is the case: be prepared to neutralize enemy goon squads. Goon squads without survivors would seem pretty well neutralized. If they're antilibertarian anyway, shouldn't we see to it that they experience either a libertarian epiphany or a sudden death?
Griff, destroying ultra-statists isn't an anti-libertarian act, but one of the strongest possible pro-libertarian actions: dead oligarchs can neither rule nor oppress, nor act to impede libertarianism. This means a good chance for us, no?
All this is the plainest of horse sense. Is it not so that if you want libertarianism to succeed, you shouldn't shrink from implementing it just because the opposition gets violent beyond a certain threshold? I should think the contrary is the case: be prepared to neutralize enemy goon squads. Goon squads without survivors would seem pretty well neutralized. If they're antilibertarian anyway, shouldn't we see to it that they experience either a libertarian epiphany or a sudden death?
The problem you and I have is that our perceptions of our current governmental system are so opposed. You see a system, significantly better than others, seeking to spread our freedoms across the planet. I see a statist system generally growing stronger with each administration, seeking to control lives and economies. The machinery of government is fullfilling the prime directive of any bureacracy, sustaining itself and growing. We get a nominal rollback, like Bush easing off on the gun grab, but it is always paired with the pet enslavement project, which for this administration is subsidizing the oil economy. I know you were part of the system so are comfortable with it but the idea that the American System would become an increasingly centralized controlled economy, while attractive to the Federalist/Whig/Republican, is repugnant to those of us who see the American Revolution of a triumph for individual freedom.
I think that you compare us to the Islamists and rightly see a people more free. I think we should compare ourselves to Jefferson's hopes for us. The flaw in the neo-conservative dream of a democratic domino effect is in thinking that we represent freedom to the folks on the Arab street, when our own freedoms are just a ghost of what they should be, in large part because of our world-wide military activities.
Now we're thinking. I'll mull this over a bit.
The problem you and I have is ~big snip ~because of our world-wide military activities.
That Griff is one damn smart fellow. :notworthy
Now we're thinking. I'll mull this over a bit.
ok, its been almost 4 years ...
LOL okay so I started reading this thread, and then it said something about W, and I was like WTF- this isn't "current events" HAHAHA! Way to go dumpster diving for old threads ;)
It's more current than it seems.
With the exception of MaggieL, all posters on this page (post 136 on) are all still active, all still have the same style, all still have the same opinions, and are all still arguing the same shit over and over again. :corn: .... :zzz:
C'mon zen - you really didn't find the humor in that?