The House is run by a bunch of racist, ultranationalist xenophobes.
The borders should all be open; citizenship and immigration control is a sin against the natural common property of all humankind -- the earth.
Xenophobia in America
Xenophobia in America
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
I don't doubt that at all.The House is run by a bunch of racist, ultranationalist xenophobes.
I'd love to not doubt this at all...The borders should all be open; citizenship and immigration control is a sin against the natural common property of all humankind -- the earth.
Ah yes, peace on earth. Unfortunately there is that struggle for survival thing to contend with and resources are distributed over the land on the planet. Meaning that the most powerful will always want borders and will have to make sure rational or irrational fears are amplified so we all think it is an absolute necessity to own, control, and fight for land. Because it is a necessity to live off the land, even those of us who don’t, rely on products that are all initially derived from the planets resources. Borders are just another way the whole is continually dissected so the powerful can stay that way. If I had been born wealthy and powerful would I have given it away? There’s no way to know. I would have been an entirely different person but the answer to that question is in most cases no.
Maybe after the present power ravages the planet to the point most or the entire human race is wiped of the face of it there can be some sharing of resources going on but as it stands it would not be wise. We open our borders and some other power hungry dictator will be at our throats for whatever we’re worth.
As far as individuals coming and going when ever they like…that’s not cool at this time either. Because the US is not properly taking care of the citizens we already have, until they can/do (I think we’re able to now) but until that happens opening the borders to whoever wants to come, isn’t a good idea.
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
how does that follow from immigration?We open our borders and some other power hungry dictator will be at our throats for whatever we’re worth.
the only way i could see that would be, like, if the Republicans are successful in their purposeful, but so far lackluster, effort to court the Mexican vote.
maybe a more sensible attitude, toward others, such as not excluding people, would actually serve as a motivation for real social progress in the wellbeing of people.Because the US is not properly taking care of the citizens we already have, until they can/do (I think we’re able to now) but until that happens opening the borders to whoever wants to come, isn’t a good idea
the point is that there is no moral right for the wealthy to capture resources incl. land and exclude the poor. the poor have a god-given right to demand their share. if that harms the wealthy -- fuck 'em.
Since the main point is illegal immigration.
About Mexico- Its not helping the poor to allow illegal immigration, it only hurts the poor of both the U.S. and Mexico. The ones who can make it over the border in hopes of moving their lives here are screwed over beyond belief. They aren't paid minimum wage, or have the benefit of any labor laws. They are at the mercy of their employers. They have no recourse to the law here. If they attempted to, they would be deported. Its, oh, how to you say...exploitation? And I'm not saying things are better in Mexico, but I think having a guest worker program would be great.
I'm not against you in the belief that closing our borders is a bad idea. I just read a essay that had five immigration myths:
1) America is being overun with immigrants
- Well, since Christopher Columbus...in all actuality, in 1990, only 8% of the population was foreign-born. And illegal aliens make up only 13% of that (1% of the entire population). And most don't cross over the borders, they enter legally via student or visitor visa, and never leave. Thus, building a wall will not help, no matter how high.
2) Immigrants are a drain on society's resources.
- Immigrants generate more in taxes than the cost of the social services they obtain.
3) Immigrants take jobs from U.S. citizens
- Countless studies have actually concluded that immigrants create more jobs than they fill.
4) Aliens refuse to assimilate, and are depriving us of our cultural and political unity
- 'Our society exerts tremendous pressure to conform, and cultural separatism rarely survives a generation. But more important, even if this claim were true, is this a legitimate rationale for limiting immigration in a society built on the values of pluralism and tolerance?'
5) Immigrants have no rights under our Constitution
- The rights under the Constitution are for all people (except for voting and running for office)
National Security Crisis, indeed!
About Mexico- Its not helping the poor to allow illegal immigration, it only hurts the poor of both the U.S. and Mexico. The ones who can make it over the border in hopes of moving their lives here are screwed over beyond belief. They aren't paid minimum wage, or have the benefit of any labor laws. They are at the mercy of their employers. They have no recourse to the law here. If they attempted to, they would be deported. Its, oh, how to you say...exploitation? And I'm not saying things are better in Mexico, but I think having a guest worker program would be great.
Well, we all thought nation-states were a bad idea.The borders should all be open; citizenship and immigration control is a sin against the natural common property of all humankind -- the earth.
I'm not against you in the belief that closing our borders is a bad idea. I just read a essay that had five immigration myths:
1) America is being overun with immigrants
- Well, since Christopher Columbus...in all actuality, in 1990, only 8% of the population was foreign-born. And illegal aliens make up only 13% of that (1% of the entire population). And most don't cross over the borders, they enter legally via student or visitor visa, and never leave. Thus, building a wall will not help, no matter how high.
2) Immigrants are a drain on society's resources.
- Immigrants generate more in taxes than the cost of the social services they obtain.
3) Immigrants take jobs from U.S. citizens
- Countless studies have actually concluded that immigrants create more jobs than they fill.
4) Aliens refuse to assimilate, and are depriving us of our cultural and political unity
- 'Our society exerts tremendous pressure to conform, and cultural separatism rarely survives a generation. But more important, even if this claim were true, is this a legitimate rationale for limiting immigration in a society built on the values of pluralism and tolerance?'
5) Immigrants have no rights under our Constitution
- The rights under the Constitution are for all people (except for voting and running for office)
National Security Crisis, indeed!
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
OH *(&^%$#!!!About Mexico- Its not helping the poor to allow illegal immigration, it only hurts the poor of both the U.S. and Mexico. The ones who can make it over the border in hopes of moving their lives here are screwed over beyond belief. They aren't paid minimum wage, or have the benefit of any labor laws. They are at the mercy of their employers. They have no recourse to the law here. If they attempted to, they would be deported. Its, oh, how to you say...exploitation? And I'm not saying things are better in Mexico, but I think having a guest worker program would be great.
How many times have I already said this on the Other Website and so far no one's listened???
I am all for a guest worker program. It would bring people in legally, give them opportunities, enable them to earn some good money, and maybe even give them some rights and protection under the law while they're here.
the natural common property of all humankind
????
Who said this?? While we're on the subject what about the "natural common property" of all animalkind and all trees and plants? Who has suddenly decided that there are no limits and whatever we can help ourselves to on the earth belongs US?
If there are no boundaries, then how do nations protect national park land? How do they say "Stop. That Person belongs to US." An illegal immigrant here in Colorado killed a cop. The Mexican government found him and turned him over to us, but they said we couldn't kill him. Now, how would they protect him from the death penalty if they didn't have some rights in the matter?
What about the whales?? Are they the "natural common property" of all humankind? Give me a break! The Japanese would be delighted with your philosophy and go harvest all the whales they could.
If it weren't for some people fighting for the preservation of the resources that they value (for whatever reason) and if there were no property laws, the world would end up as something close to a shooting gallery. If I had the money, I would purchase a large plot of untouched land and protect it from human exploitation. I'd put it in trust to my inheritors. Now, if there were no nations, no property rights, I don't see how I could do that.
Power is important because it protects values.
Back to the illegal immigrant question:
Please read Bohonato's myths carefully. The myths refer to immigrants, not illegal immigrants. There is a big, a HUGE difference between the two classes. I think immigrants, legal ones, are totally awesome. More power to them. I've never been more impressed with a general class of people -- cutting across all racial lines and all national origins -- than I have been with legal immigrants. Some of them really struggle for the first ten years here, but they are determined to make it, and they do. It doesn't matter where they come from, or so it seems to me.
e-dog:
How does
follow from immigration? That's easy.We open our borders and some other power hungry dictator will be at our throats for whatever we’re worth.
The Mexican government doesn't have any responsibility to its people if there's an easy way for them to LEAVE. Just slough your poor and your miserable off on another country and keep doing whatever you feel like doing.
What would happen if the poor were forced to stay in Mexico?? If they had to either make an impact on the government or die? Well, they'd probably rise up. They'd have a revolution, or several, and straighten things out. But we're just a convenient siphoning point for the pressure that Mexico's corrupt and self-interested government puts on its people.
well, e-dog, are you an American? If you are, then you're one of the WEALTHY you refer to. It's more like "fuck you" than "fuck 'em." the way you put it.the point is that there is no moral right for the wealthy to capture resources incl. land and exclude the poor. the poor have a god-given right to demand their share. if that harms the wealthy -- fuck 'em.
I still have a shred or two of belief in the empowerment of the American people. I still think that if we can get some power back, everyone will benefit. I mean, everyone in the WORLD.
This is an issue that stands a good chance of getting a serious hearing in the House and Senate, because the American people are behind the ideas in HR 4437 en masse. We're talking something like 75-80% of the general public supports ALL of the ideas in the bill. I was a weirdo on one poll because I actually SUPPORT the idea of a guest worker program. That's how nasty the legal, voting American public has gotten on illegal immigration.
If we can win this point, by being united, then we can get others. It's just a stupid fantasy I have, so bear with me.
I'm for HR 4437 for two reasons:
1) I think it will benefit our country immensely
2) I think it will help if the American public rallys behind ONE of the important issues and gets our impassive and indifferent Senate to actually PAY ATTENTION for once in their lives.
Hey. Hello. This IS supposed to be a government BY and FOR the people. If the people of the United States say they want illegal immigration STOPPED, then you DO it, Mr and Ms. Senator. LISTEN to the people, for crying out loud!!!
AHHH!!!
ab-cat:
but being for relaxed immigration controls does not at all imply that environmentalism, animal-rights or conservation are to be sacrificed. there are no restrictions on a citizen of USA from moving between states, say Florida and Alaska. that is perfectly consistent with the existence of environmental laws and regulations being maintained -- or, as i'd like to see, strengthened environmental protection -- in each state and federally. so, the fact that i don't think citizenship restrictions are legitimate does not have any implications regarding how people should treat animals and respect the earth, except that, because the earth is the common property of all humankind, including future generations, we must preserve its soundness.
which, btw, means that your suggestion that "The Japanese would be delighted with your philosophy and go harvest all the whales they could" is a misunderstanding of my position; first of all, i said the 'earth' is the common property of humanity, not that all creatures on it are property; second, one group, such as 'the Japanese' that you say want to hunt whales -- more correctly, a subset of the Japanese favor this -- do not represent all humanity and thus cannot act unilaterally on my view; third, humanity itself doesn't mean presently living poeople but also the future persons who have a stake in what we do now, thus limiting what we can morally do now.
abcrystcats, again:
imagine some white person in the ante-bellum period saying, "I respect black people, but only the freemen; there's a huge difference between slaves and free persons."
the difference i see between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigrants is that the latter are exploited more than the former; the latter were perhaps in a more desperate situation at some point, politically or economically, and often lacked the social connections or money or time or safety to migrate through the legal processes.
what is truly 'illegal' regarding immigration is the laws themselves. You show me where in the U.S. Constitution, a system supposedly limited to enumerated powers, there is any authorization for immigration barriers?
i am all for traditional 'American' values: everyone in America either immigrated or their ancestors did (even the Native americans' ancestors crossed a land bridge from Asia). what moral right has a given population to decide "Enough, no more, we're closing the gates, building a wall, screw everyone on the outside!"? No right at all; none.
interesting typographic slip from 'us' to 'US.' My point is that what right does one nation-state such as the U.S. have to exclude persons and hoard resources?"Who has suddenly decided that there are no limits and whatever we can help ourselves to on the earth belongs US?"
but being for relaxed immigration controls does not at all imply that environmentalism, animal-rights or conservation are to be sacrificed. there are no restrictions on a citizen of USA from moving between states, say Florida and Alaska. that is perfectly consistent with the existence of environmental laws and regulations being maintained -- or, as i'd like to see, strengthened environmental protection -- in each state and federally. so, the fact that i don't think citizenship restrictions are legitimate does not have any implications regarding how people should treat animals and respect the earth, except that, because the earth is the common property of all humankind, including future generations, we must preserve its soundness.
which, btw, means that your suggestion that "The Japanese would be delighted with your philosophy and go harvest all the whales they could" is a misunderstanding of my position; first of all, i said the 'earth' is the common property of humanity, not that all creatures on it are property; second, one group, such as 'the Japanese' that you say want to hunt whales -- more correctly, a subset of the Japanese favor this -- do not represent all humanity and thus cannot act unilaterally on my view; third, humanity itself doesn't mean presently living poeople but also the future persons who have a stake in what we do now, thus limiting what we can morally do now.
abcrystcats, again:
Bonahato can speak for himself but i think the statements pertained to immigrants -- whether legal or illegal."Please read Bohonato's myths carefully. The myths refer to immigrants, not illegal immigrants. There is a big, a HUGE difference between the two classes. I think immigrants, legal ones, are totally awesome. More power to them. I've never been more impressed with a general class of people -- cutting across all racial lines and all national origins -- than I have been with legal immigrants."
imagine some white person in the ante-bellum period saying, "I respect black people, but only the freemen; there's a huge difference between slaves and free persons."
the difference i see between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigrants is that the latter are exploited more than the former; the latter were perhaps in a more desperate situation at some point, politically or economically, and often lacked the social connections or money or time or safety to migrate through the legal processes.
what is truly 'illegal' regarding immigration is the laws themselves. You show me where in the U.S. Constitution, a system supposedly limited to enumerated powers, there is any authorization for immigration barriers?
i am all for traditional 'American' values: everyone in America either immigrated or their ancestors did (even the Native americans' ancestors crossed a land bridge from Asia). what moral right has a given population to decide "Enough, no more, we're closing the gates, building a wall, screw everyone on the outside!"? No right at all; none.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”
Joseph Joubert
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it_i ... 09782.html
Ah there you are again ,
debating this question again. I don't even know what good it does to debate what is beyond our power to change. Or maybe I just don't care enough to get out in the streets and march.
My favorite exploited illegal immigrant story is about the the wet back that won ten million in the California lotto. When he went to claim the prize they deported him ten million and all. Is this a great country or what?
Joseph Joubert
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it_i ... 09782.html
maybe
Ah there you are again ,
debating this question again. I don't even know what good it does to debate what is beyond our power to change. Or maybe I just don't care enough to get out in the streets and march. My favorite exploited illegal immigrant story is about the the wet back that won ten million in the California lotto. When he went to claim the prize they deported him ten million and all. Is this a great country or what?
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
e-dog:
Hoard resources? The only thing that makes me think you have a point is the way our stinking American companies exploit workers overseas. But if you mean the resources inherent to this nation, then I say that's part and parcel of nationbuilding. We can discuss that more later, because I know you'll come back at this.
Are you aware we have achieved almost zero population growth in the United States as far as birth rate? Are you aware that our MAJOR source of population growth is from immigration? I've got no problem with immigration, but if we are to preserve our natural treasures, then immigration has got to be controlled, not relaxed.
As for animals -- the last time I checked dominant species were still forcing other species into extinction. The dominant species is Man. All the other species are the rest. If you expect to preserve the rights of animals in the United States, then you've got to control our population. We can't peaceably coexist in a world without controls. And controls means boundaries and rules, to a great extent.
I hate to say this, because it sounds mercenary on the surface to defend my point using this truth, but I'm gonna anyway: poverty changes values. Big time. We've probably lost thousands of priceless art treasures because of revolutions. It's a cinch that animals are not treated as well in Mexico as they are here, and how we treat them is far from perfect. I don't blame anybody for having values based on needs. What else are they going to be based on? If you have needs, everything else is subordinate to them. Your promotion of "relaxed immigration controls" is just a euphemism for permissive invasion, by a bunch of people who are so desperate for resources that they probably don't much care what they destroy if they can make their lives better in the process.
Do I want their lives to be better? Hell yes!! But do I think we're making it awfully easy for Mexico to blow off their poor by accepting 500,000 of them illegally each year?? You bet I do!
You're right that only some of the Japanese want to harvest whales. Whale meat is becoming an almost universally unpopular item in the Japanese diet.
Legal immigrants have planned for the trip. Sometimes for years. Legal immigrants have spent the months and/or years of anticipation learning about the language and customs of the land they are going to. Legal immigrants are carefully screened, in most cases, so that we are sure they will have a place in our country once they're here. Legal immigrants don't use our social programs as much. Not by a long shot. In fact, I'd bet that proportionately, native born Americans use them far more. Legal immigrants have rights that defend them from crime and exploitation. Most legal immigrants have an automatic support network once they get here.
My point is that a prepared immigrant, with resources, and coaching, and screening, makes a far far better citizen than someone who just suddenly decides(right or wrong) that life is fucked up on his side of the line and decides to slip over.
I hit "submit" by accident, but I'm not done yet.
You said:
The American people determine how they are going to govern their country and protect its borders, via their elected officials.
Didn't I say that? Constitution my ass. If the American people wanted to rewrite the whole thing, then "by the consent of the governed" they could do it.
Oh, gimme a large, personal BREAK.
I did it on purpose. It wasn't a Freudian slip.'us' to 'US.'
It isn't just ONE nation-state. See Australia, see New Zealand, see Malayasia, see the UK. I wonder if it's really easy to become a resident of Denmark? I was reading a bit about them, and if anyone in the 21st century has The Great Socialist Experiment going on, it's them. I would LOVE to become a Danish citizen, for the marvellous welfare benefits, if nothing else, but if I shipped myself to Denmark on a cargo plane, they'd ship me back, in disgust, so fast it would make my head spin.one nation-state such as the U.S. have to exclude persons and hoard resources?
Hoard resources? The only thing that makes me think you have a point is the way our stinking American companies exploit workers overseas. But if you mean the resources inherent to this nation, then I say that's part and parcel of nationbuilding. We can discuss that more later, because I know you'll come back at this.
Of course not. Those are different kinds of boundaries. Why even bring it up?there are no restrictions on a citizen of USA from moving between states, say Florida and Alaska.
Why not just say "I am for illegal immigration"? What's with the euphemism? Why are you calling legs limbs? Don't be delicate about it. We're all adults here.relaxed immigration controls
But they will be. Where are you from? Do you live in a southern border state? As more people flock to an area, that means more houses get built, more people use up resources, more pollution fills the skies. If you are for "relaxed immigration controls" then what do you do with Yosemite when the rest of California fills up? Eventually, your policy of "relaxed immigration controls" would force the hands of the people who would preserve that land.does not at all imply that environmentalism, animal-rights or conservation are to be sacrificed.
Are you aware we have achieved almost zero population growth in the United States as far as birth rate? Are you aware that our MAJOR source of population growth is from immigration? I've got no problem with immigration, but if we are to preserve our natural treasures, then immigration has got to be controlled, not relaxed.
As for animals -- the last time I checked dominant species were still forcing other species into extinction. The dominant species is Man. All the other species are the rest. If you expect to preserve the rights of animals in the United States, then you've got to control our population. We can't peaceably coexist in a world without controls. And controls means boundaries and rules, to a great extent.
Sure, we must. But did you think you could just TELL people about these enlightened values and that, because of the innate goodness of all human beings, they would automatically see your point and do the right thing?does not have any implications regarding how people should treat animals and respect the earth, except that, because the earth is the common property of all humankind, including future generations, we must preserve its soundness.
I hate to say this, because it sounds mercenary on the surface to defend my point using this truth, but I'm gonna anyway: poverty changes values. Big time. We've probably lost thousands of priceless art treasures because of revolutions. It's a cinch that animals are not treated as well in Mexico as they are here, and how we treat them is far from perfect. I don't blame anybody for having values based on needs. What else are they going to be based on? If you have needs, everything else is subordinate to them. Your promotion of "relaxed immigration controls" is just a euphemism for permissive invasion, by a bunch of people who are so desperate for resources that they probably don't much care what they destroy if they can make their lives better in the process.
Do I want their lives to be better? Hell yes!! But do I think we're making it awfully easy for Mexico to blow off their poor by accepting 500,000 of them illegally each year?? You bet I do!
You're right that only some of the Japanese want to harvest whales. Whale meat is becoming an almost universally unpopular item in the Japanese diet.
I don't know that this analogy exactly works, because we're not talking about slaves and free persons. But if you want to talk about differences between legal and illegal immigrants, I'll go you one.imagine some white person in the ante-bellum period saying, "I respect black people, but only the freemen; there's a huge difference between slaves and free persons."
Legal immigrants have planned for the trip. Sometimes for years. Legal immigrants have spent the months and/or years of anticipation learning about the language and customs of the land they are going to. Legal immigrants are carefully screened, in most cases, so that we are sure they will have a place in our country once they're here. Legal immigrants don't use our social programs as much. Not by a long shot. In fact, I'd bet that proportionately, native born Americans use them far more. Legal immigrants have rights that defend them from crime and exploitation. Most legal immigrants have an automatic support network once they get here.
My point is that a prepared immigrant, with resources, and coaching, and screening, makes a far far better citizen than someone who just suddenly decides(right or wrong) that life is fucked up on his side of the line and decides to slip over.
I hit "submit" by accident, but I'm not done yet.
You said:
That's so basic I can't believe you even tried it on me. I don't have to go thumbing through the Constitution with drool running out of one side of my mouth looking for that one.what is truly 'illegal' regarding immigration is the laws themselves. You show me where in the U.S. Constitution, a system supposedly limited to enumerated powers, there is any authorization for immigration barriers?
The American people determine how they are going to govern their country and protect its borders, via their elected officials.
Didn't I say that? Constitution my ass. If the American people wanted to rewrite the whole thing, then "by the consent of the governed" they could do it.
Oh, gimme a large, personal BREAK.
no time to read all of this, but i will say that if there's room and life is good, you can build as many walls as you want, but people are going to come...it's like the field of dreams, you see
want proof? it's happening before your very eyes
i agree that the solution is likely to open the borders up...it's like oil, you can either sell it or get it stolen from you, but the people who want it are going to get it, be sure of that...your country was built by people who relentlessly pursued a better life despite all the odds...i don't see anything happening that can stop that wave
want proof? it's happening before your very eyes
i agree that the solution is likely to open the borders up...it's like oil, you can either sell it or get it stolen from you, but the people who want it are going to get it, be sure of that...your country was built by people who relentlessly pursued a better life despite all the odds...i don't see anything happening that can stop that wave
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
Knip: That's cool and sounds like an economic supply-and-demand type statement. I like it.
Even so, nations have the right to determine borders and what they want to do about them. There isn't some kind of inherent right for people to come and help themselves. That's my point.
e-dog: This "xenophobia" thing -- makes it sound like Americans feel generally threatened and intimidated by other cultures. Well, SOME do, that's for sure. But whether that's the impetus behind the whole popular movement towards border control is another question.
Even so, nations have the right to determine borders and what they want to do about them. There isn't some kind of inherent right for people to come and help themselves. That's my point.
e-dog: This "xenophobia" thing -- makes it sound like Americans feel generally threatened and intimidated by other cultures. Well, SOME do, that's for sure. But whether that's the impetus behind the whole popular movement towards border control is another question.
e_dog - nice ideal but unworkable in this day and age.
<center>Fences Make Good Neighbors</center>
re: immigration, in particular, of Mexicans (and other So.Am. peoples) - why are they coming across the borders?
#1 - their own government does not care about the ones that cross but does indeed enjoy the benefits of monies being sent back to Mexico, reportedly the second largest means of generated money for the country after oil/gas.
#2 - what people look forward to leaving their homes, their families, their relatives and friends? it's ludricrous to think that these illegal immigrants to the States are willfully leaving their roots for anything less than money which is in the hands of a very few government officials.
#3 - if the Mexican gov't really cared about losing so many of their own countrymen they would offer a solution to those that leave in order to better their own country... but they don't.
#4 - the biggest problem that has not been brought up is when an illegal immigrant family does have children born in the States, those very children are less likely to do the menial labor that their parents did. this very real predicament would therefore verify that in order to do jobs that our government claims would not be done by our own citizens would have to continually draw off immigrant labor... with no end in sight. the immgrants that come across our borders certainly don't expect their own children to do the same menial labor that they have endured.
#5 - if the Mexican govt charged their people the 2 - 6,000 dollars that the immigrants pay the Mexican 'coyotes' to cross our borders, the same govt could provide legal passage of those wanting to come across. why don't they?
#6 - why does the Mexican govt strictly enforce their own southern borders from those further south of Mexico? the same govt jails those that cross the Mexican border in the South. why should the U.S. not play the same game?
#7 - there are a minority of Mexicans that feel the U.S. stole their country and feel they should have it back. let us hope this minority remains a minority or all hell could break loose with virtually millions more Mexicans from Mexico crossing freely into this country... moreso than we see now. their is reason to believe that the govt of Mexico encourages rather than discourages this possibility.
#8 - the Mexicans that cross our borders illegally are the indigenous Mexicans... the ones that have very little to no Spanish blood. The ones that have the Spanish lineage are the ones that rule the country with a mighty fist and really do not care about the original Mejica's of the country (which is another reason these same people want to cross our borders.. to avoid the subtle persecution from this government of minority).
#9 - The actual land of Mexico is very wealthy - gas/oil, mineral wealth, climate conducisive to great agricultural benefits... all these would greatly assist the entire population of Mexico if it weren't for the current corrupt government that does not encourage the sharing of wealth among it's peoples. The U.S. is paying the price of the Mexican government's greed and it's apathy to provide social growth with education and jobs for its own citizens, which should include the reported 80% of the indigenous population.
#10 - what other country in the world relies so heavily upon immigrants to "do jobs the people won't do?" is this not because of fair wages paid to menial jobs? this is of course the fault of greed within corporations and hence our country's growing disparity of wealth amongst a select few... as it is in Mexico now.
<center>Fences Make Good Neighbors</center>
re: immigration, in particular, of Mexicans (and other So.Am. peoples) - why are they coming across the borders?
#1 - their own government does not care about the ones that cross but does indeed enjoy the benefits of monies being sent back to Mexico, reportedly the second largest means of generated money for the country after oil/gas.
#2 - what people look forward to leaving their homes, their families, their relatives and friends? it's ludricrous to think that these illegal immigrants to the States are willfully leaving their roots for anything less than money which is in the hands of a very few government officials.
#3 - if the Mexican gov't really cared about losing so many of their own countrymen they would offer a solution to those that leave in order to better their own country... but they don't.
#4 - the biggest problem that has not been brought up is when an illegal immigrant family does have children born in the States, those very children are less likely to do the menial labor that their parents did. this very real predicament would therefore verify that in order to do jobs that our government claims would not be done by our own citizens would have to continually draw off immigrant labor... with no end in sight. the immgrants that come across our borders certainly don't expect their own children to do the same menial labor that they have endured.
#5 - if the Mexican govt charged their people the 2 - 6,000 dollars that the immigrants pay the Mexican 'coyotes' to cross our borders, the same govt could provide legal passage of those wanting to come across. why don't they?
#6 - why does the Mexican govt strictly enforce their own southern borders from those further south of Mexico? the same govt jails those that cross the Mexican border in the South. why should the U.S. not play the same game?
#7 - there are a minority of Mexicans that feel the U.S. stole their country and feel they should have it back. let us hope this minority remains a minority or all hell could break loose with virtually millions more Mexicans from Mexico crossing freely into this country... moreso than we see now. their is reason to believe that the govt of Mexico encourages rather than discourages this possibility.
#8 - the Mexicans that cross our borders illegally are the indigenous Mexicans... the ones that have very little to no Spanish blood. The ones that have the Spanish lineage are the ones that rule the country with a mighty fist and really do not care about the original Mejica's of the country (which is another reason these same people want to cross our borders.. to avoid the subtle persecution from this government of minority).
#9 - The actual land of Mexico is very wealthy - gas/oil, mineral wealth, climate conducisive to great agricultural benefits... all these would greatly assist the entire population of Mexico if it weren't for the current corrupt government that does not encourage the sharing of wealth among it's peoples. The U.S. is paying the price of the Mexican government's greed and it's apathy to provide social growth with education and jobs for its own citizens, which should include the reported 80% of the indigenous population.
#10 - what other country in the world relies so heavily upon immigrants to "do jobs the people won't do?" is this not because of fair wages paid to menial jobs? this is of course the fault of greed within corporations and hence our country's growing disparity of wealth amongst a select few... as it is in Mexico now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests