U.s. And mexico

[antagon]

Illegal migration into ANY country is not something that should be allowed! This country allows thousands upon thousands to enter LEGALLY EVERY year! The ILLEGAL entrance must be stopped before it's too late! Many seem to not know the difference between illegal and legal. What's up with that???

well illegal or not, its still immigration. the slack border controls and other enforcement marginalize the 'legal/illegal' part. i just say that the 'thousands upon thousands' should be expanded to account, at least fiscally, for immigrants coming here otherwise. it would legitimize what i feel is a policy to let them in the country, work and function in society anyhow.

i make the point of recounting the history of immigration to the US to imply that we've always had immigrants overwhelming our country, welcome that, and probably (hopefully) always will. the exception is that now our politicians havent the guts to legitimize it, declare a war, tax in proportion to their spending, etc.

 

[Angelhair]

So you would allow the 20 thousand plus illegals already here to be legalized??? And after that it will rise to millions due to the chain immigration that is in place? Is this country ready for millions of improvished immigrants to continue entering our country a country that is now in dire straits and from which will never recover??? I say put a moritorium on legal AND illegal entry for at least 20/25 yrs and give this country a chance to regroup.

 

[antagon]

you probably mean 20 million. staggering, yes. but i attribute most of what is negative about this wave of immigrants to their illegal, unligitimized, [income] tax exempt status. putting some status on them will bring immigration policy in line with immigration itself. that's the basis that the country was built on and arguably was whats bailed us out of dire straights in the past.

fundamentally, my appraisal of the status quo is very different then your own, and on whats brought us down to a low point. for me, insufficient tax revenue is a big player, and as id rather not pay any more tax myself, id prefer that some of the people functioning in our economy get paid over the table, opening up more deductibility for production from a business perspective, and more revenue for investment for a government perspective.

then, if you feel border infrastructure is the end-all be-all of american economic policy for the next 25 years, we can invest in that without having to borrow so much cash from china to do it.

 

[Angelhair]

The key word is improvished. Remember that those who come in through the back door are not your most educated. The majority will always be on the bottom portion of the tax revenue. Not earning enough to make a dent but taking alot from the social services in place to help them. Nothing will change.

 

[antagon]

rather, i'd call it the opposite way. if we were to import labor to the country, we'd best displace the gritty low-end work with machines or immigrants rather than importing only the most skilled foreigners. singapore imports bankers from all over the world into their top-paying jobs and leaves their citizens the worst work. theres many practices in place in third-world countries i'd suggest we dont emulate.

'send us your poor' is not a self-defeating request, history shows, but an opportunity for us to facilitate the upward mobility of our citizens -- our society altogether. we fundamentally disagree on different ideas like your 'never recover' downturn and now that 'nothing will change' with significantly more taxable income at hand. can we really say we've got 11% unemployment with 5-10M in undocumented labor?

maybe we could agree that involuntary removal of 20,000,000 people is a pipe-dream, moreover keeping them out. how about for all thats been made about immigration over the years, that government isnt sincere about actually stopping it. surely we can agree on that. why do you think minute-men have to volunteer to 'crack down' on it while politicians pay lipservice?

when government wants to do something habitually, like go to war, expand social programs and import cheap labor, it does it under the rug until there's enough mandate to just come out in the open with it. i think that its under the rug where the screw-ups happen, and above-board our successes.

ps..im new to this board. thank you for the discussion.

 

[Angelhair]

Importing is very different than entering ILLEGALLY. We should/could import skilled labor but when their work is done, they can return home along with their 'remesas'. And if and when they want to live in this country they can start the process of staying here LEGALLY.
'"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" I doubt very much that this was meant to continue for the rest of this country's life. It was during the time when the USA was in dire need of immigrants. We allow many to enter LEGALLY and after passing medical exams and making sure they are of good character. The problem is not the LEGAL entry - but - the ILLEGAL entry. And yes, I do agree that our politicians have NEVER been interested in stopping the ILLEGAL flow.

 

[Saladin]

They travel to the USA ILLEGALLY!

Legal fetishism does not interest me, as the divergence between legal and ethical standards was the cause for the legality of slavery and illegality of racial equality. Hence, it does not constitute an argument and a more compelling claim must be brought forward.

And the other thing, YOU seem to lose sight of the fact that the USA is the most diverse country in the world and it is ludicrous for you to keep bringing up 'facts and figures' that amount to a hill of beans in the REAL world. This country is like no other when it comes to allowing people from all over this planet to enter.

Your claims are inaccurate; the U.S. has always adopted discriminatory policies towards migrants regarded as undesirable, those being minority white ethnicities such as Irish and Italians in the late nineteenth century to the Chinese and "Malays" to Amerindians today.

Whether Mexico is run by European/Spanish people is purely subjective on your part. Mexico has had many people in power who are indian and still they remain in the 'dark ages'. You must stop blaming the USA for the world's plight. The majority does not buy it.[/I]

Please do not make up falsities. That the political and economic classes of Mexico are predominantly Spanish whites is apparent to anyone familiar with the informal caste system that continues to survive there and in much of Latin America. Mexico has been ruled by the National Action Party throughout the twenty-first century, and endured decades of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party before that, both of those parties being regressive in contrast to the progressive Party of the Democratic Revolution, whose candidate is widely regarded as having had the presidential election fraudulently stolen from him. The National Action Party has attempted to undermine the legacy of Benito Juarez, the Zapotec Indian president of Mexico in the late nineteenth century.

Here is then Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari overseeing the North American Free Trade Agreement being signed. He resembles a Mediterranean white of Spaniard or Italian stock...because that's what he is.

Now, ever heard of Geronimo? This is what an Apache Indian looks like:

This is what a modern Mixtec immigrant from Oaxaca looks like:

I'm curious; are you under the impression that Carlos Salinas de Gortari resembles Geronimo and Juan the Mixtec immigrant? It was the predominantly white political and economic classes of Mexico that profited from trade liberalization, but trade liberalization entailed the flooding of Oaxaca agricultural markets with cheap corn so that the Mixtec farmers were forced to migrate, the cut of sustaining subsidization to the Tzotzil Mayans in Chiapas that spurred the Zapatista insurrection, and the exacerbation of international wage differentials that caused international movement. Look to the political and economic classes of the U.S. and Mexico to blame.

 

[Angelhair]

Saladin, you are preaching to the choir.

 

[Saladin]

Saladin, you are preaching to the choir.

I'm glad to hear it. Since you're now aware that immigration is caused by international wage differentials exacerbated by trade liberalization, and that authoritarian police state policies against indigenous migrants are unjust, I do hope you'll be changing your tune somewhat in this sub-forum.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Illegal is still illegal. Ike was the last person in Washington that understood that.

 

[Saladin]

Illegal is still illegal. Ike was the last person in Washington that understood that.

I believe black presence on a wrong section of a bus was also "illegal" during his tenure, was it not?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Illegal is still illegal. Ike was the last person in Washington that understood that.

I believe black presence on a wrong section of a bus was also "illegal" during his tenure, was it not?

And? We have fixed that, haven't we. But Illegal Immigration is not hurting the illegal immigrant but it is hurting the country. There is no comparison.

 

[Saladin]

But Illegal Immigration is not hurting the illegal immigrant but it is hurting the country. There is no comparison.

Then don't simply make appeals to the law, since legal fetishism doesn't constitute an advancement of more compelling ethical or economic arguments. Can you refer to any of those?

 

[Angelhair]

Very simply put: THE USA HAS EVERY RIGHT TO LET ENTER INTO THIS COUNTRY THOSE WHO IT SEES FIT! IF YOU WANT TO DISSECT THE REASONS WHY IT DOES WHAT IT DOES, GO FOR IT. Illegal entry into any country is going against Sovereign Law and ALL countries claim to be sovereign countries. Why dissect what the USA does? It is the country of choice for millions of people from all over this planet. And by your name, I imagine you are one of those. For the record, there is no other country on this planet that has tried to right its wrongs and succeeded - NONE! God Bless the United States of America! Long may its flag wave.

 

[Angelhair]

'Then don't simply make appeals to the law, since legal fetishism doesn't constitute an advancement of more compelling ethical or economic arguments. Can you refer to any of those?'

The laws were put in place to avoid chaos and not for the advancement of ethical or economic problems. If those advancements follow, we can thank the Rule of Law but not any particular legal fetishism.

 

[Angelhair]

'I believe black presence on a wrong section of a bus was also "illegal" during his tenure, was it not?'

Segregation was in place long before Eisenhower came into power. Just one of the wrongs that was righted. Don't 'make falsities'.

 

[Saladin]

Very simply put: THE USA HAS EVERY RIGHT TO LET ENTER INTO THIS COUNTRY THOSE WHO IT SEES FIT! IF YOU WANT TO DISSECT THE REASONS WHY IT DOES WHAT IT DOES, GO FOR IT. Illegal entry into any country is going against Sovereign Law and ALL countries claim to be sovereign countries. Why dissect what the USA does? It is the country of choice for millions of people from all over this planet. And by your name, I imagine you are one of those. For the record, there is no other country on this planet that has tried to right its wrongs and succeeded - NONE! God Bless the United States of America! Long may its flag wave.

No one is interested in this crude jingoism. We might look to a very different legacy, such as the fact that U.S. was established through the brutal subjugation and violent dispossession of the indigenous population, members of which are now ironically attacked as "trespassers" or "immigrants" despite that population's settlement in America long before the arrival of Europeans. Just as the "only democracy in the Middle East" was built upon ethnic cleansing and the unjust removal of the indigenous population, so were the U.S. and the countries of Latin America built upon those lines. No one is interested in crude jingoism because U.S. citizenship is not a consciously made choice or substantive accomplishment for the vast majority of residents. And when we see various European countries that have a degree of social mobility that makes the U.S.'s claims of "opportunity" look foolish and various international countries having been subject to the destruction of internal democracy courtesy of the CIA, we have no choice but to laugh at a myth.

The laws were put in place to avoid chaos and not for the advancement of ethical or economic problems. If those advancements follow, we can thank the Rule of Law but not any particular legal fetishism.

The avoidance of chaos is a legitimate ethical initiative. The problem is that you've not cited any evidence that more libertarian immigration policies would lead to "chaos," but have instead erroneously referred to a general purpose of laws in avoiding "chaos" as "evidence" of this, which is openly fallacious.

Segregation was in place long before Eisenhower came into power. Just one of the wrongs that was righted. Don't 'make falsities'.

Apparently, you didn't quite deduce the point of my comment, which was intended to illustrate the divergence between legal and ethical standards and the consequent foolishness of referring to the law alone in an attempt to justify policy.

 

[antagon]

Importing is very different than entering ILLEGALLY. We should/could import skilled labor but when their work is done, they can return home along with their 'remesas'. And if and when they want to live in this country they can start the process of staying here LEGALLY.
'"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" I doubt very much that this was meant to continue for the rest of this country's life. It was during the time when the USA was in dire need of immigrants. We allow many to enter LEGALLY and after passing medical exams and making sure they are of good character. The problem is not the LEGAL entry - but - the ILLEGAL entry. And yes, I do agree that our politicians have NEVER been interested in stopping the ILLEGAL flow.

add to our disagreement list that i dont agree demand for masses of immigrants is passe. immigration is a growth industry in the US initself. i refute your history that there was much in the way of immigration controls for most of US history, or that ellis island exams were really medical or character checks.

on ILLEGAL and LEGAL, these are the aspects of immigration that im saying there is a need for review, so not for me a compelling arguement for rounding up and deporting immigrants, but for regularizing them. you claim illegal is a matter of law. i say it is a matter of status and enforcement, and that there's neither on a large scale for your 20 million. what's a 65mph speed limit if everyone and the cops drive 80? lipservice, i say.

on politicians, theyre plowing ahead with naturalization anyhow, remember 'under the rug'? i think that we would profit from a focus on immigrants already functioning here, and on a large scale, read 'free economic stimulus'.