Hey, it started as a failed catchline, OK?
We should, however, fix the trade problems. (And the abuse of the Américas by el Norte goes way beyond NAFTA.)
Does any country in the world have problems not caused by the United States?
My point being that rather than focusing on the corrupt Mexican government for making these agreements and not improving their situation, or the spineless Mexicans for not revolting and overthrowing their government the US gets blamed.
Should there be any limit on the number of these people we allow in? I think I recall a poll stating that sometjing like two-thirds of Mexicans would move here if they were able. Should we let all of them in? How about Guatemalans? Nicuraguans? Salvadorans? What number would you put as a limit? Any? How about Ethiopians? Russians? Do oyu draw any lines? If so, where and why?
Don’t you think it’s in the interest of the country to prevent felons from other countries entering the U.S., as opposed to trying to find them after they’re already here? Don’t you think the country’s leaders have a duty to protect its citizenry from known criminals before they commit further crimes? How about gangs? Shold we just open the doors to gangs letting them come and go unharrassed? Some of them are felons, not all.
But why should America apologize and not the Mexican government. And if you take NAFTA off the table, as you seem willing to do, what’s the apology for? Remember, we’re talking about Mexico here.
Well, why don’t you show me. If your response is The Gulf of Mexico, you are admitting that the fence itself would be effective and people would seek to go around it. What makes you think that the coast could be patrolled? It would be much easier than the 2,000-mile border that the fence just fixed (hypothetically). At the very least people would need a boat and would not be able to attempt to swim in one at a time.
Thank you, I think. 
But like I said, it isn’t an easy problem with easy solutions.
I support us looking into a liberal “guest worker” program. Not unlimited immigration, but nearly unlimited “come here and work but stay a citizen of Mexico” solution.
This post made me seriously want to scream. I backed off… I calmed down… I’m back.
The United States has proven, over the last century, that they will do absolutely anything within their power to protect their own economic interests in Latin America. In Chile, they (the U.S.) supported Operation Condor and worked with General Pinochet to assassinate a democratically elected and very publicly supported president, Salvador Allende. Following the assassination of Salvador Allende the U.S. installed Pinochet and ensured that he maintained absolute control. Pinochet was responsible for the deaths of thousands… when a Latin American dictator doesn’t like your politics, he doesn’t just torture and kill you–he tortures and kills your wife and your children and your aunts and your uncles and your grandparents. While I know a lot about Chile, Operation Condor wasn’t limited to Chile–it covered the Southern Cone countries of South America–sponsored by the corrupt governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay as well as Chile.
From the Wiki:
For what it’s worth, I had the opportunity to meet with this man, Peter Kornbluh, while I was a freshman in college taking a Spanish course on the Chilean socialist movement of the 70s. Our Final Exam for the course involved spending two hours with him and learning about his work first-hand. He brought the CIA Documents he has worked so hard to declassify. I have read them. Nixon and Kissinger ABSOLUTELY knew about Operation Condor and openly supported it. The United States backed one of the most brutal regimes in South America, all so they could maintain their sense of power and control and preserve their economic interests. Without U.S. backing, Allende and other fledgling governments might have had a shot, the Chilean people might have had a shot at creating democracy.
The United States has done this with countless other South American countries, not limited to the Southern Cone. They had (have?) a special school, called School of the Americas which trained people in guerilla warfare, specifically for the purpose of stopping these revolutions you view nations as so “spineless” to have failed in achieving.
The Guatemalan Civil War? United States intervened in the interest of the United Fruit Company, as I have mentioned before this spawned a revolution in the Mexican State of Chiapas. The U.S. has consistently interfered in the rights of people in these countries to stand up for their civil liberties and construct a true and democratic government. That they would do the same thing in Mexico–and perhaps that they already have, and I haven’t learned about it yet–is practically a guarantee. When it comes to foreign policy, the U.S. has no conscience.
So yes, pardon me, but I do believe the United States has a lot to apologize for.
Concerning Mexico, which is the point of the discussion, based on the first sentence above the second one doesn’t track. The first sentence certainly is a doozy though, showing great disgust for both the United States and logic.
Note for the future: if you need to resort to packing conjecture, admitted ignorance of events, “perhaps”, and “practically” into one single sentence, you might want to reevaluate whatever merit you mistakenly thought it had, as well as your decision to share it with the world.
Speaking of “share it with the world,” why don’t you share this poll with us.
And let us know what sort of quotas you propose.
From here:
• Asked whether they would go live in the United States if they had the means and
opportunity, 41% responded positively in the February survey and 46% in the May
survey.
I thought the number offered by others in previous debates was around two-thirds, guess I had the number wrong. But add either number to the estimated 16% of the Mexican population that already did move here and you’re in the ballpark. But my larger point stands even with the lowest of these numbers.
I do not have enough information to make that assessment. The important point is that the number be in the best interest of the United States, and that whatever it is we know who is coming in. I think right now we should restrict immigration severly, until we get our house in order. In the long term I’d advocate whatever numbers benefited us at the time. I think a temporary guest worker program like Canada has would serve us well, where people can easily come here legally to work and can stay up to 8 months at a time. For any of this to work, and whatever the numbers allowed in are—whether 50 or 50 million—we need to be able to control our borders to make sure the people who are supposed to be gettioing in are and those who are not supposed to be getting in aren’t.
Tell me, what are your thoughts on the matter?
No. No limits. If overpopulation is the problem, then say so and we can talk about fixing it. Quotas are racism (or some sort of -ism, anyway) and we shouldn’t be in the business deciding who is good enough to be an American. If you were born here you get a free pass; I don’t see why being born anywhere else makes you any different.
Don’t you think it is in the interest of Illinois to prevent felons from other states from entering Illinois, as opposed to finding them once they’re already here? Criminals are criminals, pure and simple; if you ask me, you’re just as much a criminal if you flee the state as you are if you flee another country.
Don’t get me started on gangs. If you are a criminal, you’re a criminal; if you’re not, you’re not – regardless of who your friends are. Gangs are irrelevant.
I guess what I’m saying is let’s let people prove they are criminals, lazy, etc. first. Don’t just assume that everybody entering the country is going to be a problem and treat them accordingly; let them in, and then deal with any problems they might cause. Who knows? Maybe they’ll be a net benefit. I was always taught that the melting pot our country was in the 19th century was a good thing, an asset. Now we want to cater to the xenophobes?
Oh, and DrDeth, if you let them live, work and pay taxes here, why not let them vote and pull jury duty, too?
Are there other nations out there (that anyone would want to move to) with a complete 100% “open door” policy?
I have no idea how someone came up with 16% of our population living in the US but that is utter nonsense.
I already gave you a very clear example above where the United States’ intervention in Guatemala directly affected Mexico. You took the one uncertainty in my entire statement and tried to use it to discredit the rest of what I said. What about the U.S.’ treatment of other Latin American countries suggests to you that Mexico would be treated any differently? The U.S. has consistently supported policies that are bad for the Mexican people, has consistently backed governments that are corrupt and has shamelessly exploited Mexico.
It sounds from your other comment on me allegedly hating the U.S. that you equate patriotism with unquestioning acceptance of authority. I can’t imagine why else you would even mention that or how it’s relevant to me informing you about well-documented historical events.
I’ve heard it a few times. But here is one instance.
You still owe me an answer from posts 13 an 18. Here it is again:
Well, it makes you not an American and a citizen of wherever you were born. Now you want to erase those distinctions? Okay. So anyone who wants to come can come. Should we allow them all to come at the same time? Or should we make sure that our infrastructure—schools, hospitals, law enforcement, transportation systems, etc.—have time to ramp up to meet the new demands. And since their are literally billions of people who would love to move here in a second, how do you make the movement orderly. What procedures are in place? Is there any limit at which point you shut the door. And if so, how? You say you want to worry about felons *after *they are here, how about those with contagious diseases? She would screen people medically like they did during the great immigration wave coming through Ellis Island? Or just hope for the best?
Yes. And they make great effort to do just that. But since state borders are more porous than national ones, many get through. Why you would want to identify a drawback to the free flow between states and argue to use that as a model for national borders is odd to say the least.
Tell me, do you advocate the abolishment of all countries and wish to see one global community? Is that the basis of your position?
Well, that policy didn’t serve the U.S. too well in trying to combat organized crime, so they abandoned it. And they even crafted new tools to fight the organization aspect. The RICO statute(s?) for instance.
I’m not assuming anything. I’m of the mind that most immigrants are incredibly hard working and appreciate what this country has to offer more than many native Americans. The point is that our immigration policy should benefit us first. Assimilation was an important part of the concept of the melting pot. It is why immigration was curtailed, to give society an opportunity to absorb millions of peoples from different cultures. You seem to thiink that worked well, shouldn’t we use that as a model, as you seem ti advocate?
If I believed that a country was as guilty as you do of every possible thing that they might have affected—intentionally and inadvertently—I would hold them in contempt. They would be worthy of it. The fact that you attempt to find the U.S. at the heart of every ill in Mexico and points south, and by the same sweep of the pen absolve both the people of those countries and their leaders of the responsibility that lies squarely with them also indicates that you are part of the blame America first crowd. To which I recommend you go back and take my suggestions to heart. If not, you are of course completely within your rights to continue in your fantastical world. It (the United States) is a free country, after all.
I owe you squat.
Did you mean to type you “got squat”? If so, ignore the rest of this, as we are in agreement.
But in case you stick by your typing, let’s recap. After I provided background for the 16% number you called nonsense I reminded you that you ignored to answer the same question—twice—from page 1:
Oh, I think I see the problem. Maybe I should have said: “If you want to be taken seriously and back up claims that you make, as that burden falls to you, you still owe me an answer from posts 13 an 18.”
Does that help? I hope so. So, here it is yet again: “Can you explain more? It seems that if you own something you don’t have to renew anything. What is involved in the renewal of the title? And what happens if you do not renew it?”
Then why don’t you? I’m not pulling this out of my ass, you know.
So how much do you know about Latin American history? Are you just saying you aren’t convinced because you don’t really know anything about it and don’t care, or because you feel you have different information than I do? Because if you actually have some kind of historical narrative that contradicts my studies, I am open to hearing about it.
Do you mean recommend I not make qualifying statements like “probably”? Because I thought that was rather mature of me–you know, not pretending I know things I don’t in the interest of making my case sound better. I feel VERY incredibly strongly about this issue, but I have also been studying Latin American history and literature for 6 years. I don’t know everything, but I know enough about general historical trends between the U.S. and Latin America to understand the dynamic that has been going on in our foreign policy with Latin America for well over a century.
You are mistaken that I don’t blame the Mexican government as well. The Mexican government has been corrupt for as long as the U.S. has been screwing with Latin America. But one thing I don’t blame are the Mexican people who are living in poverty and struggling to have their civil rights honored in their own country. There WAS a revolution in Mexico, don’t you get it? People did revolt and throw out the trash. The problem was, their leader became corrupt… he redistributed the land, all right… to his goddamn friends! Mexico has been in the unfortunate position of having consistently bad leaders, constant betrayal and anyone who revolts gets the military smack-down. It happened in '68… or how about the joke elections of 1988? Or how about the most recent elections, the fact that two separate governments are functioning in Mexico, one based on a fixed election and the other considered “illegitimate” by the state? How about the teachers strikes and the women who were raped by police in Oaxaca this summer?
I don’t understand how you can actually blame oppressed people for the actions of their government. You can blame their government, sure, absolutely, you can blame the minority of people in control. But the Mexican people are just trying to survive.
Furthermore, you’re making sweeping judgments about the Mexican people as a whole without considering any of the cultural and inter-state conflicts that have led to these situations. Believe it or not, not everyone in Mexico wants the same thing. There are vast cultural and socioeconomic and ethnic differences between the people in this country. If you think they’re all just going to band together and overthrow the current government (the leader of which is currently disputed as we speak) I don’t think you have a clear understanding of the situation. Different factions in Mexico agreeing about what to do about their situation is about as likely as Democrats and Republicans agreeing about what to do with our situation.
The truth of the matter is, you can’t honestly, realistically look at the situation in Mexico without factoring in the foreign policy of the United States, especially NAFTA and U.S. intervention in Guatemala. There is an expression in Mexico: “Estamos tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos.” (We are so far from God and so close to the United States.) It’s not coincidental.
For what it’s worth, I don’t hate my country at all. I hate its foreign policy. I don’t isolate the U.S. as the only country guilty of exploitation of others… that would be unrealistic and silly! I see that all nations in power do these kinds of things, some to more or less extremes. But I live in the United States, and in that sense I have an obligation to speak up. I am an ambassador for this country–just as is each citizen–and I have the moral obligation to say, “This is not right” and try to stop it. I am of the firm belief that immigration problems are an issue of world inequality. Given that globalization is such a reality, and that so many entities now exist outside of borders (major corporations nowadays are one example), I believe it is in the best interest of the United States not to exploit others… in the best interest of every country that exists not to exploit others. We can no longer do what we please in other countries without being directly affected by our foreign policy decisions. Those days are over.