Who said anything about renewing the title? Do you own your car? Do you have to renew your registration?
You did:
Yes. Yes. But that just allows me to use the car on public roads, so they can make sure that the car can be operated safely.
How does this relate to your point? I’m really trying to understand your point regarding ownership. Can you just answer these questions: 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?
Because I understand that the primary responsibility of the U.S. is to act in the interest of the U.S. And I believe us to be a benevolent country, one that has helped more people outside of its borders than any other country to date. Perfect, no. Worthy of being acknowledged for the good we do and be given the benefit of the doubt now and then, absolutely.
It’s all fine and well to feel VERY incredibly super-duper doubly strong about this or any other issue. It doesn’t give your point any more weight. Surely you know this.
I am reliieved to hear this. Truly. And if you read over what you wrote you’ll see problems OF MEXICO. The best thing that could happen, for Mexico, I believe, is to put an inpenetrable barrier around the whole country and send all the illegals back. Revolution would happen in short order and the result would be ten times better than what they have now. But because the government can turn a blind eye—or encourage—the poorer, less skilled to sneak into the U.S. AND receive billions in remittances in the process, significant change will not happen. Ironically, by being so accepting of illegals coming to the U.S. we actually help perpetuate the coruption and its pernicious effects.
I think you really aren’t trying to understand anything. The title isn’t renewed, the trust is. You file paperwork. If that still doesn’t seem to you to be good enough, who really gives a shit. There are thousands and thousands of foreigners buying property along the coast. They obviuosly hold a different opinion than yours. Plus you conveniently overlooked my post on ownership through a Mexican corporation. GD rules prohibit me expressing my true opinion on your intent.
Now answer this. Are there any restrictions on foreign ownership of property in the US?
Okay. I see this is a fundamental difference between us.
Surely you know the word “but” means I’m contrasting two ideas. I.E. while it would appear that I am biased based on my strong emotional feelings on the issue, this is my college major so it’s safe to say I know a thing or two about real actual history. As a matter of fact, I didn’t feel strongly about the issue until I studied it. And the more I learn, the more strongly I feel, because the damning evidence just keeps coming.
I know it must be disconcerting to talk to someone who’s honest about their own limitations and possible biases–i.e. it’s not necessary to point them out to me. The reason I am this way is because if I’m wrong, I want to know why I’m wrong, I want to see the evidence and be given the opportunity to formulate new ideas based on new information I am given. But you haven’t given me any new information–just really strong opinions. So we have:
- your really strong opinions
vs. - My really strong opinions + limited knowledge of U.S. foreign policy with Latin America/Mexico/Mexican history/Mexican emigration
It’s not really very balanced.
Are you aware how patronizing this is? I’m getting the impression you view Mexicans as having less value than yourself. Gee, let’s build a wall around a whole entire country and shove 'em all in there and let them sort out the mess. Nice.
The U.S.-Mexican governments absolutely encourage emigration into the U.S., but you are incorrect that they are all “unskilled” workers. Most of the people I have met are former doctors, lawyers, teachers… just because they’re working in a factory over here doesn’t mean they aren’t educated… but it SHOULD give you an idea of how desperate they would have to be to come here.
Which brings us back to foreign policy. Until the U.S. changes its treatment of this issue, nothing is going to change. You will never be able to keep them out until they have freedom and equality where they are living. Nothing will ever change until there is no longer a need for them to leave. You can argue all you want about what should be done, but only one thing will ever actually work.
Uh, no, didn’t overlook anyhting. It’s what sparked my questions. You claim to have some knowledge about this and it interests me. I still don’t see how, if you have to renew a trust or a title (which you said and I quoted), how that can be considered “owning” it. But I guess I made the mistake of assuming that you were adult enough to leave Pit stuff in the Pit.
I don’t know the law, but I don’t think there is, as there are banks giving mortgages to illegals. Disgustingly, they often do so at below market rates and waive the mortgage insurance. So they get better deals than citizens.
You do not deny that the law is on the books, right? But you claim there are two perfectly legal ways of bypassing the law, where the end result is no different than owning, right? So- why is the law still on the books? If the law can be and is so easily flouted, why bother at all? :dubious:
It is your and only your interpretation that this is “flouting” the law. They are both legal ways for foriegners to acquire property inside the restricted area. How is using a legal mechanism considered flouting the law?
How about you? Can you tell me if there are any legal restrictions on foreigners owning property in the USA? magellan can’t answer that. He just “thinks” there isn’t.
Ummmm, cite? If banks in a market economy are granting mortgages to people, and it’s at below-market rates, the banks aren’t going to be in business for very long. Or you have an interesting idea of what “market rate” means.
As a former bank employee who has issued zillions of letters to internal clients documenting their immigration status and/or where they are in the green card process, so that these people (all employed professionals legally present in the U.S.) could obtain mortgages at less-than-usurious rates, if at all, I’m skeptical of this claim, to say the least.
P.S. You may be interested to know that immigration restrictionist and all-around general nutcase Tom Tancredo seems to be running for President. Boy, is this race going to get loony.
The law is on the books, but the mechanisms you claim make the law worthless. Either the law then has no purpose or the mechanisms do not do as you claim.
There are no Federal restrictions on foriegners owning land in the USA.
Tell you what- if Mexico (which has a very restrictive and draconian immigration policy towards it’s Central American neighbors) opens up it’s borders, we’ll open ours. OK? I mean, if it so such a wonderful moral thing to do, what hasn’t Mexico taken the lead? Why is Mexico’s immigration policy so draconian? If the USA treated Mexican “illegals” like Mexico treats those from Central America, dudes would be up in arms. Do I smell hypocrisy?
Mexico doesn’t really want an open border. What Mexico wants is more reasons to blame everything wrong in Mexico on the Yanqui’s, rather than fix their own corrupt government.
Some cites:
http://www.catholic.org/internation...ry.php?id=20685
"In the last four years, detentions of illegal immigrants in Mexico have grown nearly 75 percent, according to the Mexican National Immigration Institute. Mexico has tightened controls along its border with Guatemala under pressure from the U.S., said Father Barilli. Plus, stopping the flow of Central American immigrants gives Mexicans a better chance of getting jobs in the U.S., he said. "
A battle against unfairness in education funding - Capitol Weekly | Capitol Weekly | Capitol Weekly: The Newspaper of California State Government and Politics.…?article_id=762
"SCR 118 urged Mexico to reform its own immigration policies, which are far
more restrictive than those in the United States. …“This is to point out the hypocrisy of Mexico’s statements,” Hollingsworth
said. He added, “There is not a lot we can do without backing of the federal
government.”
The source of that “hypocrisy” lies in Mexico’s 1917 constitution. While it
does include one of the same controversial clauses as the U.S.
Constitution–that anyone born on the country’s soil is automatically granted
citizenship–those not born in the country face severe restrictions that
immigrants to the United States do not.
For instance, Article 33 states that foreigners may be deported without any
legal recourse: “Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel
any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the
national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal
action.” It also states that, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in
the political affairs of the country.”
According to a fact sheet distributed by Hollingsworth’s office, “Mexico
routinely fills 10 or 12 buses a day with undocumented Central Americans,”
deporting 240,000 last year alone. It claims Mexico has legalized only
15,000 migrants in the past five years.
Meanwhile, it said, “Mexico has been demanding that the U.S. ignore, alter
or abolish its own immigration laws,” even while illegally immigrating into
Mexico is a felony. It added that, “Migrants in the United States have held
huge demonstrations demanding more rights.” "
Yes. Fair enough.
Your first sentence seems to imply that you understand that the degree of passion you have for an issue has nothing to do with the weight of your argument. But then you get weaselly attempt to conflate your passion (which accounts for squat in a debate) and your education (which may very well matter, Appeal to Authority aside).
:rolleyes: You may want to look up what I mentioned earlier. Here’s a link. Additionally, you might notice that I have not taken issue on any facts you have brought forth, only the conclusions you draw from those facts. So you can attempt to conflate facts and passion and prop up your position through any fallacious means you choose. It does not change the validity of your interpretation. I’d say “surely you know this, as well”, but I have little reason to have such confidence.
Because I feel that the situation needs to be fixed. And believe that will fix it. It is precisely because I feel that Mexicans or any other people deserve a life in which they can improve conditions for themselves and their families that I feel the disgusting situation needs to be remedied. I want Mexico to be more like America. That doesn’t mean that I should embrace making America more like Mexico.
No, given that I never claimed that “all” unskilled were anything, it leads me to question your debating tactics, not to mention bringing into question all this great knowledge and education you claim to possess. From a quick search:
Feel free to find your own numbers. I’d love to see them. And yes, both governments have been complicit in encouraging illegal immigration. Mexico for the reason I mentioned. The U.S. for two sets of reasons. Republicans: the crack cocaine of business, cheap labor, and the hopes of doing better with the hispanic population come vote time. Democrats: The contorted leftist fantasy of some global community and votes.
This is merely an assumption you are making. Nothing more. I agree that the draw of America will be lessened by better living conditions in Mexico, but we certainly can, and should, prevent people from entering our country illegally in the meantime.
I do agree that better conditions in Mexico would effectively cut into the desire for people to sneak into the U.S. illegally. I do not agree that we cannot keep them out otherwise. A fence, or wall, can do much of the work. Combine that with an adequate Border Patrol and modern technology and Presto: secure border. It’s really wouldn’t be that hard. The biggest deterrent is the will to do this. That cheap labor and votes at the ballot box are just too much for our scummy politicians.
They do exactly as I claim and it’s up to you to prove otherwise. The fideicomiso mechanism was an amendment to the Constitution. So much for “flouting”.
Cite?
How about state restrictions? Restrictions are restrictions aren’t they? Are there laws within the USA that restrict in any way foreign property or land ownership? Does the USA have the right to restrict land ownership at any time they chose?
I think the point is that they should solve their own problems. The US shouldn’t have to. When they can just run away to another country they have no reason to solve their own problems. If they were forced to stay, revolution would happen in short order. Or they would just sit and take it forever. Whatever THEY choose.
Can we assume that this same logic can be applied to the illegal drug trade? It’s your problem, deal with it? Or can two neighboring countries work together to solve mutal problems? I think the latter would provide more acceptable results.
I may have very well used the wrong term. You tell me. From here:
From here:
There’s a fuller, albeit more biased explanation here
Yes, a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Of course, he can’t win, but he can keep the debate on the table and reveal the usual suspects to be the unAmerican idiots they are. And then we hand over the issue to Newt after he declares and we’re home free. May I recommend expanding your business. There’s going to be a lot of people needing your expertise as they scamper to leave the country so they can come back in legally. You and I will be working on the same side. 
If only that were the case. You have your corrupt government with a vested interest in shovelling off as many unskilled workers as they can. And to help them, they produce a nice little booklet to show them how to cross the border illegally. Be honest about it, why don’t you? This “working together” means accepting more illegals and treating them as U.S. citizens. And then, eventually, making them U.S. citizens.
Are there restrictions on foreigners owning land in the uSA?
From your link:
I guess what I don’t see is how I asserted that anything I said must be true based on the fact that I know a lot about it. In fact, I don’t think I stated anything must be true, and was completely open to anyone else’s interpretations of events. I have a habit of defending my position before it even gets attacked. I mentioned the fact that I have studied Latin American history for 6 years to pre-empt accusations that my emotional bias somehow invalidates my argument. I didn’t watch some leftist news show and come to this conclusion in a flash of sheep-like stupidity… I’ve read up on it extensively. I consider new information because I am more interested in the truth even if that means revising my own understanding of a given situation. That is me being defensive, not an appeal to authority.
From your link:
At most, I implied that I am more likely to have a better understanding of the situation than you, assuming what you’ve brought to the table in terms of information = how much you know.
I don’t know a lot about formal debate or formal logic, so if you could please stop being so goddamned superior about it, I’d appreciate it. I don’t understand why disagreeing with someone necessitates continuously implying your opponent is an idiot and showing contempt for them.
I think this is what I fail to understand. If you don’t take issue with the facts I presented, how do you come to the conclusions that you do? I would have to believe that you have in your possession other information that you are not sharing here.
To cite one example:
As I have made clear, I disagree with this statement based on what I know. You presumably hold this opinion based on stuff you know about world history and foreign policy, but instead of offering this as evidence for your claim, you just state your opinion. I’ve offered plenty of evidence for why I feel the way I do about U.S. foreign policy, but you have offered none. I am not beneath learning more and adjusting my own perceptions based on new information, but this discourse so far has done nothing to englighten me in any way.
Again, you being unnecessarily superior and rude. Please feel free to cite where I claimed to know everything in the world about the topic at hand. You may have to sift through the twenty or so times I asked anyone who knew more to correct me, or qualified my statements (which you also attacked me for), or admitted to my own ignorance, or asked for more information and clearly stated that I was open-minded about anything anyone would bring to this debate.
Regarding the topic at hand – the majority of illegal aliens being “unskilled workers”, it appears your citation contradicts my anecdotal experience. It would be reasonable to suppose that you are correct.
So you actually do care? Because the way it was originally phrased, I very much interpreted it as “I don’t care what happens as long as I don’t have to deal with it.” Revolutions can be very violent and traumatic experiences for a country, often they result in Civil War, many times they fail… I am not convinced a revolution is the ideal fix for every problem of inequality… there is much injustice in the U.S. as well but that doesn’t necessarily mean the system itself is inherently flawed. Mexico indeed has a very corrupt government, but there is a Constitution, there is a structure that could reasonably be adhered to given the parties involved were not corrupt. I don’t think it’s fair to always blame a country’s citizens for being oppressed. There are many factors that contribute to these situations, some out of the citizens’ hands.
I think what I find most problematic about this entire discussion is it seems premised on “either/or” thinking. Either Mexicans are to blame or the U.S. is to blame. Either America is a good country or American is a bad country, etc.
Would you be willing to elaborate more on this statement?
Oh, I see. The problem I have with “the U.S. shouldn’t have to” argument is it fails to take into account how much the U.S. affects what happens in Mexico. If there are problematic policies (for example, NAFTA) that directly affect the inequality and suffering of the Mexican people, to what extent do we have a responsibility to consider those policies when we are thinking of solutions to a problem?
Would you mind elaborating on why you think this? It seems like the constant influx is just too much for ICE to handle. We build a wall, they’ll dig a tunnel. You’re not talking about people who go to the U.S. for an “easy ride.” You’re talking about people who go to the U.S. so their children won’t die, so they won’t starve to death, to escape political persecution, any number of life-or-death situations. It’s hard to stop people with that kind of motivation.
I’m also really curious–what do you suppose would happen to the U.S. economy provided such a system did work and we could throw every undocumented worker out? I don’t know a lot about economics but I do know much of U.S. economy is dependent on immigrant labor. I’ve heard arguments that inflation would skyrocket. I’m wondering if you know… what would most likely happen in that case?
[brief hijack]
Can someone tell me how to specify a person’s user name in the quote box? Thank you.
[/brief hijack]
Asked and answered, by me and others. Why you think that my not knowing the law in its entirety ABOUT THE U.S. is truly baffling. Reread the thread and stop trying to elude answering and evading the issue. The issue goes back to Page 1, in which your claim about foreigners being able to own land in Mexico was challenged by another poster. I simply have been asking you to share what the particulars are and to explain what you’ve provided so far constitutes ownership.
The laws in the U.S. or Finland or Japan or France or Ethiopia or Tibet or New Zealand or Chile have nothing to do with the issue on the table. Why in the world are you trying to weasel out of answering. Do you not know the answer? Fine just say so, as I did. But you made a claim, presented yourself as knowledgeable on the subject and have been asked to clarify. Sheeze. This really shouldn’t be that difficult.