Apparently you would not be. From the this thread– –
You later corrected your salary to twice the poverty level.
The cost of living is a function of a set standard of living. Cite. If you want to change x, you have to change y.
You asked how they could afford lower wages; I offered an explanation. Illegal immigrants are willing to accept a lower standard of living, and therefore a lower cpst of living, for a variety of reasons. To suggest that citizens should be willing to do he same is silly. Why don’t you?
If our standard of living was no better than Mexico’s the immigration problem would go away.
Then withdraw your claim. Either back it up or back down. You made an “outandish claim” that “land in Mexico that falls within the restricted zone is probably 99.99% privately owned land.” This claim is every bit as much “bullshit” as you say SageRats claim is. And, it’s not impossible that the Mexican Government does own Sagerat’s parents house- after all, both the US government and the Mexican govenrment owns a lot of real estate. However, I expect SageRat is confused over the xenophobic and nativist laws of Mexico which do prevent foriegners from owning land in many areas.
Are they or are they not? Do you know?
I am dubious are most of the land in the New World at one time belonged to the Government at one time or another. You make claims as if you know a great deal, but you seem reluctant to back up your claims with cites.
I ask again- *can US citizens own land outright in that coastal territory? * (the answer is no, of course)
Yes, they can, of course. My point is that Mexico prohibits US citizens (and others) from owning land in much of the most desirable areas. If the USA prohibited Mexicans from owning land within 100 miles of the border (for example) I’d bet a nickel that Fox and other Mexican leaders- not to mention certain posters- would claim “racism”.
Do you know much about Mexican Immigration policies? Does Mexico allow dudes from South of your borders to enter freely, get jobs and become citizens or legal residents? (hint, it doesn’t. Mexico has a much more draconian immigration policy than the USA does as regards to it’s southern neighbors). But somehow, the USA is supposed to allow unlimited immigration. And when some Citizens demur from unlimited immigration, they are called “racists”. If then, American nativists are “racists” (which I doubt) then it stands to follow that the Mexican government with it’s strong nativist policies is equally “racist”.
It is kind of humorous that you use FAIR as the benchmark to show that racism isn’t a part of the anti-immigration movement. It’s founder, John Tanton, is a zero-population growth fanatic that doesn’t like Mexicans because he thinks they can’t keep their pants on. Hell, just click on his name in your own link if you want a few details about him. FAIR has such a poor reputation that one of its own spin-offs (CIS) tries to hide any ties to it. Heck, even Linda Chavez ran away from him once his racism became public.
Why don’t you try VDARE on your next attempt to show that the movement has little racism in it? That would be even more fun.
There are legitimate reasons to be against illegal immigration, and there are likely organizations that truly are fighting this battle for those reasons. FAIR isn’t one of them. Perhaps you’d like to try again?
The rule is 100 km (62 miles) from the borders, but only 50km (31 miles) from the coastline. Americans can freely own land other than this in the exact same manner as they can here.
Within those areas of exception, what Mexico does allow is for a foreigners to have banks hold the property in a trust.
A foreigner can do anything with the land that an owner could do, including buying, selling, leasing, using, giving away, or even build a mega resort on it.
The only difference is that the foreigner won’t actually hold the title, which will remain in the bank’s trust.
The trusts are renewable indefinitely, and each renewal is good for another 50 years.
In other words, the difference between the bank trust arrangement and ownership is a piece of paper.
In fact, I choose them for that very reason. They are one of the largest orgs, and also one of the more zealous.
AFAIK, he is a ZPG fanatic. He’s against all immigration into the USA, no matter the color of their skins. Show me where he says “come on down Canadians but stay out Mexicans”, which is exactly what you’d expect of a racist. Instead the site also mentions Illegal Canadian immigration as a problem. Dude, it’s hard to get much more Anglo than Canadians.
Still, that’s being elitist or a fanatic, or nativist or even xenophobic. Too many dudes equate “I don’t like them= they are racist”. I see nothing at all which has even the slightest tinge of racism on their site. Fanatacism, sure.
Perhaps because Tanton does an effective job of keeping his various anti-immigration groups separate so that he can use neutral “sounding” groups like FAIR to keep pushing his overall goals as outlined in this report from the Southern Poverty law Center
Bolding mine. Do you have the same political pricipals as you did 20 years ago? I don’t. And, even so, what was PC then is not what is PC now. That language is taken out of context.
Maybe Tanton is a bit of a racist, I don’t know. That doesn’t mean the entire USA anti-immigration movement is all racist, all the time, either.
No, of course not. But it does mean some of the USA anti-immigration movement is racist some of the time, including the present time, and there is no point in denying it nor in trying (as if you would) to justify it. There really is no reasonable way to remove racism-as-a-highly-and-painfully-relevant-factor from this discussion.
Ok, I’m about to get myself in trouble here, but here I go:
I don’t care what race they are.
I don’t care about their skin color.
I could give less than a shit about the " " they believe in.
What I care about is:
Are they here legally?
Are they attempting to become part of American society?
Do they have a place to go home to? (Just in case posters have noticed that most of my posts have involved hockey)
I will quite honestly say I do not like or enjoy the way young Latino males act toward women. Because I have a job in construction does not make me a “puta”. Because I walk down a sidewalk alone does not make me a “puta”.
Have any of ya’ll gotten the idea that I’m very tired of being called a “whore” every time a Mexican man sees me alone?
Something needs to be done. From what I have read, the illegal immigrants don’t care to assimilate, because they plan to go home. I, for one don’t like being scared to go into formerly “female safe” places because they’re not anymore.
Are you including the anti-white racism of a lot of lefties? You know, the kind who rejoice in the thought of whites becoming a minority in the United States?
The problem is not if 51% of the orange pickers are held behind barbed wire. The problem is that the orange industry and other industries are dependant on illegal workers, but because of the legal fictions we’re created, the people who profit the most have the least to lose while the workers are not able to obtain help from the police and other autorities when they are subject to such practices, since they are “illegal”.
Well, at least out here, the various PD’s are prohibited from asking that question or giving that info to INS. Now, this is on victims, not suspects- of course suspects are turned over to the INS. And, I know the IRS has a “no sharing” (Privacy act) policy where information of that sort will NOT be shared with other agencies. Sure, during a IRS started investigation into illegal drug $ laundering that info could come up on a suspect and be transmitted through FinCen.
But in general, if dudes ask for help as victims, they are safe. Please show me a PD or other Law enforcment org where *informants or victims * are being deported or turned in because of their immigration status.
Of course, sometimes fingers are pointed in both directions “hey, those dudes exploited me” "Yeah, well you stole from me", and thus an informant/victim could turn into a suspect.
