I see you do me the insult of underestimating the awesome power of my future posts. 
Your very limited experience in Mexico doesn’t qualify you to make many of the naive statements in this thread. Plus it was limited to a very narrow geographical area. Your Spanish is so weak you call maquiladoras, "maquinas " I wonder exactly how good your comprehension was of the conversations you had with the local populace.
Do you have “proof” of your own views of the matter? And are you asking for a reasonable standard of evidence, or are you going to demand some impossibly high standard of evidence that no one can reasonably be expected to satisfy?
The problem is that many people seem to think this means that the people who are already here have no right to decide who can come and how many to accept. When you say that someone has a right to food, clothing, shelter and medical, you are saying that someone else has an obligation to provide them, whether he wants to or not. It also ignores the practical consequences of Western nations being overrun with impoverished third worlders to the point that our own economies start to break down and our own cultures and societies start to disappear.
It is projected that the United States will have 400 million and perhaps as many as 500 million people by the middle of this century, and almost all the new population will be added by immigration.
Think of all the roads, water lines, power plants and power lines, housing, schools, hospitals, police and courts, and all the other infrastructure we will have to create to accommodate all those newcomers without a drastic decline in the standard of living for the average American.
Think of the consequences this will have for Social Security alone. Even when you take into account the added labor paying taxes into SS, you still have a massive strain on the system.
Consider our current level of indebtedness and how much higher it would have to go to provide all that infrastructure.
Consider that most* of the new immigrants will be non-whites, and consider how that will compound racial and ethnic conflicts in our society.
Consider the massive degradation of our natural environment that would come from trying to add 25 to 50 cities the size of Los Angeles to our country in the next 40 years.
Let’s face it, folks. Either we get the situation under control, or sooner or later they’re going to swamp the boat.
*Practically all of them, in fact. Our immigration laws discriminate very heavily against European nations.
Yes explain what specific reforms are needed or have been lacking. The economy was opened up by neoliberal reformers to policies dictated by such organizations as the World Bank etc. Have these policies been particularly helpful in reducing emigration? Apparently not. So what reforms to the system are required to achieve this? I suppose Mr. moto knows because he said the political system needs reform but Mexico is lacking the will to enact them. But my bet is he knows little to nothing about the subject.
And I’m betting you don’t know much more. The question is, can you meet the standard of argument and evidence that you’re demanding of him?
Tell me exactly what I am supposed to be proving here? Mr. Moto claims that necessary reforms aren’t being implemented. What are these supposed reforms that haven’t been made? He made the claim but he is unwilling/unable to support it.
Now how about you? Do you have anything to offer? What reforms have been carried out in the last decade? I’m betting that you are incapable of naming the last 3 Mexican presidents without the help of Google.
On emigration I agree; if somebody wants to leave then they have the right to do so. I can imagine restrictions in very specific cases where a particular contract is in effect but in the general case there is no duty to remain.
Immigration is a different matter; other posters, notably magellan01 and LonesomePolecat, have already made the point better than I could. A government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, its resources, and its borders and part of that can easily mean limiting immigration. I do not see that as any form of human rights discrimination. The “right” of an individual to live anywhere they please is completely trumped by the rights of the people there to set limits.
I’m having trouble reconciling this with your previous statement. We apparently agree that governments can limit immigration but disagree that they violate some sort of human right to do so.
Agreed; I’m in favor of generally lax policies and in letting people live wherever they prefer as much as possible. I don’t agree that that is any sort of “right” in any meaningful sense but tend to err on the side of letting people do what they want unless there is a good reason to block it.
The problem with legal vs illegal inmigration is that legal inmigration is basically impossible for 99.9% of the people who want to come to the U.S. Relying on legal inmigration is like relying on winning the lottery as a retirement plan, hell where i’m from visas are literally assigned with a lottery. Its not like all the illegal inmigrants could chose to legaly come to the U.S.
You are supposed to be arguing for your own point of view here instead of just sniping at Mr. Moto with vague demands for “proof.” If you’re going to insist that Mr. Moto is definitely wrong, and it certainly appears that’s what you’re doing, you should be willing to make a case for that instead shifting the burden of evidence and argument entirely to the other side.
If you’ve got something to say here, then say it and be prepared to make a case for it. If not, quit sniping at others with open-ended challenges to provide “proof.”
No, I couldn’t name the last three Mexican presidents without looking it up. For that matter, I couldn’t name the last three Japanese, British or Indian prime ministers without looking it up, nor the last three heads of state for France, Germany, Nigeria, Brazil, or pretty much any other country. The fact that I don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of the history and current events of every country in the world doesn’t mean much of anything. My inability to name the last three Mexican presidents says nothing whatsoever about the validity of my views on immigration or any other subject.
My views on the subject were offered in post #44.
Hmm. I wasn’t aware that I said anything particularly controversial - it certainly seems true on the face of it. And it is also true that massive migration of Southern Italians from my ancestral homeland provided a similar safety valve there about a century ago that perpetuated oppressive landowning practices and eventually facilitated the rise of nondemocratic movements there.
But for those that need cites, I can oblige:
The Center for Latin American Studies, UC Berkeley:
Jorge G. Castañeda, later Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in the July 1995 Atlantic:
So in the view of a respected thinker on Mexican affairs, interfering with migration interferes with Mexican stability. However, this stability is oppressive to most people, so preserving it preserves an unjust system. Migration can be seen as the safety valve on the boiler, letting off enough steam so that the vessel doesn’t blow up and scald the elites.
So let me get this straight. Instead of responding to my naive statements with factual evidence to the contrary and enlightening us all, you chose instead to to insult my Spanish, which you know nothing about short of the fact that I used the wrong word in a late-evening stupor.
If you are interested in productive dialog, try actually proving my statements wrong. ‘‘Har har your Spanish sucks’’ is not an argument. Since you apparently know so much more than I do, why not share? You have the chance to shape the opinions and attitudes of a naive but well meaning 24-year-old student of Latin American Studies. Seize the day.
Olivesmarch, I think your long post included some well-thought-out observations, offerred humbly. However, CBEscapee does make one good point in his/her otherwise threadbare “critique”: that your experience in Mexico appears to be limited in geographic scope. I can attest that there are many parts of Mexico, even poor, rural regions, where there is little out-migration. However, your more general point that the underlying ethos of not bothering to invest in Mexico’s future, which seems to permeate the entire country on some level*, is a good one, and has forced me to further shift my thinking on the immigration “rights” issue. (Like you, I have undergone a gradual evolution from a pure “abolish all borders now” stance to a more nuanced – or maybe just confused! – viewpoint).
(*There are plenty of counter-examples, on both the right (certain businessmen, e.g.) and left (such as certain fiercely autonomous indigenous communities), of investment in Mexico’s future, but again, I think your general point is a good one).
Yes, if the resources are there, I do feel there is an obligation to provide those things to people who do not have them. If you have two shelters and some other dude doesn’t have any, you should give them your spare. I know it’s not a very popular opinion.
(On preview: While this is my own moral sense of what’s right, it doesn’t seem very reasonable to impose my morality on others in the form of some kind of internationally recognized law. I am not suggesting people be forced by law to give their personal property to others who do not have property.)
However, it is a completely other matter entirely whether allowing people to immigrate is philosophically the same as taking others’ property from them. If an immigrant moves into a country, he is not taking your personal property. He is paying someone money to stay somewhere and accumulating his own personal property.
So I have to assume, PoleCat, that what you feel is being robbed from you are public services that tax-paying U.S. citizens are meant to benefit from. What if I told you that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country pay taxes? Would that change how you feel?
I’ve never been really sold on the idea that mass immigration=total destruction of U.S. culture. Cultural assimilation is a pretty standard reality. The reason it doesn’t appear that way, prima fascie, is that every time one generation of immigrants assimilates, another moves in. The assumption ‘‘these people refuse to learn English’’ is usually made because there are always new immigrants struggling with the language, not because Latinos living here for generations have stubbornly refused to assimilate.
With regards to the breakdown of the economy–well, I think you’re onto something there. The state of Michigan, particularly in the SW and in Detroit, used to be a huge employer of automobile workers. In the last several years, plants have been closing left and right and moving to the south, presumably to employ immigrants who will work for a cheaper wage. This has been devastating to Michigan’s economy. Has it been devastating to the U.S. economy as well, or is it a fair balance overall? How do we make those determinations?
Either way, I can’t believe basing a huge portion of the economy on illegal immigrant labor is a good thing. Someone more knowledgeable will hopefully step in and explain why it’s not.
No disagreements here. I’m sorry if I ever gave the impression that I think mass immigration is good for the United States. I don’t think that at all.
I think where I primarily differ is my approach to how that problem can be remedied. Most people assert that it starts with immigration reform and treating illegal immigrants as criminals. This is where I differ, because I don’t think doing that would help anything at all. We are faced with the delicate task of balancing what is ‘‘right’’ with what is ‘‘practical.’’ I do not think aggressive anti-immigration policies fall into the category of either. I view it as yet another band-aid to a much deeper problem.
IMHO, the long term solution to quelling immigration problems in the U.S. is to take action that will help Mexico become a better place to live. People do not emigrate to the U.S. in masses because they love the U.S. They do it because they cannot survive in their own country.
One part of the equation that is often ignored is economic foreign policy. As I have stated before, GATT changed things in 1986. The acceleration of emigration in Mexico can be linked to the breakdown of the agricultural sector and the rise of maquiladoras. It seems reasonable to me for the U.S. to re-examine these policies and the impact they are having on the flow of immigrants into the U.S.
As to what this assessment and action would entail, I don’t know enough about politics or foreign policy to even hypothesize.
Do I suggest that the U.S. has a moral obligation to help Mexico out? Not necessarily. But I believe it would be in the best interest of both countries, because immigration would no longer be at crisis levels.
Completely agreed. The question, for me, is, ‘‘how do we get the situation under control?’’
Yes, it was limited to the state of Jalisco. I’m afraid I may have given the impression that I am basing my opinions on this matter solely on what people said to me while I was living there. This is not the case. I was only using my experiences talking to Mexicans and Mexican immigrants in order to supplement the academic knowledge I accumulated in college. Some people consider experience more relevant than research. So I combined the two.
The reason I chose Jalisco to volunteer is because I know that it is a state especially impacted by emigration. I went there with the very focused purpose of learning more about the impact emigration has on Mexico. I am not suggesting my experience there be extrapolated to the country as a whole or that it is somehow absolute truth.
The particular post **CBEscapee ** responded to was glib, and pushing the boundaries of my actual researched knowledge. But the other post reflects views that are not uncommon. I would think my original stated position on the subject would be more ‘‘naive’’ than the more nuanced approach I am trying to take now, but YMMV I guess.
Either way, I appreciate you responding in a respectful way. I am in this thread to learn. I’d be interested in hearing about your own experiences.
Right, and migration from Italy primarily came from the south, and migration from the British Isles disproportionately affected Wales, Scotland and Ireland (when Ireland was part of the Union.)
That does not change the fact at all that these massive migrations had vast impacts on those countries and on the countries where the migrants went - especially America, Canada, Australia and Argentina. And more examples can surely be found.
The mere fact that migration wasn’t observed in a certain area of a country, or was observed there at a different rate, changes these facts very little.
The key word is Illegal. If a person (parent or not), wants to make a better life for him or herself (or child), stealing,writing a bad check etc. may sound like a fair reason to break the laws,but if the person is a native to the country and does these things he or she has broken the law and is expected to pay the consequences, so why should we make exceptions for those who break our laws to get here ?
Perhaps if the millions of people that are here illegally would stand up to their governments then maybe they could do something in their own country to help make a better life. Isn’t that what happened in this country when we broke from English rule?
One could say I guess that we took the country from the Indians and perhaps in time we will become a third world like country and people will go to other countries if this one becomes overpopulated.
Monavis
What do you say about the ethical authority to forbid someome from doing what they want to on their own property? Naturally, I’m talking about zoning laws. I know people who claim that governments have no right to regulate private property, but it seems that most people accept it. I believe such regulations are necessary, but I’d like to hear your views.
The next question is if governments have the right to regulate behavior between concenting adults, if the activity is illegal. Let’s say purchasing stolen goods.
If you agree that the government has a right in both of these cases, then we can discuss if your example is valid. If you don’t agree in both cases, then it’s a separate issue than immigration.
Breaking from English rule was illegal at the time.
Mind you, I’m in agreement in general - I want reform in Mexico rather than millions of people here who are essentially economic refugees. But let’s not discount the fact that other economic refugees landed here in the past, like my Italian grandfather and my Welsh relatives in the 1860s.
They produced families that are thoroughly American, as did these new immigrants. I served in the Navy with a lot of Hispanics from many countries. Some weren’t even citizens yet. And in this current war, a number of the Navy Cross citations I’ve seen have gone to guys with Spanish surnames.
My concern here is multifold. I don’t wish to see Mexico remain poor and corrupt forever - it isn’t good for Mexicans or Americans that it is so. I do not wish to see immigrants here become a public safety problem or a drain on welfare resources, which is why I favor a robust and fair policy that stresses legal immigration and work. And I’d like to see a slackening of the current quantity of Hispanic immigrants to allow those here to assimilate in a generation or so, much as my own family did. This, of course, requires the first two to actually work.
Now, fairly implemented, none of these things interfere with anyone’s rights. In fact, they are respectful of them - ideally they would give people a choice to stay in a reformed Mexico or come to a welcoming U.S.
First let me say that I didn’t feel I was being insulting. I was pointing out a glaring (to a native speaker)equivocation in your Spanish skills which I of course would have no way of knowing was caused by “late night stupor”.
Some of the points I took exception with in your previous posts are statements such as an “all out war” between police and narcos. Yes there are too many incidents of drug related violence but to call it an all out war is a gross exagerration.
Saying that “most government officials” are connected to the drug trade is also an exaggeration. There are certain sectors riddled with connections to drug cartels but those would generally be associated with law enforcement of some kind.
I am sorry if I offeneded you but when someone makes such generalizations in my mind it tends to diminish much of their credibilty. México is a large country with much cultural complexity. To accurately summarize all of our socio-economic problems after spending a few short months here isn’t possible.