I’ll pass on this annexing business, thanks. I’m not interested in your debt, I’m not interested in seeing billboards proclaiming Candidate X will be a better leader because he’s more pious than Y, I’m not interested in being part of a population that cares about such things, I’m not interested in participating in the electoral college system. I’m not interested in having to fight to keep fairy tales out of biology classes, I’m not interested in a health care system that results in 675 000 personal bankruptcies. I’m not interested in the crowding, the high crime rates, or being advised not to travel to certain countries because of the policies that result in such animosity towards Americans.
Chances are that Hawaii, which is about as similar to Alberta as the far side of the moon, is the only place I could avoid most of that.
The US, as the saying goes, is a nice place to visit (no, really; I’ve enjoyed the few trips into the States I’ve made) but I wouldn’t want to live there. I’m not insulted by the claim that we have the same culture, but I don’t agree with it. Close, but no cigar.
That reminds me of another thing I’d not like about living in a State: the embargo against Cuba. So, thanks but no thanks.
They would probably doing about as much with it as they are with the rest of their country now. There is no great amount of resources present in the Desert Southwest-US states, and Mexico is not so overpopulated that they could argue that they really needed the room. In short, it doesn’t matter.
No, that is incorrect. The people doing the exploiting are the people running Mexico’s government. US businesses are only taking advantage of conditions that Mexico itself has created. In another thread I posted a comment that “the funniest part of Mexican illegals entering the US is that it means that Mexicans don’t want to live in a country run by Mexicans”. Many people mistook that as some form of racism, when it really wasn’t: there is something wrong with the political and economic management of a country with the resources of Mexico, when the best that many of its citizens (some even with professional skills and/or degrees) can hope for is to illegally sneak into another country and work hard-manual-labor jobs for poverty-level wages.
Now it is true–that the US has illegal immigrants entering from every direction and from just about every country on Earth, but not equally from every direction. The US has lots of problems along the southern border, and not-very-many of those sorts of problems along the north. The reason for this I strongly suspect is not any difference between Mexican and Canadian people, but rather between Mexican and Canadian governments. And since a lot of the problems caused by illegal MEXICAN immigrants are being borne by US taxpayers, then it’s not out of line for the US to do something about the matter.
That could be at least two different measures:
One would be to make it vastly more difficult for illegals to work in the US. One way would be to create a federal law to limit the amounts and hours of wire transfers of money from the US into Mexico to only two days per month, weekdays, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Many illegals wire money home, and this way, they would have to miss a whole day of work to do it. Another could be a “Immigrant Services Tax” on such transfers–a tax for sending US currency into Mexico. Every Mexican politician would scream bloody murder, it’d be beautiful just for that reason. And then they would retailate by, by, uh, -by limiting, ummmm … hmmm. How could they retailate?
Another would be the “imperialist” way of simply telling Mexico that its government stinks and needs a serious house-remodelling, and it will happen if Mexico does it themselves or not.
…But one thing is for certain: Mexico as a government does not give a f*ck what problems their actions cause the US. They don’t have to, they can run a slipshod corrupt economy and still have US currency from illegals wired in to help keep it afloat. And the Mexican government will certainly b!tch as loud as they can if the US takes any steps to try to recover or even reduce costs caused by illegal Mexican immigrants. Many US people who have to directly deal with the problems that illegals cause feel that the US should just “go for broke” as it were, and do something to bring about change at the source of the problem–since if the US does anything at all effective about the situation, it will get complained about anyway. The people running the Mexican government are not going to thank the US for breaking the system that they have set up for themselves.
Also please note before complaining:
neither I or anyone else here has complained about legal immigration, of Mexicans or any other nationalities, and -
(you may not have seen this posted but) I am the guy who wants to move to Texas. If I was so horribly appalled at being around Hispanics at all, I’d have probably chosen somewhere like Idaho.
~
Don’t worry about it. Our Parlimentary system may be different and inferior but it is no different than Idaho
I’m really getting the feeling I’m bashing my head against a brick wall on this one. Try to fight ignorance and all I get is “nu uh… you guys are the same and you want to join us 'cause we’re the bestest and I said so.”
After all we’re Lillputians because… actually I don’t know. I guess he believes we are petty because we’d prefer to have our own national identity rather than join their club and follow their rules. Whatever.
I think I’ve learned enough The United States is Nice and the super duper bestest system in the world. USA! USA! USA!!!
All of this reminds me of the cliche “be careful what you wish for”. The movie (lousy movie, good premise) “A Day a Mexican” dealt with the sudden abscence of illegal aliens in the US and the effect it would have on the economy. If you think 9/11 was devastating, it wouldn’t compare to a sudden lack of low wage labor.
I’d love to see who would do the jobs most Americans are unwilling to do such as stoop labor. Talk about irony.
Just a thought here, but would you think that the illegal immigrant workers may be a newer version of the slave? By that I mean a class of person living in the country that does not have any of the rights of citizens but are still willingly used to do menial tasks.
I’m not talking on a moral ground as these people willingly take the jobs and risks to get them. I’m thinking more along the lines that they are paid under what a citizen should make, and usually aren’t subject to the same rights such as limited hours of work, time off or safe work conditions as citizens?
That is the biggest complaint of the Mexican government. But when they lobby for immigration reform and dignified treatment for undocumented workers who are in the US they get blasted by the American media. The Mexican government has proposed guest worker programs that would safeguard the workers rights. Paranoia, racism and xenophobia keep negotiations from happening.
I’ll get flamed big time for saying this, but the illegals are being used as a scapegoat when the biggest supporter for maintaining the status quo is American industry.
You mean "the illegal immigrant worker’s rights inside the US?.. There is at least a couple major problems with allowing illegal immigrants from any country more rights: first is that it further devalues the legal method of entering the country–it does nothing to discourage the problems caused by illegal immigration that the US has now. The second is that for the US to do this–would be to essentially grant partial citizenship rights to non-citizens. Would US citizens get all the same legal rights in Mexico that Mexicans would get inside the US? Somehow I’d bet not.
Why should the US allow this? Why let the Mexican government help make US laws? Would the US get to help make Mexican laws as well?
You might argue that “the Mexicans are going to come anyway”, but then we are back to the source of this problem being the Mexican government mismanaging their own country. Why not fix that problem, and save the poor illegals the hassle of a midnight border crossing?
Why is is that you think that there are a relatively-huge number of illegals from Mexico, and relatively-few illegal Canadians?
~
I hope not. I agree with you on this. I find highly ironic that US industry that values “free trade” so much, does not support such “free” trade regarding labor. Allowing open immigration would resolve a great many of the side effects of illegal immigration.
First, by allowing any and all that wish to come, Homeland Security could devote their resources against those it needs to - drug traffickers, smugglers, and the like.
Second, opening the border would give a true count of those that immigrate since they would no longer have to sneak across. Having that number would let us address more realisticly the side issues such as health care and education.
Third, as you stated above, safeguarding worker’s rights. And this the most likely the main reason why such reforms are prevented. Mexicans are not only exploited south of the border, but north of it as well. Undocumented workers cannot negotiate for fair wages and work hours, safe work environments, nor sue when such practices would violate the law or a citizen’s rights.
Lastly, I doubt the number of immigrants would increase substantially. One, I think the market has established how many can be absorbed, if workers cannot find work, they will return home. Substinence farming is still better than nothing. And granting immigrants legal rights to address abuses would probably decrease the number of jobs in the short run as illegal employers are shut down.
I’ll grant you that it is an equal partnership between the Mexican government and US business, but that is all. They are equally cupable, providing the incentives for each to continue the status quo.
The truth does hurt, but you are right, calling a duck a duck ain’t racism. The Mexican government is terrible. Such is why everyone had high hopes for Vincente Fox, Mexico’s arguably first democratically elected president. There is truth that even illegal immigrants have more rights than those that remain in Mexico, another factor that sends them north. This story is from this morning.
Ummm, isn’t this what treaties are? Two nations negotiating their interactions? Agreed, it’s not mandatory to do so, but it creates a hell of alot of goodwill. (When they are actually followed, but that’s for another day…)
I see the bill the House has passed will make illegal residents felons. Does this mean they’ll be locking these people up when they catch them? I hope there are smarter people in the Senate.
I am not saying that the US in the Mexican-American war was hunky-dory, or that the acquired people in the previously Mexican territory were treated perfectly justly. Hell, America had slavery at the time. What I will say is that those formerly Mexican territories became prosperous places soon enough, would not be just and properpous places now were they not in the US (since there is no state in Mexico that make that claim), and Hispanics would eventually come be treated in the US a hell of a lot better on average than they would be in Mexico.
Oh, it would be tough. Lots of work. Bad things would happen, good things would happen. But would it take generations for Mexicans to be treated fairly and be given the same opportunity as other Americans? No, I think it would happen sooner. And a big part of their success would be up to them.
With better governance and a righter, tighter culture, Mexico should be absolutely smokin’ right now. Absolutely nothing is getting in their way but their own incompetence. They’ve had plenty of resources, oil, everything. They have not had nations beating up on them militarily. They’ve had the US to fight the Cold War for them. They’ve even had a more homogeneous racial/cultural mix and not the legacy of slavery we’ve had to overcome. They’ve got no excuse!
I think we both have reasonable points of view. Some of this comes down to aesthetics and matters of taste. I completely respect your opinion.
Absolutely. Why not offer Cuba statehood right now? I think they would be a great fit. I think the Latin cultures would add a great deal, as they already are. At the same time, I think the best parts of Anglo culture would help invigorate them too.
Heh, in this thread I probably come off as a hardline conservative. In truth, I’m a lefty, and I do see your point. We don’t want carpetbagger business rushing into Mexico to make the people more miserable than they already are, or, alternatively, to use that ultra-cheap labor as a lever against the north. My original point (Wal-Mart was just an example) was that our brand of socialism, limited as it is (a minimum wage in a strong currency well enforced) could really help the Mexicans to a high degree in the short term.
I hear you. My argument involving Singapore was of a different stripe.
I’d endorse it if the goal was to undermine the corrupt Mexican government and “Tear down that wall, Mr. Bush/Vincente!”
Elimination of both the US and (measurably worse) Mexican oligarchies would be the goal.
I respect your opinions as well, and probably agree with you on 80 - 90% of the above. I am tend to be fairly radical in my economics and politics, as time will most likely show, but I try to do so realistically.
Frankly, I think trying to generalize what ‘Canadians’ believe is just as silly as trying to generalize what ‘Americans’ believe.
Your average Albertan has far more in common with his or her neighbors in Montana than he does with Toronto Urbanites. Likewise, Torontonians are philosophically closer to people in New York City than they are to farmers in Saskatchewan.
In Canada, just like the U.S., we tend to split more along urban/suburban/rural lines politically more so than we do on geographic lines. Berkeley California is very liberal, but if you move out to the rural areas of California you find a majority of people support Republicans. Likewise, Edmonton Alberta is liberal enough that we have elected an NDP mayor in the past, whereas the rural areas of Alberta are extremely conservative.
It’s also not true that ‘Canadians’ do not want religion in their politics. kingpenvin is confusing ‘Canadian values’ with ‘Liberal values’. The Conservative party in Canada wears its religion on its sleeve as much or more than does the Republican party in the U.S., and the Conservatives generally have about 25-30% support in the country, mostly in the west. If Western Canada were a country, we would elect a Conservative government in a landslide.
Gun control is the same deal. In general, urban populations in the U.S and Canada support gun control, and rural areas don’t. Although it is true that there is generally more support for it in Canada than in the U.S.
The problem with trying to determine the nature of Canadians is that A) our cultural identity is not nearly as strong as in the U.S., and we often define ourselves not by who were are but by who we aren’t (Americans), and B) Canada is an extremely diverse country, and very few generalizations apply, despite the attempts of Liberal politicians to define ‘Canadian Values’ as being synonymous with ‘Liberal Values’’.
Am I?
Perhaps in small areas religion is important but if religion was as important as it is in the United States why don’t the leaders discuss it or invoke God’s name during the campaign.
I stand by my statement that the majority of Canadians don’t want religion in our politics. You will note there are no battles to instate Intellegent design into our school systems. Theer are no fights to make our institutions more “God fearing” I’m not saying we are an irreligious culture just that outward shows of religiosity aren’t as common.
You will also note that the biggest problem the Conservative has is getting over the stigma of being a religious right party. The Old PC party never had that problem. The New Conservative campaign has watered the religious aspect down on the national stage and you’ll note it is getting them headway.
But Sam, can you not find any shared Canadian values at all? Do you really see this country as some loose connection of completey different groups held together by a constitution?
For suitably large values of ‘small areas’, perhaps. Like most of Western Canada and the rural regions of Ontario and Quebec…
And how many taxpayer-funded Catholic schools are there in the U.S., set up as official alternatives to the secular school system? How often do you hear Canadians clamoring to remove references to God from our public space?
The problem the Conservatives have with this is that their religious view are not palatable to urban voters in the largest cities in the east, which happens to be where most of the votes they need are.
Sure. Canadians love to bitch about the United States. I’d also say that most Canadians believe in our ‘cultural mosaic’, if only because it was drilled into us with a fervor when we were in school.
But seriously, I think the one shared Canadian value is that we feel we’re somehow better than the U.S. And that’s pretty sad. We share a conceit that we’re more ‘tolerant’ than Americans, but I honestly don’t see much evidence of that.
Sam, my well-spoken conservative, I’d be interested to get your take on the following:
Resolved
The United States and Canada should merge their polities. The provinces of Canada should become states, and the territories should each become one or more states. In effect, Canada would be annexed, but certain aspects of Canadian government could be adopted if they are harmonious with the US Constitution.
Reasons for doing so, in order of strength:
Greater freedom. Each country’s people could live anywhere in the merged whole.
Greater efficiency. One currency, no border to worry about, one government. Even Europe, full of different languages and disparate cultures, realizes that there is strength and efficiency in unity.
Canada is sponging off the US.
Disproportion between population and territory. Why shouldn’t both countries share the whole shebang?
Counter-arguments and responses
Yuck. Canada is better than the US politically.
Some in this thread think that the US is more conservative, hence they don’t want a part of our polity. However, if Canada is indeed more liberal, then a gaggle of liberal senators plus some representatives would be the result of a merger, right? You might be able to turn the tide in American politics and make the US gov more liberal and prevent the bad conservatives from influencing your country, which is going to happen anyway.
We just don’t want to be a part of the US. Sneer.
I guess it’s like Andorra not wanting to be part of France or Lichtenstein a part of Switzerland. One element of human nature has us enjoying being separate from the mainstream and doing our own thing.
Provinces will be reduced in relative strength to the central government. That should fly like a brick.
Currently professionals are able to work/live in both countries through the NAFTA.
Maybe but I’ve yet to see a merger (municipal or corporate) that initially resulted in immediate efficiencies (assuming they result at all). Does the idea of inflating the civil service from its US baseline by several hundred thousand sound good? And if not, are you planning on throwing them out on the streets?
As is the rest of the world I suppose. I would suggest you talk to China and see if they’ll pony up some money for the stable shipping climate their recent surge requires.
Not really a reason.
Nope. If you look back you’ll see we hashed out just how much influence the provinces would have. It doesn’t do much. Basically the small population size of Canadian provinces drives “Red” state House representation through the roof. If you roll the whole country up as a single state then it becomes a new California with permafrost.
Besides, the Canadian political experiment isn’t better, it simply different.
Not without better reasons for it than those presented. Even by throwing in Mexico there’s not enough counter-weight to prevent complete US domination. Why would any sane citizenry trade in some control of their government for no control?
