If we don’t want them here, then they should not be able to find employment, and would not come. But they can, and do. And that is the fault of the workers how? I actually support supply-side economics. And that is where this issue needs to be addressed. Not targeted at those that come to meet the demand.
Well, since the U.S. supplies a great deal of weapons and money for the Mexican army, that will cetainly cause some excitement. Vincente Fox is not the guy they thought he was when elected but we’re sure learning now.
Free trade is causing some unsolveable problems in countries like Mexico. It is a sorry state and one I personally wish I had known much more about much earlier.
No, I don’t want to be American…and the majority of native Mexicans I meet don’t want to be either.
As far as the $16 million goes…we have marsh farmers up here who bring up sometimes generations of Mexicans to help in the fields. The majority of farmers think of them as an extended family…through a local restaurant in the town they are in, they can send money home. And they send a lot of it. But they also purchase, before they return, bicycles, pencils and crayons seems to be popular too, along with clothing, etc to take home with them. So they do put money into the economy. And why shouldn’t they be able to send money home? They earned it, it’s their right to decide what to do with it.
However, if you wish to annex a province, you can certainly have some of the people in Quebec!!! (Just make sure you only take the ones which are traitors to Canada, you can leave the rest who just want to get along).
I don’t know if you’ve considered this, Aeschines: All states admitted to the Union after 1789 were in effect American colonies before they became states. They were populated by (mostly white and Anglo) American settlers/filibusterers who put their own stamp on the new community’s political culture. So they organized all the states along more or less the same lines (separation-of-powers system, two-house legislature (with the sole exception of Nebraska), separately elected governor), with pretty much the same legal system, etc. And they all were admitted under the original U.S. Constitution, as occasionally amended, and their admission made no significant changes to the system.
But Canada and Mexico did not derive from the U.S. (well, Canada did, actually, in that its English-speaking “hearth culture” was provided mainly by American Loyalist refugees during the Revolution and American emigrants in the decades following, but never mind that). They have their own political and legal traditions, to say nothing of cultural.
So, if the U.S. is to unite with Canada and/or Mexico, the countries should not unite under the existing United States Constitution. Not that I’m pointing to any specific flaws in that Constitution – other than, no Canadians or Mexicans had any role in crafting it. And they should, if they have to live under it. A change on the order you are proposing warrants nothing less than a new Constitutional Convention, with Canadian and/or Mexican delegates included, to draft a completely new constitution for the new englarged Union.
Are you willing to accept that prospect, Aeschines?
not to worry–the health care remark came from me–i was too lazy to separate out call from response.
subtext:I FOOLISHLY turned down a tenured line position at York University because I thought it would be too cold!!! I coulda’ had some of that health care myself
An update on a question I posted earlier/elsewhere (can’t find it now) regarding the claim that California hoispitals are losing money badly due to illegal immigrants (mostly Mexican migrant workers) using emergency rooms for general medical help, and then often not ever paying the bills. I asked if anyone (here) in the medical profession there (in California) could say if it was true or not, because I had no evidence–just the claim.
From http://dailynews.com/opinions/ci_3380858 , editorial titled “New cigarette tax helps illegal aliens at smokers’ expense” (Article Launched: 01/08/2006 12:00:00 AM)
(edited here, bolding mine)
(editorial continues)
Umm, yea… so, migrant workers are beneficial, except for that little matter of 902 million dollars per year in unpaid medical bills…
~
"John Graham, director of health-care studies for the fiscally conservative Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, tells me: “If your child hasn’t got health care in California, you are a negligent parent. There are 900,000 children who qualify for Healthy Families and other programs. … They are eligible but still not enrolled due to parents’ inattentiveness, laziness or the feeling that the kids are healthy so they don’t give a hoot.”
Just imagine the uproar by anti-immigrant groups if the illegals if the migrants were to enroll in these programs. I can just hear the “god-damn lawbreaking illegals, what right do they have etc.” comments sure to follow.
"As Graham notes, “If this were a rational tax, it would go to programs on smoking cessation and curing lung cancer. But it is not rational. … The system is highly biased toward illegal immigrants and not toward smokers.”
How much do illegals contribute with their tobacco habits?
"Illegal immigrants badly overuse ERs instead of tapping into often-free health care clinics or finding a family doctor. Their behavior cries out for reform, not encouragement. California should spend dough to educate immigrant families to stop using incredibly costly ERs as a replacement for the family doctor."
I’m not speaking for Aeschines by any means, but since I first saw this question when you raised this question in another thread let me take a stab at answering it here. While a new Constitutional Convention might be (and probably would be ) advisable in light of a peaceable union between the U.S. and or Canada/Mexico, it does not follow that it is necessary. The merged nations could agree to accept the U.S. Constitution as is.
The real question is, if the U.S. and Mexico merged, would the State of New Mexico have to be renamed?
