Americans break the law when they hire illegal immigrants; your “logic” boils down to the idea that lawbreaking only counts when Mexicans do it.
Not that I want to die on this mountain, but if I have a choice between hiring someone for a whole lot more than another person and they will do the same job, then it is rather tempting for me to do so, isn’t it? Yet the only reason I have the opportunity for doing so in the first place is if someone broke the law before me. There is almost an element of entrapment involved here. Of course, this could be a chicken and egg discussion.
Or Mexicans might have less respect for government (as opposed to Law) because outsiders have interfered with their governments for so long that they have never actually been able to practice representative government in the manner of the other citizens of North America.
Based on the astounding examples of Enron and MCI and Wal*Mart and no-bid contracts to KBR, (and most of the water and sewer districts and zoning boards and city councils that I have encountered in the U.S.), I am not sure that we can actually make a claim so much of “more” corruption as of “different” corruption, anyway.
Yeah, okay. It is always someone else’s fault when things don’t go the way you expect them to or aren’t as good as they could be. Never the fault and responsibility of the people who actually live there. “Poor ‘brown’ people. If only ‘whitey’ would let them alone long enough so they could go back to living their simple lives.” Next you’ll be blaming Canada for George Bush. :rolleyes:
Luckily, we don’t have to guess about this.
Transcparency International
Well, what are they supposed to do about it ? Use force to stop us ?
Stop you from what? What is it you are doing that keeps them from having a representative government as suggested by tomndebb?
Interesting. I made no comment about ethnicity, at all, yet you immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was an ethnic or racial issue.
Are you claiming that Mexico has not been invaded by the U.S. and France, and that there have been no large corporations (backed by foreign governments) that have interfered with their development?
Alternatively, since you have both ascribed a prevalence of corruption to Mexicans as well as describing them as “brown,” are you suggesting that there is something in their nature that embraces lawlessness?
Is there something “white” about wanting to wander about the world conquering peoples?
I think that holding people accountable is probably a good idea. I think that that is better done when we can identify exactly what things they can control while avoiding generalizations about “the people” when looking at large, complex situations.
Well I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean it was the Chinese that were doing things to the Mexicans to cause whatever problems they may have? No, I’m sure you meant the ‘West’ and the ‘West’ is predominently caucasian.
Well the Mexican-American War was between 1846–48 and the French invaded in 1860 and were pretty much kicked out by 1867, the same year Canada became a confederation. Using that for an excuse 139 years later is kind of weak, don’t you think?
Most likely it was probably the series of dictators and the 70 year rule of the PRI that interfered with their development the most. All internal issues, btw.
You are the one claiming that it is outside interference that cause the problems in Mexico. The people who cause this interference are from predominently white nations. I assume that you mean the people who live in Mexico can’t, for some reason I can’t fathom other than they are ‘brown’, take care of themselves and must blame someone else for their issues. Or maybe they aren’t blaming anyone else and it is your white guilt that makes you want to see boogeymen where there aren’t any? Dunno.
Because it is only white people who do this? Or, is it because we developed technologies before other people that made us more effective at it? And the reason we developed those technologies before others had to do with a host of reasons, none of which is because we are white.
They can control anything they want to control. ‘Brown’ people aren’t any stupider or smarter than any other people. They are just people like anyone else. What makes you think that they can’t take care of their own problems themselves or not know how to protect themselves from outside influences*? There is not one thing stopping them from regulating foreign companies who operate within their borders. Of course, the foreign company can choose not to do business there. But such is the price of freedom.
*Actually, what is probably impeding them most is their culture, which is what tends to hamper most other developing nations as well.
That’s a rather insulting thing to say about Mexicans.
You are turning a blind eye to the obvious, which is that economic circumstances are at the core of the tremendously different rates of illegal immigration when comparing Canada/USA to Mexico/USA.
I did say, “It could be…”, and later said in another post shortly afterwards, “Not that I want to die on this mountain,…”. I was throwing it out for discussion. I personally don’t know if it is true, nor did I think I claimed it was. Tomndebb may have been closer to the truth with his comment about them having less respect for government. We differ on why they would do so. He claims external influence, I say that if Mexicans are the ones doing the governing, then you can’t blame others for the results.
Of course it is obvious on the face of it that the economic conditions are the cause of illegal immigration. But what is the root cause of this? Why are the economic conditions so different between the US and Mexico when they are parked right next door to each other? What did one do that other did not or could not? It is not as if Mexico doesn’t have resources. I suggest it is cultural issues that cause the problems that Mexico faces. I’m quite willing to say that I am wrong about it, but I don’t see any better reason. I will certainly not say that it is because they have a different skin color, and I don’t buy the idea that only outside influences are the main reason, so I am left with culture as the answer.
If that were the only “intervention,” it might have been weak. It does, of course, conveniently ignore actual history, such as:
- that Porfirio Diaz stayed in power for decades through support from the U.S.;
- that (the U.S. supported) Diaz began confiscation of lands from local farmers to be handed to (largely foreign) companies, so that beginning in 1883, with the theft of about 12% of the land, by 1910 (largely foreign–mostly U.S.) companies had displaced roughly half of Mexican citizens from their lands–from almost 20% of the nation’s area;
- that the U.S. intervened both directly and indirectly with the Mexican Revolution, (Ambassador Wilson arranged the overthrow of Madero, the successor to Diaz and the U.S. Navy and Marines occupied Tampico for several months), alternatively supporting and withdrawing support from various governments as U.S. adminstrations changed, finally allowing the dust to settle when a government that “business” could live with took over, again.
So, rather than a two-year war 158 years ago and a five year occupation ending 139 years ago, we are actually looking at a period of 47 years subsequent to the foreign occupation in which the money and power of the government relied heavily on foreign intervention–intervention for which the payment was the destruction of democratic processes and the creation of a political culture that minimized democratic participation and which left in power a party that acted in ways to prevent the development of democratic processes.
And, of course, while this leads to a lack of respect for government, it does not indicate a general disrespect for Law, given that many rules are seen a simply the whim of the ruling party. Although, I suppose that we could make a case that people in the U.S. have no real support for the Law, given their disreagrd of the “equal” portion of “Separate but Equal,” their actions during Prohibition, their high rates of drug use and murder, and so on.
What **tomndebb ** said; we’ve been screwing with them a long time, along with a lot of other countries. They hate us for good reasons, you know; we deserve to be hated; as a country, if not necessarily as individuals.
Such as?
Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine ? “America for the Americans”? The perception in Mexico is: nothing happens in Mexico if it isn’t in the U.S.'s best interest.
This perception is, of course, extreme and not entirely correct. However, like tomndebb said, History has shown several subtle and not-so-subtle interventions in internal affairs.
Is Mexico’s (or Central America’s) poorer economy entirely or even mostly the U.S.'s fault? Of course not. However, it is a fact right here, right now. And that, IMHO, is the real sickness underlying the migration patterns we can see. I honestly don’t believe a fence will really “cure” the “disease” in any way. It may alleviate some of the “symptoms”; however if a real “cure” is sought, it will involve a lot of effort.
For instance: does anyone really know how many migratory workers are really needed? For how long? (Notice I didn’t say wanted or actually there: needed). If there alternative technologies that could be used? Would cutting subsidies in agricultural businesses possibly help?
If there are alternative technologies that could substitute hand labor?