Vincente Fox To Americans: Welcome the Huddled masses!

I guess I just take it for granted that modern nations have a right to issue laws and to enforce those laws within their borders. In democracies that right comes from the people living there. What gives those people that right? Maybe someone better versed in political philosophy can answer that question.

But what’s your alternative? If, as your earlier post suggests, we have no right to claim this land as “ours,” then what right do we have to declare any laws here?

Well, in the theoretical (and, of course, unrealistic) situation in which everyone worldwide who wanted to come here could and did, that would mean tens of millions of people suddenly coming here, and our infrastructure just couldn’t handle it – in terms of housing, schools, hospitals, jobs, etc.

Most immigrants come here to make money; if we don’t keep our economy strong in the first place, we’re not going to be doing them any favors. There are economic considerations in determining how many immigrants the economy needs to stay strong. A flood of too many immigrants into an economy that doesn’t need them and can’t use them isn’t going to help things.*

*I don’t know enough about economics to know how our current number of immigrants stands in this regard, and as far as I can tell, given the varying arguments about immigrants’ effect on the economy, economists aren’t sure either.

One word: infrastructure. To oversimplify a bit, it’s what the US and other Western countries have and third world countries don’t (at least nowhere near our levels or to our sophistication and funding). This includes things like the electric grid, water supplies, pipelines, roads, public transportation systems, schools, hospitals, legal system, and so on. All these things develop gradually, as a community’s population gradually grows.

Not many are advocating a complete and total end to immigration. But a government without any real kind of control over its borders and thus its system of immigration is a government that cannot properly serve its people. Unchecked and unregulated immigration has the potential to overwhelm a city’s or a state’s infrastructure. This is the reasoning behind Arizona’s Proposition 200 which became law late last year and requires state employees to report any illegal immigrants who apply to collect public benefits from the state.

But won’t people sto pwanting to come here once our infrastructure is no longer making living here attractive?

Um, but what does that accomplish? People from a poor country with bad infrastructure come to a rich country with good infrastructure, overwhelm and eventually break down that infrastructure, then stop coming. Then you’re stuck with two countries with bad infrastructure. What’s the benefit in that?

With smart (limited) immigration and population growth, we can keep our good infrastructure, teach immigrants our way of doing things, and let them export the money and know-how back to their home countries to improve things back there. Then, with some luck, work, and maybe well placed foreign aid, you get two countries with good infrastructure.

True, but by that time, things will have either imploded or merely strained to the breaking point. A responsible government doesn’t just deal with the crises of today, but hopefully they prepare for the crises of tomorrow. By your logic, the government should not have intervened to ban Chlorofluorocarbons due to their effect on the ozone layer but instead waited until their use by private companies throughout the world became so “unwanted” that private companies themselves stopped their use.

National sovereignity. If a country does not have the right to control it’s borders and regulate immigration, that kind of undermines the whole concept, doesn’t it. As Rodgers01 pointed out, a country can only accomodate X number of immigrants a year. And we should have some say in who they are.

I think you’re using emotionally charged words to to appeal to emotion. Do you believe that if person A come to your house and knocks on the door and politlely asks for food or money, that you are morally obligated to treat him the same as the man who breaks into your house and helps himself to what he desires?

Dear President Fox,

Thank you for your concern regarding the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. While we would like to accommodate every 3rd world leader regarding our immigration policies we feel it appropriate to include other countries in the mix. If the need arises we will do our best to model any changes after your administration’s policies.

Thanks again and best wishes to the donkey you rode in on.

Perfect. Can I put my signature to this?

Consider it yours.

I’d like to see a link to the Fox letter. A search of the online version of the NY Times gives nothing.
And it’s Vicente.

From a strictly American viewpoint, it would not be desireable. But to the poor immigrants it would be a huge step up.

So it depends on whom you ask…the ones with the SUVS and TVs and medicine or the ones born into unimaginable poverty.

Every American should visit a poor central american village, so you understand why they are coming.

National Sovereignty is just another word for it. From where do we derive the right to national sovereignty? The right to draw a line on the land and say we control who comes across?

I am not saying I advocate a borderless world, I am just exploring ideas. Maybe some of our core concepts need to be undermines for the sake of people other than ourselves.

I wonder if Fox really cares how many Mexicans we let into the U.S., or is he just saying what his public wants to hear? (He’s not running for re-election, he can’t run for a second term; but he is the public face of his party, the PRI, so I doubt he’s entirely above pandering.)

Exactly, he’s just engaging in demagoguery. Howzabout he help improve conditions in his own country so his people won’t find it necessary to break the law/risk their lives escaping it?

Whoops, my mistake! Fox is PAN, not PRI. (Very significant, as he’s the first non-PRI president since the Mexican Revolution.)

Yep just like GWB is the face of the Democatic party!

BTW I see a lot of posters claiming that Fox should be doing something to help Mexicans stay in Mexico. Does anyone on this board have any idea of anything that he has done or has tried to do to improve life for the average Mexican?

Would you have any suggestions for him?

What I’m trying to find out is how much the posters here who have made those statements really know about any economic conditions/improvements in Mexico during Fox’s term. When these illegal immigration debates occur that is a common statement by many posters here.

Can any of the people making those remarks point to anything he has or hasn’t done to effect the Mexican economy for better or worse?

According to this – Fox has created a system of national health insurance; made the INFONAVIT (the public agency that helps workers buy homes through long-term lending against their salaries) less corrupt and more efficient, “increasing the number of homes bought by workers to an all-time record”; and greatly increased law-enforcement efforts, imprisoning more than 35,000 drug traffickers.

Otherwise, his record is controversial:

And he seems to have no plan for fighting unemployment, other then sending more Mexicans north: