Imigration

[Jennifer Williams]

As I said life requires hard decisions. In this issue there are such to be made. Some would argue, as you might, that people in Mexico need help. Should that not be the job of Mexico?

Of course it should be the job of Mexico, however, Mexico is not doing it's job. And some might be inclined to say "so what, that's not our business." Except it has made itself our business, the problems there have affected us in so many different ways.

Laws and strategies towards keeping people out (like building a fence along the border) or deporting them once they come in aren't going to help because those types of solutions only treat the symptoms of the problem, not the cause(s). No matter how hard we try to shut our border up, as long as people in Mexico are desperate, they will find ways in.

If our resources are so precious, then why are we spending them on fighting a losing battle like that? Why not direct our resources towards trying to solve the root(s) of the problem? Is it our business? Yes; it has made itself so. We can't possibly achieve anything with the attitude "Mexico is none of our business." They're right next door. Their problems are our problems, their people affect our people, every day, in regular life.

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

Does allowing Mexico to, essentially, send their "problem" people to the US provide them the help they need?

Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people; the people coming here are families; men and women seeking to work in order to make a living. They're here looking for a job. If there had been a job in their home town, do you not think they would prefer that? So if Mexico does not create jobs for it's own people, then what do we do? If there is no job for a man in Mexico, and you send him back there, what do you think will happen? People go where work is. Of course he will come back here, and he will continue to do so until there is a job for him back at home.

Or is Mexico pawning the problem off on someone else?

Of course they are. So now you have the "it's not my problem" situation. If it's not their problem (because they don't care) and it's not our problem, then it's no one's problem and no one fixes it.

You correct in an aspect of this, that reason and heart are needed. But heart alone is a poor way to make decisions. Heart requires that all be aided. But in a system of limited resources that is not possible. Nearly everyone understands triage. Triage only works under the rules of logic and thereby aids the heart in assisting the most.

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal (and I am not stating that I think the illegal immigrant will be the poorer person in every case. I am aware that some of them are far better off than some of our own citizens; and in that case again, the poorer person should get the aid first.)

[MMI]

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

... the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

OMG, I nearly came!

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble and wriggle and scribble their rebuttals, but that is really the final word concerning the provision of aid for immigrants.

[Thorne]

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

Somehow I doubt this. The Mexican government is doing what's best for itself, and the politicians: getting rid of the really poor without having to spend any resources on them.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

And again I say: does that mean that the US should annex Mexico? I don't think the Mexican government would like that.

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble

Just a minor quibble, that's all.

[Miamhail]

As for exporting the population - remittance is Mexico's 3rd largest Gross National Product. It's well over 3 bn a quarter and follows only oil export at 5 bn and Assembly for export at 4.5 bn per quarter. So that is exactly what the Mexican government does. That's all money made here in the U.S. but spent in a foreign country. Remittance is heavily relied on by the Mexican Government and strongly dependent on undocumented workers in the U.S.

[DuncanONeil]

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

True but they due nearly everything to assist them save actually providing the Coyotes

OMG, I nearly came!

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble and wriggle and scribble their rebuttals, but that is really the final word concerning the provision of aid for immigrants.

The people in question are not immigrants! They are illegals and criminals. Why then must they be granted anything and everything as if they are citizens of the country.
We currently send something in excess of $40 billion a year to Mexico, not counting trade. That at least is voluntary!

[Thorne]

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people;

You think not?
A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine]

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

[MMI]

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

You think not?

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine

Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.

[Thorne]

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, the Mexican government is the pyromaniac. The illegals are the burning embers.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

Gee, why does that not surprise me? Well then, how about this one? (Scroll down to International Controversies.) Or this one!

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest.

I'm not sure I understand this.

[MMI]

I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

I refer you to post 53 above

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

Would it not be more accurate to say, "... money sent back by emigrants"?

I'm not sure I understand this.

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them. So by your argument, it would do more good to start with the wealthy countries and work down the list, dealing with the countries that have the greatest number of poor people
last - if there's anything left

[Thorne]

I refer you to post 53 above

Those figures may be valid for the UK, where the illegals do not have access to medical care. The situation in the US is quite different.

Would it not be more accurate to say, "... money sent back by emigrants"?

Yes it would. Both legal and illegal.

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them. So by your argument, it would do more good to start with the wealthy countries and work down the list, dealing with the countries that have the greatest number of poor people
last - if there's anything left

Yes, that is my argument. Use our resources to help our own citizens and legal immigrants first. Why is that wrong?

[DuncanONeil]

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them.

Are we talking the same China? The one on mainland Asia?

How can you possible suggest that the most populous nation on the planet plus three other countries have fewer poor that, I believe, Mexico.
Just to make it clear China alone has 10% of its population below the poverty line. That is 1.25 billion! Population of Mexico is 106,350,434.

But you are still suggesting that somehow we have a responsibility to raise the standard of living of everyone. Using the World's GDP we get 10,183 per person. If we accept the standard of 24% under 18 it only goes up to $11,314.

[DuncanONeil]

One source pegs illegal cost to the US at $10 billion annually (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html) and $10.5 billion to California alone (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm). AZ is at almost $2 billion.
That leave 48 other states! Spending money. Not even counting the money they send out of the country.

Money Sent Back To Mexico Set To Surpass Oil Revenue This Year
By Digger Bookmark and Share

In February I reported on the record $16.6 billion sent back to Mexico from immigrants here in the U.S., a 24% increase from 2003. The latest estimates show that this year those "remittances" as they call them, are expected to top Mexico's oil industry as the number one form of revenue for the country. This is all being fascilitated by bank in the United States that refuse to enforce laws on the books regarding reporting criminal and illegal transactions and instead would sell out our country for a dollar.

Lou Dobbs (transcript March 21, 2005)

The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade deficit with Mexico for the last year surpassed $45 billion.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are using bank accounts in this country to send those remittances home, and many U.S. banks are now aggressively helping illegal aliens open those accounts. Those banks refer to the practice in the political correct vernacular as banking the unbanked. (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000911.html)

So now, what is the benefit to the US of illegals.

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?




We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.



... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.



Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.



No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.



By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.

[DuncanONeil]

I spent over an hour writing an answer to this message and upon trying to post it was sent off into the ether.

Too bad it was a good one too.

[/color][/B]

Of course it should be the job of Mexico, however, Mexico is not doing it's job. And some might be inclined to say "so what, that's not our business." Except it has made itself our business, the problems there have affected us in so many different ways.

Laws and strategies towards keeping people out (like building a fence along the border) or deporting them once they come in aren't going to help because those types of solutions only treat the symptoms of the problem, not the cause(s). No matter how hard we try to shut our border up, as long as people in Mexico are desperate, they will find ways in.

If our resources are so precious, then why are we spending them on fighting a losing battle like that? Why not direct our resources towards trying to solve the root(s) of the problem? Is it our business? Yes; it has made itself so. We can't possibly achieve anything with the attitude "Mexico is none of our business." They're right next door. Their problems are our problems, their people affect our people, every day, in regular life.

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

[/B][/color] Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people; the people coming here are families; men and women seeking to work in order to make a living. They're here looking for a job. If there had been a job in their home town, do you not think they would prefer that? So if Mexico does not create jobs for it's own people, then what do we do? If there is no job for a man in Mexico, and you send him back there, what do you think will happen? People go where work is. Of course he will come back here, and he will continue to do so until there is a job for him back at home.

Of course they are. So now you have the "it's not my problem" situation. If it's not their problem (because they don't care) and it's not our problem, then it's no one's problem and no one fixes it.

[/color][/B]

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal (and I am not stating that I think the illegal immigrant will be the poorer person in every case. I am aware that some of them are far better off than some of our own citizens; and in that case again, the poorer person should get the aid first.)