Imigration

[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.