Imigration

[Thorne]

I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

And we are all "one of us."

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

[MMI]

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

[MMI]

Perhaps you're forgetting the war of 1812? The one that ended in 1814?

That's the war I suggested you speak to a Canadian about, to find out who won.

As between US and Great Britain, if you count territorial gains, the 1812 war was a no-score draw (a soccer term), if you count dead bodies, the US lost. If you count individual battles ... I'll let someone else work that out.

"In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.

If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out."

http://www.warof1812.ca/summary.html

Shortly before the British got their butts handed to them at New Orleans? They even wrote a song about it!

OK, you won a battle. Good for you. I know it was so important for America, but, frankly, it was a minor skirmish for us. Did you ever hear of Napoleon ... the French guy? That's who we were really worried about at the time.

I know the song ... I could even sing it while strumming a guitar (Lonnie Donegan's version). I also enjoyed singing "Yankee Doodle".

Only until the British surrendered.

It was always treachery. You have chosen to raise these men to the status of heros, and to eulogise about their exploits, but they were far from noble in reality.

It was just because they won. If they'd lost they would have been hanged as traitors. And that would have been just, too.

Might is always right huh? In that case Stalin was an angel and the Taliban should be running Afghanistan.

So are you implying that the illegal immigrants should unite and form a rebellion? Wouldn't that be a land-grab by poor criminals? Wouldn't that make them traitors?

No, that is a completely incorrect inference to draw. I am saying that it isn't a bad thing to ignore that particular law. If might be a land grab, but I see it more like trespass by tortfeasors.

It certainly doesn't make them traitors: they aren't Americans, are they?

Or perhaps you are just saying that any 'bad' law can be ignored, sidestepped if you will. But then, who decides what's a bad law? If I believe that the laws against murder are 'bad' laws, does that mean I can ignore them? I could just head on down to the border and open fire indiscriminately. Because the law against that is a 'bad' law!

No, I don't think that would work. We must have laws, or we'll all suffer. And if we don't like a law we must change it, not ignore it. The law can be changed from within, legally, through due process, or it can be changed illegally, from without, through rebellion. But if you go that route you must be prepared to set up your own government, with your own laws. And I can guarantee that those laws will provide for some kind of defense against cross-border incursions by foreign nationals. After all, you wouldn't want some lazy johnny-come-latelys to take back all that you stole in the first place, would you?

Any law that denies or suppresses a human right is a bad law. And anyone who regards illegal immigrants as "lazy johnny-come-latelys" should really take a long hard look at himself.

[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]

It was always treachery. You have chosen to raise these men to the status of heros, and to eulogise about their exploits, but they were far from noble in reality.

There are very few heroes who are noble in reality.

Might is always right huh?

Only if you are on the winning side. Otherwise it's oppression.

In that case Stalin was an angel and the Taliban should be running Afghanistan.

Up until his death, Stalin was an angel in the minds of the people of the USSR. Because he won! And there are still those in Afghanistan who look back upon the Taliban years as good times. It's all a question of perception.

I am saying that it isn't a bad thing to ignore that particular law. If might be a land grab, but I see it more like trespass by tortfeasors.

And I see it as illegal, regardless of others opinions of the law. Again, a question of perception.

It certainly doesn't make them traitors: they aren't Americans, are they?

You're right, they are invaders.

Any law that denies or suppresses a human right is a bad law.

And just how do laws protecting a country's borders from foreign invaders suppress a human right? No one has a right to ignore another country's laws.

And anyone who regards illegal immigrants as "lazy johnny-come-latelys" should really take a long hard look at himself.

I'm not calling them that, only speculating on how they would be viewed by the hypothetical new government. But if you don't believe any group which such government wouldn't regard them similarly you might want to have your rose-colored glasses checked. Once they've set up their own government and established an economic base, the last thing they'll want is a bunch of poor immigrants coming in and wrecking things.

[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?

[Thorne]

but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

Damn! And I thought I hid it so well!

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I suggest it is both. Cooperation and compassion have been observed in other primates, and other animals as well. Sophisticated social structures had to evolve from less sophisticated ones over time. It is a matter of both biological and cultural evolution.

What makes a child better than an old man?

Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

I would, and if I were the old man I would encourage any rescuer to do the same. Despite being healthy and agile, the child is much more likely to panic and be unable to escape on his own. Ideally, of course, I would like to save both, but if forced to choose, the child would win out every time.

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.

[Jennifer Williams]

The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Elsewhere? Where else can they go? No job in Mexico, no money, no food. Just put yourself in their literal shoes. Your entire village is broke. You're hungry, your children are hungry, and nobody around you has a dime because nobody has a job. You've applied for visas. You've waited, say, two years, and they haven't come.

You've got enough food left for one more day. And no one around you has any, either. Without food, it's simple. You'll die. For certain.

There are jobs close by in the United States, where you can earn money to buy food. Getting there is dangerous but at least it's hopeful, you only might die during the journey, as opposed to for sure dying if you stay where you are.

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him? 1) Stay in your village and starve, or 2) .....?

You fill in the blanks, because so far nobody else has been able to come up with something better than "move to America for a better life."
This man doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a visa, he doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the next election to vote for a better president who might turn the country around in a few years.

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

[Thorne]

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him?

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

The first thing I'd tell him is to keep that money he was going to use to pay the coyotes to lead him across the border and use it to move his family to where the jobs are. There are jobs in Mexico, you know. He'll have to move from his village, but he was prepared to do that anyway. And if he has enough money to pay the coyotes, he has enough to buy food for his family on the journey south.

[Jennifer Williams]

The first thing I'd tell him is to keep that money he was going to use to pay the coyotes to lead him across the border and use it to move his family to where the jobs are. There are jobs in Mexico, you know.

Yes, there are. "In 2010 the average of Mexico’s three region-based minimum wages is around U.S. $4.50 per day." - US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)

That's $4.50 a day (Or $1642.50 for an annual salary, if you worked all 365 days in the year). That's the average. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard-pressed to support myself on $4.50 an hour. Now what if I had to support an entire family on that? Say you have a family of four. At $4.50 per day, each person gets $1.13 to live off of per day, or $410.63 per year. How much money to you need to live on each day? Could you support yourself and your family with such wages?

So the answer is no, there is not sustainable employment for the average Mexican citizen in Mexico.

He'll have to move from his village, but he was prepared to do that anyway. And if he has enough money to pay the coyotes, he has enough to buy food for his family on the journey south.

South of Mexico are Guatemala and Belize. People who live in Guatemala and Belize are running out of those countries, through Mexico, to get to America, so why would a Mexican be better off going that way?

You're hungry, you have no money (whether or not you have a job), and your children need to eat tomorrow.

[Miamhail]

While the wages are lower in Mexico, so is the cost of living. The $4.50 a day goes a whole lot further.

Immigration to Guatemala and Belize may be tough. They have stricter immigration rules than the U.S. And they enforce theirs.

Mexico also has immigration rules. They round up the "illegal aliens" in their country and deport them. Most are in the country just to pass through on their way to the U.S., but some go to Mexico to live. Especially from even poorer nations south of them.

In Mexico, if you are not a citizen - you are not entitled to attend school, receive any government assistance, vote, or own property or a bank account.

[denuseri]

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

[Thorne]

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

According to Wikipedia, "According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world."

But they are 100% illegal, and all should be treated the same.

[MMI]

According to Wikipedia, "According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world."

But they are 100% illegal, and all should be treated the same.

Yes, they should all be treated with equal respect.

They are only "illegal" because you make them so, but there is no advantage to you in doing that. You might not accept the British experience is valid for America. but look at it this way: If a person works, he creates wealth - most for his master, but some for himself. That wealth is then used to buy other goods and services which in turn generates more wealth ... I'm sure you've all covered this basic economic theory at some time or other, so I'll leave it there and come to the point. If, as you suppose (I doubt you know), illegal immigration is costing America more than the additional wealth created by those migrants, it's no-one's fault but those who prevent them from working (legitimately) so they can pay taxes and make worthwhile contributions to the country they want to become part of. Let them work legally and they'll pay as much tax as you do. They'll take out their own medical insurance, and they'll buy their own food. They might even start businesses that will grow into American-controlled multi-national conglomerates. And America will grow richer as a result.

Sure, one or two might try to cheat the system, but are you going to tell me no WASP would ever stoop to that level? You just implement checks and controls to prevent it from happening too much.

The alternative will be to send them back - and although this is the solution you advocate, it is a lose-lose solution. The "illegal" suffers a life-time set-back, and the nation misses a cast iron opportunity for growth, and meanwhile has to pay the cost of policing the borders and the cost of repatriation. You might want to save a few cents in taxes, but such petty meanness will have an adverse and, for some, devastating effect on real lives - at home and abroad.

[MMI]

So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

No. I would make no distinction between them. What is beyond my comprehension is that you would, and the distinction would be based on nothing better than where a person happened to be born.

Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

Except the mortgages lined the pockets of corrupt bankers.

The very simple fact you are ignoring is, although America currently owes lots of money as a result of the Banking Crisis, it is owed lots and lots more money by other entities, and could, if it chose, repay the whole national debt tomorrow by cancelling or transferring some of the debts due to it.

Yes, America could easily afford to aid those immigrants.

Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

I am struck with the reckless ease you are prepared to dismiss the value of people on the basis of sweeping and flawed assumptions. The fact that the old man has lived the greater part of his life suggests he is of greater value to society than a child who has nothing more to give than "potential", because the old man has actual experience and wisdom to offer.

This, I now see, is how you can deny masses of people the benefits and advantages you have received, more by good fortune than effort, however you might protest at my saying that, simply because they did not have the luck to have had ancestors who did manage to enter the country and stay.

If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

So if I am prepared to let a child die, you are too ...

I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.

... but only I would go to prison. At least I'd know you felt sorry for me - but not enough to help.

[Thorne]

I'm tired of going round and round about this. We're getting nowhere, fast. You're not going to convince me that impoverishing the world to try to save the poor is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Maybe you're right about me. Maybe I am a selfish bastard who doesn't care what happens to the poor. It certainly doesn't concern me all that much. I'm too busy worrying about keeping myself from becoming poor. When it comes to charity I'm more concerned with myself than others.

Maybe it's because, over the years, I've come to the realization that people in general are just plain bad. There are individuals who are good and decent, sure, and I treasure these when I find them. But as a group there's just nothing to like.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument. I've pretty much said all I want to about it anyway.

[Stealth694]

I have to agree with Thorne:
This has just become a circle, Never Ending and continuous.

[MMI]

I agree that, in 137 posts we haven't got very far, although I don't think it has become completely circular. But if it has, let's try to break out.

We all agree that illegal immigration is a reality, and it is petty damned obvious that rounding them up and sending them home is futile, even if it is the right thing - and the only right thing to do (I said "if"). Even putting them in gaol for a few months before they go home won't stop the others - and probably won't deter the ones who are actually put in prison ... they'll try again as soon as they can.

So what's the answer? Giving police more powers demand to see olive-skinned people's papers and to incacerate those who can't produce them? Allowing vigilantes to patrol borders instead in the hope that their enthusiasm for the job will make them more effective than existing border guards? Throwing the borders wide open?

I suppose that first, we have to agree what the pupose of border controls is, and take it from there. We also need to take an unbiased look at why immigrants take the risks they do for - let's face it - economic reasons.

[denuseri]

It is not allways economic reasons that drive imigration, sometimes one is forced to leave a place to escape violence and or survive a war.

I know when I started the thread the focus was on Arizona and its new law, which btw isnt all that stringent even compared to laws allready existing on the books in other states of the USA (as mentioned in a different thread about Florida) and other countries throughout the world; but I certianly didnt expect the focus to soley be upon the USA's imigration issues so much as the world over.

I was perhaps one of the last generation of my mother's people born for a long time in a country where unregulated imigration of a completely differnt group of refugees from a niehboring region became a catalyst among many other catalysts that tore the nation of my birth appart at the seams and basically lead to the ethnic cleansing/expulsion allmost in total of our people making us refugees in our own right.

I am sure one can easily see why this topic is near and dear to me in so many ways, which is why I have been keeping my own views private for the most part.

I like the "idea" of countries without borders myself, the freedom for anyone to travel anywhere apeals to me but considering my personal experiences and a close study of history I can also see the sometimes nessecity of controling one's borders and who is allowed to cross over them and interact with one's society.

Such interaction which in many cases has proven throughout history to not be so mutually benificial for all parties envolved.

Personally I have no issue with Arizona's new law, it is certianly not imho as bad as political pundents of the opposition party to the Governor of that State would like to make it out to be.

I can understand and empathize completely with the people who go to the extremes of leaving their homes and crossing borders to try and make a better life for themselves and their familes.

That being said, I am also a very strong proponent of them doing so legally in keeping with the requirments of the country they wish to enter or become a citizen there of, including making every endeavor to learn and respect the language and other prevelant customs where aplicable.

[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.)

[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!

[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]

Yet there has been no change in the "authorized" number of immigrants in decades!

I'de like to thank Thorne and Jennifer for their input on this thread ... its a great treat to witness such a sharp mind and such a deep heart have a discussion on an issue such as this.

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick and more in line with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has been billed as the "land of opportunity" outside its borders for many decades now ... it is shameful that opportunity is limited to a few hundred thousand, of those that yearn to breathe free, a year.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually I think Thorne gets right to the core of the issue nearly every time. MMI and Jennifer speak of the right thing to do, from the prospective of limitless resources. We do not have limitless resources. Hell even the world does not have limitless resources.
As a result we have to pick and choose who and when to aid.
That is not cruel nor inhumane, it is a fact of life.
It is the very thing I tell every person that calls for aid to the various and sundry charitable agencies. Send a package through and we will see what we have after the necessities are covered!

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.




I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.



You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?



I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.




What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?



I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.



Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?



Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

[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]

All assumptions! The facts do not support your claims!
Unemployment in Mexico is 40% of that of the US. 4% vs 9.9%

Elsewhere? Where else can they go? No job in Mexico, no money, no food. Just put yourself in their literal shoes. Your entire village is broke. You're hungry, your children are hungry, and nobody around you has a dime because nobody has a job. You've applied for visas. You've waited, say, two years, and they haven't come.

You've got enough food left for one more day. And no one around you has any, either. Without food, it's simple. You'll die. For certain.

There are jobs close by in the United States, where you can earn money to buy food. Getting there is dangerous but at least it's hopeful, you only might die during the journey, as opposed to for sure dying if you stay where you are.

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him? 1) Stay in your village and starve, or 2) .....?

You fill in the blanks, because so far nobody else has been able to come up with something better than "move to America for a better life."
This man doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a visa, he doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the next election to vote for a better president who might turn the country around in a few years.

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

[DuncanONeil]

You make the same mistake most Americans make when hearing about the pay in foreign countries. Also according to Mexperience the minimum wage is in the vicinity of $4.50 per day.
Here is a report by someone living under those terrible conditions in Mexico.
"I live in a small publito (village) somewhere in central Mexico. I am one of three “Gringos” here and we are followed around like ETs. I’m guess that we are considered different, and many of these villagers have not seen one of us up close.

I have a partially furnished two bedroom casa with a satallite dish on the roof. My rent is $100 US dollars per month for this home. I recently saw a four bedroom for $400 dollars per month. Stay out of the expensive areas and you’ll pay what the locals pay.

That’s true with the food too. I buy my food at the local market and from the mobile vendors that traverse up and down my cobblestone street. Fish and shrimp are cheap. If you just walk up and show your blue eyes, you’ll pay the higher “gringo tax” price. Shrimp started out at $7 per lb, but after networking with the locals who had a cousin, a brother, or maybe married to someone who worked on the fishing boats, I started getting the same shrimp for $1 per lb. The food here is pretty much pesticide free. They can’t afford the chemicals that we use in the States, and as a result, the food probably better for you and it is delicious, having more taste than you can imagine.
I spend in the neighborhood of M$120 pesos per week for my morning and midday meals. That’s US$12 per week, and if you add my evening meal, I’ll spend another $15 bucks. Let's see, US$27 to US$30 per week for my meals isn’t bad. If you wanted a maid to clean or cook for you, they can be had for US$4 per day! Bus fare to and from a nearby larger city is US$24 dollars for the entire MONTH and that’s if you went to that particular town and back every day." (http://www.escapeartist.com/efam30/mexico.html)
"Cost of Living in Mexico

The cost of living ranges are set within the costs for a middle to upper class family lifetsyle, which considers a $1300 to $17400 USD monthly income. Included in the costs are: Housing, Food, Education, Transportation, Clothing, Recreation, Health, Furniture and Appliances, and Personal Use. Monthly rents are taken for the average for each city, and may vary according to market situation. Prices are in USD, based on an exchange rate of 11.5 pesos to the dollar."

Yes, there are. "In 2010 the average of Mexico’s three region-based minimum wages is around U.S. $4.50 per day." - US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)

That's $4.50 a day (Or $1642.50 for an annual salary, if you worked all 365 days in the year). That's the average. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard-pressed to support myself on $4.50 an hour. Now what if I had to support an entire family on that? Say you have a family of four. At $4.50 per day, each person gets $1.13 to live off of per day, or $410.63 per year. How much money to you need to live on each day? Could you support yourself and your family with such wages?

So the answer is no, there is not sustainable employment for the average Mexican citizen in Mexico.

South of Mexico are Guatemala and Belize. People who live in Guatemala and Belize are running out of those countries, through Mexico, to get to America, so why would a Mexican be better off going that way?

You're hungry, you have no money (whether or not you have a job), and your children need to eat tomorrow.

[DuncanONeil]

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

Data indicates that only 57% are Mexican!

[DuncanONeil]

We did nothing to make them illegal! them took that upon themselves when they chose to sneak across the border. They clearly know what they are doing is wrong and yet they choose to do so!
Hence they voluntarily broke US law!

Yes, they should all be treated with equal respect.

They are only "illegal" because you make them so, but there is no advantage to you in doing that. You might not accept the British experience is valid for America. but look at it this way: If a person works, he creates wealth - most for his master, but some for himself. That wealth is then used to buy other goods and services which in turn generates more wealth ... I'm sure you've all covered this basic economic theory at some time or other, so I'll leave it there and come to the point. If, as you suppose (I doubt you know), illegal immigration is costing America more than the additional wealth created by those migrants, it's no-one's fault but those who prevent them from working (legitimately) so they can pay taxes and make worthwhile contributions to the country they want to become part of. Let them work legally and they'll pay as much tax as you do. They'll take out their own medical insurance, and they'll buy their own food. They might even start businesses that will grow into American-controlled multi-national conglomerates. And America will grow richer as a result.

Sure, one or two might try to cheat the system, but are you going to tell me no WASP would ever stoop to that level? You just implement checks and controls to prevent it from happening too much.

The alternative will be to send them back - and although this is the solution you advocate, it is a lose-lose solution. The "illegal" suffers a life-time set-back, and the nation misses a cast iron opportunity for growth, and meanwhile has to pay the cost of policing the borders and the cost of repatriation. You might want to save a few cents in taxes, but such petty meanness will have an adverse and, for some, devastating effect on real lives - at home and abroad.

[DuncanONeil]

And the "Banking Crisis" is the responsibility of Congress! Who, by the way, want another bite at that apple!

No. I would make no distinction between them. What is beyond my comprehension is that you would, and the distinction would be based on nothing better than where a person happened to be born.




Except the mortgages lined the pockets of corrupt bankers.

The very simple fact you are ignoring is, although America currently owes lots of money as a result of the Banking Crisis, it is owed lots and lots more money by other entities, and could, if it chose, repay the whole national debt tomorrow by cancelling or transferring some of the debts due to it.

Yes, America could easily afford to aid those immigrants.




I am struck with the reckless ease you are prepared to dismiss the value of people on the basis of sweeping and flawed assumptions. The fact that the old man has lived the greater part of his life suggests he is of greater value to society than a child who has nothing more to give than "potential", because the old man has actual experience and wisdom to offer.

This, I now see, is how you can deny masses of people the benefits and advantages you have received, more by good fortune than effort, however you might protest at my saying that, simply because they did not have the luck to have had ancestors who did manage to enter the country and stay.




So if I am prepared to let a child die, you are too ...



... but only I would go to prison. At least I'd know you felt sorry for me - but not enough to help.