I have a simple solution to this whole mess. Why doesn't the US just invade Mexico. Or better yet, Mexico could willfully apply to be the 51st state. As a result, all illegal immigrants from Mexico will by default become Americans, as will all those who stayed in Mexico. Therefore, everyone can stay, but they will pay taxes, etc. Over time, Mexico's economy will improve, and eventually it will resemble the rest of the US. The best part is, now the US would share a border with Guatemala and Belize which would be about 1/3 the border we currently have to the south. Now that we can defend!

I can live with that, but I think others will want the "welfare state" fixed first.

The underlying issue is our faulty human nature. We have been unable to transcend the histories into which we've so conveniently fragmented ourselves: social class and race.

The peoples and territories at issue have had a symbiotic relationship before they achieved statehood and will continue to have this relationship long after the reverb of all of this dies in the ether. None of our pithy remarks will change that.

Every day, as we caress our i-pods, sip down our latte's or find ourselves with the luxury of leisure which allows us to post to these discussion boards, we re-ratify an ingenious political-economic system. With that privilege also comes the responsibility of acquiescing. Let us all Man Up and admit that what we have built, that which we cherish most, has been built upon the backs of the less fortunate, wherever they may be located geographically.

I propose a double take, within ourselves because noone, after a certain age, has the right to act this stunned or angry, to remain this superficial or ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by thislightinoneself:
Let us all Man Up and admit that what we have built, that which we cherish most, has been built upon the backs of the less fortunate.

"What we have built" has not been built on the backs of the least fortunate, but on the backs of the most fortunate. The Carnegie's, the Rockefeller's, the Gates, the Dell's...these are the people responsible for our "luxury of leisure." Thanks to capitalism they don't need our gratitude, they have plenty.

This might not have anything to do with Mexicans...but, quoting anthropologist Richard H. Robbins in an article I read:

"...white farmers using Native American land and African labor to produce cotton for the English and American textile industries created much of the future wealth of the young American Republic."

Perhaps "what has been built" was built upon the backs of the white farmers, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, it was really built upon the backs of people from "various" geographical locations.

Just a thought.

If you read carefully you would see that I indeed imply "various" geographical locations. Although, whose backs white slave-owners might have been using is certainly debatable.

I appreciate the fact that you at least attempt to widen your viewfinder. My statement was a broad one, and one that wished to impel introspection, not tone-deaf ejaculations.

Who gave ThisOne a dictionary? I am sure that most can agree that the relationships between the United States and those that it has crossed paths with have been, generally, beneficial for the US and detrimental for the others. But we must also agree that it is unrelated to this particular issue. We cannot simply repay Native Americans for the land we stole, Mexicans for the work and land we recieved, African Americans for their relocation and work. It is not rational. Likewise, we cannot build a wall across the border and turn a blind eye to the plight of others. Although I agree with SDF, his idea is rather farfetched.

Wrt your tone, it sounds as if you are calling us uncaring. There you are wrong, had we not cared you would not have seen such serious and concerned posts as the ones previous to yours.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I am sure that most can agree that the relationships between the United States and those that it has crossed paths with have been, generally, beneficial for the US and detrimental for the others.

Enlighten us Mike...even if what you say is true, how did the United States attain this ability? Why do we and we alone have this power?

Pax, for some reason I think that you already know the answer to your question and simply put up a very simple question that requires an extremely complex answer.

I don't know the answer to my question because I disagree with the premise that the United States destroys every country it comes in contact with. Most countries that open up and trade with the United States/West experience a rapid increase in per capita GDP, living conditions. Look at China for a recent example, although there are many others from more distant history.

Anyone had any problems with the Mexican boycott? I didn't notice anything different.

quote:

I don't know the answer to my question because I disagree with the premise that the United States destroys every country it comes in contact with.

In this context I will agree with you however, in many case the US has 'destroyed' many cultures that it comes into contact with. It also has used its superpower position to take advantage of less powerful countries.

I don't particularly like the 'Boycotts' but I don't disagree with them either. I see both points of view in this argument, but in most cases would side with the Mexican's (Save the few that have some insane belief that I cannot side with). Immigrant's have been taken advantage of for decades, this isn't to say that they are doing 'worse off,' just that by our standards and policies, we are treating them with a degree of inequality.
Immigrant are:
1) Charged capital to become citizens
2) Required to learn more about our country that most of our naturalized citizens know
3) Taken advantage of by some companies and industries
4) Told that they should be happy with all of this because their countries are 'Worse'

I see this as a problem.

In both your arguments I see a disturbing trend to which many liberals are prone of removing individual responsibility in favor of blaming some faceless system. The United States doesn't destroy other cultures forcefully...people CHOOSE American products over home-grown products. Corporations don't take advantage of Mexicans by employing them...the Mexicans choose to work for such American companies. If they didn't want to work for those companies, they should find another job.

And about immigration, I'm not sure what you mean about being charged capital for becoming an American citizen. I'm sure there is a nominal fee for legal immigration, but 1) it isn't as high as it should be, and 2) illegal immigrants pay no fee to come here. Illegals may pay some taxes, but these aren't taxes that don't apply to regular citizens. Ideally we would charge everyone who wanted to come to America a price corresponding with their value to us. They want to come to a place that ensures property rights, religious/political freedom...they should have to pay a price. Sure it works out great for those of us born as American citizens, but what can you say? This isn't fourth grade anymore, life can't be fair all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Corporations don't take advantage of Mexicans by employing them...the Mexicans choose to work for such American companies. If they didn't want to work for those companies, they should find another job.

I agree. People working at US Companies in places like Mexico or India are probably making more than they would being employed by a local company.

If anybody is getting screwed on that deal, it's the American worker who's job was offshored to Mexico or India.

quote:

And about immigration, I'm not sure what you mean about being charged capital for becoming an American citizen. I'm sure there is a nominal fee for legal immigration, but 1) it isn't as high as it should be, and 2) illegal immigrants pay no fee to come here. Illegals may pay some taxes, but these aren't taxes that don't apply to regular citizens. Ideally we would charge everyone who wanted to come to America a price corresponding with their value to us. They want to come to a place that ensures property rights, religious/political freedom...they should have to pay a price. Sure it works out great for those of us born as American citizens, but what can you say? This isn't fourth grade anymore, life can't be fair all the time.

I don't know that you really need to charge people to immigrate to the U.S., but there ought to be criteria such as:

1. You have to have a job waiting for you.

or

2. You have to have the resources to sustain yourself for X period of time until you find work.

Many other countries have this criteria. It prevents people from immigrating just for the entitlement programs.

But if somebody is working and paying taxes in the U.S., what's the difference if they were born here or not? As long as they're contributing to society rather than draining it, it shouldn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
But if somebody is working and paying taxes in the U.S., what's the difference if they were born here or not? As long as they're contributing to society rather than draining it, it shouldn't matter.

That is a very good question. As I said last week, why not just let anyone who wants to work into the country? It is certainly not a matter of space (America is big enough for everyone). The answer is that we have too many entitlement programs. If we took in the hardest-working, smartest people from every poor country in the world, our government would go bankrupt paying them social security and medicare benefits. This of course was not the case a hundred years ago when we DID have almost unlimited immigration (at least from countries whose races we approved of). Back then more people did mean an automatic boost to the economy, but that's just not so anymore. Compare the situation to unions. Unions make conditions better for people who are already a member of that union, but they make it much more expensive for the company to hire new people: for new people to be brought into the union. The company (or country) then has a disincentive to grow, a disincentive to hire (or allow immigration).

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:

That is a very good question. As I said last week, why not just let anyone who wants to work into the country? It is certainly not a matter of space (America is big enough for everyone). The answer is that we have too many entitlement programs. If we took in the hardest-working, smartest people from every poor country in the world, our government would go bankrupt paying them social security and medicare benefits.

If we got the best and the brightest, those people are going to pay in a lot of money to Social Security and Medicare. Where entitlement programs are a problem, in terms of immigration, are for the lower income immigrants who aren't paying taxes, or at least not paying a lot of taxes, but are able to get Medicaid and Welfare for their kids born in this country. But, as I said before, if you make employment a prerequisite for immigration, you're not going to have that problem.

As for Social Security and Medicare, the Goverment is going to go bankrupt on these programs with or without immigrants. The problem is that we're getting to a point where too many people can collect these benefits and not enough people are paying in. This is a problem that needs to be remedied, but since it has little or nothing to do with immigration, it's probably best dicussed in another thread.

It has everything to do with the issue of immigration (legal and illegal). If we didn't give free stuff to people, illegal immigrantion wouldn't be a problem. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
It has everything to do with the issue of immigration (legal and illegal). If we didn't give free stuff to people, illegal immigrantion wouldn't be a problem. Period.

Well, first off, Social Security and Medicare aren't free exactly. You pay taxes into these programs.

The main problem with Social Security and Medicare is a simple one. More money is coming out than is going in. The only immigrants affecting that are the ones not paying taxes.

But the problem with social security and medicare isn't that there are a lot of people out there not working and sucking up benefits. Even with all the workers paying into the system today, the system is still going bankrupt. More workers would just make it go bankrupt quicker since the system is fundamentally flawed (don't we wish we had a president who advocated social security reform? o wait...we do, and no one listened).

Social security, medicare, and welfare aren't the only problems either. Illegals also suck up resources from public schools and hospitals. Once again, "free" stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:

Social security, medicare, and welfare aren't the only problems either. Illegals also suck up resources from public schools and hospitals. Once again, "free" stuff.

Well, again, we're only talking about illegal immigrants who aren't paying taxes. Legal immigrants paying taxes aren't getting any more free stuff than you're getting.

I agree that social security needs to be fixed. I don't think you can find anyone, conservative or liberal, who would suggest otherwise. I just wish we had a president who actually had a good idea on how to go about doing it. Then people might actually listen. Again, we're getting off topic with the SS stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Social security, medicare, and welfare aren't the only problems either. Illegals also suck up resources from public schools and hospitals. Once again, "free" stuff.

As I've said before, I don't hold a strong position either way on the immigration issue, but the argument that illegal immigrants are somehow costing the government huge amounts of money in Medicare benefits is just wrong. To put this in perspective:

"The New York Times ran a front page story on Sunday that could have been a case study of why it is essential to put budget numbers in context. The article, “Medicaid Rule For Immigrants May Bar Others,” explains how new rules intended to prevent illegal immigrants from getting Medicaid may also prevent many eligible beneficiaries from getting assistance. The problem is that many low income people don’t possess the necessary documentation (e.g. drivers licenses or birth certificates) needed to receive Medicaid under the new rules.



The key flaw in an otherwise excellent article is the brief reference to the potential budget savings from the new rules. The article reports that the Congressional Budget Office projects the savings as $220 million over five years and $735 million over ten years.



Many readers may have been misled into thinking that this is real money. The projected savings are equal to 0.0015 percent of projected spending over the next five years and 0.0022 percent of projected spending over the next decade. Or, in Brad DeLong’s formulation, of the $49,800 per person that the federal government is projected to spend over the next five years, the new rules are projected to save approximately 73 cents.



The context here is crucial, because it tells readers that this rule is not about saving taxpayers money. The cost of Medicaid benefits improperly provide to illegal aliens is trivial. People may still be upset that immigrants who are not in this country legally are getting health care benefits from the government, and therefore support this crackdown. But it is important for them to realize that this measure will have no visible effect on their taxes or the government’s finances. Most Times readers probably do not realize this fact simply because they have no idea how unimportant a savings of $220 million over five years is."


-----------Dean Baker in his "Beat the Press" weakly roundup