[quote=MaggieL]My guess its *that* is because their homeland is completely in the hands of thugs and crooks, and ours largely is not.[quote]

:lol:
god, that's precious.

:lol:

If you really believe that's not the case, you're invited to move and let us know how much better it really is down there. If their government isn't crooked, where is all the oil money?

That's always the come back: move. come up with something fresh, will you?

"My country--Love It or Leave It"--right? :lol:

Ah, so you don't *really* beleive it.

As for "something fresh", you don't seem to be doing too well in that department yourself...one trivial disparaging sentence and a smilie won't get you very far.

"My country, love it or leave it" sounds like a pretty hollow accusation considering the topic of the thread is millions of Mexicans willing to break the law to leave it and come here.

Then you know it has always been a problem and an issue.

That is absolutely correct, but the one thing is that some how in the whole grand debate of things, it has become both the United State's fault for illegal immigration, as well as our responsibility to fix it. Why doesn't anyone take a look at the policies and practices south of the border and understand that they are promoting the illegal immigration of millions of people. Hell, for a while there, Mexico was supplying maps of the US at crossing points for illegal immigrants, among other things. There may be an economic incentive to come to the US, but there is just as much of an economic incentive to just get the hell out of Mexico. Mexico needs to do more to create jobs there, increase thier own standard of living, clean up their government, crack down on drug trafficing, and start enforcing their side of the border as well. Because if they don't, then it will be up to the United States to unilaterally move to protect our borders, whether it be with walls or the national guard or even making it a felony with jail time.

IOW they are all evil because Americans pay corruption for the oil. Meanwhile the little guy for gets nothing for oil and tried to start his own business - agriculture being a best way to start a third world business. So he plants cotton. The US government issues massive subsidies to American cotton farmers (corporate welfare) so that American cotton sells in Mexico for less than he can grow it.

So he tries corn. But American subsidies intentionally applied to subvert free markets at the expense of foreign producers again quash that Mexican's business. He tries sugar. Same thing. He tries cattle. Same American government 'corporate welfare' quashes his business.

Meanwhile the Doha round of GATT to stop this American 'corporate welfare' is on the verge of collapse. Those 'so good and decent' Americans fear that evil countries will make us conform to free trade. And MaggieL, from her previous posts, completely approves.

Jose Mexicana and most of the world go to Cancun to demand that America stop quashing foreign businesses by enriching Archer Daniels Midland, et al., America, and France instead say FU. Cancun breaks up three days early. MaggieL does not care. Those evil Jose Mexicana got his just due.

MaggieL instead blames all this on Jose Mexicana. It’s all their fault. Because he cannot grow crops, he grows and exports drugs. After all, he is only providing what Americans desperately want. He is selling a product not massively subsidized by American corporate welfare. Or he goes to America to get a respectable job. No matter what he does, MaggieL still calls him evil. It is all his own fault.

One cannot blame Americans. They are the good guys. Rush Limbaugh tells me so. MaggieL cites her previous posts that says this is exactly how she thinks. Or maybe next time MaggieL will answer the question with an answer or a specific URL. Meanwhile I am simply summarizing MaggieL's latest answer.

Jose Mexicana now has no choice but to find jobs in a country that creates jobs by issuing corporate welfare.

What happens if we were a free trading nation? Archer Daniels Midland, et al either must sacrifice their record profits due to no corporate welfare AND move to Mexico and Central America where crops grow better. But we can't let that happen. Americans will lose jobs. And so we need millions of Mexicans and other Central Americans to do those jobs.

MaggieL instead blames it all on those evil Central Americans. She don't need no stinkin' facts. Somehow she just knows American oil companies don't pay corrupt Pemex officials for the oil. It’s all Jose Mexicana's fault that he cannot start a productive farm and that he does not get Americans to pay him oil money. Sounds like a repreaching of what Rush Limbaugh (drug addict and money launder like those evil Mexicans) preaches.

MaggieL - did Rush even mention Cancun? Or is Cancun too messy for a propagandist to mention?

Meanwhile oil industry corruption is widespread where American oil companies operate in other third world nations. Nigeria. Indonesia. the K'stans. How to stop corruption? Many companies nationalize their oil industry in a desperate effort to stop corruption that American oil companies (and MaggieL) turn a blind eye to.

But it’s all Jose Mexicana's fault. MaggieL says its so. Therefore it’s all his fault that he must also flee to America where corporate welfare has created too many labor jobs and immigration laws don't permit enough workers to take those jobs. But again, MaggieL tells us this is all Jose Mexicana's fault. He's (not George Jr) is the sucmbag.

Or maybe MaggieL would like to post a logical reply next time rather than making back handed comments. MaggieL, are you a Rush Limbaugh type who only need declare something - and then it must be so. Since you still provide no reasons, then you authorized me to state exactly how you think. Maybe this time, answer the question - why must they come in such massive numbers? Previously MaggieL blames it all on Jose Mexicana. MaggieL is invited to this time maybe answer the question that she repeatedly fears to answer - complete with supporting reasons for his opinions.

I didn't authorize you to do dick. You're just as boring as ever. Everything is Bush's fault...except it takes 5k of text per post to drone through it.

The US is the cause of all this evil because they buy oil from Pemex, and Pemex gives all the money to the Mexican government. Obviously not buying their oil would solve all these problems, and suddenly all the Mexican "little guys" would be rich and happy. Maybe they should sue us to make us stop buying their oil

Yes, you're right about it all, tw. Every single thing that's wrong on the planet, (and some places in orbit) is the fault of the US in general, and Bush and his big business cronies in particular.

And yet again we reach that magical point in time where Maggie ignores tw for a while because life is too short to spend it all feeding a dreary troll, and tw claims the victory won by dint of his unassailable...erm...logic. Yeah, that's what it is. Logic.

Bri, we already know you think Maggie is a bitch. Come up with something fresh to add to the argument or go back to complaining about an education in English Lit that forces you to read AE Houseman. If you can't get the beauty of A Shopshire Lad, you're in the wrong major. If all you can add to political disussions is name calling, why don't you start dating UG? If all you can do about the evil professor is to continue to read his e-mails and take his phone calls, maybe you deserve him. Meanwhile, get your head out of your ass before you start making comments to Maggie in political debates.

Sober up and move on yourself.

How come people's solutions to personal attacks are always even lower personal attacks?

Dick are the only facts you have provided. Based upon MaggieL's post, she has no idea why illegal immigration exists. That would be true if Rush Limbaugh propaganda is being used. She blames Jose Mexicana for all his problems and does not even deny it. Just so easy to lump all Mexicans together to blame them all; stereotype to promote a racist or biased attitudes. You were accused of stereotyping previously by another and are now doing the same again. You even blame Jose Mexicana for his problems? Amazing that when myths are confronted by facts, then suddenly those facts hijack a thread. Amazing how facts can harangue when they are only guilty of being denied. Denial based in personal bias, Rush Limbaugh logic, and myths. So far myths and bias being only reason for this massive illegal immigration.

MaggieL - you are speculating -stereotyping - almost to a point of racism or hate. I stayed out to see how far these myths and speculations go. Immigrants stealing social services from Norristown is a classic Rush Limbaugh propaganda ploy – big on hype and little on substance. Money invested in America's future – low wage workers irrelevant of where they came from. Somehow you forget that Norristown social services are invested where the most productive Americans will come from.

All I asked for are "reasons for why illegal immigration exists". I even provided facts - such as Cancun. Since you don’t know about Cancun and a world wide outcry, you then attack? Attack to mask no knowledge of Cancun, et al? You don't know what GATT and Cancun are, do you? You have no idea why illegal immigration exists - and don't want to know. Again, classic of hate promoted by Rush Limbaugh reasoning. Blame Jose Mexicana because our government uses corporate welfare to drive farmers in other nations out of business. Are such details too messy? Do they make posts too complex for Rush Limbaugh logic?

But show me corrected. Answer but one question with logical facts this time. "Why does illegal immigration exist?" Do we blame it all on corruption in Pemex (which is mythical nonsense)? Or do we blame Jose Mexicana as you have done? After so many posts, those are the only reason you have provided. Do you even know what GATT and Cancun were about? But maybe that is asking too much in one post. "Why is massive illegal immigration so necessary?" - the still unanswered question that begs for a simple irrefutible fact. Not bias. Not personal attacks. Just a same question still not answered.

Where do repeated requests for an answer to a same question constitute lower personal attacks? It's not difficult. Either MaggieL has an answer or she does not know why massive illegal immigration is necessary and exists. Provided were numerous hints to a few reasons - ie Cancun, GATT, corporate welfare, why Jose Mexicana cannot even start a farm. And yet still we blame Jose Mexicana for all his problems. We blame him if he finally makes a productive business in drugs. We blame him if he responds to underground advertisement for employment in the US. And we blame him because his children - America's future - get educated in America. At what point do we not get emotional, answer the question, and therefore understand the problem?

Where does any of that constitute lower personal attacks? Hopefully the spirit of Rush Limbaugh and posts from Limbaugh's disciples will eventually be exorcised from this thread. It's a simple question that MaggieL has yet to answer. Maybe I should be asking why she does not answer it? No. It is such a simple question so easily answered if that fear of illegal immigrants was based in logic.

Whoa, slow down cowboy, that was aimed at Mari.

Well, gee, that hadly matters...he's got to have *somebody* to harrangue.

After all, he stepped in to answer a question addressed to someone else so he'd have an excuse to once again engage in that endless colloquy whose sole function is to serve as an expository platform for "Economics, Ethics and Geopolitics according to tw".

As I said, life's too short...

Time to start establishing some facts; eliminating political rhetoric, myths, Rush Limbaugh decrees, and unsubstantiated rumors. Your post also applies to others who have a problem answering a simple question. MaggieL (and others) has strongly opinionated solutions for a problem she cannot even define. She cannot even say why massive illegal immigration exists. Instead, she complains about being harangued when she is the one who apparently is blaming Jose Mexicana and other victims. How is one harangued when a question only demands logical answers? All she need do is post a logical answer to a simply question.

Instead, she complains about emotions while this question that will not go away still remains unanswered. "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"

MaggieL was posting so many strong opinions. Now that I have asked only one basic simple question, suddenly MaggieL is a victim? How curious that she cannot even provide minimal facts, therefore is a victim? Bull. MaggieL - if you blame illegal immigrants for their plight, then you damn well better have logical facts to support your accusations. Otherwise, others will rightly assume you are stereotyping or racist.

And so we have this so simple question: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?" Why do you have a problem demonstrating to all that your opinions are based in facts - not in stereotypical bias? Why can you not even answer a simple question that you should have asked yourself long ago; before having an opinion? Why not just answer the question to prove your opinions are based in something more than emotion and stereotyping? Jose Mexicana, et al is the victim here if your opinions are only based in personal bias. "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"

You're right. I was out of line to tear into Brianna like that and I apologize.


Carry on with the tw vs MaggieL match.

At least you can admit when you're wrong and apologise, a very admirable attribute, and one that too few have.

Why does it exsist?
I am not sure but I think it is because of a ' you can have all this if you go over there' mentality. America is rich in benefits.We make it easy to get it. OR Some just want to send back to Mexico the american dollar. You can live well there for cents on the dollar. Well so can the people starving in Africa but they are separated by an ocean. Same with Cuban people. They leave to escape something.

Why is it necessary? I think it is only nescessary to the mexican government? It brings money in without having to put any out? The Mexican dream seems to be the US.


My only solution and I said it before half in jest was to invest in Mexican property. I think if I was rich I would move there and start building. Probably resorts. I don't know. There is just something that says. This thing you don't want ( your mexican land, your home) I could use. I would take it and make it grow if I could.


but why dosn't the government in Mexico invest in itself? I think that is a big part of the problem.


edit [I know my post is simplistic and nothing you all havn't already gone over already. Just adding my two cents. Or penny :P]

In all my time on the net I never ever heard anyone say that before. I am glad it isn't the norm at the Cellar.


...right on....:)

What gets me is when things that have nothing to do with anything are brought up, not to win an argument, but out of sheer spite.

IDEALLY:
One person posts an opinion on the subject at hand.
Another posts with their opinion on the subject, and on thefirst person's opinion.
They discuss, in a civil manner, why they have their views.

REALLY:
One person posts an opinion on the matter at hand
Another posts with an opinion soley on the first person's opinion
Another posts with an opinion on person 2 due to their opinion of the first person's opinion
Person 2 posts back about person 3.
Person 1 gets pissed at person 2 and posts things about them too.
Person 4 comes and defends person 2
Persons 5, 6, and 7 egg on both sides
Person 8 comes in with an opinion on the subject at hand, and is promptly ignored in the lust for blood.
Person 2 actually posts about the subject at hand too, and is promptly attacked for their view, regardless of what it is
Person 2 fights back with something about person X, who didn't like their opinion
Person X posts back with a scathing post about person 2, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but is a very well laid-out attack on everything that makes person 2 who he or she is.
Things escalate from there.

Attacking the foundation of someone's opinion is a perfectly fine way to discredit their opinion. Attacking the person to make them look bad in general to discredit their opinion is an awful, low thing to do. There's a reason why Samma-Vaca, Right Speech is one of the steps in Buddha's 8-fold path... though that wont mean a thing to a lot of you...

Just think before you speak. If your words may harm someone, don't say them.

That used to be called "begging the question" before morons started using it to mean what it sounds like it should mean. Now you have to call it petitio principii to avoid confuising the dimwitted.

Massive illegal immigration isn't "necessary". And clearly the "plight of illegal immigrants" is indeed "their fault" unless they were drugged, kidnapped, and dumped on this side of the border...in which case they're not immigrants, and (lacking criminal intent) arguably not even illegal.

But that's not what happens, of course.

If you in fact actually meant "the plight of poor Mexicans" (which is what they are regardless of what side of the border they're on), then that's a different question...so that question is really "Why is there poverty?"

I'm sure you have lots of explanations (with attached utopian solutions) for it. But if your solutions involve giving away things that belong to other people, you may have trouble finding support for your position (except of course among the recipeints of your proxy-based largesse). But it's an excellent answer to the "why illegal imigration exists" question. Speaking of "giving away things that belong to other people", I agree with you that agricultural subsidies are indeed a huge problem. All we have to do is get everybody to agree to give them up all at once. (Good luck with the Europeans on that one.)

I just don't buy "eliminate agricultural subsidies and corruption in the Mexican and US governments" as a practical solution to illegal aliens.

Which returns to a basic economic concept paraphrased in the book "The World is Flat". For example, The Economist has a famous index - The Big Mac index - that measures currency inequities using something that would otherwise cost same everywhere - MacDonald's Big Mac. Economic distortions are the only reason a Big Mac does not cost same everywhere because economic forces make the world flat.

Another example: labor prices are constant everywhere in the world where a worker is paid what he is worth (a reference to a WSJ article on an American manufacturer who returned from Mexico to save his company). Political (self serving) agendas such as government trying to fix economies (tariffs, stopping flows of labor, things that GATT attempts to eliminate) cause economic distortions. And so we have a massive economic distortion between North and Central America. A symptom of government or other forces that create problems. A problem that we will foolishly solve with a 250,000 troops on the border? Nonsense. 'Force based' solutions (ie Vietnam War, Great Wall of China, tariffs) begs the obvious: people have not a clue what the real problem is.

A simple question suggests how naive many posters were. How much do you know about that Cancun conference that broke up because US and France are now so anti-free trade? How much do you know about this Doha round that has recently missed another milestone; that may be the first free trade round to fail - and directly traceable to a nation once a bastion of free trade. Curiously two countries that also have immigration problems. Countries blamed for being anti-free trade. If economic forces were not being distorted by anti-free trade forces, then a massive immigration problem would not exist. Well you are long behind times. A large American community (I believe north of Mexico City) is popular with American retirees. But again, the world is flat. Let economic forces determine where jobs are needed, homes are desired, etc, then those economic forces create equity, equality, and monetary stability.

And so we return to authors of posts who would demand, instead, a 'big dic' solution. Blame the victims of economic forces that create those victims. Jose Mexicana is a classic victim when governments, political and hate based biases, and other anti-social forces create this need for massive immigration. A problem only made worse when the 'powers that be' (governments), their mouth pieces (Rush Limbaugh political extremists), and the naive (those who have strong opinions but cannot even answer a simple question) conspire to make Jose Mexicana (and others throughout history just like him) the victim. AND then blame Jose for his own plight.

It simply takes us right back to a simple question. A question that anyone who makes decisions only after first learning facts would have no problem answering: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"

Demonstrated after watching for so long so many Cellar Dwellers with such strong opinion: then why can no one answer this so obviously simple question? MaggieL who posted most often a strong opinion has simply made herself a 'poster boy' for those who have opinions but did not bother to first learn facts.

"Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?" A question so easily answered if one first learned the 'what, why, how, and whos' long before having opinions. Well MaggieL, if your only response is to insult, then that puts you in a category with famous dimwit - Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh's technique, when exposed as a liar - is to attack the messenger. This was also how Nazis did it in 1930s Germany.

You are posting personal attacks so that you don't have to answer the fundamental question on illegal immigration. You are demonstrating reasons why massive illegal immigration exists. Too many Americans so hate America - the definition of anti-American - as to have opinions without first learning facts. If you had facts, you would not repeatedly post insults.

However, and again, why not just answer the simple question? I only post a simple question that you apparently either fear or just cannot answer. "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"

I didn't insult you.

(As an aside, I insulted the ignorant who say "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question" rather than "assumes the truth of the proposition at issue", which is what the phrase means. You didn't do that. Did you? Or did you just go off half-cocked again?)

My answer to "Why are there illegal aliens in the US?" was "Because there's poverty in Mexico". My answer to "Why is illegal immigration necessary?" was "It isn't necessary". Sorry if you don't like my answers, or if they don't lead the discourse where you want it to go, but that doesn't entitle you to ignore them and then rant that they're unanswered.

I don't buy the idea that a Big Mac would cost the same everywhere if there werent evil men manipulating markets. There are other factors at work. Jared Diamond explores some of them in "Guns, Germs and Steel", although I certainly don't buy into all of his explanations

Well, if immigration is not necessary, then why must millions suffer so much only for jobs? Why are those same jobs not created where these same people already live? Why does Jose Mexicana take great risks, spend massive sums, leave their families, etc only because they want to make life harder? No. Immigration is made necessary by economic conditions where free markets (ie NAFTA) are mostly still mythical.

Yes, poverty is a reason they are leaving. But poverty is only a symptom. Why are countries (so full of resources) not able to create jobs for their people? Poverty does not exist on its own. Poverty is created; poverty is only a symptom. That assumes free markets exist. But the dollar does not buy same in both NAFTA countries. Forces (not evil because evil has no existence in a real world) forces in America pervert free market economics. Whereas the Big Mac is $3.15 in the US, the same Big Mac is only $2.66 in Mexico. Free markets - as NAFTA was suppose to create - does not exist. If a free market really existed, then the dollar would be approximately same in both nations. Free markets that would eliminate poverty just do not exist.

At $2.66, then Mexico is a superior place to create jobs - employ those exact same people. Why are those same people (who are so productive in the US) not employed in same jobs in Mexico? US firms could easily make jobs where their employees live? Mexico having superior climate for many agricultural products, then why can Jose Mexicana not start his own farm?

Again, the United States has perverted free markets. WTO has repeatedly ruled against America, time after time, for violations of World Trade agreements. A latest violation being steel - intentionally created by George Jr's administration to pervert free market economics. So how many people even heard of the massive world wide walkout in Cancun because the US and France were opposed to free trade. How many somehow know Jose Mexicana is a victim of his own making rather than learn that America has become so anti-free trade?

Why, if their ppp index is so low - and therefore a perfect place to create new jobs - complete with an economy full of people who need jobs - then why does the US not create jobs there? In a free market, America would create jobs where impoverished and productive people live.

NAFTA is suppose to be about free trade between US, Canada, and Mexico. Then why did the US close borders to Canadian lumber for so many years? America restarted that trade only after Canada - under American pressure - agreed to impose tariffs on its own exporters. Why is that called free trade? Of course every lurker here knows that story? If not, well, how anti-free trade is America? Do you really know?

How can poverty exist in Mexico if NAFTA is one big free trading zone? It cannot. As burgernomics demonstrates, Mexico is clearly economically better to make things - $3.15 in US and only $2.66 in Mexico. Same productive people who would rather have jobs at home only need those jobs where they live. Due to American laws, many of those jobs cannot go to the workers. Illegal immigration made necessary by a nation that promotes the propaganda of free trade and makes laws against it.

Amazing how those who blame Jose Mexicana somehow forget why that poverty exists. Burgernomics demonstrates why those poverty regions should be home to so many new jobs.

And if that were not bad enough, what happens when Castro dies. Suddenly we have a whole new influx of Cubans also seeking jobs. Do we fix American laws before the problem gets worse? Or do we instead blame Jose Mexicana AND Carlos Cubana for being victims?

Give George Jr credit. His heart is in the right place when he talks about illegal immigration. To neocons, he sounds like a very lefty liberal. But his actions are completely devoid of useful objectives. George Jr's supporter get rich when free trade is restricted in their favor (ie tariffs). Review massive bonuses given to the only reason why America steel manufacturers are so bad. Top steel management gets rich when America restricts free trade for the advantage of overpaid and anti-American corporate management (not to be confused with other industries chock full of patriotic management).

Government can create problems - not solve them. Illegal immigration is a classic example of a problem created (in part) by government. If government cannot eliminate problems it creates and impose on Jose Mexicana, then what will government do when Carlos Cubana joins the influx?

Why does poverty exist? Are these same so productive people the reason for poverty at home? Of course not. Not for one minute. And yet so many Americans still believe this myth that free trade economics exists between America and its neighbors. Not for one minute which is why illegal immigration is obviously necessary. Poverty is a symptom (in part) of anti-free market laws. Poverty is only a symptom of the same reasons why illegal immigration is necessary.

Is this long? Of course. If it was short, then it would be lies (half truths) for Daily News readers – who actually believe America has promoted free markets this century. The question asks why illegal immigration exists and is necessary. The answer is (in part) in economic conditions that so many American don’t even know exist. Americans so ill informed as to not even know of that massive world wide walkout in Cancun. American so ill informed as to have trouble with a simple question: why does this illegal immigration exist? Why does free market economics not create new jobs in a fellow NAFTA nation? Are you ready when Carlos Cubana joins the influx? It’s only going to get worse if we American don’t address our anti-free market attitudes – and start asking some other embarrassing questions.

OK, that is perhaps the dumbest post you've ever written here, and I say that with some due respect.

I don't even know where to begin with it. We could examine why free trade does not mean free markets in either trading country. We could look at the massive facilities in Mexican border towns, sprung after NAFTA, where the US has very obviously created thousands upon thousands of manufacturing jobs in Mexico. We could point out how since you agree protectionism doesn't create wealth, you can't argue that protectionism creates incentives for illegals. We could point out that most jobs for illegals are construction and farm work and those jobs have to be done in the US. We could visit the seven signs of non-competitive states and figure out why some societies grow while others stagnate. We could take $1000 down to Tijuana and see how long we can keep it before losing part of it to police bribes.

Or we could just say it's W's fault - which would be great news, because that means the problem ends in two and a half years. But that just begs the question - if he's fucking this country up so badly, why do they still want in?

Oh, no...UT! It was such a great post until you said that, now it's all ROOOOND! :-) I was just bagging on people who misuse "begging the question". :-)

It's especially appropos where tw is involved...he loves burying his tallking points in the petitio principii assumptions behind "just a simple question", and then accuses you of dissimulation and cowardice when you won't take the bait.

:blush: You were just saying it, that must be why I used it... oops :p

I think tw and maggie are both saying the same thing only in different languages.

Poverty is a symptom. Poverty is the fault of the government and so it is their fault they are comming here instead of staying there and making it better.

See how easy that was. :P


Frankly I don't want to sit here and pretend to have much of an opinion. I will try to learn more but that's all I can do.

Mostly I think about that retirement community and think. Well if they want my country and don't want theirs I'll take it.

sorry, that's just my honest take on it this am.

* yawn *

I think tw and I have extremely divergent views on the nature of and proper purpose for government.

Isn't that what I said? I've bitched about this for years, long before 9-11, but I found myself preaching to the choir. Everyone would nod in agreement then look at the floor and shuffle their feet, helplessly.
Now that it's reached the spotlight, the stifled have become vocal, seizing an opportunity they thought might never come. :cool:

As noted previously, lack of free trade would only be part of the problem. Mexico has a law that only Mexicans can invest in their oil industry - Pemex. This creates a serious shortage of investment money even for that industry. Oil industry cannot generate enough for investment because they need so much more. Even Mexico's oil industry needs foreign investment.

Government doing investment? Mexico must create jobs for millions. Government cannot (and should not) do that. Investment comes from free market investors. Mexico has a shortage of investment and a shortage of citizens creating new business such as exportable agriculture products.

UT cites what appears to be major investments on Mexico's US border. What looks like major investment on Mexico's border is trivial compared to what Mexico needs to create a million new jobs.

Mexico needs capital - investment - job creation. Shortage of investment (due to other factors including US laws) is but another reason why Jose Mexicana must take a least desirable path - illegally immigrate into the US for employment.

What looks like major investment - what really are the numbers? One number that is obvious - Mexico has no labor shortage even though millions of workers leave for work. Jose Mexicana needs jobs - not blame.

That is the difference from what so many have posted here. Some blind nonsense about enforcing laws does not solve anything but an ego itch. Major economic problems exist. Major and obvious. Anyone who thinks these people flock to America only for an easy life are lying to themselves or worshipping Rush Limbaugh. Many are in denial. Therefore this problem will only fester. Big walls and armed troops will never cure a problem by attacking symptoms. Massive illegal immigration and poverty are only symptoms of ignored and denied economic problems. Problems that truly free markets have a bad habit of curing. Problems that could not exist (on this scale), in part, if NAFTA was really a free market trading zone as believed.

How is (why, where, or what is) that so?

Nope... It is not what you said, you stated the opposite. I made the statement that I made in response to this.

If the Mexican/Southern American Nations want a better life they need to take their nations back for themselves and make them worth staying in, period... not act like cowards and leave, going to another country for a quick cash-grab.
Imagine what the US would be like now if we had done that during the depression.
It smacks of cowardice to me.

Take your meds and read what I wrote again. Not what Kitsune wrote Just what I wrote. Where do I say it's not a problem? :eyebrow:

Ok, well there are just a few issues I would like to raise about tw's posts. It seems to me that in many of his posts, he raises the same issues or arguements in order to support his position. Tariffs, quotas, free trade, etc...

One that stuck out to me has been his "burgernomics", big mac index, and the economic concept known as "Purchasing Power Parity". For those who are unfamiliar with this, it is defined as "is an estimate of the exchange rate required to equalize the purchasing power of different currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes, most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic products (GDP) using market exchange rates does not accurately measure differences in income and consumption."

tw assumes that, given you may buy a big mac in Mexico for $2.66 compared to $3.15 in the U.S., then Mexico would naturally be a superior place for companies to invest were it not for U.S. barriers to free trade. To use this as an example though, of why illegal immigration exists is not appropriate however. There are more forces at work here which influence the PPP between given countries. Yes, trade barriers are a part of what cause disparity in the PPP, however much more goes into it which both complicates and moots his point. For example, could not a big mac cost more here simply because we Americans demand more of them? From the law of supply and demand, we can tell that as demand rises, so does the cost. Maybe Mexicans demand less so the price reflects that. Also it is easy to say that the sum of the parts (of the big mac) given PPP should be the same across borders, but what about those things considered "non-traded goods", such as the cost of the service and preparation of the food, as well as the productivity of the workers at any given McDonalds across the globe. It seems that tw only introduces these topics to confuse and try and support his position, but a firm understanding of the concept actually works against that. So, for a better understanding, here is a research report put together by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on just this topic. I recommend the part starting on page 6, titled "Why does PPP fail?" http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi...3/11/pakko.pdf

Now, he also refers much to GATT and the US failure to support it's side of NAFTA to promote free trade between the US and Mexico. First, it is a slow and tedious process to create a Free Trade Area, or FTA, and while we may not be there completely with Mexico, we are definately making progress. Since 1995, the WTO has received notification of more than 100 FTA's, more than double that which were formed under GATT between 1947 to 1995. tw would like you to believe that because the US subsidizes our agriculture industry, then we are in an unfair advantage over Mexico, however almost all developed countries, including Mexico, provide some sort of support towards their farmers. You may want to check out thier "PROCAMPRO" program, which is the only program in the region which provides direct cash to their farmers. Also, as of 2003, nearly 900,000 jobs have left the United States to either Mexico or Canada as a direct result of NAFTA. While it is true that NAFTA has created jobs in the US, the net effect is negative, namely because what NAFTA has done is do away with most of the barriers to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico. You can read all about it here:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147

And for anyone who thinks I'm just bullshitting to prove a point against tw, then here is the other sourse I used, primarily starting at page 9:
http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf


Sorry for the long post, but it is something that I felt that needed to be said.:eyebrow:

From the first paper: That eliminates a supposition that different countries demand major differences from Big Mac. Minor differences can account for a $3.15 verses $2.66 disparity? Of course not. That difference is so great as to be explained by factors that distort free markets.

Figure 1 demonstrates a correlation between the Big Mac index and the Penn World Table (PWT) that measures same PPP using a larger data set. PWT also demonstrates Purchasing Power Parity in Mexico and other Central / South American nations is ever worse than The Economist suggests. Whereas 2000 data using Big Mac says difference is 88% (84% in 2006), PWT says disparity is worse - 61%. If we replace the "Big Mac" index with PWT, then reasons for illegal immigration are more obvious. Let's stay on topic. Topic is not minor variences in how PPP is measured. Topic is that PPP also explains illegal immigration.

The paper does demonstrate a Big Mac index will be less accurate. Of course and obvious. A Burgernomic data set is smaller - only one product. But still a Big Mac index agrees with the PWT. Trivial variations of $0.11 and 7% are not relevant to the topic: illegal immigration. PWT says economics disparities that would create illegal immigration are even worse. Data from Pakko and Pollard only support points made in this discussion that economic disparities exist where NAFTA should have eliminated them.

Such wide disparities would exist when external factors distort markets. Pakko and Pollard demonstrate why 7% and 14% differences could exist between "Big Mac" and PWT. But PWT cites a 35% difference between Mexico and US whereas "Big Mac" only claims 20%. PWT confirms price disparities so great as to only be explained by market factors not found in free markets. After a decade plus, we still don't have market parity? This is a same problem that caused virtually every nation to storm out of Cancun in anger and disgust.

Instead of aruging over micro difference in how PPP is measured, why not address the topic - illegal immigration?

BTW it does not matter is Mexico also applied price supports to their agriculture. No other nation so subsidizes agriculture so much by percentage or by dollar amount. No other nation in this discussion even comes close to what the US does to dump agriculture products onto other nation markets and to restrict agriculture trade. How much tariff do we put on ethanol? 54%. That is free trade? But again, this is why virtually the entire world walked out of Cancun, in anger, three days early. Where else has such a mass walkout ever happened?

A paper from Robert E. Scott says NAFTA has moved almost 1 million jobs to Mexico. Good. That means another 1 million that need not immigrate illegally AND that are not ready to join subversive activities. But then if Scott's data were relevant, then why are so many coming to an America that has lost so many jobs? Why does America need millions of illegal immigrants to do jobs that Scott's data says does not exist?

There is this well proven economic trend that contradicts Scott's paper. How do you make more jobs? Each company does same with less people every year. That job loss means more jobs in the economy. Scott's logic pretends that economic trend does not exist.

Yes these are good peer review papers. Pakko and Pollard suggest economics disparity is even worse - thereby suggesting that illegal immigration is due to even worse economics disparities that should not exist with NAFTA. Scott's paper claims job loses in an economy that has not seen job losses. Scott's paper suggests free trade would actually lower illegal immigration by some 800,000 jobs. IOW Scott suggests that without NAFTA, then illegal immigration would be even worse.

Finally Shocker, why does illegal immigration exist? Why is it so necessary? With so much economic data, why do you not answer the question? Why do you instead argue over how PPP is measured? Why do you ignore a fundamental fact - virtually then entire world walked out of Cancun in anger and disgust blaming only two nations who refuse to be free traders - US and France?

We have an illegal immigration problem created, in part, because America has so changed - is not the free trade advocate it once was. Why does virtually then entire world walk out of Cancun three days early complaining speicifcally about US undermining free trade? We give the airlines $8billion without string attached and call that free trade? We put up tariffs of up to 400% to protect some of the world's worst steel manufacturers - and call that free trade? We put 54% tariffs on ethanol when we want to become less dependant on oil from unstable regions? We force Canada to put tariffs on their own lumber exports - when NAFTA is about trade without tariffs. Is that because we want to promote free trade? We apply corporate welfare to sugar, cotton, corn, and so many other agricultural products thereby making it impossible for other countries to create jobs in those industries. Those illegal trade distortions mean more immigrants must come illegally for jobs created in the US by trade restrictions.

Shocker - why do you ignore Cancun and the threatened collapse of the Doha round? Why do you argue minutia on how PPP is measured rather than address illegal immigration? The question is simple: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"

How is (why, where, or what is) that so?

:sigh: Time to speak up as the one person here who lives knee-deep and shoulder to shoulder with illegal immigrants every day of her life, talks to them constantly, knows their families, watches the Hispanic newscasts and reads the editorials out of Mexico every day. You can talk about Economics and market dynamics all you want, but what it REALLY boils down to is that every company, every farm, every bank, every media outlet, every industry and every hiring process is under the control of "the 23 Families". Not the Mafia concept, it's an oligarchy. Those 23 Families (a term explained to me by one of the Longorias, one of the more powerful units of this oligarchy) collect all the money in Mexico. They make W's version of trickle-down economics look like grade school. They set all the prices, determine the wages and who will be hired, collect all the money, and control all the ecomony as far as what is available for distribution. They own practically all the politicians, directly or indirectly, so no laws will every be passed concerning monopolies or unfair practices. They have also instigated a policy which forbids the hiring of citizens who are of other racial or national groups, even though they are born in Mexico or have received citizenship; i.e., a Mexican-Korean citizen will not be able to get a job as a policeman or firefighter, and he may not run for public office. I find this situation particularly odious because Señor SLIM, head of one of the Families, is a Lebanese immigrant; he now owns the entire communications industry of Mexico (every phone and cell phone and internet connection pays into his bank account) and most of the department stores. THIS is why there is such a horrible crisis in Mexico and why everybody is running for the border. Everything existing in the country is no longer available to 95% of the population on a legal basis. What is the only other option? Revolution. Either that or miraculously managing a change through the ballot box even though the elections are as rigged as everything else is. That is why Vicente Fox has failed his country so monumentally. He was claiming his administration could fix all that, but nothing whatever has changed as far as most Mexicans can see. We can also thank Fox for encouraging them all to leave and move up here, and he just got through making speeches here about how we have to lighten up on our immigration stance. Right now, money earned in the US and sent to relatives back in Mexico is the only thing preventing a total collapse of the Mexican economy, it is their largest source of disposable income even though it originates outside their borders and no taxes on this payroll are paid to the Mexican treasury. It's obvious why Fox does not want that flow to stop. He will not be getting anything like it from the people/families who are REALLY ruling Mexico.

UT previously cited a good paper entitled Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States. Symptoms of the malaise started with After having tried most everything in Africa with little success, the World Bank and IMF are slowly changing their opinions. Corruption is a reason for the malaise; not just a symptom. The '23 Families' example would be just another reason for inequity between Mexican and US economies. Inequities that are also suggested by a PPP disparity.

Listed as one reason for illegal immigration is US economic policies that stifle overseas job creation - 'corporate welfare' that has increased with the George Jr administration. Corruption ('23 families') would be another example. IOW instead of blaming and prosecuting Jose Mexicana (the victim), and instead of big fences and military operations; we should be identifying and addressing reasons for illegal immigration.

Curing symptoms never solves problems. Curing symptoms is the solution advocated in Washington and was also advocated by many posters earlier in this discussion.

Kudos to Tonchi. Posted is what others did not: identify another reason for an illegal immigration problem. A major difference between posts that blame Jose Mexicana as a problem; rather than view Jose Mexicana as the victim.

Oh, OK...I get it. When I refer to the corrupt Mexican government, I'm not identifying a reason, I'm "blaming Jose Mexicana". When someone else referrs to the corrupt Mexican government, citing details, they're being insightful and courageous.

Dunno about you, tw, but I don't have to cite which capo a footpad is working for to know when I'm being mugged. Of course the illegals are victims individually are victims as well as street-0level criminals. But collectively--illegals and their south of the border exploiters-- it's their country.

The greedy capitalists north of the border are making a smaller profit exploiting the illegals they hire at the expense of legal workers. But, as Tonchi points out, the big winners aren't in the US. Follow the money...about $20 billion last year, as far as we can tell.

TW, you're driving me up the wall by writing Jose MEXICANA. Mexicana is an airline. Mexicano is what a male from the country of Mexico is called. So please write José Mexicano and María Mexicana from now on. Oh, and ICYC, the Mexicans themselves call these designated representative names "Fulano(a)" (or "Fulano de Tal" when they want to be fancy) ;)

Well, you don't have to actually know anything about a culture you are adopting as an Official Victim. You just use them as long as is politically expediant, and then discard them...as the labor movement, blacks and gays have already discovered. Illegal aliens will eventually discover this too if the liberals have their way.

"If we make you citizens through amnesty you'll vote for us, right?"

Well, they may discover that if the conservatives ever stop attacking long enough for the liberals to be able to discard them. I doubt we'll ever know.

What a joke....being under attack from conservatives never prevented liberals from discarding an Official Victim Group when it was convenient. In fact it's usually used as the excuse....remeber "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Not to mention DOMA.

That's one big problem with collectivism...once you're "collected" you're unecessary.

I guess that shows the conservative mindset - compromise is betrayal.

I guess that shows the liberal mindset - conservatives are bad lol

My big question is exactly how people are going to rationalize the argument that 'we' (citizens of the US) need to fix Mexico's problems in order to solve our immigration problem. I'm not opposed to the idea, in fact in principle I think it speaks very highly of our country if we can wield our power for the benefit of others. However, we've been ousted from the position of benifactor in most cases that of a sort of perverse UN. It's <I>assumed</I> that we should go in and fix other peoples problems. Of course after we spend billions of dollars and hundreds of lives in the problem country we are sent packing with no reparations whatsoever and a warning that we had better not try anything sneaky. Frankly I think we should take an extended hiatus from our role as global bitch, and simply enforce our own rules, protect our own assets, and do a proper job of not meddling where we don't belong.

Of course this also means stopping our billions of dollars worth of 'aid' to the worlds war lords and dictators.

Conservatives press for something horrible, and liberals give them something bad.

Good point 9th engineer, but even then, we can fix our side of the border in any way we want, we can make it more difficult to cross the border, we can do as tw says and create a truely free market in the United States, but even then, the problem of illegal immigration into the United States will still be there.

There are those that think that illegal immigration is only caused by solely economic reasons, and yes that does play a part, but there are also causes within the originating country which we in the U.S. cannot fix. Ultimatly, Mexico will have to take responsibility for thier own problems and inequalities which are driving their citizens to cross illegally into the U.S. To say the U.S. and it's policies are responsible for the flow of illegals is only looking at one small part of the problem. Of course, indirectly the policies of the U.S. are drawing people here illegally, but it isn't the policies you may think. Instead they come here because as they are right now, our immigration laws as well as our society are promoting illegal immigration. First, if a person is successful at getting into our country illegally, they can either steal someones social security number fairly easily and get a job or just do work "under the table". They run the risk of getting caught, but the INS does not have the resourses necessary to go after everyone, so unless they are caught at the border by the border patrol, they will more than likely go for some time without raising too much suspicion. Even then, if they do end up getting caught, what is the worst that will happen to them? Well if they haven't broken any more laws in the US, then they get a slap on the wrist and a free ticket back home, just so they can come here again. So this tells us that we are not strict enough, not consistent enough, and not providing our enforcement agencies with enough resources to effectively do their job.

Also, with the political and social climate the way they are in the US today, now more than ever is there an incentive to come illegally to the US. To do it legally costs money and time, but with talk of amnesty and other "paths to citizenship" makes it much easier and cheaper to do it that way. Also, the disconnect between agencies of the government as well as the relative ease for illegals to recieve government assistance and healthcare not only cost us millions each year, but also take away from what could be used for legal citizens. And of course, because of the high standard of living and the relative laxness and ease that I mentioned already make the US an ideal place for them to come. Now, if the socioeconomic environment of the US were similar to that of Mexico for instance, don't you think that people trying to escape Mexico would instead go somewhere else?

Thanks, I'll reserve to myself judgement on when I've been betrayed.

If liberal support for DOMA and DADT are "compromise", they're awfully hard to distinguish from a careful crafted blend of betrayal, denial, hypocracy, expediency and disingenuousness.

I know the "religious" right is openly homophobic...but at least it's open. That's easer to confront and combat.

It certainly would be novel if people went to the voting booth with the intension of doing what's best for the country instead of making "me/myself/I" the center of the universe. :eyebrow:

I certainly don't think liberalism is "what's best for the country". YMMV.

I have no doubt about that.
Is that because you pick up the paper, turn on the news or just look around, and like what the Conservatives have done for this country in the last 6 years?:right:

My memory's actually longer than six years, so I have a basis for comparison. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer; I remeber how the liberals played when they were in the game.

It's scary to think of how the last six years would have fared in liberal hands. Al Gore on 9/11? Please. And I voted for him, too.

Combat? By doing...?

Missionary work, for one thing. Interestingly, we encounter much less discrimination among the right wing gun nuts than we do among the liberal queers.

Just think, there wouldn't be 150000+ US troops in the middle east causing the biggest strategic fuckup since operation AJAX! how terrible!

And who could be more on the sidelines than young Jag here...


Hey! Who let you shoot their AK? I'm thinking about getting one for my birtyhday.
It's either than or a KelTec Sub-2000. I can't afford a PS-90 or a tricked-out M1A.

My memory is longer than yours and I've never been on the sidelines, so don't tell me about history.
Gore might have surprised you/us by gathering a consensus rather than following a script written back in the 90s......but I didn't vote for him. ;)