| Author |
Topic:
The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
lorn_zahl
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
2/7 7:43pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Nobody's saying it is statistically relevant. It's just an observation.
Right and you weren't trying to make a point or anything, you were just walking by and decided to make an observation.
What you should say is, "Why would anyone want to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico?"
Despite Mexico being one of the richest countries in the third world, don't expect it to change. Mexico's (corrupt) political elite would never allow that especially when dissent hops the border instead protesting in the street.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/7 8:17pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
lorn_zahl posted:
Right and you weren't trying to make a point or anything, you were just walking by and decided to make an observation.
What you should say is, "Why would anyone want to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico?"
Well, there's a few situations where it makes sense to come in as a tourist and find work under the table, but they're few and far between. For the vast majority of Americans and people from other English-speaking countries, it's easy enough to get a permit. The expat community in Mexico (Americans & Canadians mostly, but also from other countries) is pretty big, largely because of the geographic proximity. But it's made up largely of people who are diplomats or there for business, or else they are retired people. So the comparison doesn't really bear much relevance for purposes of this particular discussion.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
lorn_zahl
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
2/7 9:43pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
Princess_Tina posted:
So the comparison doesn't really bear much relevance for purposes of this particular discussion.
Perhaps my sarcasm escapes you... or in the case that it doesn't, why bring it up?
And I quote...
Princess_Tina posted:
There actually are Americans who work in Mexico without the proper immigration permit. It never makes the news, but it does happen.
On a side note...
To deal with the burgeoning number of transmigrants, Mexico now maintains more than 50 migrant detention centers across the country. In the city of Tapachula, near the Mexico-Guatemala border, the government is putting the finishing touches on what it touts as the largest migrant detention center in the Americas. Washington Post
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/7 10:54pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
lorn_zahl posted:
Perhaps my sarcasm escapes you... or in the case that it doesn't, why bring it up?
You're the one who first brought up the question of Mexico being inviting to Americans who wanted to work without papers. Under the right circumstances, it can be. It doesn't have much to do with the main discussion... but since you brought it up.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
lorn_zahl
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
2/8 2:16pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
- Date Edited:
2/8 2:17pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
lorn_zahl
|
Princess_Tina posted:
You're the one who first brought up the question of Mexico being inviting to Americans who wanted to work without papers.
Princess, it was sarcasm and I find it unbelievable that you failed to grasp it. You then followed up with an 'observation' that took it seriously. You can't dispute that.
Princess_Tina posted:
Under the right circumstances, it can be.
There you go again.
So if you're done splitting hairs here maybe we can move on. Perhaps you could entertain us with your thoughts on Mexico's massive network of prisons for it's population of illegal immigrants.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/8 2:23pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
lorn_zahl posted:
Princess_Tina posted:
You're the one who first brought up the question of Mexico being inviting to Americans who wanted to work without papers.
Princess, it was sarcasm and I find it unbelievable that you failed to grasp it. You then followed up with an 'observation' that took it seriously. You can't dispute that.
What is to dispute? If I took you at your word, why wouldn't I take it seriously?
lorn_zahl posted:
Perhaps you could entertain us with your thoughts on Mexico's massive network of prisons for it's population of illegal immigrants.
I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to complain about it.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
lorn_zahl
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
2/8 2:41pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
Princess_Tina posted:
What is to dispute? If I took you at your word, why wouldn't I take it seriously?
In the future I'll refrain from using sarcasm to illustrate my points, I certainly wouldn't want to cause you anymore confusion.
Princess_Tina posted:
I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to complain about it.
I forgot, the US is always the bad guy....oops another bit of sarcasm, sorry.
Here is Mexico building the biggest prison in the America's for migrants and yet they feel that the US is treating illegal immigrants poorly. Double standard perhaps?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/8 2:50pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
- Date Edited:
2/8 3:13pm (4 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
lorn_zahl posted:
In the future I'll refrain from using sarcasm to illustrate my points, I certainly wouldn't want to cause you anymore confusion.
To me, the confusion seems to be on your side. If you feel you have valid points to make, what is the need for sarcasm? And if I fail to detect any sarcasm in what you said, what is the need to start making condescending remarks?
lorn_zahl posted:
I forgot, the US is always the bad guy....oops another bit of sarcasm, sorry.
Well, ultimately this is something that the U.S. would presumably support, because under current policy, inflicting any kind of pain and hardship on would-be immigrants seems to be perfectly in accordance with America's humanitarian policy for the 21st century. If the U.S. sets the example, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that others might follow.
Also, according to the article, the U.S. failed to live up to the promise it had made as a "quid pro quo" in the matter:
During Bush's first term, American officials promised Mexico a quid pro quo: If the Mexicans would shut down the migrant route through their country, the United States would improve the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States.
This promise has been all but forgotten in Washington, but it has turned into a political lightning rod in Mexico. Responding to a law signed by Bush in May tightening immigration controls, Santiago Creel, a presidential candidate and former interior minister in the administration of President Vicente Fox, said that Mexico had received "absolutely nothing" in return for stemming migration from other countries.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
lorn_zahl
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
2/8 3:40pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
- Date Edited:
2/8 3:45pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
lorn_zahl
|
Princess_Tina posted:
To me, the confusion seems to be on your side.
Well I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.
Princess_Tina posted:
...inflicting any kind of pain and hardship on would-be immigrants seems to be perfectly in accordance with America's humanitarian policy for the 21st century.
Reputable sources might help with this gross generalization.
Princess_Tina posted:
Also, according to the article, the U.S. failed to live up to the promise it had made as a "quid pro quo" in the matter:
If you look at the history of my posts in this thread you will never see my 100% support for US policy towards illegal immigrants. Not because it's too harsh but because it's too lenient.
I fully support the right of all nations to enforce their borders and jail and deport those who cross illegally. I support Mexico's right to humanely detain and deport illegal immigrants from Guatemala.
The buck is on apologists to describe why Mexicans (or other foreign nationals) have some god given right to sneak across the US border and live here illegally. Hopefully this principle is extended to every nation on earth or it exposes an inherent bias on the part of the apologist.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
2/8 3:51pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Well, ultimately this is something that the U.S. would presumably support, because under current policy, inflicting any kind of pain and hardship on would-be immigrants seems to be perfectly in accordance with America's humanitarian policy for the 21st century. If the U.S. sets the example, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that others might follow.
And what example are we setting? The laws ARE NOT getting enforced much, so they're not following our example at all. I think you may be confusing the U.S. with virtually every other country. Also, it seems based on the article that the centers aren't targetting immigrants, they're only targetting illegal immigrants.
Princess_Tina posted:
Also, according to the article, the U.S. failed to live up to the promise it had made as a "quid pro quo" in the matter:
During Bush's first term, American officials promised Mexico a quid pro quo: If the Mexicans would shut down the migrant route through their country, the United States would improve the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States.
This promise has been all but forgotten in Washington, but it has turned into a political lightning rod in Mexico. Responding to a law signed by Bush in May tightening immigration controls, Santiago Creel, a presidential candidate and former interior minister in the administration of President Vicente Fox, said that Mexico had received "absolutely nothing" in return for stemming migration from other countries.
I would take the stance that it doesn't count as 'shutting down the migrant route' if all they've done is stopped people from other countries entering the U.S. from there but not stopping their own citizens from doing the same thing instead.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/8 4:38pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
- Date Edited:
2/8 4:45pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
lorn_zahl posted:
If you look at the history of my posts in this thread you will never see my 100% support for US policy towards illegal immigrants. Not because it's too harsh but because it's too lenient.
I fully support the right of all nations to enforce their borders and jail and deport those who cross illegally. I support Mexico's right to humanely detain and deport illegal immigrants from Guatemala.
The buck is on apologists to describe why Mexicans (or other foreign nationals) have some god given right to sneak across the US border and live here illegally. Hopefully this principle is extended to every nation on earth or it exposes an inherent bias on the part of the apologist.
I don't know who the apologists are. I mean, of the people who have posted here; so I take it you must mean other parties who aren't participating in this discussion.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
And what example are we setting? The laws ARE NOT getting enforced much, so they're not following our example at all. I think you may be confusing the U.S. with virtually every other country. Also, it seems based on the article that the centers aren't targetting immigrants, they're only targetting illegal immigrants.
Well, one example the U.S. is not setting is on how to adjust immigration policies to changing times and circumstances. I think other developed nations like Canada have done a much better job of it.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
I would take the stance that it doesn't count as 'shutting down the migrant route' if all they've done is stopped people from other countries entering the U.S. from there but not stopping their own citizens from doing the same thing instead.
Chancellor Jorge Castaneda sought to negotiate a wide-ranging immigration agreement that would have presumably accomplished a lot more toward that purpose, but the U.S. eventually didn't move forward on the Mexican proposal. The fact that the U.S. offers a "quid pro quo" and doesn't keep up its end of the bargain doesn't make the U.S. a particularly attractive country with which to negotiate. Hopefully this might change with the next administration.
But the more time passes, the more immigrant-friendly that any eventual immigration reform will have to be, because Mexican-born U.S. citizens continue to grow as a percentage of U.S. registered voters.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
2/8 6:02pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
I don't know who the apologists are.
 I hope you are being sarcastic, because if not you need to take a good long hard look into a mirror.
It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who lies to themselves.
The fact that the U.S. offers a "quid pro quo" and doesn't keep up its end of the bargain doesn't make the U.S. a particularly attractive country with which to negotiate.
And the fact that the Mexican government and elites never had any intention of halting the exodus of all the people that should have killed them a long time ago sets a wonderful example? Add on top of that the fact that they have no qualms locking up and forcibly removing all the illegals in their country, they have no basis for which to claim that we haven't held up our end of the bargain. And we treat their citizens better than they would have been treated in their own country, and they are far better off here than they were back home, and if that wasn't the case they would go back home.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/8 8:41pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
I don't know who the apologists are.
I hope you are being sarcastic, because if not you need to take a good long hard look into a mirror.
It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who lies to themselves.
It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who misrepresents others' position. My position is not the same as that which was described as "those of the apologists."
Espaldapalabras posted:
And the fact that the Mexican government and elites never had any intention of halting the exodus of all the people that should have killed them a long time ago sets a wonderful example? Add on top of that the fact that they have no qualms locking up and forcibly removing all the illegals in their country, they have no basis for which to claim that we haven't held up our end of the bargain. And we treat their citizens better than they would have been treated in their own country, and they are far better off here than they were back home, and if that wasn't the case they would go back home.
Mexico had every intention of reaching a wide-ranging immigration agreement with the U.S. as soon as the PRI lost its 71-year-old grip on the Presidency. The U.S. didn't follow through, and it has continued to put more emphasis on making unilateral decisions rather than working with Mexico to reach a bilateral agreement. Now you're criticizing the one aspect in which Mexico has cooperated with the U.S. and helped the U.S. achieve at least part of its goals vis-a-vis immigration. So which is it? You either want Mexico to cooperate or you don't. Unilateral measures don't seem to have achieved the intended results. Hopefully, the next administration will be more willing to work on a bilateral agreement, or at the very least on a comprehensive immigration reform that addresses legal immigration as well (since a large part of current legal immigration has been due to the efforts to stem undocumented immigrants).
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
2/8 9:07pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
|
It makes no political or economic sense for Mexico to limit illegal immigration, and never did. The US doesn't penalize them, so why would they stop? They are pushing people out the door, and have every reason to do so. Whatever costs that an uncontrolled border imposes on them are negligible, and are not felt by the political elites. Sure Laredo might be a civil drug war and the poor who stay behind continue to suffer under the machismo, racism, and corruption, but that is really nothing.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
2/8 9:20pm
Subject:
RE: The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
It makes no political or economic sense for Mexico to limit illegal immigration, and never did. The US doesn't penalize them, so why would they stop? They are pushing people out the door, and have every reason to do so. Whatever costs that an uncontrolled border imposes on them are negligible, and are not felt by the political elites. Sure Laredo might be a civil drug war and the poor who stay behind continue to suffer under the machismo, racism, and corruption, but that is really nothing.
On the contrary, Mexico has sought a bilateral agreement with the U.S. in the past, only to be rebuffed by the U.S. administration at the time. A bilateral agreement in which the U.S. granted some concessions to Mexico would actually be very good for both countries, and it would be possible to sell to Mexican voters, but it isn't going to happen because under present circumstances, it can't be sold to American voters. Applying sanctions against Mexico would probably jeopardize trade and bilateral relations, possibly leading to an even bigger exodus in the long run, so the U.S. would ultimately be shooting itself on the foot with such a strategy. So as a result the status quo continues, and the more time that passes, the more clout that Mexico-born U.S. citizens will have, so ultimately you'll still probably end up with an immigration reform that will be relatively favorable to Mexican immigrants. Furthermore, the growing number of voters with dual citizenship are increasingly likely to coalesce into lobbying groups that will push for better conditions in both countries.
As for the drug war, well, it's a matter of supply and demand as well, and we probably shouldn't get sidetracked from the main discussion.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
