Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:But if enough citizens choose one thing, they can push the government to that decision. The government of the people, by the people, and for the people may not always respond immediately to the people, but they also can't ignore the people if the resolve becomes strong enough. The issue has been the resolve on a larger scale. Yes, but it hasn't happened anytime recently at the federal level, which is the only one that can fully address the matter on a national basis.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:But if enough citizens choose one thing, they can push the government to that decision. The government of the people, by the people, and for the people may not always respond immediately to the people, but they also can't ignore the people if the resolve becomes strong enough. The issue has been the resolve on a larger scale.
Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:That is, I think, one of the very large roots of the problem. When the third world borders the first, and where the outlook is getting bleaker in the former, you're naturally going to have a very large number of people trying to immigrate illegally, be it Indonesia to Australia, Africa to Europe, or Mexico to the U.S. There's a huge difference in the case of Mexico, because its economy is largely tied to those of the U.S. and Canada as a result of NAFTA. If the governments of the 3 countries were to get serious about forming a strong economic bloc, like the European Union is today, then there would have to be some serious discussions to bring about wage equalization across the 3 economies, and this would ultimately lead to an open labor market among the 3 nations. If the European Union could pull it off, there's no reason North America couldn't, as long as there was political will. And remember, once you accomplish wage equalization, there's not as much to attract people from one country into another, even assuming they can legally work in either country.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:That is, I think, one of the very large roots of the problem. When the third world borders the first, and where the outlook is getting bleaker in the former, you're naturally going to have a very large number of people trying to immigrate illegally, be it Indonesia to Australia, Africa to Europe, or Mexico to the U.S.
Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:It doesn't absolve the U.S.'s very large flaws, such as a near nonexistant attempt to enforce the law, but there's also something to be said of the structural weakness of a country that relies on money sent back to it as one of its main incomes. So "there's something to be said"? What exactly is it that we should say? At the very least, that it almost certainly wasn't planned... wouldn't you agree?
Lowbacca_1977 posted:It doesn't absolve the U.S.'s very large flaws, such as a near nonexistant attempt to enforce the law, but there's also something to be said of the structural weakness of a country that relies on money sent back to it as one of its main incomes.
Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:Nader had intrigued me with this bit, "As for the H1B visas, the US should stop the "brain draining" of highly skilled people in the Third World who are desperately need to develop their own economies." Which is an interesting thought if everyone that can get out of Mexico is doing so, then it has less pressure or means to improve. I'm sorry, but you have confused me here. When you refer to people getting out of Mexico, are you talking about unskilled labor, or are you talking about the skilled workers that would be elegible for H1B or even TN status? Because if anything, the U.S. needs more skilled labor to remain competitive globally.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Nader had intrigued me with this bit, "As for the H1B visas, the US should stop the "brain draining" of highly skilled people in the Third World who are desperately need to develop their own economies." Which is an interesting thought if everyone that can get out of Mexico is doing so, then it has less pressure or means to improve.
Princess_Tina posted:And as a brief side note, it's interesting to note that although Europe once badly needed America's economic help, the European Union now enjoys a growing economy and a common currency that is, at least for the time being, stronger than the U.S. dollar.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:But if enough citizens choose one thing, they can push the government to that decision. The government of the people, by the people, and for the people may not always respond immediately to the people, but they also can't ignore the people if the resolve becomes strong enough. The issue has been the resolve on a larger scale. Yes, but it hasn't happened anytime recently at the federal level, which is the only one that can fully address the matter on a national basis. Depends on what you mean by not happening. The McCain Kennedy "comprehensive immigration" sham didn't pass because there was enough of a general outcry that it couldn't get through the House of Reps. Its just pushing to get more done that is tricky.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:That is, I think, one of the very large roots of the problem. When the third world borders the first, and where the outlook is getting bleaker in the former, you're naturally going to have a very large number of people trying to immigrate illegally, be it Indonesia to Australia, Africa to Europe, or Mexico to the U.S. There's a huge difference in the case of Mexico, because its economy is largely tied to those of the U.S. and Canada as a result of NAFTA. If the governments of the 3 countries were to get serious about forming a strong economic bloc, like the European Union is today, then there would have to be some serious discussions to bring about wage equalization across the 3 economies, and this would ultimately lead to an open labor market among the 3 nations. If the European Union could pull it off, there's no reason North America couldn't, as long as there was political will. And remember, once you accomplish wage equalization, there's not as much to attract people from one country into another, even assuming they can legally work in either country. There is, I think, extreme intellectual dishonesty in saying that we should do what the EU did to fix illegal immigration because your "fix" is simply removing the concept of restrictions on immigration. It does not address concerns about assimilation, it does not address the added burden that unrestrained immigration would be to the U.S. and it does not address the benefits of having a system that keeps track of those entering the United States. While I can see the benefits of the EU from when I was traveling in some of the EU countries, I think there are very large drawbacks when trying to equalise a first world country with a third world country. The EU only covers the first world and former second world. Not the third world. The idea of wage equalization would also then mean lower wages for Canada and the U.S. and I don't see of what benefit that has for either the U.S. or Canada. There are two things that will stop illegal immigration from Mexico, one is making it so that they can't have a comfortable life living in the U.S. illegally (better law enforcement against illegal immigrants and those who hire them), or making it so that there is no improvement in general quality of life between the two countries. I do not think that we should have to sacrifice quality of life so drastically to stop any set of crimes.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:It doesn't absolve the U.S.'s very large flaws, such as a near nonexistant attempt to enforce the law, but there's also something to be said of the structural weakness of a country that relies on money sent back to it as one of its main incomes. So "there's something to be said"? What exactly is it that we should say? At the very least, that it almost certainly wasn't planned... wouldn't you agree? On the contrary, I would say that it is indeed planned, or at least something the Mexican gov't takes advantage of, as they are very strong advocates for trying to get more benefits for their citizens that are here illegally, and they try to make it easier for their citizens to get here illegally, such as opposition to the fence proposals and guides on how to cross the border easier. The Democrats and Republicans both, in general I think, view the poor in America as a group that should be given assistance in improving their condition. The parties have disagreements about how to do that, but I think the goal is the same. In contrast, I get the impression from Mexico's policies that it does not consider itself to have an obligation to improve quality of life for the poor in Mexico but that it instead exports the poor of Mexico and treat them as a commodity rather than a group that they answer to.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Princess_Tina posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:Nader had intrigued me with this bit, "As for the H1B visas, the US should stop the "brain draining" of highly skilled people in the Third World who are desperately need to develop their own economies." Which is an interesting thought if everyone that can get out of Mexico is doing so, then it has less pressure or means to improve. I'm sorry, but you have confused me here. When you refer to people getting out of Mexico, are you talking about unskilled labor, or are you talking about the skilled workers that would be elegible for H1B or even TN status? Because if anything, the U.S. needs more skilled labor to remain competitive globally. I'm just noting that Nader made an interesting point in my opinion. We ask why it is that a country like Mexico, which actually seemed to progressing fairly well several decades ago, is still a third world country even though it borders the first world. And I think that it is a valid thing to note that anyone that has skills that could allow conditions in Mexico to be improved can use those skills to get out of Mexico. I'm not neccessarily saying that the visas for skilled workers should be removed, just that it provides an added complication to the quality of Mexico improving. The lack of skilled labor is also something that I think the primary focus should be on an extremely broken school system, which is, at least in some areas, suffering because of the problems with illegal immigrants from Mexico and other countries in Central and South America. I'd also remind that I am generally for increased legal immigration, it just is an interesting argument that I felt Nader had raised.
J-Rod posted:Princess_Tina posted:And as a brief side note, it's interesting to note that although Europe once badly needed America's economic help, the European Union now enjoys a growing economy and a common currency that is, at least for the time being, stronger than the U.S. dollar. It's also interesting to note that the lone country of the US has created 20 TIMES more jobs than all of Weatern Europe between 2000 and 2005.
Princess_Tina posted:Just this morning, I was reading something that reminded me that a third of Americans still live in poverty: We have always gotten a distorted picture of how well Americans were doing from politicians and the media. The U.S. has a population of 300 million. Thirty-seven million, many of them children, live in poverty. Close to 60 million are just one notch above the official poverty line. These near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four. It is disgraceful that in a nation as wealthy as the United States, nearly a third of the people are poor or near-poor. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11herbert.html?
Kimball_Kinnison posted: If you want to do a discussion of poverty, you really need to look at absolute poverty (incomes adjusted for PPP - purchasing power parity). Within that context, the US has very low poverty rates as compared to other countries, including Mexico. In other words, even living in "poverty" (by the relative measure) in the US is better than living in poverty in Mexico for many of the illegal immigrants. Kimball Kinnison
Princess_Tina posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted: If you want to do a discussion of poverty, you really need to look at absolute poverty (incomes adjusted for PPP - purchasing power parity). Within that context, the US has very low poverty rates as compared to other countries, including Mexico. In other words, even living in "poverty" (by the relative measure) in the US is better than living in poverty in Mexico for many of the illegal immigrants. Kimball Kinnison That may be, but you're missing the point I was trying to make. Just because a government sets out to eradicate poverty doesn't mean it's going to succeed.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: If you look at the numbers for the US in terms of absolute poverty (especially as compared to other nations), the US has virtually eliminated poverty. Kimball Kinnison
Lowbacca_1977 posted: The Democrats and Republicans both, in general I think, view the poor in America as a group that should be given assistance in improving their condition. The parties have disagreements about how to do that, but I think the goal is the same.
Princess_Tina posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted: If you look at the numbers for the US in terms of absolute poverty (especially as compared to other nations), the US has virtually eliminated poverty. Kimball Kinnison So are you basically disagreeing with Lowbacca when he said, Lowbacca_1977 posted: The Democrats and Republicans both, in general I think, view the poor in America as a group that should be given assistance in improving their condition. The parties have disagreements about how to do that, but I think the goal is the same.
Princess_Tina posted:Also, what specific figures are you using to claim that the U.S. has virtually eliminated absolute poverty? What is the source of these figures? My understanding is that the U.S. does measure poverty in terms of absolute poverty: Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. [...] The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Princess_Tina posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted: If you look at the numbers for the US in terms of absolute poverty (especially as compared to other nations), the US has virtually eliminated poverty. Kimball Kinnison So are you basically disagreeing with Lowbacca when he said, Lowbacca_1977 posted: The Democrats and Republicans both, in general I think, view the poor in America as a group that should be given assistance in improving their condition. The parties have disagreements about how to do that, but I think the goal is the same.There is a difference between someone who is poor and someone who is living in poverty. Poor is a relative measurement. Poverty is a state of being. You could have a whole community that is unable to sustain itself, and if everyone in there receives the same resources none of them are poor (because it requires comparison to others), and yet they could all be living in poverty.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Princess_Tina posted:Also, what specific figures are you using to claim that the U.S. has virtually eliminated absolute poverty? What is the source of these figures? My understanding is that the U.S. does measure poverty in terms of absolute poverty: Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. [...] The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States No, the US measures in what they call "absolute poverty", but they still only do it on a national level, not in comparison to other countries (as I specified in my post). It's still a very fluid measurement, especially when you consider the number of households below the "poverty line" that have such luxuries as cable TV, multiple cars, and so forth.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Is what is defined as "poverty" in the US really poverty, if there are so many people throughout the world who see it as a vast improvement over their own lives? I personally know people who left a middle-class life in Colombia to live in "poverty" here in the US, and they were extremely grateful for the opportunity. Kimball Kinnison
J-Rod posted:Tina said...What difference would it make if it created a lot of "McJobs" with very low wages and few or no benefits? At least in Western Europe they have universal health coverage, people don't have to worry about not being able to afford medical treatment. McJobs? Due to the fact that wages haven't gone down compared to inflation until very recently I can't see where most new jobs are "low paying." See, while inflation tends to fluctuate, the rate of increase in wages is more consistant. So the numbers need to be examined from a long term point of view. "Snapshots" are very misleading. But understand that Socialistic healthcare is not a bonus to a person who can't get a job. You can look at any Ghetto in America and see what too much government interferance gets you.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Would this help things if I specify in my post that I'm talking about the lower classes or 'relative poor' in the respective countries? I would agree with KK that poverty here versus poverty in Mexico are very different. For example, I completely disagree with the idea that 20-40K is "near-poverty". My family was at the low end of that range a few years ago, and was a 4 car family with cable, 2 tvs, 2 computers, internet access, and health care. It is a doable situation.
