# The wall between MÉXICO and USA



## Miguelillo 87

Hi my friend today it appears a news in Mexico which said that Tha senado of the US has accepted to built the wall between Mexico and Us in order to evit inmigration and the entrancee of terrorist to US via Mexico. 
And I'm wonder What do you think about that?
I think it's an estupid idea to believe that a wall will avoid the inmigration, I mean if teh antura couldn't do it (I mean the deset, the sun, the snakes) less a simply wall, People has big ideas when they are searching for a dream.
And about Terrorism , Come in Terorist doesn't need to traspass any fronter some they are already on the US, and some doesn't need to arrive by earth I mean some arrive by air, as in 09/11.
SO don't you think it's a stupid idea?


----------



## 1234plet

Yes, I think it's ridiculous!! 
If someone really wants to terrorise it will happen though there's a wall! And immigration; if someone really wants to immigrate they will find a way. 

So, instead of using money on a wall they should use them a whole lot different. 
That's my point of view.


----------



## fenixpollo

Some suggestions, Miguelillo:





Miguelillo 87 said:


> Hi, my friend. Today the news appeared in Mexico which said that The Senate of the US has accepted to build the wall between Mexico and the US in order to prevent inmigration and the entrance of terrorists to the US via Mexico.
> And I'm wondering, What do you think about that?
> I think it's a stupid idea to believe that a wall will prevent inmigration. I mean, if the antura (?) couldn't do it (I mean the desert, the sun, the snakes) then a simple wall won't, either. People have big ideas when they are searching for a dream.
> And about Terrorism: To come in Terrorists don't need to trespass any border.  Some are already in the US, and some don't need to arrive by land -- I mean some arrive by air, as in 09/11.
> SO don't you think it's a stupid idea?


 Well, if you have a vegetable garden, and the rabbits keep eating your lettuce and carrots, doesn't it make sense to put up a wall or a fence to keep them out?


----------



## GenJen54

This is election-year politics run amok! 

The Republicans believe that a "threat" is imminent - the threat being the thousands of immigrants who come into our country each year. They believe that the current porous borders are problematic because the immigrants who chose to come into this country are eating up public funds in education and health care (there is some truth to this).

They twist and bend and skew the immigration "problem" to include "terrorists" and grandstand and prosyletise the message that a closed border will end terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. This is daft.

People who have an agenda against the United States will always find a means of carrying this out, regardless if a fence is there or not. 

What the politicians fail to see is that the terrorists who have caused problems in the U.S. did not cross into our border in Mexico. They were admitted through our airports, legally, and were granted education visas to be here. 

People who want to come into the U.S. badly enough - no matter their reason for doing so - will always find a way to do so. No 700 mile fence will stop them.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Yeah 123plet, I mean there are a lot of problems in the worl as famine, poverty and wars which can be solves with a little of this money which US it's spending on a Wall! 


Besides as the Gobernador of Texas said, Why not to built another in the north side I mean Canada, Just because it's a "rich" country, I mean terorist doesn't choice the country to entree to US for its money, I mean they can get a plane from London to US, from Mexico, from France, From Soutafrica. 
So why to put this as a excuse to build the f... wall


----------



## GenJen54

> Besides as the Gobernador of Texas said, Why not to built another in the north side I mean Canada, Just because it's a "rich" country, I mean terorist doesn't choice the country to entree to US for its money, I mean they can get a plane from London to US, from Mexico, from France, From Soutafrica.
> So why to put this as a excuse to build the f... wall


 
They are using terrorism as an excuse because the issue of immigration is very contentious and they know they will not be able to win votes if they try to outwardly block immigration as a whole. This is called legislation of fear. They are instilling fear in people by making them feel these borders will be more secure if closed off to terrorists, when all they really want is to stem the flow of illegal immigrants - and in particular, impoverished illegal immigrants - into our country because of the monetary drain on our social programs.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

fenixpollo said:


> Some suggestions, Miguelillo: Well, if you have a vegetable garden, and the rabbits keep eating your lettuce and carrots, doesn't it make sense to put up a wall or a fence to keep them out?


Yes I agree wit you, but what about if these rabbits,(the majority) instead of eating all your vegetables, they eat only some and tehy do a lot of work taht the farmer doesn't wanna do as, to clean the shit of other animals, to avoid plagues.. or a lot of things taht the good an propre farmer doesn't want to do?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

GenJen54 said:


> They are using terrorism as an excuse because the issue of immigration is very contentious and they know they will not be able to win votes otherwise. This is called legislation of fear. They are instilling fear in people by making them feel these borders will be more secure if closed off to terrorists, when all they really want is to stem the flow of illegal immigrants - and in particular, impoverished illegal immigrants - into our country because of the monetary drain on our social programs.


O.k maybe with this wall you will stop Latin inmigration, but what about, Asiatic inmigration? or Cuban? 
Are they going to build a wall in the ocean?


----------



## 1234plet

No, because you cannot prevent all immigration! And yes, the immigrants and terrorists could just as well come from other countries!
You can't protect your country that much. And really, a wall is just plain stupid. 

Plus I do not think that you can mix up humans and rabbits. I can see the point very clearly, but I still don't think it's fair.

This kind of dicussion is of that kind which will never end... People always have different point of views. And that's good, you know!

But I still think that it would be a pure waste of money if they used on a - quite useless at some points - wall. It's really a waste in my opinion...


----------



## GenJen54

Miguelillo said:
			
		

> O.k maybe with this wall you will stop Latin inmigration, but what about, Asiatic inmigration? or Cuban?
> Are they going to build a wall in the ocean?


What you are trying to compare is apples to oranges, simply because of the sheer numbers of it all. 

Of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., approximately 8 million are from Mexico, with tens of thousands more trying to make their way in every day. 

Immigration in general is healthy for a society. Too much immigration, especially when those immigrants are relying on state-funded education and medical services, start to put a great deal burden on state and local economies, despite their economic impact in sales taxes paid. From the politicians' standpoint, the economic impact is much more negative than it is positive.


----------



## KESHUGOMU

Mi humilde opinión es que ambos nos necesitamos tanto los de allá, como los de acá.
Además la mano de obra de los hispanos es muy bárata y hace el trabajo que muchos estadounidenses nunca harían.
Y de esté lado el dinero que mandan ayuda a la economía y para aportar más dinero a sus familias para que puedan vivir de una manera más cómoda.
Además haciendo esté, muró lo único que lograrán es matar más gente ya que ni crean que se van a detener por un muró y mucho menos los terroristas si el narcotráfico puede pasar ahoran imaginenlos a ellos.
No hay que engañarnos eso es parte de nuestra vida diaria y nunca va a cambiar por más que le pongamos muros.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Yes gean I konw inmigarton in excess it's bad. But mi point is that instead nof build a wall, they should do a pact or a trade of how many mexicans (or whatever nationalitie) can enter to Us, how many time, and things like that but not to build sth, that only will bring more deccesses


----------



## ireney

I can see the terrorists going "Oh no! We managed to hijack 4 aeroplanes and strike the Pentagon and the Twin Towers with 3 of them but going over a wall? It's just impossible! Let's up it and go home boys!"

I can also see an immigrant saying " I was ready to brave the river, the desert, the snakes, the chase; I was ready to brave everything but this wall is an impossible-to-overcome obstacle"

Now, on the other hand one can say that every new obstacle makes things more difficult. This is correct. The point however is how effective is each measure. I bet if they made sure that a particular kind of music I have in mind was played in the border area 24/7 it would also make life difficult for the immigrants (although it would also be annoying for the people on the other side of the border and any local life form including fossilised plants). 

No comment on the immigration issue since this is really not my buisness.


P.S. Why oh why everytime I hear about a wall of the kind the Berlin Wall comes to mind? The Communist side had a similar idea in mind (keeping their citizens in and keeping the "bad" others [bad here meaning non communists] out).. I know we only think of the "pen in" aspect of the Berlin wall but it wasn't the only one really.


----------



## 1234plet

I agree with Miguelillo87. And definitely also with ireney who has a very good point! 

The immigrants will find a way. And so will the terroritsts. How naive are the politicians?! They can't build a wall that enormous! That's almost impossible. And if they do that... I'm just speechless. I think it's so dumb... And sad.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Thanks Ireney for your aportation and yes, I agree with all your points


----------



## fenixpollo

1234plet said:


> Plus I do not think that you can mix up humans and rabbits. I can see the point very clearly, but I still don't think it's fair....


But that is exactly how the anti-immigrant Americans view the immigrants -- as unwanted pests. Their paradigm is that all rabbits are bad.  Their paradigm doesn't allow them to see the truth: that the rabbits actually pick the lettuce and the carrots, cook them and serve them, then clear the dinner table and wash the dishes...





GenJen54 said:


> They are instilling fear in people by making them feel these borders will be more secure if closed off to terrorists, when all they really want is to stem the flow of illegal immigrants - and in particular, impoverished illegal immigrants - into our country because of the monetary drain on our social programs.


I disagree, Jen. The "drain on social services" argument would only be valid if the immigrants didn't pay their fair share of Social Security, FICA and income taxes. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are employed using false documents, and the employers submit their taxes automatically. 

All the immigrants I've ever met are very conscious taxpayers -- they don't want to give the government any reason to deport them, so they behave like model citizens.  Ironic, no?

The real reason that people fear the immigrants is based in nativism, xenophobia, intolerance and racism.


----------



## GenJen54

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I disagree, Jen. The "drain on social services" argument would only be valid if the immigrants didn't pay their fair share of Social Security, FICA and income taxes. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are employed using false documents, and the employers submit their taxes automatically.
> 
> All the immigrants I've ever met are very conscious taxpayers -- they don't want to give the government any reason to deport them, so they behave like model citizens. Ironic, no?
> 
> The real reason that people fear the immigrants is based in nativism, xenophobia, intolerance and racism.


I guess I am hearing more of the rhetoric from our local politicians.  My state is just now starting to feel the effect of a real, steady immigration flow from Mexico.  Your state has experienced this for years and is probably better "structured" to handle the situation.

Most of the jobs here are in construction, landscape and manual labor, so most employers are paying for workers with cash; No paychecks, taxes, workmans' comp, or any other types of benefits.  As such, many of the illegal immigrants are not paying general income tax, even though they are paying sales tax, and in some situations, property taxes, which by default should offset some early education expenses.

Our current governor (a Democrat) is pro-immigration.  His challenger, a current U.S. Congressman, is spewing anti-immigration ads all over the place.


----------



## fenixpollo

GenJen54 said:


> Your state has experienced this for years and is probably better "structured" to handle the situation.


 If by "structured" you mean that there is a better informal network of clandestine support for illegal immigrants, you're probably right.

I have a general impression that a large percentage of illegal workers pay taxes, based on the estimates on the number of fake social security cards and the going rate for false documents. However, I would like to be able to say for sure whether the old model -- paying cash under the table -- is less common or not. I would really like to see some figures about the numbers of illegals who have the same taxes deducted from their paychecks as legal residents and citizens.


----------



## loladamore

fenixpollo said:


> Well, if you have a vegetable garden, and the rabbits keep eating your lettuce and carrots, doesn't it make sense to put up a wall or a fence to keep them out?


 
Not really, because rabbits make *tunnels*. And more *tunnels*. And more *tunnels*.


----------



## Layzie

I know all about the travails of immigrants, the work, what its like to live in a third world country(I stayed at my grandparents "canton" for a while) and lots of other things. At the same time, I hear the conservative argument. While many hide blatant racism under the anti immigration binder, some concerns ARE legit. I'm a witness to gang culture which stands out the most to me among other things. The way I see it, the melting pot here in America is a great thing, but I also know that when you add too much of an ingredient to a substance it becomes saturated. I'm not being disdainful or pessimistic, just REALISTIC. Theres that critical mass, and sheer numbers eventually discourages assimilation. Pleas for amnesty eventually become pretentiousness. We need to grant amnesty to that large and genuine portion that deserves it, we need to deport those that are here just to be criminals, and we need to come up with some real limits to immigration, because the US just isnt infinite.


----------



## Tsoman

Modern states must control their borders.

It's obvious that the US' southern border is not controlled. A wall, while probably a waste of resources, is a step in the right direction. It definitely won't increase illegal immigration. And I'm sure they can build some sort of fancy wall. Legal immigration should be streamlined to make it easier to come here the correct way.

I'm sure that if 8 million welfare americans crossed into mexico, a wall would be built right away to keep them out.


----------



## pedro0001

In my country projects like these mean that the president and a lot of people behind him will take a big portion of the total costs of the project. But such things happen only in the third world I think.


----------



## fenixpollo

Tsoman said:
			
		

> I'm sure that if 8 million welfare americans crossed into mexico, a wall would be built right away to keep them out.


What is a "welfare american"?


----------



## cuchuflete

pedro0001 said:


> In my country projects like these mean that the president and a lot of people behind him will take a big portion of the total costs of the project. But such things happen only in the third world I think.



Whether the congressional leaders will be paid directly or not,
the construction firms are quite likely to give generously to the Republican Party.  
The most amusing thing about this is that, if a wall is built, there is a very good chance that some of the laborers will be
illegal immigrants!  That will help generate the profits from which payments are made, indirectly at least, to politicians.

It's interesting that the Bush administration will not provide anything like adequate funding for the Border Patrol, but will endorse something like a wall.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Hi my friend today it appears a news in Mexico which said that Tha senado of the US has accepted to built the wall between Mexico and Us in order to evit inmigration and the entrancee of terrorist to US via Mexico.
> And I'm wonder What do you think about that?



That the _coyotes _will start to use boats.


----------



## fenixpollo

Julito_Maraña said:


> That the _coyotes _will start to use boats.


 For those of you who don't know, a "coyote" is what Americans call "un pollero" -- a person who smuggles illegal immigrants across the border.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

One has to remember that walls are there not only for not letting in, they also do not let out.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I fully recognize the right of the modern states to control their borders. But it has to be done in a sensible way. Forced concrete (literally!) measures won`t ever be a solution. It would be like banning marriage because of the extent of domestic abuse. One has to think of more lasting solutions on the basis of the conditions which we pratically have today. No use to grant amnesty to half a million immigrants as they did in Spain and then complain of the increased flow of those. Governments are not being consistent, they say they do not want immigration but at the same ime they often create unbelievably favourable conditions for immigrants. 
 One has to irradicate the social phenomenon of such a strong overwhelming necessity to move into these countries. For one thing, immigrants should really not be welcome into the new country and not receive any encouraging help. For another, one eventually will have to build in the immigration-donor countries a society which would be viable and capable of development and of giving people this opportunity. Just like in Russia many regard the solution to the crisis of the family in just running abroad and getting married to foreigners. But all cannot do it anyway and it is not a real solution, as the adequate family policy and education would be.


----------



## Jana337

ireney said:


> P.S. Why oh why everytime I hear about a wall of the kind the Berlin Wall comes to mind? The Communist side had a similar idea in mind (keeping their citizens in and keeping the "bad" others [bad here meaning non communists] out).. I know we only think of the "pen in" aspect of the Berlin wall but it wasn't the only one really.


I am no friend of walls either, but I must vehemently protest against any semblance of a parallel between the Berlin Wall and the Mexico wall. There is a hell of a difference between being kept inside and not being allowed to enter. The latter may involve relative poverty but is principally compatible with freedom.

While it may be a burden for some parts of the domestic population in the short run, immigration has a track record of the best anti-poverty program the mankind has invented so far. One would believe that the former president Fox was a firm believer in the benefits of immigration and its vocal defender. However, look who's talking! I studied the topic extensively a year ago, and unless anything has changed, it is vaaaaaaaastly more difficult to be a rabbit in Mexico than in the USA. Too many invisible walls. By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its  immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is  throwing stones within its own glass house. Another link with a couple of interesting quotes.

A shameful policy in Mexico is hardly an excuse for a shameful policy further to the north. It's just that I cannot stand hypocrisy.

Jana


----------



## Tsoman

fenixpollo said:


> What is a "welfare american"?



a word I use to make you get your panties in a bunch


----------



## foxfirebrand

I am "soft on immigration" when it comes to México.  I have no compelling argument to make about it, I just feel no antipathy toward mass migration from the south, any more than I would if a lot of Californians decided to move eastward.

I've lived and traveled some in México, seven months or so in three separate trips, and I would as soon live there as my beloved Montana-- or Naples, a place I still feel pangs of homesickness for.  I understand the arguments against illegal immigration, but I'm not a model citizen when it comes to abiding by laws I consider unjust, and I have a deep respect for all natural forces-- including the "accident of birth."  This means I could've been born anywhere, and been born anybody-- I had no control over it, and honestly feel I don't have a real problem putting myself in another person's place, due to this attitude.

If I had been born in México, and saw it in my interest to  move north, ignoring the border cops and the law, I would have done so without hesitation.

I hope the wall is well-funded and provides lots of wage windfalls for laborers on both sides of the border, and I hope we at least create a tourist destination to rival Hadrian's Wall, if not the world-class masterpiece in China.  

Maybe we could buy a famous Old-World wall and move it here brick by brick, like the good people of Havasu City AZ did when they salvaged London Bridge.  We should've grabbed up the Berlin Wall when the grabbing was good.

The French sold us Louisiana-- maybe they'd give us a good deal on the Maginot Line.  Government work being what it is, I wouldn't be surprised if it got installed with the bunkers facing in the wrong direction!
.
.


----------



## cirrus

I find the idea of a wall repulsive, particularly in a country which is built on immigration.  The hypocrisy of the proposal is staggering.  Where is the  interest in making the economies south of the Rio Bravo work?  What about a commitment to not using illegal labour or its produce?

As for confusing terrorists with immigration, words fail me.  Just how much distopia can people peddle? At times politicians seem bent on wanting to outdo each other in how scarily they paint the world.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's just suppose, flying in the face of logic, that the proposed wall has a significant effect on northward migration.  Here are a few likely effects of that "success":

1- For the US, immediate and severe problems for agricultural businesses, which have economic structures based in large part on (1)available labor; (2)relatively low costs for that labor.  This will not only hurt the businesses themselves, but will cause rapid increases in prices for fresh and processed produce.  In short, the effect on the consumer will be inflationary, and tax revenues from businesses will decline.

2-For Mexico and other countries farther south-- Greater unemployment, which has been known to cause political instability, as well as damaging the individuals directly concerned.  

3- Such a barrier will point out the ineptitude of the US government, which has had ample opportunities to legislate reasonable ways for both temporary and permanent migration.    If such migrations have negative effects on the US economy (I think this is untrue, and so do some right-wing economists with whom I generally disagree, and who have found net positive effects from migrants...use a search engine to investigate this more fully if you care to.), then fix the problem, rather than substituting a different and potentially greater set of problems.

I wonder what Mexicans think of the underlying issue-- that millions of Mexican citizens cannot find work at home.   That part of the issue gets buried by the attention given to the stupidity of US policy.  

A wall is a bad answer to immigration.   Immigration is not, in itself, a problem.  The problem is bad administration of immigration, on both sides of the border.    Tens of millions of
immigrants --my grandparents among them-- came to the US when the only requirement for entry at Ellis Island was to appear more or less healthy, and somehow find the fare for an ocean crossing in bad conditions.  Today, such massive immigration has been labeled "illegal", and the change in label has been accompanied by a continued display of governmental incompetence and cynical pandering to fear.

If I were living south of the border, needed work, and was willing to take some risks to find it, I would certainly look at the coming of the wall as a strong incentive to go north sooner, rather than later!   The construction of a wall will, in all likelihood, increase northward migration in the short term.

So much for the wisdom to be found among politicians.


----------



## fenixpollo

Unfortunately, cuchu, the negative results that you listed will only be interpreted and spun by the fearmongers to show that we need l_ess_ immigration, not more. "You see?" they'll say, "Things continued to get worse because the other side wouldn't let us enact all our reforms!"


----------



## Tsoman

fenixpollo said:


> If you and I actually knew each other, your response would be cute and playful. I asked you a serious question, but your response shows that you have nothing to add to the debate but sarcasm.



by welfare americans (which is not a real word, I don't think) I was refering to people who would have no problem living off public money for their whole lives (do people like that exist? I don't know -- it's for the sake of conversation). Some people are doctors; some people are taxi drivers; some people are secretaries; and some people aren't anything and live from free money. So that's what I meant.

So if they went to mexico, the would be taking advantage of mexico's social services (again, I don't know if mexico has social services) and would demand certain other things as well.


Sorry about my response. I thought that an e-inquisition was about to occur


----------



## cuchuflete

There are a few assumptions here that might be worth a closer look.  





			
				Tsoman said:
			
		

> Modern states must control their borders.


 Why?  There is very little border control among the states of the EU.  There is very little border control at a great many crossing points between the US and Canada.
Is the sky falling because of this lack of state control of borders?  Why the imperative "must"?
 


> It's obvious that the US' southern border is not controlled.


 It's obvious from the three to four hour waiting time I've often seen at the Chula Vista/Tijuana border crossing that there is control in some places, and not at others.   The US border is sporadically controlled, ineffectively controlled, inefficiently controlled.



> A wall, while probably a waste of resources, is a step in the right direction.


 If your objective is to stop migration, then such a waste of resources may be a step towards that objective.  Whether that objective is any good or not is an entirely different question.  




> It definitely won't increase illegal immigration.


 Eating an apple a day won't increase illegal immigration either. Let's ask the knuckleheads in Congress to appropriate lots of money for apples for citizens on both sides of the border.


> Legal immigration should be streamlined to make it easier to come here the correct way.


 *That is a totally logical and sensible statement!
It makes so much good sense that we can be sure that our elected representatives will ignore it.  

*


> I'm sure that if 8 million welfare americans crossed into mexico, a wall would be built right away to keep them out.


 This appears to imply, free of any facts, that there are 8 million migrants receiving some kind of 'welfare'.
I don't doubt that some migrants receive some state benefits.
I don't doubt that most migrants pay sales taxes, state and local income taxes, social security, excise taxes on fuel purchases and all the other taxes that afflict citizens.    

The notion that migrants get, for the most part, a "free ride" is a frequent rallying cry of those who don't bother to look hard at the facts.  Do some migrants get more than they pay for?  Probably.  Do some native born citizens get more than they pay for?  Absolutely YES!  That has been legislated in the forms of public education, social security, and myriad other government mandated programs for many decades.  We tend not to think of this as a problem, if, by the accident of birth, one of the beneficiaries popped out of the mother's womb on US soil.


----------



## Mike P.

A wall is going to have to go through private property, federally and state protected wildlife areas, and some quite difficult mountainous terrain.  It won't be easy just for those simple reasons.  

The only US welfare program that illegal immigrants are eligible for is WIC.


----------



## beclija

I would be grateful if you kept speaking in tongues to a minimum - I think as this is a discussion that is relevant in very similar ways for other borders and countries will consequently be followed with interest by a lot of Europeans and others that don't know what WIC stands for.


----------



## lablady

> ... don't know what WIC stands for.


WIC: It's a government program that provides food, counseling and health services for low-income *W*omen, *I*nfants and *C*hildren.


----------



## djchak

A physical wall is a bad idea.

It might send the message that illigal immigration is unwelcome, but anyone with a brain can figure that out.

We would have to do more sinister measure to REALLY scare people away...that would seriously erode human rights...snipers on the US side of the Rio Grande, things like that.... no one really wants that, so we have politicians that talk about building walls.

What should we do instead?

Really crackdown on illegal immigrants. But this would require a lot of effort, and are we really going to use the National Guard, Police, the INS, and people like the Minutemen to thier full ability?

I seriously doubt it.

In the meantime, corporations benefit, and both joe taxpayer and illegal immigrants alike get screwed.


----------



## djchak

Layzie said:


> I know all about the travails of immigrants, the work, what its like to live in a third world country(I stayed at my grandparents "canton" for a while) and lots of other things. At the same time, I hear the conservative argument. While many hide blatant racism under the anti immigration binder, some concerns ARE legit. I'm a witness to gang culture which stands out the most to me among other things. The way I see it, the melting pot here in America is a great thing, but I also know that when you add too much of an ingredient to a substance it becomes saturated. I'm not being disdainful or pessimistic, just REALISTIC. Theres that critical mass, and sheer numbers eventually discourages assimilation. Pleas for amnesty eventually become pretentiousness. We need to grant amnesty to that large and genuine portion that deserves it, we need to deport those that are here just to be criminals, and we need to come up with some real limits to immigration, because the US just isnt infinite.



I agree completely with everything you said.

It isn't xenophobic to want REASONABLE limits on immigration from certain countries.

ESPECIALLY when it's so hard for people from other countries overseas to immigrate here, or even get a working visa.


----------



## ireney

Jana337 said:


> I am no friend of walls either, but I must vehemently protest against any semblance of a parallel between the Berlin Wall and the Mexico wall. There is a hell of a difference between being kept inside and not being allowed to enter. The latter may involve relative poverty but is principally compatible with freedom.




Jana I mentioned in my post that the B Wall was not built only to keep people in but also to keep the others out. I consider any line through which people are not allowed to cross a block to freedom. Sometimes such blocks are "necessary" in a way. Since there are countries it follows that sometimes they have to protect their border somehow. Building a Great Wall in your borders seems to me  as a measure that, perhaps because of its connotations, is to be avoided. 

I know it's not exactly the same problem but Greece too has a problem with illegal immigration although our #1 problem is that it's practically impossible to patrol all our land borders with a (at least close to) 100% efficiency let alone the sea ways into Greece. In fact we've even asked EU that complains a lot to lend us a hand or we'd have to use at least half our population for patrol duties (no desert and lots of mountains makes things really hard).

The problem with our borders goes beyond the local concerns since Greece is used for immigrants who want to move to other EU countries and there's always the smuggling of "goods".  No one (Greek or other) has yet suggested we built a wall. No such proposal will be welcomed by more than a small minority.


----------



## fenixpollo

Tsoman said:


> Sorry about my response. I thought that an e-inquisition was about to occur


 Well, an e-inquisition was about to occur, but it was only going to be a civil debate about your term. Instead, you got snide with me, which made me want to get medieval on your ass.  One doesn't avoid an e-inquisition by being sarcastic; one avoids it by not making statements that one knows are dubious (if not outright lies): 





Tsoman said:


> ... people who would have no problem living off public money for their whole lives (do people like that exist? I don't know -- it's for the sake of conversation).


 I'm sure that there are a handful of people in each major US city who have no problem living off of public money for their whole lives. But you're implying that the 11 million illegal immigrants are coming to leech of the state. The opposite is true. 





			
				Tsoman said:
			
		

> So if they went to mexico, the would be taking advantage of mexico's social services (again, I don't know if mexico has social services) and would demand certain other things as well.


 Mexico has low-cost socialized medicine for every resident, which is more than I can say about the US. 





			
				djchak said:
			
		

> What should we do instead?
> 
> Really crackdown on illegal immigrants.


 Remind me again... why do we need to crack down on illegal immigrants?


----------



## cuchuflete

> Remind me again... why do we need to crack down on illegal immigrants? 		 	 		 		 		 		 			 				____



Because they--

Take enormous risks to find work;
Accept lower pay in return for conscientious, strenuous work most citizens refuse to do;
Follow in the footsteps of most of our ancestors, who were also poor immigrants on arrival here.  Tradition does matter, you know!
Help the profitability of thousands of corporations;
Help keep inflation low;
Pay for Social Security without receving the benefits it is intended to provide.

I'm sure there are many other reasons.  Just go to the website of your favorite right-wing organization to learn that each and every one of 11 million people presents a deep threat to your way of life and well-being.    

Once we have 'cracked down on' immigrants, maybe we can turn our attention to the 535 members of Congress, many of whom have recently been exposed as lawbreakers, con artists, buffoons.....


----------



## Julito_Maraña

> Just go to the website of your favorite right-wing organization to learn that each and every one of 11 million people presents a deep threat to your way of life and well-being.



Now I'm really confused! I swore it was the _*right *_who was pro business and the *left *who was for higher wages!

The Wall (not the album by Pink Floyd) is a great idea. Look what a Wall did for China, the Romans, France, Communism, and now for Israel. They put up a wall and all the problems disapeared.

I hope they put it up. Future archeologists will dig it up and know for certain that our civilization never read history. The bad thing is that they will think we were completely disconneted from the our past.


----------



## loladamore

Leaving aside all of the arguments surrounding the problems that cause and are caused by mass migration, I would like to get back to Miguelillo's question: 





> SO don't you think it's a stupid idea?


Well, yes, I do. Expanding a little on what I said in post #19, I have lost count of the number of tunnels that have been found between Mexico and the US. It says on *this page* that 40 tunnels have been found since 9/11. What use is a wall when people can build tunnels "Equipped with a groundwater drainage system, cement flooring for traction, lighting, and a pulley system", "more than nine stories below ground" (same source)?

If I thought another wall might actually deter people from trying to cross the border, and thus stop the death of hundreds of people every year due to dehydration/heat exhaustion in the desert, drowning in the Rio Bravo, suffocating in wagons, or being shot in the back by the Border Patrol (anyone remember Guillermo Martínez?), then I would say: Great idea!

But there already are walls and fences along significant stretches of the border. People go under, over, or around them. Others simply cross the border in a vehicle. 

So, yes, I do think it's a stupid idea. I don't think it will stop people trying to cross nor will it stop agribusiness and *big companies* hiring millions of illegal workers every year. It's just too good for business.


----------



## cuchuflete

Julito_Maraña said:


> Now I'm really confused! I swore it was the _*right *_who was pro business and the *left *who was for higher wages!


Simple explanation: It's an election year, and both right and left are for and against whatever the pollsters say will sell them or buy them an elected position.  It's a little like musical chairs, as played by chimpanzees in a china shop.  Leave your logic at the door.


----------



## Yuribear

cuchuflete said:


> I wonder what Mexicans think of the underlying issue-- that millions of Mexican citizens cannot find work at home. That part of the issue gets buried by the attention given to the stupidity of US policy.
> 
> A wall is a bad answer to immigration. Immigration is not, in itself, a problem. The problem is bad administration of immigration, on both sides of the border.



Well Cuchu, THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT!!! The incredible irresponsible government that we have in Mexico who has done nothing but to rob us mexicans right to left. They have been doing nothing to solve the many problems caused by NAFTA in Mexico. I lived in Veracruz, a wonderful agricultural State. The mexican farmers CANNOT compete with the US farmers, who by the way get mega fundings from the Federal government. Mexican farmers work like crazy, to make if they are very lucky, up to 100 to 200 dollars per month. So.... who is it to blame? I hold first responsible the neoliberal government in Mexico. I am furious about it. Many of the rural areas where I used to work have no more men... guess where they are? Did they want to leave their families for the American dream? no, they just want to feed their families. Period. I would have done the very same.

Today I learnt that the farmers, across our home in Mexico, haven't been paid in 2 weeks. They went to ask my sister for a loan to make ends meet!!!! 

The wall.... I couldn't care less. But as a tax payer in the US I want my taxes to be put to a better use. Like education, environment, etc. 

This wall... is by far nothing compared to the increased racism in the US against the latino community.


----------



## jigsaw

Ok i agree with USA about building a wall to close the border, because United states is overcrowded of immigrants and most of them are from mexico there are a whole buch of chicanos in there.
United states should stop giving visas for colombians as well cause there are 11 million of immigrants and they  are from my country colombia and from mexico. But when USA says as a pretty-lame excuse that they need to boot out chicanos of USA to stop terrorism that´s one of the biggest lies. USA knows they have provoked all those attacks, what i mean is that chicanos ain´t got nothing to do with it. and with border and no-border the attacks will go on


----------



## djchak

Yuribear said:


> This wall... is by far nothing compared to the increased racism in the US against the latino community.



Increased?

To be fair, I thought it was always around the same level, just more obvious now.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Lasye. I should say that I agree with everithing you say, as a matter of fact I think we have the same philosophy, I mean I also agree that person whi inmigrate and they only causes "bad" things to the country they go, they should be deporteted or jailed, but all we know that inmigrants in US they come there for work and give money to their families, I mean they have the necessity, I odn't think that someone with that neccesesity want to mug or to rob or to molest or to do whatever crime. Now why I'm really upset is because US governament wants to cever the truth of they are doing the wall for 100% the inmigration and they want to say, we do it too because terrorism. That's why I'm angry, they should have the enough guts to say Why they are doing the things, and do not cover it


----------



## Yuribear

djchak said:


> Increased?
> 
> To be fair, I thought it was always around the same level, just more obvious now.



Actually it has increased. While federal laws are being debated, more local legislation is being passed to attack immigrants. You can read a wide variety of actions happening. For instace, in a county in Arizona a law was even passed banning Spanish from being spoken!!! Arizona, Colorado and other States are not allowing immigrants to make use of public libraries. Here in California, in Escondido, a law was passed where people cannot rent a home to indocumented immigrants. Bare in mind that many of these have been living here for over 10 years!!! Raids outside Mexican markets are taking place more often than not. Many small children are now walking to school alone because parents are afraid of deportation and living the rest of the children alone. Yes, definitely it has increased. It is not my imagination.


----------



## ps139

> The Republicans believe that a "threat" is imminent - the threat being the thousands of immigrants who come into our country each year. They believe that the current porous borders are problematic because the immigrants who chose to come into this country are eating up public funds in education and health care (there is some truth to this).


There is some truth to this. And I do not think anyone is dumb enough to believe a wall will stop all immigration. But it will halt it in some places. And that means less money to pay for people to patrol borders, and less immigrants coming in "eating up public funds."



> They twist and bend and skew the immigration "problem" to include "terrorists" and grandstand and prosyletise the message that a closed border will end terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. This is daft.


I do not think any Republicans think it will end terrorist attacks. And I don't see Al-Qaeda coming through Mexico. But the fact is that there is really nothing to stop them if they wanted to. 

Al-Qaeda & their ilk is committed to destroying the USA (after graciously giving us the opportunity to convert to Islam, of course!). We have an open border, and when there is an enemy who wants to kill you, you shore up all your defenses. 

Yeah there is a ton of politics and mudslinging on this issue for both parties, but the open border is a potential (thought probably, in the end, unrealized) danger to the USA, and the immigrants are taking taxpayer money via social services.




> People who have an agenda against the United States will always find a means of carrying this out, regardless if a fence is there or not.


They will always look for one, no doubt.



> What the politicians fail to see is that the terrorists who have caused problems in the U.S. did not cross into our border in Mexico. They were admitted through our airports, legally, and were granted education visas to be here.


You are correct about how terrorists enter, but I think this is common knowledge among politicians, that none came via Mexico.


> People who want to come into the U.S. badly enough - no matter their reason for doing so - will always find a way to do so. No 700 mile fence will stop them.


I agree. But a gigantic wall will stop those who do not want it as much.

I really think the solution here is for the Mexican government to take care of its people. Of course, when the US and Mexico signed NAFTA,.... that created a lot of the problems.


----------



## ps139

Yuribear said:


> Well Cuchu, THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT!!! The incredible irresponsible government that we have in Mexico who has done nothing but to rob us mexicans right to left. They have been doing nothing to solve the many problems caused by NAFTA in Mexico. I lived in Veracruz, a wonderful agricultural State. The mexican farmers CANNOT compete with the US farmers, who by the way get mega fundings from the Federal government. Mexican farmers work like crazy, to make if they are very lucky, up to 100 to 200 dollars per month. So.... who is it to blame? I hold first responsible the neoliberal government in Mexico. I am furious about it. Many of the rural areas where I used to work have no more men... guess where they are? Did they want to leave their families for the American dream? no, they just want to feed their families. Period. I would have done the very same.
> 
> Today I learnt that the farmers, across our home in Mexico, haven't been paid in 2 weeks. They went to ask my sister for a loan to make ends meet!!!!


I agree completely. I don't know much of Mexican politics, but they screwed their own people with NAFTA.


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> Because they--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accept lower pay in return for conscientious, strenuous work most citizens refuse to do;
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to Katrina survivors who got fired from their clean-up/rebuilding jobs because the contractors all found Mexicans who would work for a lower wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay for Social Security without receving the benefits it is intended to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do they pay for social security if they do not pay taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once we have 'cracked down on' immigrants, maybe we can turn our attention to the 535 members of Congress, many of whom have recently been exposed as lawbreakers, con artists, buffoons.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would _love _that!
Click to expand...


----------



## cuchuflete

> How do they pay for social security if they do not pay taxes?


You seem to know a great deal about which immigrants do and don't pay taxes, and how much.  You have repeated the
Rush Limbozo mantra that immigrants consume social services without paying for them.

You really might want to read a little about this topic before
making such sweeping statements.  If you look hard enough, you will find Republican economists who have recently done a lot of research on the topic, and have found a small net gain in government revenues, after calculating the costs of immigrants.

To your specific question about social security...there is a large market in forged and stolen social security IDs.  Obviously any immigrant who wants a "legitimate" job, as opposed to getting screwed o a cash-only, below minimum wage job, needs to provide such an ID, and have both federal, local, state taxes and Social Security taxes withheld from their pay.  

The fact is, there are no perfectly reliable ways to measure how much tax revenue comes from illegal immigrants, or the real cost of social services provided to them.   Those who oppose immigration scream that those dirty, rotten immigrants are bankrupting us.  They never provide either proof, or even plausible logic to support such statements.


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> You seem to know a great deal about which immigrants do and don't pay taxes, and how much.  You have repeated the
> Rush Limbozo mantra that immigrants consume social services without paying for them.
> 
> You really might want to read a little about this topic before
> making such sweeping statements.  If you look hard enough, you will find Republican economists who have recently done a lot of research on the topic, and have found a small net gain in government revenues, after calculating the costs of immigrants.
> 
> To your specific question about social security...there is a large market in forged and stolen social security IDs.  Obviously any immigrant who wants a "legitimate" job, as opposed to getting screwed o a cash-only, below minimum wage job, needs to provide such an ID, and have both federal, local, state taxes and Social Security taxes withheld from their pay.
> 
> The fact is, there are no perfectly reliable ways to measure how much tax revenue comes from illegal immigrants, or the real cost of social services provided to them.   Those who oppose immigration scream that those dirty, rotten immigrants are bankrupting us.  They never provide either proof, or even plausible logic to support such statements.



You have an anger problem. I asked a simple question and you spent two paragraphs lambasting your perception of me before providing an answer. No one is required to be an expert in the field before taking part in a discussion here, and I had never heard how illegal immigrants contribute to social security. If I am wrong on a statement I accept correction, and if I ask a question I appreciate a clear and polite answer. My illegal immigrant friends do not do have fake social security cards, and I did not know anyone did. (Does it shock you that some of my friends are _sin papeles_?). So, I am glad you answered my question but there is no need to get nasty and make "sweeping statements" about me.


----------



## fenixpollo

Yuribear said:


> Actually it has increased. While federal laws are being debated, more local legislation is being passed to attack immigrants. You can read a wide varietyof actions happening. For instace, in a county in Arizona a law was even passed banning Spanish from being spoken!!! Arizona, Colorado and other States are not allowing immigrants to make use of public libraries. .


 Neither of the statements you made about Arizona are true, as far as I know. There have been repeated attempts to pass a statewide law making English the official language, but the last time that law passed, it was struck down by the Arizona supreme court.  The thing about the libraries is totally incorrect. All one needs to get a library card is a telephone bill and any picture ID.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

ps139 said:


> There is some truth to this. And I do not think anyone is dumb enough to believe a wall will stop all immigration. But it will halt it in some places. And that means less money to pay for people to patrol borders, and less immigrants coming in "eating up public funds."



The way I see it, if the stop coming by land they will start coming by sea. Less money spent on border patrol and more spent on the Coast Guard. The Mexicans and Central Americans are not just going to make it to the wall, see that it's impenetrable and just give up and go back home. They cross the border because it's there. If there was a sea between the US and Mexico they would be coming by boat. If there is a wall on the border, they will find a way around it. Possibly even under it or over it. We can't keep drugs out and we can't keep people out. 




ps139 said:


> I really think the solution here is for the Mexican government to take care of its people. Of course, when the US and Mexico signed NAFTA,.... that created a lot of the problems.



A more effective way would be to plunge the US economy into a severe depression. Like drugs, what we need to stop is demand. As long as there is demand here...


----------



## ps139

Julito_Maraña said:


> The way I see it, if the stop coming by land they will start coming by sea. Less money spent on border patrol and more spent on the Coast Guard. The Mexicans and Central Americans are not just going to make it to the wall, see that it's impenetrable and just give up and go back home. They cross the border because it's there. If there was a sea between the US and Mexico they would be coming by boat. If there is a wall on the border, they will find a way around it. Possibly even under it or over it. We can't keep drugs out and we can't keep people out.


I agree that who wants to come in, will come in, even if they have to try multiple times. But a massive wall will reduce numbers. I think it is also much more difficult to enter by sea than by land, especially if there are Coast Guard ships out there that can catch any boat in a pretty wide radius.


----------



## cuchuflete

Before anyone gets too convinced that such a wall will ever be built... The House of Representatives approved a bill including construction of double fences along 700 miles of the border.
The Senate has not yet voted on it.  As of 26 September, there is no law authorizing the construction.

Also, the border is about 1950 miles long.   That would leave 1250 miles of border without a fence or wall.

It is projected to cost, if it's ever built, $2.2 billion, which will probably be doubled or tripled by the time is would be finished.  How does that compare with Border Patrol costs?
What about the cost of maintenance of these fences?

The Coast Guard doesn't have enough craft to do its current jobs, and most of its ships, it tells Congress, are in need of replacement...they are old and worn out.

The argument that a wall will save money may be sound, or it may just be simplistic and free of facts and analysis, none of which have been presented here so far.  

If the Coast Guard is the answer to "interdicting migrants", then why has it been so grossly ineffective in stopping migrants from Haiti and Cuba?  Why should we expect it to do a better job with the same staff and equipment in the face of a likely incease in sea-borne attempts at illegal entry?

"If you build it, they will come."   Have we heard that before, somewhere?


----------



## maxiogee

ps139 said:


> Talk to Katrina survivors who got fired from their clean-up/rebuilding jobs because the contractors all found Mexicans who would work for a lower wage.



Without wishing to get into the issue too deeply, as a foreigner who thinks that 'our' illegals in the US get far too easy a ride, I would point out that the history of American labour shows that contractors — in whatever field — will always pay the lowest rate they can get away with, and that they will always find _someone_ desperate enough to work for it. It's called capitalism and it allowed *Woody Guthrie* to write…
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards? 
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit? 
To die like the dry leaves and rot on my topsoil
And be known by no name except "deportee."
…in his song _Deportees (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)_ written 45 years ago.

Is the scandal not that the contractors found Mexicans who would work for a lower wage, but that they weren't prepared to pay a 'proper' in the first place? Should New Orleans be cleaned up and rebuilt by the lowest-priced labour?


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:


> Should New Orleans be cleaned up and rebuilt by the lowest-priced labour?



I do not know whether the question is rethorical.

My answer: YES. (If asked a simple yes/no)


----------



## Mike P.

ps139 said:


> I agree that who wants to come in, will come in, even if they have to try multiple times. But a massive wall will reduce numbers. I think it is also much more difficult to enter by sea than by land, especially if there are Coast Guard ships out there that can catch any boat in a pretty wide radius.



Have you ever been to the border in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona?  It seems like this wall fantasy is something bandied about only by those ignorant of the land where the border actually is.  Are you going to put it through the middle of Lake Amistad?  Through Big Bend National Park?  Through protected wildlife sancuaries?  How is not going to affect irrigation off the Rio Grande in Texas that is aggreed to in formal treaties between the US and Mexico?  How much time and money will immiment domain issues fought out in court by those who don't want a wall on their private property cost?  A massive wall is financial boondogle that any ladder, shovel, or piece of heavy equipment can easily defeat.

If the government would simply fund the Border Patrol adequately, then they'd have enough technology and boots on the ground to emulate what they did in El Paso (which forced mass illegal immigration to Arizona) in Arizona.


----------



## ps139

maxiogee said:


> Is the scandal not that the contractors found Mexicans who would work for a lower wage, but that they weren't prepared to pay a 'proper' in the first place? Should New Orleans be cleaned up and rebuilt by the lowest-priced labour?


New Orleans people should have preference to those jobs. Without employing them, they remain out of work... I wish there was some law enacted that would temporarily guarantee (or try to guarantee) them work.


----------



## cirrus

ps139 said:


> I agree that who wants to come in, will come in, even if they have to try multiple times. But a massive wall will reduce numbers. I think it is also much more difficult to enter by sea than by land, especially if there are Coast Guard ships out there that can catch any boat in a pretty wide radius.



You might want to have a look at what is happening with Africans leaving West Africa and travelling something like four or five days on open boats to arrive in the Canaries.  Hundreds people make the trip every day.  Many die in the attempt. Where there is a will there is a way.


----------



## Yuribear

fenixpollo said:


> Neither of the statements you made about Arizona are true, as far as I know. There have been repeated attempts to pass a statewide law making English the official language, but the last time that law passed, it was struck down by the Arizona supreme court. The thing about the libraries is totally incorrect. All one needs to get a library card is a telephone bill and any picture ID.



Hola fenixpollo,

Actually I just sent an email to the reporters from Univision that covered the story of that town in Arizona where the the town major outlawed the use of Spanish. It was not the use of Spanish at schools but rather everywhere!

They put together a story interviewing people from the latino community living in that town a few weeks ago and I can't remeber the name of the town. Hopefully they will get back to me and I can give you more detailed information. To me it sounds like it is so unconstitutional as it contravenes "freedom of speech" which I assume includes using the language you choose to speak. 

Regarding the library policy, a new law entered into force in Colorado on August 1st in order to prevent undocumented immigrants *to access ANY public service*. I believe they even wanted to have access to the information that public libraries already have but it was denied. 

Regardless of the fact that, as some researchers from Princeton point out, "Our findings illustrate that rates of service usage have dropped since
1986, at the same time that rates of tax payment and health insurance coverage have risen. The net effect of these two countervailing trends, we argue, has been a sharp decline in the use of unreimbursed services by Mexican migrants to the United States."

Here you have a link about the measures adopted by several States, including Arizona, to "fight back immigration".


----------



## justjukka

It sounds like the Great Wall of China, which was built for more intense reasons.  However, I do not believe this will work.  If someone really needs to get out of their country, a wall will not stop them (unfortunately, I do not appreciate illegal immigration).

PLUS!  There are also problems along the US/Canadian border, and everyone's focusing all of their attention on Mexico.  But that's another topic.


----------



## maxiogee

No need to look to Africa, cirrus —> look to the numbers trying to get to the USA from Cuba and that variety of 'craft' they use.


----------



## ps139

Yuribear said:


> They put together a story interviewing people from the latino community living in that town a few weeks ago and I can't remeber the name of the town. Hopefully they will get back to me and I can give you more detailed information. To me it sounds like it is so unconstitutional as it contravenes "freedom of speech" which I assume includes using the language you choose to speak.


I hope you hear back from them soon. I cannot imagine that law being found constitutional by _*any*_ court.


----------



## fenixpollo

ps139 said:


> I hope you hear back from them soon. I cannot imagine that law being found constitutional by _*any*_ court.


 Well, it doesn't make sense that an Arizona town would pass a law declaring English the official language after the 1997 decision in Ruiz v. Hull.  I'm not saying that the state is _not_ a hotbed of nativism and intolerance (because it _is_), but I'm just asking people to check their facts before they condemn.  Just because the Minutemen are here, doesn't mean that all Zonies are nutjobs.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Fenix and all the people in Arizona agree with that, I mean I imagine there should be a big population of Hispanos there, Why they do not complain about it?


----------



## fenixpollo

More than 1/4 of Arizonans are "Hispanic" (data).  However, since this used to be Mexico, some of the Hispanic families have been here longer than the White families. In addition, the Hispanic community is not monolithic (link).  Just saying "Hispanic" does not mean "pro-immigrant".

Complain about it?  To whom? Some people have protested in the streets (here), but that has produced a backlash in the conservative population of this "red state" (i.e. "conservative").

Why so much attention on Arizona?  Since the Border Patrol crackdowns on Texas and California in the 1990's (article), Arizona has become a superhighway of illegal crossings, drug trafficking and human smuggling (article).


----------



## Miguelillo 87

So Is it true that some "hispanic" (at leas on their roots) are agoindt their own "brothers" I mean they are agoinst inmigration?


----------



## fenixpollo

Every American, except the Native Americans, came from somewhere else. Every (non-Native) American is from an immigrant family.  So every American -- whether he is black, white, brown, yellow or purple -- who is against immigrants, is going against his own brothers.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Good point Fenix!!!!! So it seems US is really divided in this topic, Well which country don't get dicided whan we talk about these polemic topics?


----------



## Julito_Maraña

maxiogee said:


> No need to look to Africa, cirrus —> look to the numbers trying to get to the USA from Cuba and that variety of 'craft' they use.



And the Domincans who become "lunch" to sharks whenever a "yola" capsizes on the Canal between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Julito_Maraña said:


> And the Domincans who become "lunch" to sharks whenever a "yola" capsizes on the Canal between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.


¿¿¿¿¿??????? Dominicans want to go to Puerto Rico ?


----------



## cuchuflete

Errors in fact, or failures to establish what is conjecture and what is factual:

1.  "... news in Mexico which said that Tha senado of the US has accepted to built the wall between Mexico and Us..."   It was not the 'senado'/U.S. Senate, but the other legislative body, the House of Representatives.  It is not a law at this point, and may or may not ever become a law.

2.  The legislation is not about a wall, rather it deals with a double fence.  That may matter a little or a lot, depending on your viewpoint, but it is not accurate to call a fence, or two fences, a wall.

3.  The following terms have been used by different participants in this thread as if they were synonymous, and they are not:  immigrant, illegal immigrant, migrant, Mexican.

4. It has been asserted that The United States Coast Guard can stop illegal migration by sea.   No proof of this has been provided, and references have been made to the failure of the Coast Guard and its European counterpart to prevent large-scale migration elsewhere.

5.  Statements have been made which imply that illegal immigrants consume more public services than they pay for.
No proof that this is true has been offered.  

Some of these assertions may be true, but we would be well advised not to accept them as facts until and unless they are demonstrated to be other than personal opinions.


----------



## JAG

Well, I spent most of my life living near the US/Mexican border, and I do not have a problem with Mexican immigration. A fence (or wall) between the US and Mexico will do little to solve the problem of immigration. It would simply be a waste of money, in my opinion. I'd actually like to see an open border between the countries, where there is mutual respect. So long as people come in with good intentions I welcome anyone.

On another note, hopefully people around the world will stop having so many children, because we don't want the world to become overpopulated. Be responsible mankind!

Ok, that's my political opinion on the matter. Viva la libertad!


----------



## ps139

fenixpollo said:


> Every American, except the Native Americans, came from somewhere else. Every (non-Native) American is from an immigrant family.  So every American -- whether he is black, white, brown, yellow or purple -- who is against immigrants, is going against his own brothers.


My grandmother could not legally enter the country until she was married. So she married a paisan on Ellis Island. Then she could _legally enter_. 

I don't have a position on this issue, it's been in the news for months now and I can honestly say I do not have a clear position. But I do not like when people exaggerate, make false accusations, or false comparison. Your post above is a false analogy. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration which you do not take into account.


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> 4. It has been asserted that The United States Coast Guard can stop illegal migration by sea.   No proof of this has been provided, and references have been made to the failure of the Coast Guard and its European counterpart to prevent large-scale migration elsewhere.



Are you referring to my post? And what do you mean by "prevent"?

Also, I've noticed that while you frequently dismiss different arguments for lack of evidence, you make many arguments for which you provide no evidence.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here are some opinions which were presented without being labelled as opinions, giving the impression that they are factual statements.  These statements may be true or false.  Nothing in this thread gives any hint that they are supported by facts.



			
				ps139 said:
			
		

> And I do not think anyone is dumb enough to believe a wall will stop all immigration. But it will halt it in some places. And that means* less money to pay for people to patrol borders*, and* less immigrants coming in "eating up public funds*."


  The first bolded stated is supposition, which ignores the costs of, among other things, increased nautical patrols, which are not without cost, and the cost of construction and maintenance of barriers.  

The proposed fence will leave 1251 miles of border between the US and its southern neighbor exactly as it is today.  Increased enforcement of border security in Texas has led directly to more crossings in Arizona.  If you wish to confirm these facts, go to the web sites of the US Border Patrol, and the Congressional Record.   



			
				ps139 said:
			
		

> ...the immigrants are taking taxpayer money via social services.


 Yes, and there is the part that was left out...that many are paying taxes into government coffers.  Giving only one side of the equation is deceptive and misleading.  




			
				ps139 said:
			
		

> I think it is also much more difficult to enter by sea than by land, especially if there are Coast Guard ships out there that can catch any boat in a pretty wide radius.


 Those who die trying to enter the US through deserts might not agree.  For the number of deaths from dehydration and other perils of land crossings, see the publications of the U.S. Border Patrol.

How many illegal and quasi-legal "dry-feet" exceptions enter the US by water?  The US Coast Guard thinks it has a severe lack of resources to deal with immigration in the Caribbean.  The simple fact is that the "pretty wide radius" (which nobody has bothered to define) is grossly inadequate to prevent would-be immigrants from reaching US shores in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic.  

Maybe it is correct to assume that fewer immigrants will enter the US if the fences are constructed.  Until some facts are adduced to support that supposition, it will remain a dubious speculation, and nothing more than that.


----------



## Yuribear

ps139 said:


> Your post above is a false analogy. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration which you do not take into account.



I do not understand why do you mean that it is a false analogy??? That is a fact in the history of this country. Do you think the that the pilgrims had a right to the land of any of the natives? Was their immigration legal according to whom? the new laws of the incoming pilgrims? what about the customary law of the natives?


----------



## fenixpollo

ps139 said:


> But I do not like when people exaggerate, make false accusations, or false comparison. Your post above is a false analogy. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration which you do not take into account.


 I chose not to address the legal vs. illegal part of the debate in my posts. That doesn't mean that I said anything false about that aspect of immigration, as your post implies. Please point out where I exaggerated or said anything that was false. Now it's you who is making false accusations.

The US government selects arbitrary, artificial numbers of visas that it issues each year. Every person that enters the country without a visa is said to be breaking a law.  This is true. They are breaking an arbitrary, artificial, impractical and unrealistic law.

Let's assume that there are 11 million "illegal" immigrants in the US. The reason is that there are roughly 11 million jobs that they are filling. By contrast, we issue fewer than 400,000 temporary work visas a year (source).

Why is it that we need 11 million more workers than we already have, but we refuse to let those workers enter the country legally? Why are we talking about erecting a wall to keep out the people who we need to fill those jobs?  Why are we not instead reforming our ridiculous immigration laws to reflect reality?

The answer, if you read my last post, is that we are blinded by our ignorance of our own past.  We are also blinded by our intolerance of differences, our xenophobia and racism.


----------



## Tsoman

xenophobia a personal choice that we should tolerate


----------



## maxiogee

Tsoman said:


> xenophobia a personal choice that we should tolerate



Send them all back to Xenoland! 
Let their Princess look after them!


----------



## fenixpollo

Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerate?


----------



## SaritaSarang

Building a wall wont keep immigrants out completley, it will only make it harder, but not impossible.  And besides, so much of American labor is done by Mexicans, they may not admit it but the government doesn't want to lose that, so i think there will always be some immigration.


----------



## Brioche

fenixpollo said:


> Every American, except the Native Americans, came from somewhere else. Every (non-Native) American is from an immigrant family. So every American -- whether he is black, white, brown, yellow or purple -- who is against immigrants, is going against his own brothers.


 
Does this mean that the _Garden of Eden_ was actually in what is now the USA - [assuming that you are a Biblical Literalist]. I understand that the LDS have a position on this.
or
does it mean that all those scientists, who say that we humans all evolved in Africa, have got it wrong?


----------



## beclija

It makes sense if you add "within historical time" after the first sentence, and define "immigrant" as "newcomer to a previously inhabited country" rather than just any "newcomer" (which would be part of the definition anyway, I guess - or would you call the Irish monks who first set foot on Iceland in the 7th century "immigrants"?)


----------



## fenixpollo

Brioche said:


> Does this mean that the _Garden of Eden_ was actually in what is now the USA - [assuming that you are a Biblical Literalist]. I understand that the LDS have a position on this.
> or
> does it mean that all those scientists, who say that we humans all evolved in Africa, have got it wrong?


Please don't assume that I'm a biblical literalist. My statement was actually very figurative in the sense that almost every American has an immigrant ancestor. (perhaps ps139 was objecting to the abstract nature of my statement).

Specifically, I mean that 99% of the current residents of the US are here because they or one of their ancestors migrated here since 1492. (source)

In a figurative sense, we are "brothers" in having come from somewhere else. We have a common heritage. Whatever the US is today, it is that way because immigrants made it so. 

The idea of building a wall to keep out immigrants goes against the history, culture and identity of the US.


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

Here I come with an old thread about this topic, just because  
Cheers.


----------



## loladamore

A very interesting thread, tigger, thanks. I'd like to echo one of perrodelmal's final statements:


> ... es vergonzoso tener una frontera totalmente libre para las mercancías pero celosamente guardada para las personas.


----------



## dtcarney

If the US really wants to curb illegal immigration, a wall isn't going to do anything, where there is a will there is a way.  Instead it needs to help Mexico develop more well paying jobs so that people don't have to leave their country.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

dtcarney said:


> If the US really wants to curb illegal immigration, a wall isn't going to do anything, where there is a will there is a way. Instead it needs to help Mexico develop more well paying jobs so that people don't have to leave their country.


It's a very ggos otion, but I think it's really far away of reality


----------

