# Muro fronterizo/border wall



## tigger_uhuhu

Hola...
No se si alguno ha visto en los noticiarios que México y EEUU tienen ahora una controvertida discusión debido a que EEUU planea la construcción de una muralla fronteriza para dividir ambos países y evitar la migración de mexicanos a EEUU.
Entiendo las razones de ambos gobiernos (Norteamérica para querer hacerlo y las de México para estar en contra)
¿Ustedes que opinan?

(If anyone be so kind to traslate to english I'll be grateful  )


----------



## fenixpollo

tigger said:
			
		

> Hello...
> I don't know if anyone has seen in the news that Mexico and the U.S. are having a controversial discussion because the U.S. plans to build a border wall to divide the two countries.
> I understand the reasons of each government (America's for wanting to do it and Mexico's for being against it).
> What do you think?


 ...........


----------



## fenixpollo

I have always been astounded by Americans that want to restrict immigration, despite the fact that it is one of the key pillars on which our country is built.  Try as I may, I can never convince the xenophobes that their ancestors were immigrants, too.  

There is already a wall, tigger.... it's just in pieces.  One piece runs through most every border town, and there's a large piece separating Tijuana from San Diego.  The xenophobes want to fill in the gaps in the large open spaces between.  It's not a radical departure from the current policy, and therefore not surprising that it is the xenophobes' next step -- to address the symptom (illegal crossings) rather than the problem (economic inequality).


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

Claro, y estoy de acuerdo con que es necesario frenar de alguna manera la entrada de migrantes mexicanos ilegales a los Estados Unidos, se ha vuelto algo practicamente incontrolable (por eso digo que entiendo la posición de EEUU)
Pero también entiendo que representa un golpe a la economía mexicana que espera la entrada del capital que mandan esas personas a sus familias en México (esta es la parte que entiendo del gob. Mexicano)
Creo que haría lo que fuera si alguien tratara de ingresar sin mi concentimiento a mi casa (por ejemplo), no me opongo ni lo apoyo, sino todo lo contrario  sólo me gustaria saber que opinan otras personas


----------



## Maria Juanita

Why do big countries go paranoid with inmigrants???

We can justify them by saying that they just want the preservation of traditional values and culture (ignoring the fact that maybe culture is nothing but a mixture of many different cultures and values). We can also say this behavior is due to prejudices and discrimination, like a fascist way of thinking regarding "those annoying strangers". But there are also economic and political reasons to fear inmigration phenomena. When I watch the news and see the situation in France and what happened with the banlieue, I wonder why do we humans have to take things to the extreme.

Saludillos...


----------



## jmx

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Try as I may, I can never convince the xenophobes that their ancestors were immigrants, too.


According to Samuel P. Huntington, the ancestors of the core WASP americans were not immigrants, but settlers. I think he has a point there.


----------



## fenixpollo

jmartins said:
			
		

> According to Samuel P. Huntington, the ancestors of the core WASP americans were not immigrants, but settlers.


Please explain the difference.  I can't see it.


----------



## hedonist

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Please explain the difference.  I can't see it.



You can't see it because there isn't any.


----------



## ampurdan

The settler arrives into another land and occupies it under the title of ownership. The immigrant arrives into another land and pays a rental to the descendants of the settlers.


----------



## jmx

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Please explain the difference. I can't see it.


Well, it's not difficult. An immigrant arrives to an already built society, and must adapt to that society. A settler arrives to a land that he perceives as _empty_, and reproduces as much as he can the culture from his country of origin, building a new society from zero. I think the difference is meaningful.


----------



## hedonist

jmartins said:
			
		

> According to Samuel P. Huntington, the ancestors of the core WASP americans were not immigrants, but settlers. I think he has a point there.



"Settlers"  my ass.  Yes the orginal WASPS "settlers" were no different to today's illegal aliens as they have forcibly set up camp  in these lands uninvited ever since. In fact they were much worse because they had no intention of  integrating and went about gradually and systematically eroding the cultures of their hosts instead. How's that for a thank you?


----------



## fenixpollo

You're assuming that America was a vacant land. The European immigrants, rather than pay rent to the proprietors and adapt to their culture, forcibly removed the Americans from their lands and then called themselves "settlers", building their society -- not from zero, but rebuilding a new version of their old society. 

The difference is only meaningful semantically. Practically speaking, the Europeans came from somewhere else, and therefore they are immigrants.  Call them "immigrants who settled the land" if you wish. 

If the American Indians had been wise enough and capable enough to erect a barrier, then where would this country be?


----------



## cuchuflete

jmartins said:
			
		

> According to Samuel P. Huntington, the ancestors of the core WASP americans were not immigrants, but settlers. I think he has a point there.


They were settlers.  They were refugees. They were religious outcasts.  Many were newly released from prison.

They were emigrants.


----------



## hedonist

jmartins said:
			
		

> An immigrant arrives to an already built society, .


I suppose since Native Americans were not humans but animals so their societies didn't count, correct?



			
				jmartins said:
			
		

> A settler arrives to a land that he perceives as _empty_,


Uhhhh...the operative word. *PERCEPTION.* Too bad for the Native Americans that the pious pilgrims didn't perceive them as the rightful owners of the "empty" land. How convenient.


----------



## ampurdan

I know there were Americans before the Mayflower left Southern Holland. The settlers were settlers because they thought themselves entitled to occupy that land, despite the "heathens" that already inhabited it. An immigrant knows and acknowledges that he is arriving to another's land, that's the reason why he accepts to pay the rental.


----------



## hedonist

ampurdan said:
			
		

> An immigrant knows and acknowledges that he is arriving to another's land, that's the reason why he accepts to pay the rental.


Those are european-made concepts.  Again a covenient line of reasoning because it ignores those that don't recognise them.




			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> The settlers were settlers because they thought themselves entitled to occupy that land,


What one *THINKS* isn't always based on what's real and true.


----------



## ampurdan

Not just a european-made concept, at least Africans applied it in Africa for the new-comers, unless they are conquerors/settlers long before they kept in touch with Europeans.
The reality is that a settler and an immigrant (as we use nowadays these words) are not the same thing. I couldn't stand someone who settled in my courtyard, but if it was large enough, I could look for a tenant farmer.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Re First Nations vs. settlers

As one native elder put it, "It's like inviting people in for breakfast and having them take over your entire house, kindly renting you your own attic as an afterthought".

Did you know that certain elements in the States are advocating a similar wall dividing Canada and the States?  There are already so-called "minute-men" conducting patrols along the borders in case we want to sneak into the States.  

All of my Oaxacan friends had family members working in the States, legally or otherwise.  As has already been pointed out, the economy depends on these workers.

In Canada our government refuses to sign onto an international agreement to protect the rights of migrant workers, saying that we don't have any.  At the same time that the government is busy denying their presence, several thousand Mexicans and Jamaicans arrive annually on work permits in the harvest season.  Their labour is essential, but some farmers treat them abominably.

Great topic for discussion, Tigger!


----------



## hedonist

ampurdan said:
			
		

> The reality is that a settler and an immigrant (as we use nowadays these words) are not the same thing.



You make the distinction because it suits your argument.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Not just a european-made concept, at least Africans applied it in Africa for the new-comers,



Whatever, I don't care what Africans did or din't apply.  Native Americans certainly had never come across such concepts and thus blissfully unaware of them.  They had their own rules to abide by.


----------



## ampurdan

The problem is that native Americans were not strong enough to make the "settlers" abide by their rules, otherwise, they would had been "immigrants".


----------



## hedonist

ampurdan said:
			
		

> The problem is that native Americans were not strong enough to make the "settlers" abide by their rules



Finally something we can agree on.  And that's exactly what illegal immigrants are doing today, only that they're doing it by stealth and not creating havoc and social instability in the process.   If illegal aliens were abiding by USA law they wouldn't be crossing the borders illegally in the first place and avoid paying taxes etc....


----------



## Brioche

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I have always been astounded by Americans that want to restrict immigration, despite the fact that it is one of the key pillars on which our country is built. Try as I may, I can never convince the xenophobes that their ancestors were immigrants, too.
> 
> There is already a wall, tigger.... it's just in pieces. One piece runs through most every border town, and there's a large piece separating Tijuana from San Diego. The xenophobes want to fill in the gaps in the large open spaces between. It's not a radical departure from the current policy, and therefore not surprising that it is the xenophobes' next step -- to address the symptom (illegal crossings) rather than the problem (economic inequality).


 
How many immigrants would you like? The entire population of South America? The entire population of India?

There is rather more than xenophobia in the opposition to undocumented arrivals. 

Those of us who live outside the US are constantly amazed at what is required of us if we want to _legally_ visit the US, _legally_ attend a school or college or _legally_ immigrate. All visa applicants are fingerprinted and interviewed. 

_Legal_ tourists, armed with passports, visas, onward tickets, and money to spend, are treated like criminals by Homeland Security, and threatened with all sorts of penalties if we overstay, try to work or enrol in a school.

Yet millions of undocumented arrivals just walk over the border, and completely ignore US law.

_Legal_ holders of education visas can attend a public high school for a maximum of one year, and cannot attend a kindergarden or elementary school. If a holder of a _legal_ education visa breaks these rules, they will be excluded from the US for 5 years.

Yet, undocumented immigrants are allowed to attend public schools, elementary or high, indefinitely(Plyler v Doe, 1982).


----------



## ampurdan

hedonist said:
			
		

> Finally something we can agree on.


 
That's precisely the point in distinguishing "settlers/conquerors" from "immigrants".



			
				hedonist said:
			
		

> And that's exactly what illegal immigrants are doing today, only that they're doing it by stealth and not creating havoc and social instability in the process.


 So, what's the problem? They are just trying to become citizens of our nations and states, they are not ignoring it.



			
				hedonist said:
			
		

> If illegal aliens were abiding by USA law they wouldn't be crossing the borders illegally in the first place and avoid paying taxes etc....


 Illegal aliens are not all immigrants. However, they are not "settlers" either, they don't come to live in your house, they come to do the work you don't want to do.


----------



## hedonist

ampurdan said:
			
		

> That's precisely the point in distinguishing "settlers/conquerors" from "immigrants".


Mmmmm...okay so you want illegal aliens to bear arms and start shooting people who get in their way for them to have a legitimate claim on US soil. Interesting.



> So, what's the problem? They are just trying to become citizens of our nations and states, they are not ignoring it.


Some are trying to become good US citizens and adopt WASPS values. True. But generally they're insidiously overtaking cities and states like the Cubans have successfully done in Miami without fully assimilating to WASP culture. 



> Illegal aliens are not all immigrants. However, they are not "settlers" either, they don't come to live in your house, they come to do the work you don't want to do.


You can harp on till the cows come home on the nuances of  what makes an immigrant, settler, etc.... It doesn't make an ounce of difference in the end. Their just words that convey a completely different meaning depending on the perspective of the individual that says it.


----------



## ampurdan

I didn't know that to be a good citizen in the USA you should have to adopt WASP values. I guess all those American Blacks, Catholics and Hispanics/Latinos in your country have a hard time behaving like a WASP in public and keeping their personal culture by themselves. I don't want my country to demand the adoption of the my faith and culture, specially when my country does not demand it from its current citizens. I just require respect from the immigrants.

As for illegal aliens bearing arms, you know I've never said so and that nothing in my statements implies it.

As for the alien conspiration against America... Why don't you put it down and call Hollywood?


----------



## cuchuflete

We have seen some....er....interesting assertions in this discussion.  Some are closer to my notion of reality than others, which proves nothing more than that there are two or more people discussing things.  Thanks Ampurdan, for your last post.  It has reassured me that 2+2 comes out somewhere between 3 and 5.

Back to the original thread topic, if I may.

The wall is a stupid idea.  It's a cheap, though very costly, promotional stunt by an administration that likes to paint scary pictures of supposed terrifying threats.  Some are real, some are not.

The Mexican economy needs remitances from workers in the US.  The US economy needs the skills and low cost labor of Mexican workers.  That sounds like symbiosis to me.

There is a ridiculously simple solution:  work visas, without a lot of red tape and burrrrrocratic nonsense on either side of the border.  

There are political issues that get in the way of common sense.  That doesn't make the proposed wall anything other than (1)a needless expense to US taxpayers (2)an ineffective way to address illegal immigration(3)an affront to a neighbor.

I'd like to be objective and even-handed and say something in favor of the proposition, but I can't find anything to offer.


----------



## luis masci

tigger_uhuhu said:
			
		

> Hola...
> No se si alguno ha visto en los noticiarios que México y EEUU tienen ahora una controvertida discusión debido a que EEUU planea la construcción de una muralla fronteriza para dividir ambos países y evitar la migración de mexicanos a EEUU.
> Entiendo las razones de ambos gobiernos (Norteamérica para querer hacerlo y las de México para estar en contra)
> ¿Ustedes que opinan?


 
En respuesta a la original, si ya había escuchado al respecto.
Que opinión merece? Y…que se puede decir…que es un retroceso de la civilización. Tanto se festejó el derrumbe del muro de Berlín y para que? Para crear ahora otro? 
Es como que la humanidad va dando vueltas en círculo, por ahí parece que avanzamos...pero entonces vuelta atrás.
No solo veo ese hipotético muro como una  señal de darle la espalda a México, sino a toda Latinoamérica (la frontera es entre EEUU y México por una cuestión geográfica pero en realidad hay latinos de todos los países tratando de llegar a “La Meca” moderna).
Por ahí he escuchado que en realidad USA no tiene intenciones serias de terminar con los inmigrantes ilegales, ya que estos son una mano de obra muy barata (ya que son contratados “en negro”) para los trabajos que nadie querría hacer. No se cuanto habrá de cierto en eso.


----------



## Everness

Maybe some walls aren't a bad idea...  Interestingly enough, this article makes reference to the wall (fence sounds better) the United States is building to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants. 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

Let's keep our minds open...


----------



## fenixpollo

Brioche said:
			
		

> Yet millions of undocumented arrivals just walk over the border, and completely ignore US law.


 VERY good points, Brioche... which is exactly why a wall is the wrong idea. Let's address the economic issues, approach the visa issue rationally, as cuchu says, and if you are concerned about jobs, enforce the laws we already have. Building a wall is just another distraction. The problem won't go away by throwing money into a boondoggle. 





			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> How many immigrants would you like? The entire population of South America? The entire population of India?


 No need to get flippant, now. My point is that every country in North and South America is what it is today because of immigrants. Call them settlers or whatever you want to call them, but in the end they are people who came from somewhere else. If you ask the people who want to erect the wall (I'm talking here about the self-described 'Merkin patriots) where their families are from, they will tell you "America", and they will deny that theirs are immigrant families until they turn a frustrated strawberry color -- which is hypocritcal, pathological, immoral and just plain stupid.

I don't think that we could reasonably let in every Tram, Ahmed and José that wants to come to the U.S., but there has to be a middle ground between walls and floodgates, between racial quotas and Lady Liberty.


----------



## siljam

Lo que nunca voy a entender es la razón por la que tantos latinos que viven
mal en sus países, están dispuestos a cualquier sacrificio con tal de llegar a
USA y poder vivir allí tan mal o peor que en su patria.


----------



## ampurdan

Siljam says he does not understand why so many "latinos" who live poorly in their countries, are willing to bear any sacrifice in order to arrive in the USA, where they find conditions as dire as in their native countries or even direr.

I say it's because of many reasons. I guess the first of them is that when you are in dire straits, you don't care to go no matter where things (you perceive that) has more possibilities to get better to you. I guess the second one is that the USA exports an image of great country where their inhabitants, no matter where they come from, live in an affluent dream.


----------



## Quebar

hola 
bueno este tipo de divisiones afectan las relaciones comerciales de estos dos paises, hoy en dia estamos en un mundo globalizado y este tipo de divisiones, van en contra del mover del momento que es la globalizacion, agora los problemas con la inmigracion se pueden arreglar sin necesidad de construir un muro divisorio que lo unico que puede llegar a traer son problemas diplomaticos, creo que los senados junto con sus presidentes deben reunirse y crear politicas fronterizas, en donde no se afecte lña soberania ni mexicana ni estado unidense.

gracias por su atencion.


----------



## asm

I think the difference between settlers and immigrants, according to Samuel P. Huntington, is just a euphemism. There are different types of immigrants; black people came to America for different reasons than White Europeans. Mexicans are coming for different reason than those that allowed the Pilgrims to come. However, all of them are immigrants, no matter their reasons; semantic patches do not overcome the historic and economic forces of immigration. The US did not invent migration.
 
It is interesting that Reagan is famous for his statement “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” while his successor is building a new wall to separate two countries; what a contradiction!




			
				tigger_uhuhu said:
			
		

> Hola...
> No se si alguno ha visto en los noticiarios que México y EEUU tienen ahora una controvertida discusión debido a que EEUU planea la construcción de una muralla fronteriza para dividir ambos países y evitar la migración de mexicanos a EEUU.
> Entiendo las razones de ambos gobiernos (Norteamérica para querer hacerlo y las de México para estar en contra)
> ¿Ustedes que opinan?
> 
> (If anyone be so kind to traslate to english I'll be grateful  )


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

luis masci said:
			
		

> En respuesta a la original, si ya había escuchado al respecto.
> Que opinión merece? Y…que se puede decir…que es un retroceso de la civilización. Tanto se festejó *el derrumbe del muro de Berlín *y para que? Para crear ahora otro?
> Es como que la humanidad va dando vueltas en círculo, por ahí parece que avanzamos...pero entonces vuelta atrás.
> No solo veo ese hipotético muro como una  señal de *darle la espalda *a México, sino *a toda Latinoamérica *(la frontera es entre EEUU y México por una cuestión geográfica pero en realidad hay latinos de todos los países tratando de llegar a “La Meca” moderna).
> Por ahí he escuchado que en realidad USA no tiene intenciones serias de terminar con los inmigrantes ilegales, ya que estos son una mano de obra muy barata (ya que son contratados “en negro”) para los trabajos que nadie querría hacer. No se cuanto habrá de cierto en eso.



No había pensado en lo que apuntas, Luis, pero creo que tienes mucho de razón, el muro no sólo limita a los mexicanos indocumentados sino al resto de migrantes americanos.


----------



## Noel Acevedo

tigger_uhuhu said:
			
		

> Claro, y estoy de acuerdo con que es necesario frenar de alguna manera la entrada de migrantes mexicanos ilegales a los Estados Unidos, se ha vuelto algo practicamente incontrolable (por eso digo que entiendo la posición de EEUU)
> Pero también entiendo que representa un golpe a la economía mexicana que espera la entrada del capital que mandan esas personas a sus familias en México (esta es la parte que entiendo del gob. Mexicano)
> Creo que haría lo que fuera si alguien tratara de ingresar sin mi concentimiento a mi casa (por ejemplo), no me opongo ni lo apoyo, sino todo lo contrario  sólo me gustaria saber que opinan otras personas


 
Tigger,

Esto es parte de la hiprocresía de los estadounidenses, su nación surge de inmigrantes. Estos hacen los trabajos manuales, duros que ya sus ciudadanos no quieren realizar.  Les dejan ganacias millonarias, pero prefieren impedirque los que están en malas mejoren su situación.  Hay mucho de racismo en estas motivaciones xenofobitas, ya que quienes empujan la muralla y legislación migratoria más exigente son los conservaores de la ultra derecha de EE UU, predominantemente blancos.

Noel


Noel


----------



## perrodelmal

Hot thread, indeed.

 Pienso hablar como mexicano porque no me puedo abstraer de eso. También lo manifiesto desde ya: soy anti-gringo. No tengo nada en contra de los "US citizens" solamente contra su gobierno y su forma de actuar no ahora, sino desde hace siglos.

Antes que nada, aclaro: yo no vengo a defender los derechos de los "native americans" como les dicen ahora. Lo que pasó pasó, si perdimos la mitad del territorio, o que si exterminaron a nuestros ancestros ya no me importa; tampoco me interesa recuperar nada, porque eso ya no es de nosotros y dejó de serlo hace mucho tiempo ya. 
Lo que sí encabrona es que quieran ponerle términos pendejos a lo que pasó, que si fuckin' immigrants, que si fuckin' settlers... por favor! ¿Por qué no tienen huevos para decirle a las cosas por su nombre? Yo quiero escuchar a los estadounidenses decir "Sí, los matamos, ¿y qué?" "Sí, somos gandallas, ¿y qué?" Eso es todo. A las cosas por su nombre y que nadie se asuste, lo que pasó pasó, pero no lo quieran cambiar o suavizar pues. Quizá hicieron lo que tenían que hacer... pero lo hicieron.

Ahora sí, de regreso al thread. Veo con tristeza como las personas y las instituciones se desgarran las vestiduras de indignación por un pinche muro estúpido. ¿Qué tiene de malo que el vecino rico de la cuadra quiera bardear su propiedad? Están en todo su derecho, quieren proteger lo que es suyo y nadie puede impedírselos. Yo creo que todo esto es más bien por lo que representa el muro o valla o como sea que se llame: que no somos bienvenidos.

 ¿A alguien le quedaba duda antes del muro? Yo creo que a nadie.
Ah pero que nos lo echen en cara con un muro eso sí que ya calienta, ¿o no? Tonterías, puras tonterías, ¿por qué darle tanta importancia a algo que es obvio y que muy probablemente nosotros haríamos en su lugar?

He escuchado comparaciones con el muro de Berlín... ¡Por favor! No es ni la misma situación, ni la misma época, ni el mismo contexto pero sobretodo no es el mismo objetivo: el de Berlín era para contener personas dentro de un área geográfica delimitada, el de E.E.U.U. es para impedir que entren.

¿Ustedes creen que un muro impedirá la inmigración ilegal? Somos mucho más astutos que eso. El muro servirá para poner más trabas, un obstáculo más, encarecer los costos de los traficantes de personas y de drogas, y para elevar el número de muertos. Pero nada más. Seguramente desalentará a algunos, ¿cuánto? ¿un 5%? ¿un 10%? perfecto, para USA el muro ya sirvió para algo. Dejen que construyan el muro, si eso les da seguridad pues que sean felices.

 El problema no es el muro, insisto, no vea el árbol, aléjese unos metros y contemple todo el bosque.

La idea de darle importancia al muro es de los gobiernos, es algo para distraer, para llamar al orgullo nacionalista pero el verdadero problema es la reforma para considerar como criminal a cualquier persona ilegal dentro de territorio estadounidense.

Imaginen el escenario, policías arrestando a ilegales, sus hijos nacidos ahí sin educación, sin nacionalidad, sin derecho a servicios médicos... yo me pregunto, si un hijo de ilegales nacido en USA no es estadounidense ¿entonces qué es? ¿cuál es su nacionalidad?

 También tendremos otro escenario:

¿Qué va a pasar con Jesús Ramírez cuando lo vea la policía caminando por la calle, aún cuando Jesús no habla ni jota de español, nunca ha vivido en México y lo único que sabe de él es que sus abuelos eran de ahí?

 ¿Tendrá que portar su identificación pegada a su saco para que todo mundo vea que es estadounidense?

Ese es el verdadero problema, las actitudes xenófobas que vemos con mayor frecuencia y con mayor tolerancia en USA para con las personas de origen hispano.

Ahora tampoco crean que los estadounidenses tienen la culpa de este asunto, los verdaderos culpables son los gobiernos latinoamericanos que han sido incapaces de sacar de la pobreza a nuestros pueblos. Los mismos que ahora llaman "héroes" a los que obligaron a salir para buscar una mejor vida y que se benefician de los miles de millones de dólares que anualmente envían.

Además, la bronca también está en que los latinoamericanos no se desprenden de su cultura, no quieren adoptar la cultura popular americana, ni sus valores, ni sus costumbres, a veces ni su idioma ¿cómo esperamos aceptación si en vez de adecuarnos al entorno tratamos de adaptarlo al que teníamos en otro lado?

Por otro lado es un hecho que hay trabajos que no quieren hacer los gringos igual que los europeos en sus respectivos países, no nos hagamos guajes, sin esas personas ¿quién haría esos trabajos? Nadie. Y menos por esa plata.

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

 ¿Por qué no dejarnos de babosadas acusatorias y ponernos a trabajar en algo que nos beneficie a todos?

La inmigración ilegal es un hecho y no hay marcha atrás, es un problema y hay que hacer algo para solucionarlo; la falta de mano de obra barata en E.E.U.U. es un problema aquí y ahora y hay que solucionarlo ya.

 Falta voluntad política para hacerlo, ¿quién está dispuesto a entrarle al problema a costa de su carrera política?


----------

