An Upside of Immigration Inforcement

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Alex, they suffer from selective empathy. If you are citizen of an oil rich country then empathy makes for foreign policy.

so while you're feeling all of this altruism, have you done anything financially for mexico? sent them any money? made it a point to purchase goods only made in mexico? supported a child in poverty there?

edit to add: same questions for you, alex

First off, didn't you just get married? Don't you have somewhere better to be?

But as to the question: do you really think me sending them money (not really an option for me to send money to anyone) or give to a Mexican child is actually more useful than supporting free trade? Which, by the way, I do. I buy free-trade items when I can. I believe we as a country should support politicians who believe in this sort of thing. Because one person can make a difference, but frankly it doesn't amount to much in this case.

I think your viewpoint is very short-sighted and actually depressingly defeatist, since I'm sure you know as well as I do that giving a child 10 dollars a day will not help all poor children.

Amen, sister. Finally somebody talking about real solutions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you're going to post numbers, at least post the right ones. In 2005, when my hardship letter was written, the per capita GDP of Mexico, according to the CIA World Factbook, was $9,600. You may think that $400 doesn't really constitute a big deal, or something worthy of posting, but that kind of exaggeration to try and strengthen an argument tends to weaken it when the reality of things is presented. There's a big difference between $10,000 and $9,600, much more than the literal $400...

Oh yeah, I absolutely agree. $400.00 is a huge difference. Must be. After all, that $400.00 (while only 4% of the $9,600.00 that Mexico logged in 2005) represents about half the per capita GDP for Ethiopia which is at a stunning $900.00. Just thought I'd throw this in here in case you really wanted to talk about horribly poor countries and poverty. In the grand scheme of things, Mexico ain't doing all that bad. It really ain't.

But isn't this all relative to the cost of living?

Yes and no. While $100.00 here buys considerably less on many fronts than $100.00 would there, the per capita GDP is a pretty good indicator of how well a country and it's population does or doesn't do economically.

[peezey 0]

There is nothing wrong with being a nationalist. I never considered myself a citizen of the world. I have never said that the US shouldn't help other countries, but there is a limit.

Since you aren't a citizen of the world, do you only buy American? Do you never travel? Do you boycott all cheaply imported goods that contribute to loss of manufacturing jobs in the US? Have you changed your methods of fueling your life, eg, your car, your home, so that dependence on foreign oil is not a necessity for you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mexico has been growing corn for 10,000 years. But today the corn sector is in a state of acute crisis. Household incomes are in decline, and nutrition is deteriorating. Across Mexico, millions of people are migrating in a desperate bid to escape rural poverty, many of them intent on reaching the US. In the southern state of Chiapas, where the corn crisis has interacted with a collapse in coffee prices, it is estimated that 70 per cent of the rural population now live in extreme poverty.

....

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico has rapidly opened its markets to imports from the US, including corn. Since the early 1990s, US corn exports to Mexico have expanded by a factor of three. These exports now account for almost one third of the domestic market.

Surging imports have been associated with a steep decline in prices. Real prices for Mexican corn have fallen more than 70 per cent since 1994. For the 15 million Mexicans who depend on the crop, declining prices translate into declining incomes and increased hardship. Many people can no longer afford basic health care. Women have suffered disproportionately. Male migration and falling incomes have increased the labor demands on them, both on household farms and in income-generating activity beyond the household.

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

In its official reports to the WTO, the US denies using any export subsidies in the corn sector. That denial is justified in terms of the letter of WTO law, which currently defines export subsidies as a payment that bridges the gap between (higher) world prices and (lower) export prices. The problem is that the WTO regulations relating to agriculture are deeply flawed. They fail to acknowledge that transfers to producers include a de facto export subsidy.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/...e/bp50_corn.htm

[mawilson 2,133]

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

I thought you supported protectionism, Steven. Didn't you argue for the imposition

of duties or quotas on imports, protection of domestic industries against overseas

competition, expansion of domestic employment?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're for free markets and free trade (which may

hurt American workers and jobs) or you're against it (and it's the Mexicans who will

get the shaft.)

[Ban Hammer 13,898]

First off, didn't you just get married? Don't you have somewhere better to be?

But as to the question: do you really think me sending them money (not really an option for me to send money to anyone) or give to a Mexican child is actually more useful than supporting free trade? Which, by the way, I do. I buy free-trade items when I can. I believe we as a country should support politicians who believe in this sort of thing. Because one person can make a difference, but frankly it doesn't amount to much in this case.

I think your viewpoint is very short-sighted and actually depressingly defeatist, since I'm sure you know as well as I do that giving a child 10 dollars a day will not help all poor children.

i'm at work

so all this talk on your part of helping mexico yet you don't do anything other than buy free trade (i.e. from china)? how do you sleep at night?

Mexico has been growing corn for 10,000 years. But today the corn sector is in a state of acute crisis. Household incomes are in decline, and nutrition is deteriorating. Across Mexico, millions of people are migrating in a desperate bid to escape rural poverty, many of them intent on reaching the US. In the southern state of Chiapas, where the corn crisis has interacted with a collapse in coffee prices, it is estimated that 70 per cent of the rural population now live in extreme poverty.

10,000 years? so um who was harvesting this before mexico became mexico?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

I thought you supported protectionism, Steven. Didn't you argue for the imposition

of duties or quotas on imports, protection of domestic industries against overseas

competition, expansion of domestic employment?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're for free markets and free trade (which may

hurt American workers and jobs) or you're against it (and it's the Mexicans who will

get the shaft.)

Mark, you're being short-sighted to not see that by ensuring fair trade we ARE protecting our interests. NAFTA was ratified primarily because it promised to reduce illegal immigration. It failed miserably at that by dumping onto Mexican farmers, heavily subsidized agriculture forcing millions of Mexican farmers out of business, which fueled the influx of illegal immigration over the last decade. I'm for protecting American jobs, but not at the expense of our neighbors, and certainly not at the cost of creating an even larger immigraton problem.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Since when do you need a passport to go to Mexico?

george washington is your passport

Yes, please do try that. Just thinking about you being excluded at the US border... Well, you're a gringo, so you'll probably have plenty of luck with the Senoritas (or so you'll assume). lmao.

he asked about getting into mexico, not the usa

The first time I ever went to Mexico, last July, when passports weren't even required yet...the Mexican immigration lady accepted my birth certificate but told me I needn't try returning to Mexico without a passport.

People cross over to Mexico all the time. What always happens whenever someone escapes from prison or is yet to be caught for a crime-we always hear that they may have fled to Mexico. I heard a country music song about this very thing a few months ago-the "gringo" like killed someone and then headed over to Mexico and met a "Senorita" and fell in love, and then happy ever after. I mean think about it-why is it that I'm asked every week by people at church if I plan to move to Mexico to be with Javier. Why is it that in our wedding invitations, we have to include a page telling people that they need a passport-face it, Americans are dumb, and for whatever reason, we feel as though we should have the right to go wherever we darn well please, but ain't NOBODY coming into this country undocumented because this is America. If someone crosses over into this country illegally, well they're just a no-good, disrespectful criminal, but an American doing something similar, well, they just made a mistake. "Oh, I didn't know I needed a passport...." please!!!

HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference in your examples. What's the ratio of illegal Mexicans in the US versus illegal USCs in Mexico? 100,000 to 1? Be honest.

How much international travel have you done yourself?

You obviously don't know how hard it is to get a Visa to stay in Mexico. Trust me, there's PLENTY of illegal Americans in Mexico. Just because you don't hear about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. If I ever wanted to live with Javier in Mexico, I may very well end up "illegal" because, after seeing their requirements to get a Visa even to just live with my husband, let alone work, I'm not at all confident in the least that I would get one.

You didn't answer my questions.

[peejay 327]

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

I thought you supported protectionism, Steven. Didn't you argue for the imposition

of duties or quotas on imports, protection of domestic industries against overseas

competition, expansion of domestic employment?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're for free markets and free trade (which may

hurt American workers and jobs) or you're against it (and it's the Mexicans who will

get the shaft.)

Mark, you're being short-sighted to not see that by ensuring fair trade we ARE protecting our interests. NAFTA was ratified primarily because it promised to reduce illegal immigration. It failed miserably at that by dumping onto Mexican farmers, heavily subsidized agriculture forcing millions of Mexican farmers out of business, which fueled the influx of illegal immigration over the last decade. I'm for protecting American jobs, but not at the expense of our neighbors, and certainly not at the cost of creating an even larger immigraton problem.

Illegal immigration from Mexico predated NAFTA.

The root cause of the present problem is the 1986 amnesty and the failure to enforce the law as was promised to the American people.

There are a myriad of sanctions that can be brought to bear against illegal aliens and their employers.

The truth is that we get what we tolerate. If illegal immigration is given zero tolerance...it will slow to a minute trickle. The sad truth is that illegal immigration has been tolerated by our government in spite of laws that are already the law of our land.

[Traviesa 0]

Since when do you need a passport to go to Mexico?

george washington is your passport

Yes, please do try that. Just thinking about you being excluded at the US border... Well, you're a gringo, so you'll probably have plenty of luck with the Senoritas (or so you'll assume). lmao.

he asked about getting into mexico, not the usa

The first time I ever went to Mexico, last July, when passports weren't even required yet...the Mexican immigration lady accepted my birth certificate but told me I needn't try returning to Mexico without a passport.

People cross over to Mexico all the time. What always happens whenever someone escapes from prison or is yet to be caught for a crime-we always hear that they may have fled to Mexico. I heard a country music song about this very thing a few months ago-the "gringo" like killed someone and then headed over to Mexico and met a "Senorita" and fell in love, and then happy ever after. I mean think about it-why is it that I'm asked every week by people at church if I plan to move to Mexico to be with Javier. Why is it that in our wedding invitations, we have to include a page telling people that they need a passport-face it, Americans are dumb, and for whatever reason, we feel as though we should have the right to go wherever we darn well please, but ain't NOBODY coming into this country undocumented because this is America. If someone crosses over into this country illegally, well they're just a no-good, disrespectful criminal, but an American doing something similar, well, they just made a mistake. "Oh, I didn't know I needed a passport...." please!!!

HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference in your examples. What's the ratio of illegal Mexicans in the US versus illegal USCs in Mexico? 100,000 to 1? Be honest.

How much international travel have you done yourself?

You obviously don't know how hard it is to get a Visa to stay in Mexico. Trust me, there's PLENTY of illegal Americans in Mexico. Just because you don't hear about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. If I ever wanted to live with Javier in Mexico, I may very well end up "illegal" because, after seeing their requirements to get a Visa even to just live with my husband, let alone work, I'm not at all confident in the least that I would get one.

You didn't answer my questions.

Ok to the first question-I have no idea what the ratio would be, or how to even go about determining a ratio like that. The fact is you don't hear much about the Americans currently living legally or illegally in Mexico. It is in Mexico's best interests to tolerate the Americans that are there illegally, for seemingly obvious reasons. So as to the number of Americans living there illegally, I don't know. We obviously think we know how many illegal Mexicans are here. I hear several numbers tossed around all above 10 million. I can say that there's almost certainly not anywhere near that number of Americans who either enter or live in Mexico illegally...but what difference does it make? Not a whole lot to me. In my opinion, I look more favorably upon a Mexican who crosses the border to make a living for himself or his family-he's certainly not the only one, and I think his motives are noble; than an American who, for selfish reasons, decides to go to another country-any country-and live illegally. In that case it's obviously not about survival, it's about self. That's the criminal to me. As for your other question about my world travelling, I have only been to Mexico 3 times, and that's it.

[Alex+R 0]

First off, didn't you just get married? Don't you have somewhere better to be?

But as to the question: do you really think me sending them money (not really an option for me to send money to anyone) or give to a Mexican child is actually more useful than supporting free trade? Which, by the way, I do. I buy free-trade items when I can. I believe we as a country should support politicians who believe in this sort of thing. Because one person can make a difference, but frankly it doesn't amount to much in this case.

I think your viewpoint is very short-sighted and actually depressingly defeatist, since I'm sure you know as well as I do that giving a child 10 dollars a day will not help all poor children.

i'm at work

so all this talk on your part of helping mexico yet you don't do anything other than buy free trade (i.e. from china)? how do you sleep at night?

Oops, "free-trade" was a typo. I meant to say "fair-trade." Does that help?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One of the primary factors behind the advantage US corn has in the Mexican market is US government payments to the sector. The US corn sector is the largest single recipient of US government payments. In 2000, government pay-outs totaled $10.1bn. To put this figure in context, it is some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget.

I thought you supported protectionism, Steven. Didn't you argue for the imposition

of duties or quotas on imports, protection of domestic industries against overseas

competition, expansion of domestic employment?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're for free markets and free trade (which may

hurt American workers and jobs) or you're against it (and it's the Mexicans who will

get the shaft.)

Mark, you're being short-sighted to not see that by ensuring fair trade we ARE protecting our interests. NAFTA was ratified primarily because it promised to reduce illegal immigration. It failed miserably at that by dumping onto Mexican farmers, heavily subsidized agriculture forcing millions of Mexican farmers out of business, which fueled the influx of illegal immigration over the last decade. I'm for protecting American jobs, but not at the expense of our neighbors, and certainly not at the cost of creating an even larger immigraton problem.

Illegal immigration from Mexico predated NAFTA.

The root cause of the present problem is the 1986 amnesty and the failure to enforce the law as was promised to the American people.

There are a myriad of sanctions that can be brought to bear against illegal aliens and their employers.

The truth is that we get what we tolerate. If illegal immigration is given zero tolerance...it will slow to a minute trickle. The sad truth is that illegal immigration has been tolerated by our government in spite of laws that are already the law of our land.

That is true and was tantamount to getting NAFTA ratified by Congress (as a promise to signficantly reduce illegal immigration). I never suggested that NAFTA caused the entire problem but it significantly made it worse and will continue to make it so until we get that trade agreement restructured. Can anyone here say they AREN'T in favor of fair trade? I honestly think that is the single, most significant issue that Congress can address to help solve our illegal immigration.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[mawilson 2,133]

Can anyone here say they AREN'T in favor of fair trade?

Can you define fair trade?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can anyone here say they AREN'T in favor of fair trade?

Can you define fair trade?

I can define it in generic terms - trade agreements that do give unfair advantage to one member over another that. Contrary to Milton Friedman's premise, capital (profit) should not be the only determining factor with trade policy.

* Free trade favors large corporations, not Mexico’s many small-scale farmers, artisans, and businesses.

* Smaller producers and service providers lack capital or access to credit, technical and marketing assistance, and delivery systems.

* The export orientation of Mexico’s economy calls for the production of basic commodities, which face steep competition from foreign, subsidized products, are highly vulnerable to global price fluctuations, and generate minimal profit margins.

* Foreign sales are usually managed by nonlocal companies, minimizing benefits for producer communities.

* Agriculture, manufacturing, and tourism operations under pressure to compete according to the terms of free trade overlook sound natural resource management practices.

Fair trade is driven by a market in which supply and demand are guided by social conscience. A number of organizations in Mexico have adapted fair trade principles to the Mexican context. For instance, in 1998, Guadalajara, Jalisco-based environmental NGO Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco convened a workshop with European fair trade organizations in order to define a set of fair trade objectives and principles. Their conclusions: The needs of local and regional economies should be a priority in business decisions; environmental costs and social criteria should be taken into account in every activity; undesirable intermediaries should be eliminated to maximize financial benefits for producers; product and producer diversity should be supported; and local and regional goods and service providers, as well as consumers, should cooperate to organize themselves; consumer education should be promoted through reliable labeling, communication, and publicity.

http://www.irc-online.org/americaspolicy/c...e-movement.html

[Peikko 1,575]

Is Fair Trade ever going to be more than a 'trendy' liberal fad? I guess not if people like to shop in Walmart.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Purple_Hibiscus