Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Apeman81 Unless the United States were able to, a) stop all future illegal immigration, b) find and deport every illegal alien currently performing the jobs related to the industries you mentioned at one time, and c) stopped all legal immigration of people who would be willing to take the place of the removed illegal aliens, your dire assertion of “grinding to a halt” would not come to pass. Many other nations are perfectly capable of running an economy without the huge influx of illegal workers. Automation and modernization, especially in the area of agriculture, have not been adapted in the United States as they have not been required. Cheap labor allows for a lowered investment in expensive machinery. Legal workers would be as willing to “to provide a better life for their families.” In so doing, the tax drain would be eliminated. Sir, the plain truth is that Mexico is turning a blind eye to the illegal traffic of law breakers and international border scoffers to enter the U.S. because the Mexican Government has not incentive of doing otherwise. The corruption inherent to its government along with the highly stratified wealth distribution means that each border crosser leaving Mexico is an automatic betterment to the Mexican economy. Let us not confuse the issue. The question is not one of immigration, but of illegal immigration. The flow of wealth from our nation as well as the lack of taxation of wages to illegal immigrants draws from our economy.

NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) -- The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio -- i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person -- will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...v2234.doc.html

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Disinterested NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) -- The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates. United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio -- i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person -- will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2. Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...v2234.doc.html

Let us not confuse the issue. The question is not one of immigration, but of illegal immigration.

[Protostar]

Disinterested, why do you think we care about the UN?

[Disinterested]

Using your distinction then you'd have no problem if a guest worker program were instituted in the U.S. that allowed for open immigration for as long as work was available, right?

[Protostar]

Quote by: Disinterested Using your distinction then you'd have no problem if a guest worker program were instituted in the U.S. that allowed for open immigration for as long as work was available, right?

You talking to me? I would have no problem with it so long as they didn't take advantage of any social services available to US citizens (medical assistance, schooling, etc) and that there was a stipulation that the children of illegal immigrants would still be illegal and no automatic US citizens. Also any illegal guilty of any crime would be automatically deported and if they attempted to cross again they would be shot on sight. But we all know that wouldn't happen so no I don't support it.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Protostar You talking to me? I would have no problem with it so long as they didn't take advantage of any social services available to US citizens (medical assistance, schooling, etc) and that there was a stipulation that the children of illegal immigrants would still be illegal and no automatic US citizens. Also any illegal guilty of any crime would be automatically deported and if they attempted to cross again they would be shot on sight. But we all know that wouldn't happen so no I don't support it.

You sound like a national socialist (aka nazi).

[Protostar]

Quote by: Disinterested So the U.S. should do things that shoot themselves in the foot because other nations do things that shoot themselves in the foot. That makes sense. Did you know that although Mexico sits on some of the world's largest oil deposits, they cannot get them out of the ground because Mexican law states that their can be no foreign firms in the oil industry in Mexico? The state controlled firm Pemex has a monopoly on all things oil. Furthermore, no Mexican oil can be exported since it's a "strategic resource." This combination of not allowing foreign expertise and capital into Mexico to get the oil out of the ground, refine it, and distribute it is killing their economy never mind their inability to export it and make a killing. Protectionism is a bad, bad thing for everyone involved.

You are still describing MEXICAN problems, not US problems. What they do with their oil is their business. You are highlighting Mexican problems, but what does that have to do with the US and why should we care?

[Protostar]

Quote by: Disinterested You sound like a national socialist (aka nazi).

I'm about as far from a socialist as you can get. I am a radical libertarian, but one point where I deviate from the party is on border policy.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Disinterested Using your distinction then you'd have no problem if a guest worker program were instituted in the U.S. that allowed for open immigration for as long as work was available, right?

I would not say "no problem" in relation to a guest worker program. The current iteration of this idea being advanced is one that legitimizes the illegals already here. While I can see logic in doing this as a one time fix to the situation, I would not advocate it be used as a replacement to effort to stem illegal immigration.

A proper Guest Worker program would include the asking and granting of permission to enter the country in a legal manner, with documentation and the ability to screen applicants before entry.

If such a policy would maintain its own economic viability, and was reliable enough to give an adequate assurance of screening entrants, it would then only leave the drain of wealth that would occur as some portion of their earning were used to support a family in the foreign nation form whence the guest worker came.

To this point, the economic measure of this drain would then need to be weighed against the affect upon the economy of the loss of this labor. I am not convinced that the long term affects of modernization and automation of industry to replace the loss of labor would be more deleterious than the outflow of wealth.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Are you saying there are no Mexicans smart enough to poke a hole in the ground? You underestimate them. They are doing what China is doing. Waiting us out. They will have leverage when we run out, because they are not in the same mad rush to exhaust our non-renewable resource. Its strategy, not stupidity.

Drilling and Exploration is expensive. Furthermore, China does allow foreign expertise and capital in regards to the energy industry whereas Mexico doesn't. Mexico doesn't have a lot of capital of its own to invest in the energy sector mainly because of exportation limits on oil. It's a chicken and egg thing. If you can't sell your oil to the highest bidder, you can't reap profits with which to reinvest in further drilling and exploration and refinery technology now can you? As a result, your infrastructure suffers and you lose out to competition that can export their oil such as Venezuela.

Without disrespect intended towards anyone replying to me, most of you are ignorant xenophobes.

I may not be long for this forum. I was hoping for intelligent spirited debate, but am fast finding myself attacked by mendacious ignorance.

Oh well. Have fun trashing those who present a world view that is accurate yet incongruous with yours.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Protostar I'm about as far from a socialist as you can get. I am a radical libertarian, but one point where I deviate from the party is on border policy.

I'm making an observation not a value judgment.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Apeman81 I would not say "no problem" in relation to a guest worker program. The current iteration of this idea being advanced is one that legitimizes the illegals already here. While I can see logic in doing this as a one time fix to the situation, I would not advocate it be used as a replacement to effort to stem illegal immigration. A proper Guest Worker program would include the asking and granting of permission to enter the country in a legal manner, with documentation and the ability to screen applicants before entry. If such a policy would maintain its own economic viability, and was reliable enough to give an adequate assurance of screening entrants, it would then only leave the drain of wealth that would occur as some portion of their earning were used to support a family in the foreign nation form whence the guest worker came. To this point, the economic measure of this drain would then need to be weighed against the affect upon the economy of the loss of this labor. I am not convinced that the long term affects of modernization and automation of industry to replace the loss of labor would be more deleterious than the outflow of wealth.

You're living in a fantasy world. By definition, illegal immigration is not draining the u.s. economy; it is contributing to it. If there were no work, there'd be no illegal workers now would there? These illegal workers take their pay and buy goods and services with them. Their children go to school, become educated, and contribute even further to the u.s. economy since they will have better education and statistically better paying jobs and they will be paying taxes since they are u.s. citizens.

Stop believing the racist, xenophobic anti-illegal immigrant dogma and start understanding how economics truly works and what makes this country a dynamic, thriving economic powerhouse.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Disinterested Without disrespect intended towards anyone replying to me, most of you are ignorant xenophobes.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I donot mind immigration so long as it is legal? Why is that so wrong?

Quote by: Disinterested I may not be long for this forum. I was hoping for intelligent spirited debate, but am fast finding myself attacked by mendacious ignorance.

Ignorance? Is that what someone is who doesnot lock step in with your open arms utopian views?

Quote by: Disinterested Oh well. Have fun trashing those who present a world view that is accurate yet incongruous with yours.

Accurate in YOUR views. Basically what you have said is that we should bend the laws because businesses use these illegal immigrants, which makes the laws redundant in the first place. Why have immigration laws if you are not going to enforce them?

[Protostar]

Quote by: Disinterested You're living in a fantasy world. By definition, illegal immigration is not draining the u.s. economy; it is contributing to it. If there were no work, there'd be no illegal workers now would there? These illegal workers take their pay and buy goods and services with them. Their children go to school, become educated, and contribute even further to the u.s. economy since they will have better education and statistically better paying jobs and they will be paying taxes since they are u.s. citizens. Stop believing the racist, xenophobic anti-illegal immigrant dogma and start understanding how economics truly works and what makes this country a dynamic, thriving economic powerhouse.

I don't care about their children. They need to become legal citizens if they wish to partake of the social services that are offered to citizens. I don't pay taxes to educate illegal children, I pay taxes to educate US citizens. LEGAL immigration is fine, ILLEGAL immigration is not. I donot understand why that is so difficult for you to understand.

[tman_ndsu08]

The clear solution is to massively decrease the social services offered to our citizens while ushering in the Mexicans to do our menial, low wage jobs.

An obvious win win for us and them.

[SteveA]

Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

This is simply another symptom of deeper issues. Many of them result from relying on the federal government to address immigration issues.

1) Mexico doesn't have much say in the matter.
2) Immigration burdens largely stem from social programs and "free" public infrastructure. This masks the true costs of of using these resources and creates waste and economic inefficiency that the U.S. (taxpayers) must shoulder.
3) Reduce the public sphere in favor of private control.
4) Then open up the border and simply expect visitors and residents alike to respect private property.
5) Though this might take a constitutional amendment, either way, immigration issues should be addressed more locally by the people immediately affected by it. (It seems silly to try to rely on Washington D.C. to address local issues in San Diego regarding immigration) Attaining U.S. citizenship would still need to be a federal issue though but before that occurs, state and/or local governments should be relatively free to decide what resources they allow non-citizens to access.

This solves so many issues regarding immigration:

1) Aritificial pressures encouraging immigation would be reduced, along with the impact they have. For example, if immigrants only received half the public resources directed toward supporting immigrantion and this reduced immigration by 50% then, at least the public governmental burden would be reduced by 75%! (Keep in mind this won't be much deterant to skilled working immigrants either, so it provides even more benefits)
2) Public resources currently dedicated to monitoring and enforcing immigration issues could be dramatically reduced.
3) Immigration would be more attractive and accesible to skilled workers. (Despite the complaints and skepticism, this would help the U.S.)
4) Immigration would become less of an underground issue and it would remove much of the burden and delays placed on immigrants. This would remove some of the unnecessary burdens and ostracization immigrants feel. This would also help reduce some of the crime associated with immigration as immigrants would feel less threatened by reporting or otherwise getting involved assisting government in detering these crimes. 5) Immigration would have little of any direct burden on anyone because noone would be involuntarily forced to support it. Immigrants would be expected, like any other U.S. citizen to respect existing property rights and support themselves. So though you don't need as much enforcement on the border, private citizens could decide for themselves whether to allow someone to use their property or not. Whether someone tresspassing is an immigrant or citizen shouldn't matter much.
6) Problems with immigration become easier to address because the public, at large, is involved, at least via. local governments.

Decentralization of government in favor of local autonomy would solve most all immigration problems (and would help many other government issues as well). The main problem simply results from relying on the federal beaurocracy to handle local concerns.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Disinterested Here you go: RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL: Nevada businesses, unions team up for immigration reform Doug Abrahms (online@rgj.com) GANNETT NEWS SERVICE October 29, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Nevada businesses and some labor unions have forged an unlikely alliance to push immigration reform that would legalize most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States and expand a guest worker program.

Oh yeah, you just happened to pick two groups that have the most to gain from cheap immigrant labor. Somehow, I don't think the citizens would agree. I have to wonder about your motives, as you deny that illegal immigration is any kind of drain on our economy, yet a simple Google search will turn up countless studies that contradict you.

"In Fiscal Year 2001, the total cost for emergency medical care for illegal immigrants in California was more than $648 million. At the same time, the California Association of Public Hospitals notes that California’s public hospitals face a $600 million a year budget deficit. It doesn’t take a mathematician to see how eliminating illegal immigration would turn a deficit into a surplus." (http://www.house.gov/gallegly/col02-0305immigration.htm)

And no one will be available to harvest our crops without illegal immigration??

"One of the most renowned agricultural economists in the world, Professor Philip Martin of the University of California at Davis, says that contrary to grower arguments, U.S. agribusiness has consistently experienced a labor oversupply. He does not see a shortage on the horizon." - Testimony of Richard M. Estrada
Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/120795.html

"No valid justification exists for a new agricultural guestworker program.
There is no actual or impending shortage of farm labor in the United States. We have not yet overcome the effects of granting immigration status to 1.1 million farmworkers under the 1986 immigration law. There is double-digit unemployment in many farm labor supply areas, including in Texas, Florida, and California. Washington State government reported that low wages in agriculture were partly due to a plentiful labor supply." - BRUCE GOLDSTEIN, co-executive director of the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. for migrant and seasonal farmworkers http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6052.htm

And prices for that harvest will go way up without cheap Mexican labor?? I don't think so:

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9357

American taxpayers are subsidizing industries that are exploiting cheap labor, pure and simple.

Quote by: Disinterested Without disrespect intended towards anyone replying to me, most of you are ignorant xenophobes.

Yeah, right, no disrespect intended, I'm sure. And, no disrespect intended, but you're an ignorant shill for any business that has an interest in getting cheap labor.

[Zeebadee]

"State's "cheap labor" costs average household $1,183 a year "

"In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm

[SteveA]

Quote by: Zeebadee "State's "cheap labor" costs average household $1,183 a year " "In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm

It's more than that as well.

Freeways, housing, hospitals, telephone lines, aquaducts, educational resources and water supplies etc. aren't limitless. When somone first moves here, they bring none of these things with them (except maybe an education), and even cash they might bring doesn't instantly translate into real physical value. As long as someone is working or otherwise helping create and replace these, the short term burden doesn't seem too bad, but if we subsidize use of these as well as discourage them from working, we're simply living off inertia and digging a hole that will be hard to climb back out of (assuming we eventually start climbing out).

We have plenty of people who'd still love to live in the U.S., even without a lot of government assistance. I don't see any value in us having a schitzophrenic attitude of "Don't cross the border ... oh but if you do, we'll guarantee you everything you need to live comfortably." I'd say reverse both those and instead say "Welcome to the U.S! If you don't cause damage (this should be the same thing as not breaking the laws, but sadly that's too often untrue) and pay/work for what you need, everyone can get along just fine."

[Keith Hamburger]

I keep wondering where real diplomacy went in all this.

We hear how the leaders of Latin America are demanding better terms for immigrants to the US, but where are our counteroffers?

Why are our leaders not asking for better access to Latin American markets?

Why aren't our leaders demanding better opportunities for US citizens to invest in these countries?

Why don't we present Mexico, and the other countries involved, proposals of tit for tat?

Isn't that what countries are supposed to do? What are we paying all those diplomats for?

Keith