Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

[Osborn F Enready]

Rmunez said: If you were told it could cost over $2,000 and take up to 6 months for you to get a visa to see the World Cup in Germany, would you go?

I say:
If I wanted to go, had the money and the time, yes. If not, no.

Rmunez said: If your life depended on it and you didn't have 6 or more months and over $2,000, what would you do?

I say:
Change things where I was NOW, and stop trying to flee the problems instead of fixing the problems.

There are a myriad of ways for Mexico to earn money from their natural location, sunny climate, growing regions, and culture, they just need to market it correctly and get it started. If Mexico would encourage those that go to America for education to COME BACK and use that knowledge to start a private Solar Power Network in Mexico, so that all citizens of Mexico could purchase panels and wiring to use the FREE power of the sun, to earn individual income and supplement that with farming or other commercial or industrial work that would be ONE small way to increase individual earnings in Mexico, and at the same time increase the marketability of the nation, while doing good for the enviroment.

I am not saying anything is easy, or without challenges and obstacles to overcome, but they are goals that CAN be attained with dilligent government and citizen effort, and would definitely provide long term advantages and independence for Mexico in the global market.

[rmnunez]

Osborn, you need to look into Mexico's situation a bit more closely. The country is already the 8th in GNP according to the OECD (which Mexico now presides) and the economy is growing, though not at the same pace as the US'. Surges in oil prices, Chinese investment and growth in tourism (particularly from the US) have meant jobs and prosperity.

Unfortunately the US is doing even better, additionally the US has a negative demographic with an aging population and low fertility rates. As the Heritage note posted before indicates, unless united statians retire later, we see an unprecedented surge in foreign immigration or discover some technological answer, there will be nobody to do the job and the US economy will shrink.

Blaming Mexico is fine, but it doesn't solve anything and sealing the border doesn't adress the labor part of the problem. Do you realize the US only issues 140 thousand visas for immigrant workers? If the US estimates 300 thousand cross over from Mexico to work every year, and only half of them do so LEGALLY -how could a united statian figure compliance would work when it calls for 160 thousand fewer? What should be done about the other millions of undocumenteds who are already there doing these menial jobs? If they all get deported, who will fill their vacancies?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Osborn, you need to look into Mexico's situation a bit more closely. The country is already the 8th in GNP according to the OECD (which Mexico now presides) and the economy is growing, though not at the same pace as the US'. Surges in oil prices, Chinese investment and growth in tourism (particularly from the US) have meant jobs and prosperity.

What a load of crap. Again, selectively quoting some figures, but leaving out others. You talk about oil prices, Chinese investment, and the economy, but omit any mention of the second biggest source of income to the country. Too bad you live down there, your natural talent for continuing lies of omission would make you a shoo-in for employment with the bush regime spinmeisters.

"Remittances from Mexicans in the US have become one of Mexico's most important sources of income - second only to oil and surpassing the traditional tourism industry." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3582881.stm

This is why Mexico may be 8th in GNP, because this figure rises as more and more illegals take jobs here. Where would Mexico rank in GNP if :

A.) Mexico had to fund their own social programs.

B.) The flow of dollars from illegals back to Mexico stopped.

[rmnunez]

Selectively quoting figures is necessary, there are so many relevant data. The general idea is that the US economy is in an upsurge and has been in this sort of trend for a few years now. The average 5% growth rate of the US economy has resulted in a demand for more workers, particularly at the lower levels. The DOL data shows anticipated labor shortfalls -following current practices, which involve about half the people crossing illegally, the general idea is that there are more jobs at the lower levels performed by undocumenteds than there are united statians capable or willing to do them.

The next large concept you need to digest is scale. Scale is relevant in two ways; the relative sizes of the world's first and eigth economies and the ubiquity of illicit border crossings.

The united statian immigration process is like a classic bureaucratic process gone awry with its inevitable resolution (undocumented crossings).

There is a good argument against compliance with capricious, excessively onerous, inequitable, improperly applied, outdated, inordinately prortracted and arbitrary regulations -necessity.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez There is a good argument against compliance with capricious, excessively onerous, inequitable, improperly applied, outdated, inordinately prortracted and arbitrary regulations -necessity.

You haven't proven any necessity for continued illegal immigration. If it continues it's only because our corrupt politicians have sold us out to cheap labor concerns. Our politicians have truly become the most disgusting in history, demonstrably more concerned with their own welfare than that of the United States, whores to the contributions of agri-business.

I can survive a lack of cheap labor by mowing my own lawn and paying slightly more for agriculture products. There's no way the corrupt Mexican ruling system could survive taking care of their own people and the loss of American dollars flowing from exploited mexican workers. You are no better than our own ruling class - perfectly willing to pimp the most vulnerable of your own people into semi-slavery in order to maintain your own privileged position and life style.

The best defense against immigration control is a good offense. Mexico tries to convince us that we can't live without a "guest worker" program. The reality of the situation is that Mexico can't survive without sending a significant portion of their population north.

[rmnunez]

Whether Mexico can survive absent remitances from its undocumented is inclear, despite the current prosperous growth in Mexico, obviously the economy couldn't absorb about 10 million displaced former menials and migrant farm workers who would return. But if I were a united statian I would be a bit more interested in the impact closer to home, in their own economy. If the US economy is growing (allegedly it is, at about a 5% per annum), who is going to perform the new jobs? The US Census says united statians aren't even performing in the reproductive sector with a less than replacement rate output (most people born in the US today have hispanic parents).

I've heard the usual suspects refer to the crummy jobs the economy seems to now generate in such numbers; poorly paid, low level service-sector positions seem to sprout like mushrooms in the new economy -those are the sort of jobs whose wages will need to be seriously hiked to attract the huge population of US college graduates. A basic principle of economics is that for every job created (no matter what the level) dozens of subordinate roles result. Who do you think performs those roles subordinate to a McDonalds day manager or Blockbuster clerk? The grocer's assistant, the person folding clothes and ironing shirts at the dry cleaners, the bag boy at the checkout counter, these are the undocumented. Who are going to do these jobs with a burgeoining economy and a diminishing fertility rate?

[drgilbert4]

Quote by: rmnunez Whether Mexico can survive absent remitances from its undocumented is inclear, despite the current prosperous growth in Mexico, obviously the economy couldn't absorb about 10 million displaced former menials and migrant farm workers who would return. But if I were a united statian I would be a bit more interested in the impact closer to home, in their own economy. If the US economy is growing (allegedly it is, at about a 5% per annum), who is going to perform the new jobs? The US Census says united statians aren't even performing in the reproductive sector with a less than replacement rate output (most people born in the US today have hispanic parents). I've heard the usual suspects refer to the crummy jobs the economy seems to now generate in such numbers; poorly paid, low level service-sector positions seem to sprout like mushrooms in the new economy -those are the sort of jobs whose wages will need to be seriously hiked to attract the huge population of US college graduates. A basic principle of economics is that for every job created (no matter what the level) dozens of subordinate roles result. Who do you think performs those roles subordinate to a McDonalds day manager or Blockbuster clerk? The grocer's assistant, the person folding clothes and ironing shirts at the dry cleaners, the bag boy at the checkout counter, these are the undocumented. Who are going to do these jobs with a burgeoining economy and a diminishing fertility rate?

How is Mexico controlling their immigration problem? Do they not have military stationed on their southern border in order to stop illegal immigration from Central America? All those poor people from Guatemala want is an opportunity to earn money in Mexico and send it back to their families. Why shouldn't the "United Statians" do the same on their southern border. After all, the US is the largest terrorist target in the world. Why wouldn't they want to secure their borders and monitor who is entering the country and for what purpose.

[rmnunez]

The Mexican immigration authority last year legalized 300 thousand undocumenteds mostly from Guatemala and points south, they do deploy military to protect their borders and in the south special attention is given to freight trains where undocumenteds hoping them in their illicit crossings frequently lose limbs when they fall to the tracks. The Mexican military also is concerned over the transit of "maras" (Guatemalan gang members) who prey on the undocumented as they make their way to the US. Drug interdiction efforts and the presence of paramilitary in the employ of cartels are another focus at the borders.

It is ridiculous to compare the US immigration problem with anyone else's. Mexico's problem with undocumenteds from their southern neighbors is not at all analogous to the US' with Mexico. The scale, the resources and the relative differences between the immigrants and their hosts are not comparable. The terrorist threat is not even an element of the Mexican immigration situation.

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez In November 2004, since H-1B (temporary worker) visas available for 2005 had been exhausted, Congress authorized an extra 20 thousand. The 12th of August, 2005, BCIS announced they had already exhausted applications for 2006. On April 1st this year, they will exhaust the number of applications available for 2007. This should give an indication of a big part of the problem -not enough visas for people to LEGALLY migrate. In the interparliamentary (legislative) Mexico-US summit currently underway, the Mexican delegation's top demand is for more visas and the US ought to listen. According to Census data, by 2025 it is expected there will be a shortage of 77 million workers in the US. Those will not be white-collar high-paying professional positions rather than the sort of stuff Mexicans do. The 77 million worker shortage isn't something that will suddenly crop up rather than a gradually growing demand, if nothing is done to address the problem now, worker shortages will curtail potential growth in the US.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if there weren't so many undocumented workers entering into the country ILLEGALLY, there would be more LEGAL visas for those who choose to obey the law. Perhaps then, the US would listen to the "demands" of Mexico during the summit. Furthermore, since when does one country "demand" that another make way for more immigrants anyway? Perhaps there should be a better spirit of cooperation in the approach to the problem rather than the current rhetoric which may be construed to be intractable "demands".

[rmnunez]

Whether there would be more visas for lawful immigrants if there were fewer undocumenteds crossing is uncertain. What I sense is that demand far outstrips what is offered. The numbers are revealing; the US offered 140 thousand immigrant visas around the world to work last year and estimates over 300 thousand crossed over the border with Mexico for jobs in the US. With almost a quarter of a million undocumented Mexicans making their annual trek home and back to the US every Christmas, the united statian visa offerings seem ridiculous. If only half the people who applied for a driver's license could have one, regardless of qualifications, do you think we'd see half as many people driving?

More on Mexican efforts at the border:

March 3, 2006 - Ambassador Garza: “The Action Plan signed today by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and his Mexican counterpart, Secretary of the Interior Carlos Abascal, is a crucial turning point in our plan to protect our border communities from criminals and traffickers, while ensuring that trade and wealth creation in this vital region can continue to thrive.” http://mexico.usembassy.gov/

One of the innovations of this Action Plan involves coordinated military patrols with integrated communications.

[drgilbert4]

Quote by: rmnunez The Mexican immigration authority last year legalized 300 thousand undocumenteds mostly from Guatemala and points south, they do deploy military to protect their borders and in the south special attention is given to freight trains where undocumenteds hoping them in their illicit crossings frequently lose limbs when they fall to the tracks. The Mexican military also is concerned over the transit of "maras" (Guatemalan gang members) who prey on the undocumented as they make their way to the US. Drug interdiction efforts and the presence of paramilitary in the employ of cartels are another focus at the borders. It is ridiculous to compare the US immigration problem with anyone else's. Mexico's problem with undocumenteds from their southern neighbors is not at all analogous to the US' with Mexico. The scale, the resources and the relative differences between the immigrants and their hosts are not comparable. The terrorist threat is not even an element of the Mexican immigration situation.

This problem sounds very similar to the US immigration problem. The major difference is that we are not only trying to keep out Guatemalan maras. We also must be concerned with the radical islamic terrorists who are crossing our border to join up with existing terrorist cells or start new ones. They are coming to plan attacks on targets in the United States. I am not anti-Mexican. I just think we would be better served by sealing off the borders and only allowing legal immigration. It would actually cost us in the short term, but in the long term it would benefit the US as well as LEGAL immigrants who could then earn a fair wage instead of serving as near slaves.

[rmnunez]

We also must be concerned with the radical islamic terrorists who are crossing our border to join up with existing terrorist cells or start new ones. They are coming to plan attacks on targets in the United States.

Tell us more about this, hadn't heard of any radical Muslim terrorists sneaking across the border from Mexico, any reference to this claim? I remarked previously on how the Mexican authorities are enforcing US DHS/DoS restrictions on foreign travellers and this has generally involved erroneously premised efforts to deport Muslim tourists from Britain, Egypt and Lebannon in Mexico, found to have similar names to suspects in the tremendous united statian anti-terrorist database (which at the latest report included almost 400 thousand Muslim suspects).

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez Whether there would be more visas for lawful immigrants if there were fewer undocumenteds crossing is uncertain. What I sense is that demand far outstrips what is offered. The numbers are revealing; the US offered 140 thousand immigrant visas around the world to work last year and estimates over 300 thousand crossed over the border with Mexico for jobs in the US. With almost a quarter of a million undocumented Mexicans making their annual trek home and back to the US every Christmas, the united statian visa offerings seem ridiculous. If only half the people who applied for a driver's license could have one, regardless of qualifications, do you think we'd see half as many people driving? More on Mexican efforts at the border: One of the innovations of this Action Plan involves coordinated military patrols with integrated communications.

Well even if the supply far exceeds the demand, or vice versa, it is primarily important for both countries to get a handle on a situation that is well out of control. The legal control of immigration is the first step to accomplish what needs to be done at the border. Once this accomplished, both countries could figure what was fair and equitable for legal immigration. Without the legal control of the undocumented flow, nothing positive can ever happen to control the situation. It is the first step to international cooperation of labor between MX and the USA.

[rmnunez]

The legal control of immigration is the first step to accomplish what needs to be done at the border. Once this accomplished, both countries could figure what was fair and equitable for legal immigration.

Yes and no, the legal control of immigration is essential, but inasmuch as its lack results from inadequate lawful immigration procedures (insufficient visas, excessive costs and inordinate delays) these need to be tackled first to establish that legal control. The US embassy in Mexico takes 126 days to give you your first appointment to submit your application, its another 30 days to process it -this applies even to tourists just seeking to visit the place. The average cost to the applicant seeking a temporary visa not as an emigrant is $210 just for the forms, there's a $70 biometric fee, $500 anti-fraud fee and all sorts of certifications, apostilles and certified translations depending on the type of visa. Would you spend about a thousand dollars in bureaucratic fees to visit France or Japan? Do you realize that a foreigner who marries a united statian must spend about $700 for a temporary visa and can only remain with their spouse in the US for 90 days? Part of the problem is this security obsession (a natural concern in light of terrorist threats), did you know the highly-touted coordinated 26 agency anti-terrorist database now includes over 350 thousand Muslim names for suspects and that if yours is remotely similar to one of theirs it will take several weeks to resolve (if you are lucky enough they don't come looking for you)?

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez Yes and no, the legal control of immigration is essential, but inasmuch as its lack results from inadequate lawful immigration procedures (insufficient visas, excessive costs and inordinate delays) these need to be tackled first to establish that legal control. The US embassy in Mexico takes 126 days to give you your first appointment to submit your application, its another 30 days to process it -this applies even to tourists just seeking to visit the place. The average cost to the applicant seeking a temporary visa not as an emigrant is $210 just for the forms, there's a $70 biometric fee, $500 anti-fraud fee and all sorts of certifications, apostilles and certified translations depending on the type of visa. Would you spend about a thousand dollars in bureaucratic fees to visit France or Japan? Do you realize that a foreigner who marries a united statian must spend about $700 for a temporary visa and can only remain with their spouse in the US for 90 days? Part of the problem is this security obsession (a natural concern in light of terrorist threats), did you know the highly-touted coordinated 26 agency anti-terrorist database now includes over 350 thousand Muslim names for suspects and that if yours is remotely similar to one of theirs it will take several weeks to resolve (if you are lucky enough they don't come looking for you)?

Well, it is what it is, and sounds as it should be reformed as well. There is no substitute for legal immigration. No amount of bueacracy, fees, or waiting times take precedence over legality. The fact that you have pointed out the trappings of the legal route only points up the need for even more reform.

I would spend the money if I wanted to visit France or Japan, if that was what it takes, otherwise I would not choose to go there. Expensive visa fees affect the tourist industry and if they are too expensive for the average tourist, then the tourist industry would probably lobby to reduce the red tape and expensive fees. It would surely correct itself otherwise people wouldn't visit. This would affect tourist expenditures here in the States and eventually those affected by the lack of tourists would lobby the government to remedy the situation.

Once again, this is a situation that requires bi lateral cooperation between Mx and the USA.

[rmnunez]

I differ on 2 things;

No amount of bueacracy, fees, or waiting times take precedence over legality.

and that the tourism industry can handle this with lobbies.

Then there was this just in:

Napolitano signed an order authorizing commanders to station an unspecified number of additional soldiers (at the border between Mexico and Arizona) to help federal agents. Once the funding is approved, the troops will monitor crossing points, assist with cargo inspection and operate surveillance cameras, according to the order. "They are not there to militarize the border," the governor said. "We are not at war with Mexico." About 170 National Guardsmen are already posted at the nation's busiest illegal entry point, where they assist with communications, fence construction and anti-drug efforts… http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/08/D8G7NJE80.html

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez I differ on 2 things; and that the tourism industry can handle this with lobbies. Then there was this just in:

I think you misunderstand my solution here. I am for militarizing the border in order to gain control of the situation along the southeast portion of the border shared between the US and Mexico. AT this point in time, it is the ONLY way to stop the illegal infiltration of anyone who wishes to illegally cross. That includes people, cargo, illegal drugs, and other operations looking for a stealthy way to gain access to the US.

These polticians are great at double speak. They declare a "war on drugs" and then say we aren't at war. They play fast and loose with terms that imply serious actions and then turn and say, "we aren't at war"......They use terms like "drug czar" and then wonder why teens continue to use illegal drugs.

Both major parties here in the US say they are for border enforcement yet they do just the opposite when it comes to enforcement of labor laws here in the US. These hypocritical attitudes and actions must be dealt with before real reform is acheived with regard to the undocumented problems. The first step is to control the border.

[rmnunez]

brien, the expression "we are not at war" was used by Gov. Napolitano of Arizona in reference to the status of relations between that state and Mexico, the "war on drugs" is an expression used by the US government to describe its policy relating to global narcotics interdiction.

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez brien, the expression "we are not at war" was used by Gov. Napolitano of Arizona in reference to the status of relations between that state and Mexico, the "war on drugs" is an expression used by the US government to describe its policy relating to global narcotics interdiction.

I understand this. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the statement and how it is a similar example of the entire government's failed approach to the situation of border control. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

My point, in the long run, is that the US better manages its imported cargo and ports than it does the people at our borders. How hypocritical it is that the entire country is up in arms of over the Dubai Port deal and then fall silent upon the border control issue. It is absolutely no different except that one operation manages people and the other cargo. Perhaps this is a statement that the US thinks more of its cargo than humanity. One could infer this from the actions of Americans with regard to these two issues.

A complete and utter cop out that reflects shamefully upon the United States.

[rmnunez]

People who jump to criticise how the US handles its borders should consider the formidable task this is. Since the US is the world's most important economy it engages in a high volume of trade, much more than any other country, this makes managing its major seaports a huge task. Now harbours are sen as vulnerable as their management has never involved intercepting potential terrorists threats. We ordinarily don't see how customs controls the docks because we don't pass through them, just our merchandise. The flow of freight is the primary concern as dock space is at a premium and time of the essence. The process is largely bureaucratic and involves comparing documents, verifying their conformity with the procedure and storing the goods for their subsequent movement, I read just 3 or 4% of the freight entering through Seattle is actually inspected and usually this is done after clearing customs by the exporter's client. If a shipper screwed-up and loaded some terrorist threat instead of whatever the invoices describe, it would probably pass customs unnoticed and not be revealed until the importer opened the crates. Then they'd contact their supplier overseas and complain, whether customs would be informed is another matter since the consequence would be to subject all of that supplier's shipments to exhaustive inspections. Foreign exporters don't want that sort of hastle, it will cost them lots of money and all sorts of delays to hold and store their goods for lengthy inspections, importers would turn to other sources.

The control over people crossing the borders is another matter that needs to be seen within a context. The relationship with Mexico is historical and for decades involved a high degree of tolerance by the US and the development what is practically customary practice among undocumenteds. A clear example of both tolerance and custom is seen each time the Border Patrol delivers undocumenteds they've established come from all over Mexico and even other foreign countries to Mexican authorities in Tijuana when the Border Patrol knows the Mexican authorities simply take temporary custody of, to immediately release -what do you think the Border Patrol figures these repatriated undocumenteds will do next? How about another try once the dust settles?