Imigration

[MMI]

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

You think not?

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine

Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.

[Thorne]

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, the Mexican government is the pyromaniac. The illegals are the burning embers.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

Gee, why does that not surprise me? Well then, how about this one? (Scroll down to International Controversies.) Or this one!

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest.

I'm not sure I understand this.

[MMI]

I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

I refer you to post 53 above

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

Would it not be more accurate to say, "... money sent back by emigrants"?

I'm not sure I understand this.

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them. So by your argument, it would do more good to start with the wealthy countries and work down the list, dealing with the countries that have the greatest number of poor people
last - if there's anything left

[Thorne]

I refer you to post 53 above

Those figures may be valid for the UK, where the illegals do not have access to medical care. The situation in the US is quite different.

Would it not be more accurate to say, "... money sent back by emigrants"?

Yes it would. Both legal and illegal.

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them. So by your argument, it would do more good to start with the wealthy countries and work down the list, dealing with the countries that have the greatest number of poor people
last - if there's anything left

Yes, that is my argument. Use our resources to help our own citizens and legal immigrants first. Why is that wrong?

[DuncanONeil]

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them.

Are we talking the same China? The one on mainland Asia?

How can you possible suggest that the most populous nation on the planet plus three other countries have fewer poor that, I believe, Mexico.
Just to make it clear China alone has 10% of its population below the poverty line. That is 1.25 billion! Population of Mexico is 106,350,434.

But you are still suggesting that somehow we have a responsibility to raise the standard of living of everyone. Using the World's GDP we get 10,183 per person. If we accept the standard of 24% under 18 it only goes up to $11,314.

[DuncanONeil]

One source pegs illegal cost to the US at $10 billion annually (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html) and $10.5 billion to California alone (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm). AZ is at almost $2 billion.
That leave 48 other states! Spending money. Not even counting the money they send out of the country.

Money Sent Back To Mexico Set To Surpass Oil Revenue This Year
By Digger Bookmark and Share

In February I reported on the record $16.6 billion sent back to Mexico from immigrants here in the U.S., a 24% increase from 2003. The latest estimates show that this year those "remittances" as they call them, are expected to top Mexico's oil industry as the number one form of revenue for the country. This is all being fascilitated by bank in the United States that refuse to enforce laws on the books regarding reporting criminal and illegal transactions and instead would sell out our country for a dollar.

Lou Dobbs (transcript March 21, 2005)

The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade deficit with Mexico for the last year surpassed $45 billion.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are using bank accounts in this country to send those remittances home, and many U.S. banks are now aggressively helping illegal aliens open those accounts. Those banks refer to the practice in the political correct vernacular as banking the unbanked. (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000911.html)

So now, what is the benefit to the US of illegals.

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?




We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.



... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.



Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.



No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.



By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.