re: Reuters:Mexico will not accept new US immigration policies

Hey Mejico:

quote:

---

Yes, most of whom have been here for longer than 10 years.

---

So we've been housing illegals for more than 10 years and subsidizing their existence and lifestyles with social programs? Sounds like a great reason to get them out and prevent others from coming in illegally. We have a process for immigration and they should follow it.

quote:

---

Maybe Mexico doesn't really want them to leave Mexico.

---

Then why wouldn't they be in full support of making it harder for their people to leave and come to the US illegally? I would assume if they wanted people to stay, they would be in support of a border wall.

quote:

---

I dunno, maybe by shooting their residents dead across the border? That's one way at least. Threatening them that they are going to pay for a wall that we want?

---

I don't support murder but if someone is going rogue and shooting an unarmed person for attempting to cross the border, that sounds like a problem that both countries need to address. If it was murder and not self defense, then the person who pulled the trigger will be tried for it. If it was self defense, then that is something Mexico needs to address.

If Mexico wants to keep their people home, why wouldn't they be supportive of the wall? If they are supportive, why would we need to threaten to make them pay for it? They aren't supportive because they don't want the wall and they don't care about keeping their people in Mexico. They are pissed that we are exposing their abuse of our generosity and our unwillingness to secure our borders and they are upset that we are fighting back when they had a free ticket on the gravy train for so long. That, however, is not threatening their sovereignty in any way. We aren't telling them how to run their country. We are telling them how we plan on running ours, and that means locking down our borders.

quote:

---

Yes, we are. We've been telling them for years to shore up their southern border, and now that they have begun to, we're going to remove their incentive to do so. That doesn't make sense to me.

---

We only cared about their southern border because we were tolerant of their porous northern border for so long. It was a way for our country to feign strength on immigration without actually doing anything of substance on the topic. If Mexico didn't like that, they could have told us to pound sand like they're trying to do now with the shared border. They have strict immigration policies outside of the southern wall that they have, so it has nothing to do with what we wanted from them. They act in their best interests and it's not in their best interest to crack down on illegal immigration from Mexico to the US. We are telling them now that we are going to protect our country. We aren't forcing them to build their own wall.

quote:

---

My point wasn't that they would start with that, but that that would be their response to us overplaying our hand.

---

They are welcome to attempt it, then. With a wall in place, the buses won't get very far. If they happened to start such a program before we could adequately secure our border, it would just result in an escalation that would hamper trade between them and us.

quote:

---

Not much, Mexico isn't a destination for labor.

---

There's a lot of money to be made in the drug business. Who knows why anyone from South America would want to stop in Mexico but clearly Mexico was concerned enough about it to implement strict immigration laws.

quote:

---

Not yet, they don't. I think a lot of you are exaggerating problems that may already exist, but have the potential to get FAR worse if their state completely collapses.

---

That may be why the Mexican government wants to keep open borders. It will get worse for them if the supply to the US is greatly reduced. The drug money helps grease the wheels that keep those doors open so if the government is seen as ineffective, changes will be forced by the cartels so maximize their profits. We shouldn't keep our borders open because Mexico can't control the cartels.

quote:

---

Now you're actually starting to address the solution to the problem. The solution isn't a wall, the solution to this economic problem is an economic one. Ruining economic relations with Mexico would exacerbate the problem, not ameliorate it.

Devastating the Mexican economy, and having their government collapse into a true narco-terrorist dictatorship is NOT in our best interests. It's just that it sounds tough to talk like that and everyone wants to think of themselves as some sort of tough guys - well, not everyone, just the insecure ones.

There are better ways to deal with Mexico than crashing their state.

---

Of course I know that the root of the issue is the economy of Mexico, but that will only be as good as the leaders in that country trying to make it better for the people. They have had an open door to the US for years and they have reaped a lot of financial rewards because of it. Instead of trying to turn the 3rd world pit into a 2nd or 1st world country, they have sat back and let the US provide the jobs and the welfare.

If they aren't willing to make their country better, why should be continue the status quo, especially at the expense of our own citizens and our own safety? While we play nice with Mexico with letting them come across for the cheap labor, we open ourselves up to enemies from other countries who want to take advantage of the easy access to hurt us from within. That's not something we should risk so that we can be the sugar daddy to Mexico.

If they want us to help, they should be serious about it and understand their position in this relationship. They need us. We don't need them. We have a mutually beneficial relationship but we need to make sure our border is secure regardless of that relationship. We can work out other deals as needed but we have to put our foot down on the border. They could have agreed to help us police it but they didn't want to. It's our country that they are entering and we should have a say on who comes here. That's what sovereignty is; control over our country. They can control who goes there and we should control who comes here.

quote:

---

So we've been housing illegals for more than 10 years and subsidizing their existence and lifestyles with social programs? Sounds like a great reason to get them out and prevent others from coming in illegally. We have a process for immigration and they should follow it.

---

You forgot to count their productivity in our economy in your equation, but otherwise, yes, you are right. No one is arguing to the contrary. The point was net illegal immigration from Mexico to the US has been near zero for the past 8 years or so. You brought up all these people that have BEEN here to counter my point. It was an invalid counter point.

quote:

---

If Mexico wants to keep their people home, why wouldn't they be supportive of the wall?

---

EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!

The answer is because they may actually believe in liberty and don't believe in locking their own people up behind walls.

The way to keep people in one place is to ENCOURAGE them with economic incentives, not to DISCOURAGE them with barbed wire and machine guns.

quote:

---

they don't want the wall...We aren't telling them how to run their country. We are telling them how we plan on running ours, and that means locking down our borders...

---

...by telling them they have to pay for a wall that you said they don't want?

quote:

---

We aren't forcing them to build their own wall.

---

Yes we are. They don't want a wall, we are telling them they will get a wall, and furthermore will have to pay for it. That's pretty much forcing them to build their own wall.

quote:

---

If they aren't willing to make their country better, why should be continue the status quo, especially at the expense of our own citizens and our own safety?

---

And ANOTHER excellent question!

The answer is because it beats the alternative of having a completely failed state of 120 million people sharing a border with us.

You may think your nose is ugly - I mean, really, really ugly - but if you cut it off, it WILL be uglier. You only think it can't be worse, but usually it can.

quote:

---

They need us. We don't need them.

---

This is the whole problem with the way this administration is approaching the situation. We need them to be a stable government that cooperates with us on mutual problems. If you keep telling yourself this, "They need us. We don't need them." for everyone out there, the next thing you know, you're all alone. That never works for anyone.

quote:

---

How are they going to help us deal with illegal immigration that actually benefits them.

---

If our current administration lacks the imagination to answer your question, we are fricking doomed.

First of all, there has really been no immigration from Mexico in the last 8 years. Basically, Mexicans aren't the fricking problem. People are fleeing the disaster that is El Salvador (and to a less extent Honduras). There has been a shift in the country of origin for illegal immigrants coming to the US. And Mexico has been cooperating with us by securing their southern border.

You're being misled by a poorly crafted, but wildly successful campaign of demagoguery. There is the impression of a problem which is vastly overblown, these impressions are played on by those who seek power.

The problem isn't Mexicans crossing the border illegally, it's the Mexicans that crossed the border A LONG frickING TIME AGO and have stayed here illegally. But that problem is too intractable to be solved by something as simple as a wall. So a new problem is dreamed up that's sounds like it could be solved with a wall. And the People cheer the 'solution', while it solves nothing.

The Mexican's can help us the most at their Southern border but yet you are telling me that a violation of their southern border is the root cause of our immigration problem.

So again, how the hell are they going cooperate with us when it doesn't benefit them to do so? We can pay them more bribe money? Frick that.

ETA: I want a virtual wall punishing those already here and those that hire them.

quote:

---

what's with the f'ing posts that are long as novels?

---

They started out short, then each person comments on one point, and adds a point, and after about 3 or 4 back and forths, the posts get large.

Here's my first post in the thread:

quote:

---

We can't even force them to take back Mexican nationals.

Those people don't exactly have passports stating their nations of origin. We rely on the Mexican government to identify Mexicans. They don't have to identify them if they don't want to.

Mexico could also stop drug interdiction efforts - hell, even legalize all drugs. The US could be inundated with cheap illegal drugs from Mexico.

---

Not really that long.

quote:

---

Mexico will not accept new "unilateral" U.S. immigration proposals, and will not hesitate in approaching the United Nations to defend immigrants

---

Oh yeah? The same UN that gets majority funding from the US? And where the US has permanent veto power?

Good luck with that.

quote:

---

Link?

---

Um. You said it was El Salvdorians and to a lesser degree, Hondorans. You need me to link your own words? Those folks are crossing Mexico's southern border first and it's to Mexico's benefit to keep moving them North. We should do the same to bleeding heart Canada.

Economic incentives sounds like bribery to me. It's like rewarding bad behavior. I guess if you tie it too good behavior I could get behind that.

Punishment should be the result of breaking laws. I didn't say incarceration. I would be OK with a work program without the chance of citizenship ever for long time law breakering illegal border crossers. That should come with a financial penalty as well.

Again, I'm not a big fan of rewarding people for bad behavior.

quote:

---

That's absurd. Do you think a completely failed state in Mexico is in our best interests?

---

Do you think that it is the US's obligation to ensure that Mexico as a state doesn't fail at all costs? If so, why?

quote:

---

And ANOTHER excellent question!

The answer is because it beats the alternative of having a completely failed state of 120 million people sharing a border with us.

You may think your nose is ugly - I mean, really, really ugly - but if you cut it off, it WILL be uglier. You only think it can't be worse, but usually it can.

---

Here's the problem. If what you are saying is true (it isn't), we already have a failed state on our southern border. The only question is whether it is good policy to artificially prop it up at our sole cost.