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

quote:

---

quote:

---

it beats the alternative of having a completely failed state

---

If what you are saying is true (it isn't)

---

Okay, you think it would be better to have a completely failed state on our border.

quote:

---

we already have a failed state on our southern border

---

It's not completely failed, it's just corrupt. Completely failed would look like anarchy, no government, no rigged elections, lawlessness...

I'm just afraid we're going to get what the trumpers are begging for, the devolution of Mexico into a truly failed state.

quote:

---

Actually, we can.

---

How...?

I'm truly sorry that you don't see the difference in the problem as you stated it, and the problem that I said didn't exist.

quote:

---

Sure we do. When you have millions of undocumented, you have a major problem

---

vs

quote:

---

problem with illegal immigration over our shared border with Mexico

---

You've indicated what the problem is, I indicated what the problem is not. The difference is the undocumented immigrants that have been here for decades is not the same problem as having undocumented immigrants PRESENTLY crossing the border.

The solution to a bunch of people in the US that you don't want here is NOT to build a wall to keep them out. They are already here.

Well...

Undocumented Immigrants Crossing From US to Canada

Maybe we've found the solution to the real problem

Canada PM: will not halt illegal border crossing

quote:

---

You said it was El Salvdorians and to a lesser degree, Hondorans...Those folks are crossing Mexico's southern border first

---

Not as much any more.

The problem isn't so much that people are coming here illegally anymore, it's that we already have a lot that are here illegally and have been here illegally for a long time.

quote:

---

We should do the same to bleeding heart Canada.

---

Didn't you hear...?

Undocumented Immigrants Crossing From US to Canada

Canada PM: will not halt illegal border crossing

quote:

---

Economic incentives sounds like bribery to me.

---

That's funny, they sound like business to me. I remember a time when conservatives used to think in terms of business and economic solutions and it was the liberals getting all caught up in the emotional arguments. Now it seems to be reversed.

quote:

---

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

---

Stop thinking in terns of children, and start thinking about what's in our own self-interest.

Wouldn't it be in our self-interest to have an economically vibrant trading partner across our southern border just like we do across our northern border? I don't give a frick about punishments and rewards like dealing with children, I want negotiations that produce positive results for both parties. In the business world we like to call it "win-win".

Take your liberal, punitive moralism and shove it up your arse, I want business and trade.

quote:

---

I mean, technically they can refuse to accept 3rd country nationals

---

That is what this is about. We can do whatever we want to secure our border. They're saying that they aren't going to accept illegal immigrants from Peru just because they look like Mexicans to us.

Nor should they.

40% of illegal immigrants are from visa overstays. Why should Mexico accept someone from Costa Rica who overstayed their visa in America?

Wait, don't we already provide economic incentives to Mexico and all during the time we've been trading with them. We tend to buy our friends, no?

Anyway, gotta run but I'm all in for the Train to Canada and I don't find it emotional to protect American's and immigrants that came here the right way.

Love your illegal immigrant sling shot idea though.

I'll have to look at that link later. All that illegal immigrant survey stuff makes me laugh though. Like illegals are jumping up and down to fill out surveys.

How did you come up with those percentages?

quote:

---

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.

---

When talking about illegal immigration, I honestly don't care about the net immigration rate. If it's more than 0 persons a year, it's too many. We have a process to allow people into this country, to live here, and even to become citizens. We shouldn't say people sneaking across the border is fine because the same number leave to go back home.

A near zero rate would also confirm what many already believed about their lack of assimilation in the country. Why assimilate when you will more than likely just return to your homeland after your prime working years are over? I don't see that as a good thing. With hundreds of thousands of them coming here every year, I don't want to rely on them giving up and going home when they could just as easily not.

quote:

---

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.

---

They already have a wall on their southern border. Seems to be contradictory if they don't want walls keeping their people in. Also, the people have the freedom to move about within their own country but they don't have the freedom to go to any country they want without permission, even if it were true that the country valued liberty.

Mexico isn't exactly working its tail off to keep its citizens there via economic incentives. If it was better to stay in Mexico than to leave for the US, people wouldn't be leaving by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. And that's part of the point. Mexico isn't doing its part to keep its citizens in its country, or preventing them from leaving except through legal means. That's why we feel compelled to strengthen our border and immigration policies, because of the abuse or the apathy by Mexico. We lock our side down and then work with Mexico to come to a better agreement that benefits both sides without compromising our security and welfare.

quote:

---

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

---

Yes. The rhetoric is based on the current policies and practices of the Mexican government in allowing (if not encouraging) its people to come to the US illegally and use our resources for the benefit of Mexico. If Mexico doesn't want to pay (directly or indirectly) for the wall, they don't have to. They would just need to change how the do business with the US. But, since they get all of the benefits without any risk, they will have to do their part to improve our shared border by paying for it. They are a sovereign country but they don't want to take responsibility for their people's abuse of our good will. We are a sovereign country but we have to make concessions with other countries to come to agreements that work best for both of us. Paying for the wall is not challenging the sovereignty of Mexico; it's making sure two sovereign countries are doing their part to make sure we can continue in a mutually beneficial relationship.

quote:

---

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.

---

Technically we are telling them that they will pay for our wall, not their wall, since it will be on our land and subject to our jurisdiction and maintenance. But again, we aren't going to hold a gun to their heads and force them to write us a check. We are going to alter our economic and trade policies to make sure the wealth that leaves the US to go to Mexico is going to be tapped to pay for the wall. We could make those sorts of changes for any reason and we could use the money for any purpose. We just happen to want to use the money to pay for a barrier to prevent massive floods of people coming here without our knowledge. We could do the same thing with other countries, too, but Mexico is who is abusing us the most right now. However, it's still not a challenge to their sovereignty because we aren't forcing them to do business with us or to have their people send their US paychecks back to Mexico. They are in control of the outcome here.

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.

---

Sorry but we are two completely different and separate countries. We have a border that separates us. We have different cultures and economies. We are not tied together at the hip. What connects us are trade policies and a porous border that Mexico uses to its advantage. If locking down our borders (like every country with enemies should do) destroys Mexico, that means the Mexican government has failed its people; that's their problem to solve. We can assist through favorable trade deals but we cannot allow unrestricted and unlimited access to our country through our southern border if we want to remain a nation. If Mexico gets "uglier" because of the border being shut down, then that's their issue to grapple with. We can help if it's also beneficial to us, because as a country, the responsibility of our leaders is to our people first, not Mexico or the rest of the world. I also reject the notion that a border wall or barrier will automatically mean destroying Mexico and cutting off our nose. There will be doors in the wall that they can use if they want to come here and want to do it the right way.

quote:

---

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.

---

As a country, we need to continue with the theme Trump has campaigned on: America first. We need to make sure everything we are doing as a country is done first and foremost for the best interest of the American people. Obviously it is in our best interest to have good relationships with as many other nations as possible, but sometimes that's not possible. We need to make the best deals to benefit our country first, not play world police and world savior while we've got problems within our borders that are being neglected.

Saying we don't need someone else doesn't mean we don't want them. Like I've said, we want to have a mutually beneficial relationship with Mexico. We are not only getting little in benefit, we have also opened ourselves to all the negatives that I mentioned in a previous post. Why? So we can keep Mexico afloat? That's not why we should be doing what we do as a country. If we want to keep the country floating, it should be because it's in our best interest to do so. Right now it's not in our best interest to keep the status quo. It's up to both of our countries to come to an agreement on how best to benefit both sides, not just Mexico. If we can't come to that agreement, then we might wind up being all alone, but if it's in our best interest to be alone, then so be it.