Why is the idea of a physical border between two countries crazy? People build fences around their property all the time, (good fences make good neighbors) so why is it such a crazy idea for their to be a fence between two countries?
Why is the idea of a physical border between two countries crazy? People build fences around their property all the time, (good fences make good neighbors) so why is it such a crazy idea for their to be a fence between two countries?
That is not exactly what I meant. I understand borders, the need to secure them and all. I just don't think that this is going to solve this particular problem.
If there was less of an incentive for people to cross the border illegally than we would not need a fence. How many Canadians sneak across the northern US border?
A fence on the border is like a lock on a door, it only works to keep the honest people honest. If someone wants in they will break the lock or climb the fence.
What is Mexico doing about the problem that a high portion of their citizens would prefer to cross the border than work in their own country? Does Mexico look at it as a good or bad thing? I know the American perspective on the border but I would like to know the Mexican perspective.
If there was less of an incentive for people to cross the border illegally than we would not need a fence. How many Canadians sneak across the northern US border?
A fence on the border is like a lock on a door, it only works to keep the honest people honest. If someone wants in they will break the lock or climb the fence.
What is Mexico doing about the problem that a high portion of their citizens would prefer to cross the border than work in their own country? Does Mexico look at it as a good or bad thing? I know the American perspective on the border but I would like to know the Mexican perspective.
Of course we look at it as a bad thing, how poor and desperate are our citizens that they would rather risk their lives crossing the desert? As to what are we doing about it, my personal opinion is that not enough. The federal government is trying to create enough jobs, schools are being open in poor communities, trying to teach children that the answer is not going over, but trying to improve your own country. The border states are waging a full on war on the drug cartels trying to stop all the smuggling going on, But its a hard thing, the problem is rooted deep in our way of thinking, and sadly is not going to get better anytime soon.
Why is the idea of a physical border between two countries crazy? People build fences around their property all the time, (good fences make good neighbors) so why is it such a crazy idea for their to be a fence between two countries?
People build swimming pools on their property all the time, but that doesn't make the idea of a "National Swimming Pool" any less crazy. This stupid fence is going to be just like the Maginot Line. People are just going to find another way in, and then you conservative types will be whining and crying your sad little hate-fueled refrains again.
Mexico will never be allowed to join the USA as a state. There are many reasons for this but the easiest ones to point out are economic and political.
Politically do you really think the American political parties would want to allow Mexico into their system? There are enough Mexicans (100K+) in Mexico to make a third party a very viable entity. Even though Mexicans are expected to vote Democratic they could easily form their own third party instead.
Do you really think that whatever is left of sane, rational Republican leadership actually thinks a fence is a good idea? They're just trying to mollify the crazies that have infested the party like a swarm of crab lice. Similarly, if enough people started talking about annexing Mexico, the parties would go along with it. It would certainly be a more effective way of getting rid of illegal immigration from Mexico: "You don't have to illegally immigrate. You're already here!"
Besides, what does the USA gain by adding them as a state?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe a load untapped natural resources. Maybe hundreds of miles of beachfront property.
What about infrastructure improvements and other improvements?
Sounds like the beginnings of a great WPA type program to me . . .
If Mexico were to become a state it would be subject to the same laws American companies currently adhere to in regards to hiring workers and their salaries. Can Mexican companies afford to have to pay their workers a minimum wage equivalent to $6.50 per hour or so?
Here you've identified the real problem in a roundabout, slightly psychotic way. We won't annex Mexico because the corporations and bosses need a steady supply of cheap labor. Capitalism always seeks the cheapest, closest-to-slavery source of labor it can find and one of its sources at the present time is the population of those unfortunate enough to have been born on the wrong side of an arbitrary border. If they had the same protections as US workers and didn't come much cheaper than US workers, their value as a commodity would sharply decrease. The corporations and the bosses aren't about to let this happen.
We won't annex Mexico becausethe corporations and bosses need a steady supply of cheap labor.
of its underdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with the massive disparity in wealth and standard of living.
. . . which puts it in a little worse shape than . . . Hawaii and Alaska right before they entered the Union . . . or Mississippi right now.
. . . and where's all those people crying about how "we had to depose Saddam Hussein because he's an evil dictator"? If we're so worried about humanitarian concerns and one of our neighboring countries has an "underdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with [a] massive disparity in wealth and standard of living", maybe we should try to help them. Maybe the best way to help them would be to allow them into the Union and try to develop them to the level of the other states.
Hawaii and Alaska right before they entered the Union
Hawaii was very small, at a time when the infrastructural disparities were not nearly so pronounced. Alaska was barely populated. Mexico is massive, and comes with all of the people, but none of the support mechanisms.
It's easy to build an infrastructure in an empty place. It's much harder to build one around pre-existing people and (insufficient) structures. Look at the difference between, say, roads in the midwest, and roads in New England. The logistical and economic concerns of managing Mexico are vastly greater than Hawaii or Alaska combined, to the point that a comparison is barely even sensible.
or Mississippi right now.
If you're joking, all right. I do note, however, that the biggest strength of the United States today is its investment in internal infrastructure. I'd rather live in Mississippi than in Mexico (or Cuba).
. . . and where's all those people crying about how "we had to depose Saddam Hussein because he's an evil dictator"? If we're so worried about humanitarian concerns and one of our neighboring countries has an "underdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with [a] massive disparity in wealth and standard of living", maybe we should try to help them. Maybe the best way to help them would be to allow them into the Union and try to develop them to the level of the other states.
Iraq: Evil Dictator that "had to be deposed" for the good of his people. America: The Policeman who deposed him, seeing as we're so concerned with humanitarianism and stuff.
Mexico: "[U]nderdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with [a] massive disparity in wealth and standard of living". America: Mexico's rich neighbor - could take a fraction of the billions spent on Iraq (halfway around the world) and fix many of the problems in Mexico (in our backyard), incidentally also allowing thousands of people who died in an unnecessary war live. America could actually do some good humanitarian work there, but doesn't seem to care.
Hmm. . . if the point is that America could have been a lot more humanitarian if it tried to help Mexico (actually, you could insert just about anything in this spot - including building a "National Trampoline" since some people think that what people buid in their backyards is analogous to a country's borders) instead of screwing up Iraq, the analogy works quite nicely.
Why is the idea of a physical border between two countries crazy? People build fences around their property all the time, (good fences make good neighbors) so why is it such a crazy idea for their to be a fence between two countries?
Iraq: Evil Dictator that "had to be deposed" for the good of his people. America: The Policeman who deposed him, seeing as we're so concerned with humanitarianism and stuff.
Mexico: "[U]nderdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with [a] massive disparity in wealth and standard of living". America: Mexico's rich neighbor - could take a fraction of the billions spent on Iraq (halfway around the world) and fix many of the problems in Mexico (in our backyard), incidentally also allowing thousands of people who died in an unnecessary war live. America could actually do some good humanitarian work there, but doesn't seem to care.
Why is the idea of a physical border between two countries crazy? People build fences around their property all the time, (good fences make good neighbors) so why is it such a crazy idea for their to be a fence between two countries?
Now,thatis a false analogy.
Using your analogy America should invade every "underdeveloped" country in the world and turn it into a little America. So, are you saying you are for an American Empire enforcing its system of government on the rest of the world? Personally I would rather see those billions spent on the war saved and returned to the people who paid that money into the government coffers.
The fence analogy is not false. A border between countries and a border between property owners are the same thing, one is just much larger in scale. A country that does not secure/enforce its borders will not long remain a country.
A border between countries and a border between property owners are the same thing, one is just much larger in scale.
So, people pass through the border between your property and your neighbor's property seeking political asylum?
Using your analogy America should invade every "underdeveloped" country in the world and turn it into a little America. So, are you saying you are for an American Empire enforcing its system of government on the rest of the world?
You agree with me then. There's just as much (or more) humanitarian appeal in fixing Mexico (or any of a number of places) than in deposing Saddam. That's what many people said was the error in the argument that we should be in Iraq for humanitarian reasons. That was one of the big arguments the administration made for going there. Good to see you understand why the argument is misguided. I'll remember this next time you say something like " . . . but Saddam gassed his own people . . ." or some such rot.
So, people pass through the border between your property and your neighbor's property seeking political asylum?
Most people leaving Mexico are NOT seeking political asylum in any sense. They're seeking economic asylum, which is not normally accepted as a reason in and of itself for granting citizenship or even entry. Mexico isn't oppressed: it's simply poor.
I was saying that in response to the proposal that national borders are exactly like borders between property owners. I didn't mean that Mexicans are seeking asylum of any particular type.
I was saying that in response to the proposal that national borders are exactly like borders between property owners. I didn't mean that Mexicans are seeking asylum of any particular type.
But in both cases, the fence prevents people from crossing a territorial boundary over which you have authority and over which you do not wish people to pass without consent. I see little difference.
A nation offering asylum is the same idea as if I open my door to help someone being chased on the street. I don't have to, and it might even be dangerous to, but it's still the nice thing to do.
A nation offering asylum is the same idea as if I open my door to help someone being chased on the street. I don't have to, and it might even be dangerous to, but it's still the nice thing to do.
It would be the same if you extend your hypothetical to allow the person being chased to request asylum when he presents himself at your door, giving him the right to stay with you for the time it takes you to give him a fair hearing.
But in both cases, the fence prevents people from crossing a territorial boundary over which you have authority and over which you do not wish people to pass without consent. I see little difference.
A fence across your individual property would be very effective in keeping the neighborhood kids off your lawn, affecting very few people. A fence across a national border would be very ineffective in keeping people out of your country, but it would still affect thousands of people.
A fence across your individual property would be very effective in keeping the neighborhood kids off your lawn, affecting very few people. A fence across a national border would be very ineffective in keeping people out of your country, but it would still affect thousands of people.
Instead of focusing on physical prevention, why not focus on stricter regulation of companies who hire these illegal immigrants and work on reforming in the immigration system? We have plenty of room in the U.S, it's not like we are out of space. If you eliminate any chances for illegals to get a job/house/health care and make more avenues available for them to get access to them legally, we would solve the problem. Also, if you have seen the Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on immigration, you would know how much of a joke the wall they are planning to build actually is. NSFW for boobies at the end of vidja.
They're seeking economic asylum, which is not normally accepted as a reason in and of itself for granting citizenship or even entry. Mexico isn't oppressed: it's simply poor.
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Give me your tired,your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
That was a trick played on us by the French.
The proposed fence is a joke. It was passed as a "feel good" measure, nothing more.
The American revolutionaries and the French formed an alliance in 1778. The Statue of Liberty was presented to the USA from France in 1886. What happened in those intervening years? Perhaps the French Revolution?
The France who fought beside us in the American revolution is not the same as the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty.
It doesn't make me feel good. It makes me feel very sad that so many of my countrymen are so stupid, greedy, and cruel.
I'll agree with you on the stupid part. The greed comes in when you factor in the corporations that "bid" on the contracts to erect the fence. I don't see anything cruel about not allowing someone to illegally cross a sovereign border.
The American revolutionaries and the French formed an alliance in 1778. The Statue of Liberty was presented to the USA from France in 1886. What happened in those intervening years? Perhaps the French Revolution?
The France who fought beside us in the American revolution is not the same as the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty.
Even better, fuck those autocrats. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go knit some names in my new scarf...
The American revolutionaries and the French formed an alliance in 1778. The Statue of Liberty was presented to the USA from France in 1886. What happened in those intervening years? Perhaps the French Revolution?
The France who fought beside us in the American revolution is not the same as the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty.
You know who really liked the French Revolution? Thomas Jefferson ("My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated") and Thomas Paine.
Comments
Salchipap and chorizo, now that is a flavor party in your mouth on every bite.
Of course it is crazy to think about that (México becoming a US state), but hey, once I thought that a wall between my country and the country where half of my relatives live(legally BTW) was crazy. LOL
A fence on the border is like a lock on a door, it only works to keep the honest people honest. If someone wants in they will break the lock or climb the fence.
What is Mexico doing about the problem that a high portion of their citizens would prefer to cross the border than work in their own country? Does Mexico look at it as a good or bad thing? I know the American perspective on the border but I would like to know the Mexican perspective.
. . . and where's all those people crying about how "we had to depose Saddam Hussein because he's an evil dictator"? If we're so worried about humanitarian concerns and one of our neighboring countries has an "underdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with [a] massive disparity in wealth and standard of living", maybe we should try to help them. Maybe the best way to help them would be to allow them into the Union and try to develop them to the level of the other states.
It's easy to build an infrastructure in an empty place. It's much harder to build one around pre-existing people and (insufficient) structures. Look at the difference between, say, roads in the midwest, and roads in New England. The logistical and economic concerns of managing Mexico are vastly greater than Hawaii or Alaska combined, to the point that a comparison is barely even sensible. If you're joking, all right. I do note, however, that the biggest strength of the United States today is its investment in internal infrastructure. I'd rather live in Mississippi than in Mexico (or Cuba).
Mexico: "[U]nderdeveloped civil, political, and economic infrastructure coupled with [a] massive disparity in wealth and standard of living". America: Mexico's rich neighbor - could take a fraction of the billions spent on Iraq (halfway around the world) and fix many of the problems in Mexico (in our backyard), incidentally also allowing thousands of people who died in an unnecessary war live. America could actually do some good humanitarian work there, but doesn't seem to care.
Hmm. . . if the point is that America could have been a lot more humanitarian if it tried to help Mexico (actually, you could insert just about anything in this spot - including building a "National Trampoline" since some people think that what people buid in their backyards is analogous to a country's borders) instead of screwing up Iraq, the analogy works quite nicely. Now, that is a false analogy.
The fence analogy is not false. A border between countries and a border between property owners are the same thing, one is just much larger in scale. A country that does not secure/enforce its borders will not long remain a country.
A nation offering asylum is the same idea as if I open my door to help someone being chased on the street. I don't have to, and it might even be dangerous to, but it's still the nice thing to do.
NSFW for boobies at the end of vidja.
The proposed fence is a joke. It was passed as a "feel good" measure, nothing more.
The France who fought beside us in the American revolution is not the same as the France who gave us the Statue of Liberty.
You know what's in the front hall of Mount Vernon? The key to the Bastille. It was not a good joke.