US Plan to Economically Destabalize and Absorb Mexico..

[JMS]

There are plenty of people that don't like this on both sides. I'm pretty sure on the drive in somebody said Obama was against it (they were predicting that it wouldn't pass because people on the left like Obama would demand changes that would cause the people on the right to have to abondon it). Here's a quote:

The country is pretty uniformly against amnesty and against this bill. That can not be said of our leadership and American business who are both largely for this bill. Lindsey Gram, ® senator of South Carolina found that out this weekend when he was booed in his home district when he brought this bill up and defended it.

"And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) a White House hopeful, warned, "The proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification, replace the current group of undocumented immigrants with a new undocumented population consisting of guest workers who will overstay their visas, and potentially drive down wages of American workers.""

I think that's a valid concern. The net effect of millions of illegal immigrants has been to drive down wages. Used to be folks raised families on construction and janitorial jobs in this country. Not anymore. Hire illegals, pay them half to a third of American wages with no benefits. That's how they create jobs Americans won't do.

And you know Mcain is going to get slammed for it at the next GOP debate.

If people don't want them to become citizens now is their chance to step and speak or vote the people out in 2 years before any of the new people have a chance to become citizens and change the law.

That's because America knows the politicians largely created this mess, and are now saying they are unable to fix it; so we have to legitimize it. And no their is no chance of that. If Bush can get his 70 republican congressmen that Pelosi wants ( which he likely can ); then this bill is likely to go through with bipartisan support over the objections of the majority of Americans.

Also Romney is looking better and better as the Rep Presidential candidate. Did you see he opened up a double digit lead in Iowa?

And who is that the fault of? The people that don't vote!!

How do you figure the people that do vote aren't being given a say in this either. Not yet at least.

I like you JMS, but if you've figured it out and Allen talked about in a campaign that got national exposure, it can't be that big of a secret except for the stupid people to busy doing stupid stuff to pay attention, and they get what they deserve.

I agree with you. Only problem I have is if only stupid people don't know about this plan; we are discussing the vast majority of the country. Both those who vote and those who don't.

Also adding more than 100 million folks from Mexico who traditionally have even a poorer track record of holding their government accountable; likely won't improve our situation any.

On a brighter note, beach front property for retirement houses just got a lot more affordable.

[JMS]

p.s. I believe that illegal immigration should be stopped and then we should discuss what we want to do- including allowing parts of Mexico apply for statehood.

My biggest concern with such a process is that it be done correctly. Mexico should be brought up to American standards on environmental, construction, and work safeguards... ( which aren't all that high )... This should not be a further excuse to roll us back to non existent or Mexican social safeguards; which I'm afraid is what will happen.

[Larry]

My biggest concern with such a process is that it be done correctly. Mexico should be brought up to American standards on environmental, construction, and work safeguards... ( which aren't all that high )... This should not be a further excuse to roll us back to non existent or Mexican social safeguards; which I'm afraid is what will happen.

I really don't think Mexico should impose all of the restrictions that agencies like OSHA and EPA do. I think, if I'm Mexico, my question is "How high can I make the legal 'floor', and still look attractive to American companies who are thinking about investing here?"

For example, when NAFTA went through, I figured that the smart thing for Mexico to do would be to create, for example, a Minimum Wage. But, I figured, they should make their MW noticeably lower than the US. I figured, for example, that a Mexican MW of $2 an hour would be high enough to prevent employers from paying people $25 a week, but would still be low enough so that it would look really good compared to US workers.

If they impose all of the US restrictions on business, they won't get any businesses locating there. They should just impose the really important ones.

[sjinhan]

0) First, the US has to want Mexico.

maybe if people realize how much OIL and GAS that mexico has under its borders then I bet US wouldnt mind taking in Mexico...

Dont get me wrong i think this is stupid post but dude there is more things in Mexico than just laborers...

if Mexico gets their **** together then it can become a finacial powerhouse behind its oil and gas industry..,

[Mad Mike]

We REALLY need a tin foil hat avitar. :doh:

[Prosperity]

ummmm lol?

[JMS]

maybe if people realize how much OIL and GAS that mexico has under its borders then I bet US wouldnt mind taking in Mexico...

Dont get me wrong i think this is stupid post but dude there is more things in Mexico than just laborers...

if Mexico gets their **** together then it can become a financial powerhouse behind its oil and gas industry..,

If we did get Mexico, we would likely also get Guatemala and a few more countries too. Like Mexico now or in the near future; we have more Guatemalan workers here than they have in Guatemala. It would make us an even more important player in south America too. As I said the 21st century manifest destiny could be an expansion of US boarders down to the Panama canal. Between Mexico and Venezuela we would again be a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Also Mexico's oil reserves have more than doubled over the last half decade as a new oil field under the gulf of Mexico was discovered and has not yet come on line.

Don't get me wrong i think this is stupid post but dude there is more things in Mexico than just laborers...

Current estimates place the number of illegals here at 10-20 million folks the vast majority of them Mexican. At the low end of that scale it represents almost 30% of Mexico's workforce. At the high end it's more than 50%. You don't think that's destabilizing? The entire Mexican workforce estimated in 2006 was only 38.09 million (2006 est.).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#Econ

I just don't agree with you that this is a stupid or even unlikely eventuality. Not with potentially half of Mexico's workforce being granted American citizenship, and 90% of the other half wanting to come here.

The remittances from these illegal immigrants represent 30-40 billion dollars a year in hard currency for Mexico's economy. It's been estimated that 80% of the Mexican economy is now dependent upon the US. Either through tourism, NAFTA business exports/imports, or these illegal alien remittances.

As for which is more important the oil or the people. It's no a contest. The People. Oil is a nice to have, it makes us more secure; But America can import oil relatively cheaply when compared to taking on Latin America's population issues. The thing that is driving this buss is that China and India, neither of which have our existing natural resources are going to eclipse us economically in the next 30-40 years. They are going to accomplish this based on their populations alone and the economic potential that represents.. The US has to become bigger if we are going to have a chance of remaining the #1 economy in the world throughout the 21st and 22nd centuries. In order to accomplish this feet we are undergoing the largest period of immigration in our history over the last 30 years. 1 of 10 Americans were not born here, or their parents were not born here. Adding 100 million people to our collective would keep us #1 for 50 years. Then who knows what will happen.

The reason why I'm more interested in Mexico than Canada is because of economics. Mexico is low hanging fruit. The Canadian economy is actually better than the US economy right now. Currently the Canadian dollar is equal to 1.30 American. Almost a 50% swing since Bush took office.

[Koolblue13]

Maybe you should get used to saying the united states instead of america.

[PeterMP]

How do you figure the people that do vote aren't being given a say in this either. Not yet at least.

1. They had a say last year. It isn't like illegeal immigration is a new problem. People like Buchannon have been talking about it FOREVER. If people want to stop illegeal immigration then vote for candidates that are against illegeal immigration. It isn't that hard.

2. They'll get another say next year w/ the next election.

[JMS]

1. They had a say last year. It isn't like illegeal immigration is a new problem. People like Buchannon have been talking about it FOREVER. If people want to stop illegeal immigration then vote for candidates that are against illegeal immigration. It isn't that hard.

Which political party is against illegal immigration? Both the Democrats and the Republicans are pushing for this bill for different reasons. Buckhannon isn't even a member of a major party.

Fact is both parties pretend to be concerned, but both parties continue to sustain the problem. Now both parties are trying to legitimize the problem. I don't agree there is a choice out there. Nor do I believe candidates for political office are honestly representing their views on the issues.

2. They'll get another say next year w/ the next election.

That's one of the problems with our Republic. When both of the two major parties agree on an issue; they can pretty much ram change down the peoples throat on that basis alone without the support of the people. 70% of the people oppose amnesty for illegals. The Senate tried to push the 400+ legislation down our throats in one weak without many of the senators even having the time to read the legislation. Putting up a stink we got an extra week. This latest bill is a 50-50 shot right now.

[DjTj]

That's one of the problems with our Republic. When both of the two major parties agree on an issue; they can pretty much ram change down the peoples throat on that basis alone without the support of the people. 70% of the people oppose amnesty for illegals. The Senate tried to push the 400+ legislation down our throats in one weak without many of the senators even having the time to read the legislation. Putting up a stink we got an extra week. This latest bill is a 50-50 shot right now.

If the issue mattered that much, candidates would lose in their primaries because of it - there are still plenty of people in both parties who are anti-immigration. ... and if it really mattered that much, a third party could form - anti-immigrant sentiments have been the catalyst for political movements at many points in American history.

The problem is that the issue isn't that clear cut. Maybe 70% of people oppose amnesty, but only 20% of people want to deport them all. It seems like everyone has made up their mind about what they DON'T want to happen, but nobody really knows what they DO want ... that's a problem with a lot of issues; not just immigration.

Anyways, I think you're right that it's about 50/50 right now ... and the bill could change a lot even in just a week of debate in the Senate - and then it needs to go through the House which will inevitably pass a different bill. It will be interesting to see how it goes, and how this affects '08.

[Major Harris]

what the...?

You crazy, man.

Yes he is.

yes, yes he is:

[Johnny Punani]

I would be totally in favor of this if I could have Salma Hayek.

Damn Major, that isn't even a good pic of her.

this is...

My goodness.

[rincewind]

I would be totally in favor of this if I could have Salma Hayek.

If you read through the thread, she has already been spoken for. You can have Frida Kahlo though.

[Johnny Punani]

If you read through the thread, she has already been spoken for. You can have Frida Kahlo though.

oh gee thanks. Everyone else gets Selma Hayek and I get an ugly dead chick with a unibrow and a moustache.

Way to look out for your fellow Michigan fans rince...

[Predicto]

If we did get Mexico, we would likely also get Guatemala and a few more countries too. Like Mexico now or in the near future; we have more Guatemalan workers here than they have in Guatemala.

ONe of the reasons people are not taking you seriously is because you mix fact with fiction and speculation, and make no effort to separate the two.

Here is an example.

There are nearly 13 million people in Guatemala.

There are some 500,000 Guatamalan born in the US right now.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=385

Even if you question that figure, please show me any source from anywhere claiming that there are over 13 million Guatamalan workers in the US.

[rincewind]

ONe of the reasons people are not taking you seriously is because you mix fact with fiction and speculation, and make no effort to separate the two.

Here is an example.

There are nearly 13 million people in Guatemala.

There are some 500,000 Guatamalan born in the US right now.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=385

Even if you question that figure, please show me any source from anywhere claiming that there are over 13 million Guatamalan workers in the US.

Predicto, he said 'working'. Everybody knows the Guatamalans still in Guatamala are a bunch of lazy SOB's. All their hard workers come up here to earn that awesome 1.50/hr.

[rincewind]

oh gee thanks. Everyone else gets Selma Hayek and I get an ugly dead chick with a unibrow and a moustache.

Way to look out for your fellow Michigan fans rince...

Aww, c'mon man. She was quite the looker:

[Major Harris]

Damn Major, that isn't even a good pic of her.

it only serves to demonstrate her beauty. bad pic, still a 10.

[JMS]

ONe of the reasons people are not taking you seriously is because you mix fact with fiction and speculation, and make no effort to separate the two.

Here is an example.

There are nearly 13 million people in Guatemala.

There are some 500,000 Guatemalan born in the US right now.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=385

Even if you question that figure, please show me any source from anywhere claiming that there are over 13 million Guatemalan workers in the US.

13 million people in Guatemala all of whom don't work. The workforce is less than 40% of that number. Let me break it down for you.

So the estimated population of Guatemala in 2007 was 12,728,111. More than 40% of whom are under the age of 14. Only 3 million (3.4 million ) are men between the ages of 15-64 consisting of their workforce. males age 18-49: 1,911,412 !!! ( see military age ).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gt.html#People

Your source says half of all central American born respondents to the census were from Guatemala and El Salvador in 2000. It goes on to say that roughly that amounts to 500,000 guatemalans (25%) as you pointed out. But it places the total number of respondants born in central America in 2000 at only 2 million folks. Current estimates are 10-20 million illegals live in the US. It's likely your 500,000 number deals mostly with legal immigrants in 2000.

Between Guatemalans born here with duel citizenship, legal immigrants, and illegals I think the 2-3 million number isn't that outrageous as you make out. 25% of 10 million would be 2.5 million just in illegals and that's if the illegal problem is only 10 million and not 20 million or more..

Suffice it to say, The US 2000 census vastly under counted the illegal problem if they claimed only 2 million people living in the US were born in central America. Thus, your source has no credibiilty, which you may conceed. The illegal problem in 1986 under Ronald Reagan was 4 million and 50% of those folks took him up on amnesty.. Some 2.5 million folks applied for Regans amnesty in 1986. You think the illegal immigration problem got better from 1986 to 2000? I don't know of anybody claiming that except you through your refference, if that is indeed what you still contend.

I didn't say their were more Guatamalans in the US than in Guatamala. I said there were more Guatamalan workers in the US than in Guatamala. Putting the number of Guatamalan workers at around 2-3 million, I think I'm closer to the truth than you.

[Predicto]

13 million people in Guatemala all of whom don't work. The workforce is less than 40% of that number. Let me break it down for you.

So the estimated population of Guatemala in 2007 was 12,728,111. More than 40% of whom are under the age of 14. Only 3 million (3.4 million ) are men between the ages of 15-64 consisting of their workforce. males age 18-49: 1,911,412 !!! ( see military age ).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gt.html#People

Your source says half of all central American born respondents to the census were from Guatemala and El Salvador in 2000. It goes on to say that roughly that amounts to 500,000 guatemalans (25%). But it places the total number of illegals in 2000 at only 2 million folks. Current estimates are 10-20 million illegals live in the US.

Between Guatemalans born here with duel citizenship, legal immigrants, and illegals I think the 2-3 million number isn't that outrageous as you make out. 25% of 10 million would be 2.5 million just in illegals and that's if the illegal problem is only 10 million and not 20 million or more..

Suffice it to say, The US 2000 census vastly under counted the illegal problem if they claimed it's only 2 million. The illegal problem in 1986 under Ronald Reagan was 4 million and 50% of those folks took him up on amnesty.. Some 2.5 million folks applied for Regans amnesty in 1986. You think the illegal immigration problem got better from 1986 to 2000? I don't know of anybody claiming that except you through your reference.

I'm not claiming anything, really. YOU repeatedly asserted that there are more Guatamalans working in the US than there are in Guatamala. I was trying to point out to you that your arguments lose force because you stick stuff like that in without supporting it, and it looks like hyperbole or an urban myth.

So I asked you about the claim that there are more Guatamalans here than down there. Not because I doubt that illegal immigration is a problem, or because I doubt that there are more illegals than are shown in the census figures.

[JMS]

I'm not claiming anything, really. YOU repeatedly asserted that there are more Guatamalans working in the US than there are in Guatamala. I was trying to point out to you that your arguments lose force because you stick stuff like that in without supporting it, and it looks like hyperbole or an urban myth.

You are claiming something. You're just backing away from it now that the unreasonableness of the claim is pointed out for you.

So I asked you about the claim that there are more Guatamalans here than down there. Not because I doubt that illegal immigration is a problem, or because I doubt that there are more illegals than are shown in the census figures.

Which isn't even remotely what I said.

[Predicto]

You are claiming something. You're just backing away from it now that the unreasonableness of the claim is pointed out for you.

Ok. Technically so.

It still came up in the context of my doubts about your repeated claim that there are more Guatamalans working in the US than in Guatamala.

Which you still haven't demonstrated to be the case, although you clearly got that impression from some source. Or you would have said Panamanians or Peruvians or something.

So what is the source?

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I'll take the Salma Hayeks.....you can have the rest :laugh:

I claimed Salma Hayek first.....SO BACK OFF MY WOMAN! :laugh: :laugh:

[JMS]

Ok. Technically so.

It still came up in the context of my doubts about your repeated claim that there are more Guatamalans working in the US than in Guatamala.

Which you still haven't demonstrated to be the case, although you clearly got that impression from some source. Or you would have said Panamanians or Peruvians or something.

So what is the source?

Guatamala is a small country, which has undergone genocide, natural desasters and numerous government changes over the last 30 years. It also accounts for an unusually large percentage fo illegals and legal immigrants for those reasons

Here are some sources..

Since the 2000 census which estimated 500,000 Guatamalians living in the us they've averaged more than a million immigrants a year for the last 7 years. And Growing.. The remittance data suggests that 98 % of those who send money home to Guatamala do so from the United States. Which wold put the Number of Guatamalans living in the US since 2000 at around 4-5 million conservatively. Add to that the 500,000 who were already here and you get 4.5 million Guatamalans living here. Or about twice as many as work in Guatamala... 1.9 18-59 year old males from the CIA link.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=392

Remittances from Guatemalan emigrants have been and will continue to be a fundamental pillar of economic support for hundreds of thousands of urban and rural families. As remittances have grown — in 2005 they topped US$3 billion for the first time ever — their macroeconomic impact has begun to be felt nationwide, but especially in those departments which have experienced the largest emigration.

According to IOM, almost all (97.6 percent) are sent from the United States, and each household received, on average, about US$306 per month. Guatemala's remittances now exceed the total volume of its annual exports or income from tourism.

In 2004, the population residing abroad and sending remittances back home was approximately 1,049,349; 71.5 percent were men and 28.5 percent were women. Around 3.7 million Guatemalans (around a third of the population) now receive remittances; 57 percent of them live in rural areas. Four departments — Guatemala, San Marcos, Huehuetenango, and Alta Verapaz — receive almost half of all remittances.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=392

Reporting almost US$2.7 billion in official flows in 2004, Guatemala topped the list, followed closely by El Salvador, with US$2.5 billion (see Table 1). These two countries, which account for nearly two-thirds of the two million Central Americans counted in the 2000 US census, receive almost 64 percent of total remittance flows to Central America, and they are the fourth- and fifth-largest remittance-receiving countries in LAC. Remittance growth in Guatemala tripled from 2001 to 2004.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=393