It had to happen...


The Mexican government is seeking changes to a plan that would expand fences along the United States - Mexico border. It is due to a threat to migratory species (http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=6863611)accustomed to roaming freely across the frontier. The Environment Department called on Washington to alter the border barriers. The goal is change the border where necessary because the fences could seriously hurt species that cross a 1,900 mile stretch.

Mexico also wants Washington to expand its environmental impact study on the fences. "The eventual construction of this barrier would place at risk the various ecosystems that we share," said Environment Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira. He noted that the border is not just desert, but includes mountains, rivers and wetlands.

A report prepared for the Mexican government by experts and activists from both countries said the fences could isolate border animals into smaller population groups. Thereby affecting their genetic diversity.

Environmentalists add that highly endangered species like the antelope - the Sonoran Pronghorn of which only about 100 still exist - could be wiped out in coming years. They are used to moving across the border in search of scarce grassland.

Which is worse for this environment, a fence or thousands upon thousands of illegals overrunning the land, letting campfires burn out of control, killing whatever they can find to eat and otherwise trashing the place?

Well, I know which side of the fence you sit on! PMSL reading this thread you started.

You know what I find most curious? The fact that the Mexican government is actually concerned about the ecosystem. How progressive of them. ;)

Since when have Mexicans ever cared about the environment? Since we decided we wanted to put up a fence!

Since when have Mexicans ever cared about the environment? Since we decided we wanted to put up a fence!

Yep, here's a nice shot of Mexico City:

http://www.pollutionissues.com/images/paz_02_img0237.jpg

I even hear The Goracle is taking his road show to Mexico (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B49C8DBC1-AF0C-4A88-9450-040EA3CD3E87%7D)&language=EN) :D

Oh trust me, I know what it looks like. I've been to Ensenada, Tijuana, and Juarez. I hope and pray that the U.S. doesn't end up looking like any of those places, but its already headed in that direction.

Well, I know which side of the fence you sit on! PMSL reading this thread you started.

You know what I find most curious? The fact that the Mexican government is actually concerned about the ecosystem. How progressive of them. ;)

Hey now, besides their newfound eco-conscience, the mayor of Mexico City plans on adding 'fun' (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/29/america/LA-GEN-Mexico-Fun-City.php) instead of just the same old "express kidnappings." :D

Well, will wonders never cease! Now that is what I call a case of really taking the bull by the horns (or cajones, whatever the case may be)! What a mover and shaker he is! Do you think he has a snowball's chance of doing this during our lifetime? Ahem. Nah.

speechlesstx agrees: If you've been there, how can you not notice? I found Tijuana to be a sad, sad place, and that could be the kind of 'urban renewal' we're headed for if we DON'T build that fence.

Oh trust me I do notice. That's why I said we're headed in that direction. California is crap, so is Texas for the most part. Arizona and New Mexico aren't THAT bad, but they're headed there too. We need to get that fence built before we become Mexico, Part 2.

It had to happen...



Which is worse for this environment, a fence or thousands upon thousands of illegals overrunning the land, letting campfires burn out of control, killing whatever they can find to eat and otherwise trashing the place?

As far as I'm concern the U.S. might as well make Mexico the fifty-first state. There certainly are natural resources to be shared, lots of land, and plenty workforce. As for the topic: in 1992 Mexico had one of the largest disregards for the environment and humanity on our shared continent. So disastrous it became a National Geographic special.

Chemical Blasts Rock Guadalajara (http://www.emergency.com/mxcoblst.htm)



Bobby

Oh trust me I do notice. Thats why I said we're headed in that direction. California is crap, so is Texas for the most part. Arizona and New Mexico arent THAT bad, but they're headed there too. We need to get that fence built before we become Mexico, Part 2.

Hang on there, my part of Texas is booming and quite nice... except for those Wal-Mart bags decorating our trees thanks to the wind, and those ugly Caddies :D

http://justinsomnia.org/images/amarillo_cadillac_ranch.jpg

Hang on there, my part of Texas is booming and quite nice ... except for those Wal-Mart bags decorating our trees thanks to the wind, and those ugly Caddies :D


LOL, I said "for the most part" on Texas. There are still SOME nice parts of California, but that's only because its too expensive for them to live there. Unfortunately, its too expensive for me to live there as well.. lol :)

As for the topic: in 1992 Mexico had one of the largest disregards for the environment and humanity on our shared continent. So disastrous it became a National Geographic special.

Bobby


Why does that not surprise me? Lol

"Why does that not surprise me? lol"



The Guadalajara blast in 1992 was horrible. I think instead of spending untold amounts of our tax dollars we should uses the resources of Mexico with our U.S. ingenuity.



Bobby

"Why does that not surprise me? lol"



The Guadalajara blast in 1992 was horrible. I think instead of spending untold amounts of our tax dollars we should uses the resources of Mexico with our U.S. ingenuity.



Bobby

Crap. I guess I misunderstood what you said, after all I was 9 when that happened. I don't even remember it. It did sound horrible though.

What do you mean by "uses the resources of Mexico" though? As far as I've seen personally, Mexico doesn't have much for resources.

There are still SOME nice parts of California, but thats only because its too expensive for them to live there. Unfortunately, its too expensive for me to live there as well..lol :)

Which is why I don't live there, lol.

Which is why I don't live there, lol.

I'm getting ready to move there soon, but not to a very nice part. :( My husband is going to be a CO for one of the prisons over there.

My hometown is Reedley, CA. It used to be so beautiful when I was younger, but it has turned to crap. Garbage everywhere, people loitering in front of stores and shopping malls, the whole town stinks in general, I mean actually has a bad smell. Its such a shame.

Crap. I guess i misunderstood what you said, after all I was 9 when that happened. I dont even remember it. It did sound horrible though.

What do you mean by "uses the resources of Mexico" though? As far as i've seen personally, Mexico doesnt have much for resources.


That's the problem with the issue. Most Americans have been looking at the issue with negatives for decades and now have resigned to building fences. Mexico has much to offer. We have to share our ingenuity to make it productive for both societies. The following list is not updated, but it is a good primer.

MEXICO

Agriculture: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, dairy products; wood products. Labor force: 43.4 million; agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003). Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism. Natural resources: petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Exports: $213.7 billion f.o.b. (2005 est.): manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton. Imports: $223.7 billion f.o.b. (2005 est.): metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment, car parts for assembly, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts. Major trading partners: U.S. Canada, Spain, China, Japan (2004).

Communications: Telephones: main lines in use: 12.332 million (2000); mobile cellular: 2.02 million (1998). Radio broadcast stations: AM 851, FM 598, shortwave 16 (2000). Radios: 31 million (1997). Television broadcast stations: 236 (plus repeaters) (1997). Televisions: 25.6 million (1997). Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 51 (2000). Internet users: 3.5 million (2002).

Transportation: Railways: total: 19,510 km (2002). Highways: total: 329,532 km; paved: 108,087 km (including 6,429 km of expressways); unpaved: 221,445 km (1999 est.). Waterways: 2,900 km navigable rivers and coastal canals. Ports and harbors: Acapulco, Altamira, Coatzacoalcos, Ensenada, Guaymas, La Paz, Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo, Mazatlan, Progreso, Salina Cruz, Tampico, Topolobampo, Tuxpan, Veracruz. Airports: 1,823 (2002).



Bobby

I don't know about the Natural Resources, but we pretty much have all of the other things that they have. I guess I can agree that Agriculturally and Industrially Mexico is okay, but the people themselves don't care about anything. The environment, education, etc. I feel that they think they've trashed their own environment all to hell and now they don't want to live in it, so they move on to the U.S. and do the same thing.

FTA:

Environmentalists add that highly endangered species like the antelope - the Sonoran Pronghorn of which only about 100 still exist - could be wiped out in coming years. They are used to moving across the border in search of scarce grassland.

How about we make a deal; we'll build the fence and keep the antelope. Mexico can keep their citizens.

:)


As far as I'm concern the U.S. might as well make Mexico the fifty-first state.

You make the assumption Mexico wants to become a part of the US. You also make the assumption all the illegal immigrants into this country are Mexican. You've also not considered the extreme difference in culture and ethics which would have to be overcome in order to take advantage of the natural resources in Mexico. Mexico is on it's way up in the world (thanks in large part to NAFTA) but they still aren't first-world. They still don't have a reasonable govt, suffer from a lot of poverty, crime, drugs, etc. I don't know about you, but I think we've got enough corruption in our govt, enough crime, poverty and drugs in our own country that we don't need to INVITE more in.

I dont know about the Natural Resources, but we pretty much have all of the other things that they have. I guess I can agree that Agriculturally and Industrially Mexico is okay, but the people themselves dont care about anything. The environment, education, etc. I feel that they think they've trashed their own environment all to hell and now they dont want to live in it, so they move on to the U.S. and do the same exact thing.


On an individual level I've seen born and raised U.S. citizens live in filth and I'd rather give credit when it's due and not all Mexicans are guilty of trashing neighborhoods. There is no doubt that if we could force a higher standard on Mexico govt that in return they can learn to do better. In fact I put the link in my original post to demonstrate they (Mexico govt) are hypocritical to call us out for not being environmentally conscience. The other issue is that Mexico has plenty of potential. With our U.S. laws on their books we would see things work for the better on both ends.



Bobby

On an individual level I've seen born and raised U.S. citizens live in filth and I'd rather give credit when it's due and not all Mexicans are guilty of trashing neighborhoods. There is no doubt that if we could force a higher standard on Mexico govt that in return they can learn to do better. In fact I put the link in my original post to demonstrate they (Mexico govt) are hypocritical to call us out for not being environmentally conscience. The other issue is that Mexico has plenty of potential. With our U.S. laws on their books we would see things work for the better on both ends.



Bobby

If Mexico was to become part of the U.S. like you propose, then we'd have no choice but to make them citizens. How do you think making them all citizens would help the U.S.

FTA:
You make the assumption Mexico wants to become a part of the US. You also make the assumption all the illegal immigrants into this country are Mexican. You've also not considered the extreme difference in culture and ethics which would have to be overcome in order to take advantage of the natural resources in Mexico. Mexico is on it's way up in the world (thanks in large part to NAFTA) but they still aren't first-world. They still don't have a reasonable govt, suffer from a lot of poverty, crime, drugs, etc. I don't know about you, but I think we've got enough corruption in our govt, enough crime, poverty and drugs in our own country that we don't need to INVITE more in.


Nope! I did not assume this. I left this open for someone to suggest otherwise. Thank you! In actuality, the Mexican govt is influenced by wealthy families in Mexico and the U.S. and those in both do not want this. Another reason is historical pride of both nations. Extreme culture and ethics? Are you kidding me? Have you seen overt Hispanic population in the southwest U.S.. Please! No disrespect, but that was a very poor excuse. It's called acclimation.



Bobby

If Mexico was to become part of the U.S., like you propose, then we'd have no choice but to make them citizens. How do you think making them all citizens would help the U.S.?


Just like our families that work and make purchases it stimulates the economy. They would get taxed into the system. Likewise our large companies would open up to their workforce in Mexico without interference. Nike was down there years ago, but unfortunately offered the Mexicans slave wages and got removed. The laws on the books would have to protect the Mexican worker as well. Again checks and balances to make this successful and productive for everyone in the long haul.



Bobby

Just like our families that work and make purchases it stimulates the economy. They would get taxed into the system. Likewise our large companies would open up to their workforce in Mexico without interference. Nike was down there years ago, but unfortunately offered the Mexicans slave wages and got removed. The laws on the books would have to protect the Mexican worker as well. Again checks and balances to make this successful and productive for everyone in the long haul.



Bobby

But that is, if they wanted to work. The migrant workers that come here are great, but there are also some that come here and don't want to work, they'd rather be on welfare. You don't think a lot of them would just rather be on welfare that the workers tax dollars would have to pay for?

Nope! I did not assume this. I left this open for someone to suggest otherwise. Thank you! In actuality, the Mexican govt is influenced by wealthy families in Mexico and the U.S. and those in both do not want this. Another reason is historical pride of both nations. Extreme culture and ethics? Are you kidding me?! Have you seen overt Hispanic population in the southwest U.S.. Please! No disrespect, but that was a very poor excuse. It's called acclimation.



Bobby

Gee... I'm so glad to have engaged you.

Yes, the Mexican and US govts are both influenced by rich families and history, so what makes you think they would want to become one big nation? If you call it "Mexico" the US loses it's sense of nationalism, if you call it "US" the Mexicans lose their nationalism. You call it "Mexi-us" and BOTH lose their nationalism. So... what could possibly make you think this would be a good idea?

Culture and ethics is NOT a poor excuse; and your example of the Hispanic population in the SW, or the SW in general doesn't apply. The areas you refer to are commonly called "America's Heartland" and there is a STRONG sense of American nationalism among the US citizens there. The Hispanic immigrants in that area have adapted to US culture and ethics because they are IN THE US! And even at that point, many have done so reluctantly and with limitations. In case you haven't noticed, Mexico and the US have very different cultures; we have different values, opinions on social behavior, business behavior and so on. Would some acclimate to US culture and values? Sure, some of the immigrants who have come here have done just that. But MANY of the ones who have come here have held strong to their nationalism and pride, despite taking advantage of US policy and opportunity. So what makes you think an entire nation would "acclimate"? Integrating two different cultures is hard, especially when neither one wants it. But you acknowledge that neither govt wants it, so what's your point again?

Oh, and so nice of you to gloss over the points I made about crime and poverty...

Gee... I'm so glad to have engaged you.

Yes, the Mexican and US govts are both influenced by rich families and history, so what makes you think they would want to become one big nation? If you call it "Mexico" the US loses it's sense of nationalism, if you call it "US" the Mexicans lose their nationalism. You call it "Mexi-us" and BOTH lose their nationalism. So.... what could possibly make you think this would be a good idea?

Culture and ethics is NOT a poor excuse; and your example of the Hispanic population in the SW, or the SW in general doesn't apply. The areas you refer to are commonly called "America's Heartland" and there is a STRONG sense of American nationalism among the US citizens there. The Hispanic immigrants in that area have adapted to US culture and ethics because they are IN THE US! And even at that point, many have done so reluctantly and with limitations. In case you haven't noticed, Mexico and the US have very different cultures; we have different values, opinions on social behavior, business behavior and so on. Would some acclimate to US culture and values? Sure, some of the immigrants who have come here have done just that. But MANY of the ones who have come here have held strong to their nationalism and pride, despite taking advantage of US policy and opportunity. So what makes you think an entire nation would "acclimate"? Integrating two different cultures is hard, especially when neither one wants it. But you acknowledge that neither govt wants it, so what's your point again?

Oh, and so nice of you to gloss over the points I made about crime and poverty...



I'm glad to have this conversation. I'm on the productive end of this because I have a possible solution that has not been tried and admit it obviously would not be popular, nor likely. I'm not glossing over your points, respectfully, it's not worth it for me to point out all our own criminal activity in the U.S. or lack of values. Being Jewish I understand how to acclimate with best of anybody of other ethnicities. What I'm hearing is that many of my fellow U.S. citizens have a fear of Mexicans. Baloney (or Tacos)! Besides since when did the U.S. stop being a melting pot (or at least stir fry)? What's next? The removal of African Americans?



Bobby

But that is, if they wanted to work. The migrant workers that come here are great, but there are also some that come here and dont want to work, they'd rather be on welfare. You dont think a lot of them would just rather be on welfare that the workers tax dollars would have to pay for?


Oh they work! It's just that they send the money back to the families in Mexico. Welfare is a problem that doesn't know race. We are on the same page. I'd reduce welfare in a heartbeat and that would include everyone.



Bobby

Oh they work! It's just that they send the money back to the families in Mexico. Welfare is a problem that doesn't know race. We are on the same page. I'd reduce welfare in a heartbeat and that would include everyone.



Bobby

There are some people that actually do need it. Some of the Mexicans even do need it, but not when they are ABLE to work, and too lazy to. Trust me, there are quite a few that don't work, and just live off welfare.

I mean there are some people on welfare that need it, and there are some people on welfare that really don't. On that issue, where do we draw the line? Its like they're just giving it to everybody that applies for it, whether they actually need it or not.

I agree though, it needs to be reduced, and badly.

There are some people that actually do need it. Some of the Mexicans even do need it, but not when they are ABLE to work, and too lazy to. Trust me, there are quite a few that dont work, and just live off of welfare.

I mean there are some people on welfare that need it, and there are some people on welfare that really dont. On that issue, where do we draw the line? Its like they're just giving it to everybody that applies for it, whether they actually need it or not.

I agree though, it needs to be reduced, and badly.


As we both know the welfare system got out of hand decades ago. I'm sure it's not what Roosevelt had in mind that would come to fruition. The far left liberals probably like the status quot, but the guidelines need to be revised. Anyone lazy and found guilty by a committee ruling should lose their welfare rights for a lifetime.


Bobby

Anyone lazy and found guilty by a committee ruling should lose their welfare rights for a lifetime.


Bobby


I agree they should. But I don't think that the steps are taken to make sure that people are able to work, and not just being lazy.

I'm glad to have this conversation. I'm on the productive end of this because I have a possible solution that has not been tried and admit it obviously would not be popular, nor likely. I'm not glossing over your points, respectfully, it's not worth for me to point out all our own criminal activity in the U.S. or lack of values. Being Jewish I understand how to acclimate with best of anybody of other ethnicities. What I'm hearing is that many of my fellow U.S. citizens have a fear of Mexicans. Baloney (or Tacos)! Besides since when did the U.S. stop being a melting pot (or at least stir fry)?

Bobby

Did you miss the part in my post where I said:


I think we've got enough corruption in our govt, enough crime, poverty and drugs in our own country that we don't need to INVITE more in.

I'm not an idiot, I don't think America is perfect and free from crime/poverty/corruption. I simply think it is foolish to invite MORE crime/poverty/corruption into our nation. We've got enough problems of our own. You, on the other hand have suggested we make Mexico a state... sounds like an invitation to me.

And sorry, but I don't think people have a "fear of Mexicans". I'll point out to you again that not all illegal immigrants are Mexican, so maybe what you meant to say was "fear of brown people". I still disagree. It has nothing to do with fear or skin color, or culture or tacos, it has to do with several million illegal immigrants in our country. What part of "illegal" is so difficult to understand? You ask when America stopped being a melting pot, but in your previous post you point out that the US SW has a huge Hispanic influence. How do you get Hispanic influence in a melting pot? Hmmmmmm?? So which is it?

And this:


What's next? The removal of African Americans?

Is called trolling and points out your ignorance. It's not about "brown people" or "black people" or "yellow people" it's about ILLEGAL people.

Did you miss the part in my post where I said:



I'm not an idiot, I don't think America is perfect and free from crime/poverty/corruption. I simply think it is foolish to invite MORE crime/poverty/corruption into our nation. We've got enough problems of our own. You, on the other hand have suggested we make Mexico a state... sounds like an invitation to me.

It is an invitation. An invitation to the good in people. You can call yourself an idiot. I suggested a solution. So far all you came up with is how bad others are.


And sorry, but I don't think people have a "fear of Mexicans".

I think you had the board snookered. Amazing. For awhile there all you spoke of was negatives. In fact, I still haven't heard one positive.



I'll point out to you again that not all illegal immigrants are Mexican, so maybe what you meant to say was "fear of brown people".

Keep up please. We were talking about Mexico and the fence topic.



I still disagree.


Good luck with your fence project.




It has nothing to do with fear or skin color, or culture or tacos, it has to do with several million illegal immigrants in our country.

Oh you mean the ones from Mexico... right?



What part of "illegal" is so difficult to understand?


What part of sending them back to Mexico only to come back two weeks later don't you understand? BTW, as a sponsor, I've been through the legal immigration system. Have you?



You ask when America stopped being a melting pot, but in your previous post you point out that the US SW has a huge Hispanic influence. How do you get Hispanic influence in a melting pot? Hmmmmmm?? So which is it?


For most people in the US it's the melting pot (or stir fry). My solution was about legalization so that the issue is put behind us. Hello again! Hispanics originally from Mexico make up a part of this great country and historically were here before Caucasians. Do you really think they are going to be cut off from the families they have in Mexico. Think again!





And this:

Is called trolling and points out your ignorance. It's not about "brown people" or "black people" or "yellow people" it's about ILLEGAL people.


Why would I need to troll? Need I remind you thus far your argument is, "I simply think it is foolish to invite MORE crime/poverty/corruption into our nation."




Bobby:)

Back to the original issue of this thread... Why is the USA required to be more environmentally aware than other countries unto the point of creating a national security weakness? Why are WE required to worry about migrant species and leave our borders open when other countries are free to secure their borders by whatever means they see fit? We are we, the USA, required to commit national suicide to please the leftist wackos? Has anyone spoken to Iran, Cuba, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, North Korea, Vietnam, or any other country in the world about how they secure their borders and the effect it has on the environment? And would they care if you did?

Elliot

It had to happen...



Which is worse for this environment, a fence or thousands upon thousands of illegals overrunning the land, letting campfires burn out of control, killing whatever they can find to eat and otherwise trashing the place?
I suppose the answer to that depends whether it comes from somebody who supports and advocates a system of government characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism; who wants to exploit cheap labor, or a humanitarian who realizes the need to balance human action with the environment

I simply think it is foolish to invite MORE crime/poverty/corruption into our nation. Hello:

This isn't addressed to you specifically, my fav jillian, but you hit the nail on the head, and I want to use you.

In my view, the discussion turns on the point you made. We are unable to define just who it is that's crossing our southern border. I think most of 'em are leaf blowers. The people on the other side think most of 'em are crooks.

Now come on, people. I don't deny that some crooks come over. Hopefully, you don't deny that some lettuce pickers get through too.

Ok, I'm no idiot (contrary to popular opinion). I don't think we need MORE crooks, and if most of are, then STOP 'em. On the other hand, I think we can use all the dishwashers and nanny's we can get.

So, I wonder if it's sooooo hard to get a demographic on those who cross. I actually think we can. I don't think it's hard at all. I actually think we did. I actually think the demographic supports MY conclusion.

I would be happy to change my mind, if you can show me a demographic that shows most of the crossers are criminals. Showing me that a small part of them are crooks, though (which ain't no surprise to me), isn't going to change my mind.

Now, I know you, on the other side, THINK that you're being invaded by really bad people. However, BUT FOR their illegal border crossing, I believe most of the illegals bring a work and family ethic that supports the views we as Americans hold dear. Indeed, THEY, like ANY immigrant group that has crossed before (including YOURS) make America as great as it is.

In my view, since the demographics DON'T support your view, I think your view stems from racism.

excon

In my view, since the demographics DON'T support your view, I think your view stems from racism.

Hello excon the science mon, I don't see it as racism at all, not to say that it isn't racism for SOME people - which I believe to be a minority. I love the Mexican people and I understand that many if not most do come with the character and values that made us a great nation. To me it's a plain and simple necessity to secure the borders. Period.

Steve

Obviously you all have misinterpreted what I've written. No where have I said ALL immigrants are crooks/druggies/bad people. I'm well aware that many of them come to this country seeking a better life. However, leaving an open border allows the undesireables to come across too. If we eliminate illegal crossing, we can ensure the people coming here are the lettuce pickers my buddy excon loves so much. :) I'm not against immigration, I'm against ILLEGAL immigration. I've posted in other threads that I don't think all illegals should be rounded up and deported (much to ETW's dismay), but the situation is out of control. As a nation we need to be aware of who is coming into our country.


Keep up please. We were talking about Mexico and the fence topic.

I beg your pardon, a$$, but you are the one who brought up the "fear of Mexicans". Let me refresh your memory.


What I'm hearing is that many of my fellow U.S. citizens have a fear of Mexicans.

Oopsie! Looks like you're the one who turned the conversation that way! And then you had the audacity to imply "we" will try to get rid of all the African Americans! Sounds like trolling to me...


I still haven't heard one positive.

What positives do you want to hear? That a lot of immigrants come here to make a better life for themselves and their families? That they have more opportunities here than in their home country (which you keep referring to as Mexico, when it's not always Mexico)? That their children are given better educations here? That they have access to clean drinking water, fresh food, and in general, a safe environment? That not all of them are criminals waiting to steal the shirt off your back? That some are doing jobs "Americans won't do"? I'm well aware of all these things.


Oh you mean the ones from Mexico... right?

Mexico, Hondorus, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Panama, Venezuela, China, Korea... Sorry bud, it's not just Mexicans coming here illegally.


My solution was about legalization so that the issue is put behind us.

Legalization of what? You reference your "solution" but in your previous posts you only ever say,


I have a possible solution that has not been tried and admit it obviously would not be popular, nor likely.

Care to elaborate?


Need I remind you thus far your argument is, "I simply think it is foolish to invite MORE crime/poverty/corruption into our nation."

My argument is that national security is more important that a couple of antelope.

Excon, I know you said your post isn't directed specifically at me, but this:


I think your view stems from racism.

Is highly offensive. It is not racist to want secure borders. It is not racist to want eliminate illegal immigration and allow legal immigration into the country.

And on that note, I'm done here. Unsubscribing as soon as I hit "submit answer".

It is not racist to want secure borders. It is not racist to want eliminate illegal immigration and allow legal immigration into the country.And on that note, I'm done here. Unsubscribing as soon as I hit "submit answer".Hello again, jillian:

I agree, my accusation is offensive.

But, we DON'T disagree on the solution, which is a secure border. If the conversation was about that, then I couldn't loft my charge.
But it isn't... It's about the people and who they are. It's about how dirty their city's are... That's racism. I don't know how more delicately I could put it.

excon

Maybe the Mexican government's real concern over a fence is that illegal immigrant will be the endangered species.

Like any group of people, there will be a certain % that is criminal. Mexican, white, black etc...

e.g.

Hidden cost of illegal immigration: ID theft - The Red Tape Chronicles - MSNBC.com (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html) - I know a puff piece, but from the msm.

But...

Excluding the law that is broken coming over here ILLEGALLY, isn't it our [USA] right as a sovreign nation, during a global war on terrorism, to decide who we let in?




Grace and Peace

Excon,

You may be 100% right that ALL of them are just leaf blowers. BUT I DON'T CARE. It doesn't matter to me what they want to do here. They are here illegally. Therefore they are criminals.

There are plenty of immigrants who are here legally who would do those same jobs but who can't because the jobs are being given to the illegals for lower wages. There a plenty of citizens who would do those jobs, but who can't because the jobs are being given to illegals for lower wages. Perfectly legal labor would do these jobs, but they cannot because illegals are ILLEGALLY taking those jobs for lower wages. And simply saying that we are going to legalize the current batch of illegal immigrant workers won't solve this problem. It will merely perpetuate the problem, because there will be MORE illegal immigrants, those illegal immigrants will continue to take jobs for lower wages, and the ones we legalize in this go-around will either be out of a job because they are demanding a higher wage (being legal, they can do that) that their employer doesn't want to pay... or else they will be stuck in jobs that continue to promote slave wages, and will be competing with the NEXT crop of illegal workers to come over the border. Either way, the problem perpetuates itself. Your "solution" doesn't actually solve anything. It just legalizes it... which just makes it harder for the government to solve the immigrant poverty issues later.


But by closing off the border, enforcing immigration law, holding employers accountable for illegal hires, and deporting illegals when we find them, we create a situation is which the problem CAN be solved, or at least mitigated to a great degree. If employers are held accountable, they won't hire illegals. If illegals aren't being hired, they have no reason to come here in the first place. If the borders become tougher to cross at the same time that we are holding employers accountable for illegal hires, the risk of coming here will no longer be worth the "reward" of getting here, and illegals will stop taking the risk. If we deport the ones who we do find here whenever we find them, we make the risk even greater, and the incentive to come here less. And if at the same time we get rid of the "anchor baby" exceptions, we take away the last incentive of illegals to come here.


In short, if we disincentivize coming to this country illegally, people will stop wanting to come here illegally. And if they don't want to come here, then the problem is pretty much solved, isn't it. Oh, sure, a few will come anyway, but not the millions upon millions that are here now. But if you grant immunity or amnesty to illegal aliens, you give them a greater incentive to come here, which just perpetuates the problem, drives wages down, and increases poverty and joblessness in the USA. Not to mention increases in crime.


Rewarding bad behavior NEVER stops that behavior. It never has and it never will. It doesn't work for welfare (paying people not to work and then wondering why they don't work), it doesn't work for education (social promotion doesn't teach kids to read or write), and it doesn't work for criminal behavior and illegal immigration (rewarding iillegal aliens for coming here illegally by giving them amnesty and de-facto citizenship rights).


Excon, you see illegal immigration as a "little" crime. You see marijuana use the same way... a little crime. And you feel we should ignore those little crimes.


Well, would you eat a piece of cake that was made with a "little" crap as one of the ingredients? Just a teeny-tiny bit. Not enough to actually harm you or anything. Just a drop. After all, it's just a "little" crap. It won't change the taste of the cake. If you can ignore a little crime, you should just as easily be able to ignore a little crap.


If you wouldn't eat such a piece of cake (and I wouldn't), then you need to re-think your position... because a "little" crime like illegal immigration or marijuana use is still a crime, just like a little tiny bit of crap in the cake is still crap. Illegal is illegal, whether it's a big crime or a small crime.

Sorry for getting so graphic. It was pretty disgusting, but I think I think that it needed to be said.


Elliot

Obviously you all have misinterpreted what I've written. No where have I said ALL immigrants are crooks/druggies/bad people. I'm well aware that many of them come to this country seeking a better life. However, leaving an open border allows the undesireables to come across too. If we eliminate illegal crossing, we can ensure the people coming here are the lettuce pickers my buddy excon loves so much. :) I'm not against immigration, I'm against ILLEGAL immigration. I've posted in other threads that I don't think all illegals should be rounded up and deported (much to ETW's dismay), but the situation is out of control. As a nation we need to be aware of who is coming into our country.



I beg your pardon, a$$, but you are the one who brought up the "fear of Mexicans". Let me refresh your memory.



Oopsie! Looks like you're the one who turned the conversation that way! And then you had the audacity to imply "we" will try to get rid of all the African Americans! Sounds like trolling to me...



What positives do you want to hear? That a lot of immigrants come here to make a better life for themselves and their families? That they have more opportunities here than in their home country (which you keep referring to as Mexico, when it's not always Mexico)? That their children are given better educations here? That they have access to clean drinking water, fresh food, and in general, a safe environment? That not all of them are criminals waiting to steal the shirt off your back? That some are doing jobs "Americans won't do"? I'm well aware of all these things.



Mexico, Hondorus, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Panama, Venezuela, China, Korea... Sorry bud, it's not just Mexicans coming here illegally.



Legalization of what? You reference your "solution" but in your previous posts you only ever say,



Care to elaborate?



My argument is that national security is more important that a couple of antelope.

excon, I know you said your post isn't directed specifically at me, but this:



Is highly offensive. It is not racist to want secure borders. It is not racist to want eliminate illegal immigration and allow legal immigration into the country.

And on that note, I'm done here. Unsubscribing as soon as I hit "submit answer".


I addressed the original subject in the post using the Guadalajara link. In fact I think it was the third post in the first string. Your argument on the addendum subject was weak. Sorry you got your feelings hurt. However having known excon for years he respects your freedom of speech and appreciates your opinion, as well as I do, minus your name calling tantrum.



Bobby:)

Excon, you see illegal immigration as a "little" crime. You see marijuana use the same way... a little crime. And you feel we should ignore those little crimesHello El:

Nope. I see it as NO crime whatsoever!! We've argued these points before.

It's true: I maintain, that behavior that isn't harmful to society isn't a crime, and wouldn't BE a crime, BUT for the laws against it. You can't say that about murder.

YOU don't care about the behavior. You only care about the law. I believe that kind of thinking is shortsighted, mean spirited, racist, and Un-Constitutional.

excon

I maintain, that behavior that isn't harmful to society isn't a crime, and wouldn't BE a crime, BUT for the laws against it. You can't say that about murder.

Looks to me like you are trying to redefine "legality" for "morality". Sorry, but there is a difference between something that is illegal and something that is immoral. There is nothing immoral about doing 80 in a 40 zone. But it is illegal. And yes, the only reason that it is illegal to do 80 in a 40 zone is because the law says so. So what? That alone doesn't make it a bad law.

On the other side of the coin, there is no law against adultery in the American legal system. But it is immoral to do so. And the fact that there isn't law on the books preventing it doesn't make it "right".

Bottom line, morality is not the sole determinant of whether an action is legal or not. Nor is legality the sole derterminant of what is moral. The two are often closely related, but they are independent of each other.

So the fact that you believe that a particular action doesn't hurt people and is therefore moral doesn't make it legal... nor should it. We elect representatives who make laws and we can become part of the system to change the laws if we don't like them. But to say that a particular action is only illegal because the law says so isn't an argument. ALL illegal actions are only illegal because the law says so, just as all immoral actions are only immoral because morality says so. The law says that marijuana use is illegal. Nobody is making any arguments about it's morality right now. It is merely ILLEGAL. But it IS illegal. The fact that you would like to argue that it isn't really illegal because it isn't immoral is a poor legal argument to maintain your innoence. It's fine for saying that the law ought to be changed, but you can't say that it isn't illegal right now.


YOU don't care about the behavior. You only care about the law.

Actually, I do care about the behavior of illegal aliens. The behavior itself is illegal, and despite your arguments it is indeed harmful, and thus immoral... both to us, and to them. To us, because they are taking jobs from legal aliens and citizens and driving wages down, and to them because they are perpetuating their own government-sanctioned slavery and poverty.


I believe that kind of thinking is shortsighted, mean spirited, racist, and Un-Constitutional.

As I've said before, you are entitled to be wrong as often as you want.

But my view isn't short-sighted at all... we've tried this amnesty road before after the Mariel Boatlift, and it has just gotten worse. Trying the same thing that didn't work the first time again and again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. And looking at the short-term effect on the illegals who are here now, but ignoring the negative effects to us and to the next batch of illegals 20 years down the road is shortsighted.

Neither is my position mean spirited. If I were being mean-spirited, I would say that all immigration, legal or illegal, should be stopped completely. THAT would be mean-spirited. That is not, nor has it ever been my position, and you know it.

Nor is my position racist. I want to apply the same rules to all illegal aliens, regardless of race... including illegal immigrant Israelis, by the way. That isn't racism.

And finally, my position is NOT unConstitutional at all. My position is that we should enforce the immigration laws that are on the books, which are completely Constitutional. Ignoring the law... now that would be unConstitutional.

Elliot

Since when have Mexicans ever cared about the environment? Since we decided we wanted to put up a fence!

Do you really want to know? Since forty years ago.


Excerpt

By the 1970s the high concentration of people, industry and air polluting motor vehicles inhabiting limited geographical areas created a visible and troubling pollution problem for Mexico. During the 1970s, the Mexican government made its first attempts to establish mechanisms designed to protect the environment.

On March 21, 1971, Mexico's first consolidated environmental Law, the Ley Federal para Prevenir y Controlar la Contaminación Ambiental (Federal Law for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution), went into effect. This Law primarily addressed public health concerns, including provisions for the control of atmospheric emissions. Three sets of regulations were enacted to implement this Law: regulations to prevent and control atmospheric pollution caused by dust and smoke; regulations to control water pollution; and regulations to prevent and control pollution of the sea.

In 1982, Congress enacted the Ley Federal de Protección del Ambiente (Federal Law for the Protection of the Environment) which covered omissions issues more broadly than the prior Law did. This Law included provisions for the protection and preservation of ecosystems, and initiated a new legal framework to protect flora, fauna, soil and water. This Law was the first to deal with environmental principles with mechanisms for socioeconomic development.

Mexico amended its Constitution in 1987 giving Congress, among other powers, the authority to enact laws to promote the participation of federal, state, and local authorities in environmental matters and to impose limitations on the use and ownership of real property in order to protect the ecological equilibrium. This amendment gave rise to the enactment of new federal environmental laws, such as LGEEPA, which are still in effect today.

LGEEPA, Mexico's first comprehensive environmental law, went into effect on March 1, 1988. [ Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (equivalent to U.S. Federal Register) , January 28, 1988 .] LGEEPA was amended in 1996. In contrast to its predecessor, LGEEPA addresses a broader range of environmental matters including protection of natural areas; exploitation of natural elements, including land and water; and protection of the environment, including atmospheric contamination, water and soil contamination, hazardous activities and waste, nuclear energy and other forms of pollution. LGEEPA also sets forth control and safety measures, penalties for non-compliance, guidelines for environmental impact statements and risk assessment. Additionally, LGEEPA addresses matters of jurisdiction, ecological zoning, and enforcement. The following five sets of regulations are currently in effect that implement this Law:

• Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Impacto Ambiental (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Environmental Impact). (DOF, June 7, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Prevención y Control de la Contaminación de la Atmósfera. (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Atmospheric Pollution). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Residuos Peligrosos (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Hazardous Waste). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente para la Prevención y Control de la Contaminación Generada por los Vehículos Automotores que Circulan por el Distrito Federal y los Municipios de su Zona Conurbada (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for the Prevention and Control of Pollution Generated by Motor Vehicles that Transit through the Federal District and the Municipalities of the Counties in the Metropolitan Zone). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento para la Protección del Ambiente Contra la Contaminación Originada por la Emisión de Ruido (Regulations for the Protection of the Environment against Pollution Originating from Noise Emissions). (DOF, December 6, 1982) [ This regulation was enacted to carry out the law of 1982; however, it remains in effect as a regulation for LGEEPA.]

B. The 1996 amendment to LGEEPA

The amendment to LGEEPA was published in the DOF on December 13, 1996 (the "Amendment"), and went into effect the next day. Some of the changes to LGEEPA brought about by this Amendment included:

• Purpose of the Law The Amendment changed the stated purpose of LGEEPA, expanding the purpose of the Law and adding the concept of sustainable development which had not existed previously in the Law. The Amendment also added elements which established the following:

- A guarantee of the right of all persons to live in an environment suitable for their development, health and well being;

- A specific environmental policy and the instruments for its implementation;

- The preservation of biodiversity;

- The establishment and administration of protected natural preserves;

- Sustainable use, preservation and remediation of soils, water and other natural resources in ways that make the obtaining of economic benefits and activities of society compatible with the preservation of the ecosystem;

- A guarantee of the participation of responsible persons, collectively or individually, in the preservation, restoration, and protection of the environment;

- The exercise of powers related to environmental matters delegated to the federal government, the states, the Federal District and the municipalities under the principle of concurrence provided for in Article 73 Section XXIX-G of the Constitution;

- The establishment of mechanisms for coordination, inducement and cooperation among authorities, the public and private sector, as well as with persons and public groups on environmental matters; and

- The establishment of control and security measures to guarantee compliance with, and the application of, this Law and the provisions derived from it and to impose applicable administrative sanctions and penalties.

Overview of Mexico's Environmental Laws spmxen13.htm (http://www.natlaw.com/pubs/spmxen13.htm)

Do you really want to know? Since forty years ago.


Excerpt

By the 1970s the high concentration of people, industry and air polluting motor vehicles inhabiting limited geographical areas created a visible and troubling pollution problem for Mexico. During the 1970s, the Mexican government made its first attempts to establish mechanisms designed to protect the environment.

On March 21, 1971, Mexico's first consolidated environmental Law, the Ley Federal para Prevenir y Controlar la Contaminación Ambiental (Federal Law for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution), went into effect. This Law primarily addressed public health concerns, including provisions for the control of atmospheric emissions. Three sets of regulations were enacted to implement this Law: regulations to prevent and control atmospheric pollution caused by dust and smoke; regulations to control water pollution; and regulations to prevent and control pollution of the sea.

In 1982, Congress enacted the Ley Federal de Protección del Ambiente (Federal Law for the Protection of the Environment) which covered omissions issues more broadly than the prior Law did. This Law included provisions for the protection and preservation of ecosystems, and initiated a new legal framework to protect flora, fauna, soil and water. This Law was the first to deal with environmental principles with mechanisms for socioeconomic development.

Mexico amended its Constitution in 1987 giving Congress, among other powers, the authority to enact laws to promote the participation of federal, state, and local authorities in environmental matters and to impose limitations on the use and ownership of real property in order to protect the ecological equilibrium. This amendment gave rise to the enactment of new federal environmental laws, such as LGEEPA, which are still in effect today.

LGEEPA, Mexico's first comprehensive environmental law, went into effect on March 1, 1988. [ Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (equivalent to U.S. Federal Register) , January 28, 1988 .] LGEEPA was amended in 1996. In contrast to its predecessor, LGEEPA addresses a broader range of environmental matters including protection of natural areas; exploitation of natural elements, including land and water; and protection of the environment, including atmospheric contamination, water and soil contamination, hazardous activities and waste, nuclear energy and other forms of pollution. LGEEPA also sets forth control and safety measures, penalties for non-compliance, guidelines for environmental impact statements and risk assessment. Additionally, LGEEPA addresses matters of jurisdiction, ecological zoning, and enforcement. The following five sets of regulations are currently in effect that implement this Law:

• Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Impacto Ambiental (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Environmental Impact). (DOF, June 7, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Prevención y Control de la Contaminación de la Atmósfera. (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Atmospheric Pollution). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Residuos Peligrosos (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Hazardous Waste). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente para la Prevención y Control de la Contaminación Generada por los Vehículos Automotores que Circulan por el Distrito Federal y los Municipios de su Zona Conurbada (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for the Prevention and Control of Pollution Generated by Motor Vehicles that Transit through the Federal District and the Municipalities of the Counties in the Metropolitan Zone). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento para la Protección del Ambiente Contra la Contaminación Originada por la Emisión de Ruido (Regulations for the Protection of the Environment against Pollution Originating from Noise Emissions). (DOF, December 6, 1982) [ This regulation was enacted to carry out the law of 1982; however, it remains in effect as a regulation for LGEEPA.]

B. The 1996 amendment to LGEEPA

The amendment to LGEEPA was published in the DOF on December 13, 1996 (the "Amendment"), and went into effect the next day. Some of the changes to LGEEPA brought about by this Amendment included:

• Purpose of the Law The Amendment changed the stated purpose of LGEEPA, expanding the purpose of the Law and adding the concept of sustainable development which had not existed previously in the Law. The Amendment also added elements which established the following:

- A guarantee of the right of all persons to live in an environment suitable for their development, health and well being;

- A specific environmental policy and the instruments for its implementation;

- The preservation of biodiversity;

- The establishment and administration of protected natural preserves;

- Sustainable use, preservation and remediation of soils, water and other natural resources in ways that make the obtaining of economic benefits and activities of society compatible with the preservation of the ecosystem;

- A guarantee of the participation of responsible persons, collectively or individually, in the preservation, restoration, and protection of the environment;

- The exercise of powers related to environmental matters delegated to the federal government, the states, the Federal District and the municipalities under the principle of concurrence provided for in Article 73 Section XXIX-G of the Constitution;

- The establishment of mechanisms for coordination, inducement and cooperation among authorities, the public and private sector, as well as with persons and public groups on environmental matters; and

- The establishment of control and security measures to guarantee compliance with, and the application of, this Law and the provisions derived from it and to impose applicable administrative sanctions and penalties.

Overview of Mexico's Environmental Laws spmxen13.htm (http://www.natlaw.com/pubs/spmxen13.htm)

Okay, then I have a simple question for you. If they care so much about the environment, why does Mexico look like crap? Why do some Mexicans make America look like crap? They may have attempted to improve the environment, and kudos to them. But they don't care about their surroundings, much less ours. They trashed their country, and now are trying to do the same to ours.

Okay, then I have a simple question for you. If they care so much about the environment, why does Mexico look like crap? Why do some Mexicans make America look like crap? They may have attempted to improve the environment, and kudos to them. But they dont care about their surroundings, much less ours. They trashed their country, and now are trying to do the same to ours.


I lived among Mexicans in Chicago and saw none of the trashing you are referring to Just clean, honest hard-working people. Or maybe I was among the wrong kind of Mexican immigrants?

Actually, most criminals in prison aren't immigrants. They are pure red- blooded Amercans. Neither are most serious crimes, such as murder and rape committed by immigrants. They are committed by Anglo and Afro American citizens. That also applies to most of the trashing of American neighborhoods as well.


BTW
As for looking like crap, most countries look like crap to Americans. If it doesn't look like America, then its crap. If they don't immediately find crap they'll seek it out in some God forsaken slum in order to photograph it and put it forth as representative of the whole country.

If this was a year ago, I would have said to forget about Mexico, but after going to school this past year, I think my views are changing. And reading some of these posts are scaring me.

Is it okay to think that because Mexico use to not care (or almost totally still doesn't care) about the environment,. that we should use this as an argument for today and say "whatever, they never cared about the environment, so this case should slide on the stupid Mexican part...i'll even prove to you how dumb they are with pictures of their dirty country".

If this is the case and this is the way we are going to argue, then I guess we can say "Well don't listen to America about Human Rights because their White people enslaved their Blacks and grinded the bones of Natives to dust". Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I lived among Mexicans in Chicago and saw none of the trashing you are referring to Just clean, honest hard-working people. Or maybe I was among the wrong kind of Mexican immigrants?

Actually, most criminals in prison aren't immigrants. They are pure red- blooded Amercans. Neither are most serious crimes, such as murder and rape committed by immigrants. They are committed by Anglo and Afro American citizens. That also applies to most of the trashing of American neighborhoods as well.


BTW
As for looking like crap, most countries look like crap to Americans. If it doesn't look like America, then its crap. If they don't immediately find crap they'll seek it out in some God forsaken slum in order to photograph it and put it forth as representative of the whole country.

I never said any country that isn't America looks like crap. I said Mexico looks like crap. I have seen it with my own eyes. Most of them (not all) are hard workers, I will give them that. They work very hard out in the fields making sure everything that needs to be taken care of, is taken care of. But as for clean and honest, a lot of them are not. I have seen and heard of them them steal (even though they have jobs, nothing is enough apparently), kidnap and molest children, attack women.. I mean the list goes on.

Now I don't know much about the African Americans and the crime they commit. I have only lived around them since I have been here in Florida. The majority of my life I have been in California, where a lot (not all) of the crimes are committed by Mexicans.

As for the ones that don't want to work, all they have to do is bring their wife/girlfriend/whatever over here, have a child, and they do not have to leave, AND they can get welfare after the child is born. Aside from the fact that some of them are hard workers (I agree with you on that one), how do you feel about the ones that choose not to work, and want to live off welfare, when they are physically able to work?

If this was a year ago, I would have said to forget about Mexico, but after going to school this past year, I think my views are changing. And reading some of these posts are scaring me.

Is okay to think that because Mexico use to not care (or almost totally still doesn't care) about the environment, that we should use this as an argument for today and say "whatever, they never cared about the environment, so this case should slide on the stupid Mexican part...i'll even prove to you how dumb they are with pictures of their dirty country".

If this is the case and this is the way we are going to argue, then I guess we can say "Well don't listen to America about Human Rights because their White people enslaved their Blacks and grinded the bones of Natives to dust". Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I totally see what you are getting at, and it is a good point, but the white americans having black slaves (just so you know, I really hate talking about this subject) was legal back then. People coming here illegally (not just Mexico, I might add, but the majority come from there), well, it obviously isn't legal. Now I know the migrant workers are here legally (well most of them), but the ones who aren't, don't you feel they should have SOME sort of consequence for doing something ILLEGAL?

And I never said they were dumb, they are actually pretty smart. They have figured out a way around our system so they won't have to leave. But you have to admit, their environment and how they take care of it, says at least SOMETHING about them.

I totally see what you are getting at, and it is a good point, but the white americans having black slaves (just so you know, i really hate talking about this subject) was legal back then. People coming here illegally (not just Mexico, i might add, but the majority come from there), well, it obviously isnt legal. Now I know the migrant workers are here legally (well most of them), but the ones who arent, dont you feel they should have SOME sort of consequence for doing something ILLEGAL?

And i never said they were dumb, they are actually pretty smart. They have figured out a way around our system so they wont have to leave. But you have to admit, their environment and how they take care of it, says at least SOMETHING about them.


Nauticalstar, I only used the environmental argument and totally attacked only that. If you examine what you have wrote, your response to the arguments that I had been following, do not fit one simple bit.
Between the two lines is what I had wrote and what you were responding to:
_______________________
If this was a year ago, I would have said to forget about Mexico, but after going to school this past year, I think my views are changing. And reading some of these posts are scaring me.

Is it okay to think that because Mexico use to not care (or almost totally still doesn't care) about the environment,. that we should use this as an argument for today and say "whatever, they never cared about the environment, so this case should slide on the stupid Mexican part...i'll even prove to you how dumb they are with pictures of their dirty country".

If this is the case and this is the way we are going to argue, then I guess we can say "Well don't listen to America about Human Rights because their White people enslaved their Blacks and grinded the bones of Natives to dust". Do you understand what I'm getting at?
___________________________

Despite me having wrote the above, nauticalstar, you are choosing to talk about the consequence of illegal Mexicans and the border as a rebuttle to what I had written. I have not mentioned what you are talking about at all, yet you use your rebuttle against what I am saying. This is an interesting twist you have taken, because it gives the appearance that you are making a good argument against mine, where in fact, you are in a totally different argument.
If you read my comments on other posts, I believe the borders should be secured (as you do). I was not saying they should not be secured. I never once said that. Also, thank you for clarifying for everyone that you never said Mexicans were dumb... because I never once said that "you personally have called mexicans dumb". The line that I used is in a completely hypothetical prose, yet you made it appear literal... as if I accused you of calling Mexican's dumb.

And you choose to remind us that "their environment says something about them..." Why are you saying this? I hope that is not in response to me saying "yes even though they may be almost totally in the wrong about the environment, this does not mean that if they ONE time do something environmentally sound, that we should discard it and go 'well they are horrible with the environment so forget that' ". I am only analyzing the logic there.

And then you get into the scarey point of saying "well that was legal for us to be racist." Well then, that is even worse! That is even far worse than I could have put it. That is also a very bad thing to say (in the light you have put it in). It even shows how much more profound we were. Your point actually helps mine, and does not fit in with the rest of your stance. It points out how "we loved racism so much that we made it a part of the law for it to exist, and to enjoy everyday".

I totally see what you are getting at, and it is a good point, but the white Americans having black slaves (just so you know, I really hate talking about this subject) was legal back then. People coming here illegally (not just Mexico, I might add, but the majority come from there), well, it obviously isn't legal. Now I know the migrant workers are here legally (well most of them), but the ones who aren't, don't you feel they should have SOME sort of consequence for doing something ILLEGAL?

And I never said they were dumb, they are actually pretty smart. They have figured out a way around our system so they wont have to leave. But you have to admit, their environment and how they take care of it, says at least SOMETHING about them.

Since when does legality equate with morality? Your slave system was a crime against humanity regardless of whether the perpetrators chose to legalize it or not. Japanese medical experimentation with Chinese captives was considered legal. So was Hitler's murdering six million Jews. As a matter of fact, anything can be tagged as legal and excused by anyone who wishes to practice it. But the Nuremberg Trials and other trials against the Japanese perpetrators conclusively proved that legalization has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. It is simply a convenient tool which can be applied when deemed convenient.

BTW
You can't judge a whole country by what you observe in one locality. Its like going to a USA slum area and tagging the whole nation's appearance and habits based on that. Actually, this is a disconcerting tendency that Americans have. Puerto Rico is a beautiful Island. Yet, when first photographed all that was shown were two of the worse places there. El Fangito and La Perla. Why?

You know what, I feel very strongly about this issue, and all I am doing is getting pi$$ed off. I feel, they need to go home, and they need to not come here. They are draining our tax dollars, and are dirty to boot.

So, like jillian, I am also unsubscribing to this thread.

Have a good day everyone :)

You know what, I feel very strongly about this issue, and all I am doing is getting pi$$ed off. I feel, they need to go home, and they need to not come here. They are draining our tax dollars, and are dirty to boot.

So, like jillian, i am also unsubscribing to this thread.

Have a good day everyone :)

You can't get any dirtier than stealing a people's land by force, destroying theor land titles so they have no legal proof they ever owned it, and then tongue in cheek tell them to go back where they came from. Now that's dirty if you ask me.

BTW
In terms of physical cleanliness I found the Mexicans I assiociated with in Chicago far superior to filthy American Anglos I met there. But then again maybe that was the locality?

You know what Starman? I have been very Right wing, and still consider myself Right wing, but some of my views are changing. And I never thought about what you just wrote. It's a good point. They were forced out of their land and then as if we are Gods we tell them "stay out".

But I do believe that we should secure our borders. Yes we took their land, but we can't pay for what our fathers did. This is the new situation. We have to find out how to deal with it, but yes in a light that will benefit humanity, and not only America. Although, America needs to take care of America FIRST and it has the right to do that.

excon agrees: Here's a greenie, naut. But, I knew you were a racist. I don't care how much you deny it...

Trust me, if I was racist, I'd say so

Trust me, if i was racist, i'd say soHello again:

You did - countless times.

excon

Hello again:

You did - countless times.

excon

Please quote me where I said the words "I am a racist"

Just because I don't want them here, does not mean I am racist. It means I care about this country. And if you read, I already stated that they are hard workers. Would I say that if I was racist? No, I'd say to hell with all of them.

You know what Starman? I have been very Right wing, and still consider myself Right wing, but some of my views are changing. And I never thought about what you just wrote. It's a good point. They were forced out of their land and then as if we are Gods we tell them "stay out".

But I do believe that we should secure our borders. Yes we took their land, but we can't pay for what our fathers did. This is the new situation. We have to find out how to deal with it, but yes in a light that will benefit humanity, and not only America. Although, America needs to take care of America FIRST and it has the right to do that.

The past is past. But in terms of decency, or moral cleanliness, their really isn't any basis to gloat. Europeans physically stunk to high heaven because they hardly ever bathed when they first arrived in the Americas. That includes, Spaniards, Englishmen, Germans, and French. In short, they were physically filthy in comparison to native Americans. Morally, well, you know the savagery that the Spaniards and English inflicted on the natives who generally received them in a friendly way. So where the is the moral superiority giving us the right to be namecalling and pointing fingers? As I said, I have associated extensively with Mexican people here in the USA and have NEVER encountered the filthiness this person is repeatedly referring to. I do not doubt that he has. But so have I in relation to Anglos and I don't go tagging all of them based on that.

As for border security, of course every country has a right to secure its borders.

They are draining our tax dollars, and are dirty to boot. Hello again, naut:

I understand that you don't get that your statement is racist. But the rest of us do.

excon

excon I will finish what my wife(Nautical) started. She is not racist but me on the other hand, I am and don't care who knows it. I say build a giant electric fence and shoot any runner that crosses

The past is past. But in terms of decency, or moral cleanliness, their really isn't any basis to gloat. Europeans physically stunk to high heaven because they hardly ever bathed when they first arrived in the Americas. That includes, Spaniards, Englishmen, Germans, and French. In short, they were physically filthy in comparison to native Americans. Morally, well, you know the savagery that the Spaniards and English inflicted on the natives who generally received them in a friendly way. So where the is the moral superiority giving us the right to be namecalling and pointing fingers? As I said, I have associated extensively with Mexican people here in the USA and have NEVER encountered the filthiness this person is repeatedly referring to. I do not doubt that he has. But so have I in relation to Anglos and I don't go tagging all of them based on that.

As for border security, of course every country has a right to secure its borders.


Yes. So if you analyze our arguments, we agree with each other.

Yes. So if you analyze our arguments, we agree with eachother.



Well, that depends on the methods whicg you are suggesting be employed to bring order.
Needless to say, we aren't dealing with cattle here, we are dealing with human beings.

Yes, that's why I said that in the process of protecting America, we must choose methods that benefit (consider) all of humanity (I wrote that in my post). There are many options out there... and America should exaust the list as much as it can before it chooses a quick fix.