Mexico - Good NAFTA deal or more illegals!

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Tempter

Odd that we have that "caravan" of illegals headed this way, through Mexico.

Our liberal friends on ATS will call this a "coincidence"

A wall would be nice about right now, TYVM.



Edited to add, a wall of USMC with a fire at will order would work in a pinch....

This caravan of people from Central America is nothing new it’s been going on for years.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

US taxpayers would be spending at least 500 times more on the wall than on the existing peace and security programs and more than 316 times more than we're projected to spend in Mexico altogether. How is that a good deal?!

Because what we're spending right now isn't working.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So we should instead spend literally 316 to 500 times more on a wall that won't change visas or visa allotments, won't change policies regarding employers hiring undocumented immigrants, won't affect cartel dealings & drug fronts in US territory, won't reduce the American consumers' demand for products & services supplied by organized crime, etc etc etc. And of course, that's assuming that the wall doesn't get the typical govt cost overruns...

This is a fiscally stupid approach.

We have a problem with illegals from the south too.

I say we exclude Mexico from NAFTA and offer to give them California back.Problem solved!

originally posted by: intrepid
We have a problem with illegals from the south too.

Only when there's a draft going on

a reply to: Tempter

Who thinks it's time to blow this NAFTA deal to smithereens

People who don't understand it. Like trump.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well, I could get a TV for free, too, much more "fiscally responsible"... but it wouldn't work. I think I would rather pay a few hundred dollars for one that works.

I could get a car that doesn't run for almost scrap iron price... $100-$200 maybe. Of course, that car wouldn't get me to work, or to a store, or anywhere else. Much more "fiscally responsible" than paying $1000 for something that actually moves from point A to point B under its own power, right? And OMG what are people thinking spending $40k for a new car that will continue to run for a few years without any trouble? Are they insane?

As for the "downfalls" you mention about the wall, we are trying to do a lot of that, most of which I agree with you that it needs to be done. How about the lottery VISA program, where we just take a shot that the guy coming in isn't a top Al Quaida operative? Trump is begging Congress to end that little fiasco, but Congress (mainly the Democrats) just keep blocking it. Oh, and the 7 countries that Trump tried to (and eventually did) restrict VISAs from because they couldn't/wouldn't vet their people? Do you remember the national uproar over that?

We already have laws to stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants. It would be nice to enforce those IMO, but the rest of the country (translation: the left wing) would scream to high heaven. So instead, it's just several extra pieces of paper I have to fill out to prove I'm an American.

Your complaint about the wall is wholly based on accusations that the wall is not the same bills you and others have blocked, along with complaints that spending more is "fiscally irresponsible" because what we have is cheaper, ignoring the fact it doesn't work.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme

Mind explaining to me how wonderful it is, then? Apparently I'm too dumb to understand how losing our jobs, allowing unchecked illegal drugs in, giving our jobs to others who have already broken the law, paying people to come here illegally, and running a huge trade deficit is helping our country. I really need someone smart enough to understand all that to explain to me how it works.

Please use small words...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, I could get a TV for free, too, much more "fiscally responsible"... but it wouldn't work. I think I would rather pay a few hundred dollars for one that works.

I could get a car that doesn't run for almost scrap iron price... $100-$200 maybe. Of course, that car wouldn't get me to work, or to a store, or anywhere else. Much more "fiscally responsible" than paying $1000 for something that actually moves from point A to point B under its own power, right? And OMG what are people thinking spending $40k for a new car that will continue to run for a few years without any trouble? Are they insane?

Those are ridiculous examples in this context and you know it lol. You're just proving that the right wing only cares about the budgets and fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in power. And that's especially true since neither you nor any of these other people can prove that wall will actually change the situation.

As for the "downfalls" you mention about the wall, we are trying to do a lot of that, most of which I agree with you that it needs to be done. How about the lottery VISA program, where we just take a shot that the guy coming in isn't a top Al Quaida operative? Trump is begging Congress to end that little fiasco, but Congress (mainly the Democrats) just keep blocking it.

1. Do you even know how the government screens people for visas right now?

2. You claim that it's mainly Democrats blocking Trump's supposed proposal, yet Republicans control both chambers of Congress! No fiscal responsibility and no willingness to take responsibility for the fact that your political party can't even pass its own legislation. If Republicans wanted it passed, they could get together and pass it.

The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader (both Repubs) are the only members of Congress who can guarantee that a piece of legislation will get voted on. But it's our fault that Repubs are so splintered and too incompetent to pass their own legislation?

Oh, and the 7 countries that Trump tried to (and eventually did) restrict VISAs from because they couldn't/wouldn't vet their people? Do you remember the national uproar over that?

What does that have to do with Mexico and the stupid wall along the Mexican border? Was Mexico on that list? Nope! Was any Latin American country in Central America or the Caribbean on that list? Nope nope nope! The only Hispanic country on that list was Venezuela, and according to the 2010 Census, Venezuelans make up only the 14th largest Hispanic population in the US (HERE). Quit deflecting.

Your complaint about the wall is wholly based on accusations that the wall is not the same bills you and others have blocked, along with complaints that spending more is "fiscally irresponsible" because what we have is cheaper, ignoring the fact it doesn't work.

LOL Please explain to me how that stupid wall is going to stop cartel sales and cartel business in the US. Because unlike you, I showed links to the actual stats showing how much money was being used on security programs in Mexico. That stupid wall won't help infiltrate their organized crime rings; won't pay for informants to get intel on their operations; won't pay for joint training operations between US & Mexico organizations; won't provide security for US companies in Mexican territory; etc.

So how can you claim that spending 316 to 500 times more money on the wall will replace something that's "not working" when you don't appear to know where the current money is going in the first place? If you think the situation is bad now, then just wait until Mexican organizations and departments stop cooperating with us on the things I just mentioned. After all, that's the actual point of this thread, right?

Th programs we currently spend money on do "work", just not perfectly. A logical approach would be to improve on the policies that work and fill in the gaps on the ones that don't; not to simply scrap everything that works and then spend 316 to 500 times more money on something that's both unproven and won't address most of the "problems" in the first place.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Mexico isn't going to do squat just stop it.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Tempter

Mexicans have a lot of Spanish blood.
Where do they get the gall to complain about "European invaders?"

that's called racism and it's being taught and sanctioned in universities nationwide

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Tempter

Mexicans have a lot of Spanish blood.
Where do they get the gall to complain about "European invaders?"

that's called racism and it's being taught and sanctioned in universities nationwide

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Those are ridiculous examples in this context and you know it lol.

I beg to differ. They are examples of extremely poor decisions that could be made if one paid no attention to the usefulness of the item being considered. The programs you mention, while much less expensive, are doing absolutely nothing to stop or even slow illegal border crossings. A wall would.

Republicans control both chambers of Congress

The Senate requires a 60-vote majority in order to end debate and bring an issue to a vote. The Republican majority is 51-49. Yours is a ridiculous statement.

What does that have to do with Mexico and the stupid wall along the Mexican border? Was Mexico on that list? Nope!

Oh, so if Mexico were on that list, you would have supported it?

The list only included countries who were either unwilling or unable to properly vet their VISAs, which led to the US accepting people in who had a high likelihood of being dangerous. Mexico, despite their many shortcomings, has te ability and the willingness to vet their VISA program participants.

In any case, if you expect me to believe you would be receptive to a ban on VISAs from any country, please do not insult my intelligence.

Please explain to me how that stupid wall is going to stop cartel sales and cartel business in the US. Because unlike you, I showed links to the actual stats showing how much money was being used on security programs in Mexico. That stupid wall won't help infiltrate their organized crime rings; won't pay for informants to get intel on their operations; won't pay for joint training operations between US & Mexico organizations; won't provide security for US companies in Mexican territory; etc.

Why should it?

The job of the US government is to protect the US, not to protect Mexico. That is Mexico's job and responsibility. We have been attempting to aid them in order to reduce the crime at the border, and with almost no success. A wall may not stop the corruption in Mexico, but it will serve to isolate that corruption from the US.

So how can you claim that spending 316 to 500 times more money on the wall will replace something that's "not working" when you don't appear to know where the current money is going in the first place? If you think the situation is bad now, then just wait until Mexican organizations and departments stop cooperating with us on the things I just mentioned.

Back to my 'ridiculous' example, does it matter who I bought the non-drivable car from in order to know that I need something better?

Mexico can stop cooperating all they want, as long as there is a physical border between us. As a matter of fact, if things are not worse than they are simply because we pay Mexico, that sounds like the country itself is extorting us and gives further credence to the need to isolate them from us.

So I take it your suggestion is to keep paying them to not make our lives worse than they already are... yeah, good business sense right there.

Th programs we currently spend money on do "work", just not perfectly.

Not according to any metric I have ever heard of. We have additional crime, additional entitlement expense, less industry, a greater trade deficit, and uncontrolled foreign competition for what jobs are left. Working for who? Mexico?

Exactly what metric are you using to measure success here? Mexico's GDP?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Tempter

Mexicans have a lot of Spanish blood.
Where do they get the gall to complain about "European invaders?"

that's called racism and it's being taught and sanctioned in universities nationwide

Since when are facts racist?

From 1521, the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire incorporated the region into the Spanish Empire, with New Spain its colonial era name and Mexico City the center of colonial rule. It was built on the ruins of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan and became the capital of New Spain.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

If we are friends with Mexico, why would they help people break into the country?

a reply to: MarlbBlack

In the movie, North America became uninhabitable due to cold but Mexico wouldn't let USA citizens into Mexico. If the Yellowstone Super Volcano ever explodes, the a USA migration could occur since the food supply would be disrupted for several years.

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: enlightenedservant

If we are friends with Mexico, why would they help people break into the country?

If you are friends with Mexico, why would you quit a longstanding trade deal and squeeze them? We're looking at the same thing.

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: MarlbBlack

In the movie, North America became uninhabitable due to cold but Mexico wouldn't let USA citizens into Mexico. If the Yellowstone Super Volcano ever explodes, the a USA migration could occur since the food supply would be disrupted for several years.

I guess you guys saw a different version.



They accepted Americans.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

A large amount of government funds set to Mexico is wasted by being ineffective. Mexicans in the USA ship $23 billion back to Mexico each year. Time to tax this and stop electronic transfers. Money 'Mules' will have to be stopped carrying cash back across the border as a work around.