Mexico seeks U.S. immigration changes

Originally posted by dusty1031

Originally posted by Chakotay
Dusty, these workers produce far more in taxes, albeit not direct taxes, than they consume in social services. Local economies in the SW would collapse without the economic boost provided by immigrant labor. Guards cost taxes; workers pay taxes. Workers are productive; guards are not.

...millions of new Social leaches that would occure from open borders, put your numbers in perspective, you have had a problem with that alot, perspective, numbers and Statistics.

Call, Dusty. I hold a degree in Business with a specilization in statistics, honors. Support your claims with academic references that show the demographics of social assistance to Mexican immigrant workers. All the immigrant workers I know pay their own way and refuse government assistance.

TEAR DOWN THE WALL.

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by Chakotay
Back to topic: equal treatment for Mexicans under the Law. Tear down that wall, Mr. Bush.

Equal treatment for all U.S. citizens under the law in the U.S. Mexicans are residents of another country -- Mexico. They shouldn't even be part of the equation in the U.S.

Thunder Cloud. Interesting name. Sounds Indian. You must be 'apple', to advocate injustice to brothers. Listen to these words: WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT: THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG WHICH ARE THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE). The protection of the US Constitution is not for US Citizens, but for all who are so lucky as to fall within the Jurisdiction of the United States. When the US is unjust, to foreign visitors or to prisoners of war- it acts against its own self-interest. If the US does not extend the promise of freedom to all mankind, it will become a provincial backwater and a footnote in the history of the world like Rome.

No one is talking about sedition here, TC. We are talking about a more inclusive Union. An American Union.

TEAR DOWN THE WALL.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Chakotay]

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I SAY HELL YES TO AN AMERICAN UNION! I mean the idea of this is just INCREDIBLE! HELL, I bet we could even get a country like Japan to join, but lets not go there, lol. Now, im not saying lets dive head first in, no no no... just like the EU does it, you impose a set of laws, and if you reach those laws you will be admitted in under vote... And slowly we see the forming of an Unstoppable Power that makes the entire world take note. And since i really dont think Japan is happy with the rest of Asia, and especially China, and is one of our biggest competitors and partners, they may wanna say YES to the AU! Of course in the end the EU the AU and Probably the other AU's would eventually form a PU, Planetary Union.

Right on Ryan. Note to History: Ryan has coined the term PU, Planetary Union. PU on the UN. The threats we all face- impact from space, limits to growth, nuclear and biological war- require a sustained global response for the foreseeable future. By following the example of the EU we can protect and extend human rights, establish a more just and effective law, and maintain the cultural integrity of member States while acheiving a lasting peace and growing economy. History has never been kind to empires that dig in behind walls. We must extend the benefits of freedom to all mankind, not to a selfish few. Count me in, Ryan.

TEAR DOWN THE WALL.

well if you hold such a degree, you must be getting pretty rusty.

and look what it says, not 'is' but 'will' that entire section was dedicated to what would happen if we opened the borders, and what will happen is FACT.

Once free money is up for grabs to them, which there will be alot of with their anual income being 9000, the US WILL go bankrupt, there is no way to support that many people with the US Tax funds, that is without increasing the US Taxes a WHOLE LOT.

Learn that if we offer that free money, I don't care who your friends are, if they are the mexicans that make 9000 a year and they are offered FREE US TAX Money, they will take it, and so will the other millions of new immigrants. DAH The cost of this will VERY VERY VERY much outweigh what we spend on border gaurds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL you made me laugh with the rebuttle...

"WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT: THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG WHICH ARE THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE). " --US Constitution

we do offer this to everyone, the mexicans are equal, and have the right to live (I don't see the gov that protects this doctorine killing mexicans...usualy, sometimes an extreemest gaurd will or something, but not the basis of the gov),...hmmm they have the right to liberty (Liberty the quality or state of being free...freedom from physical restraint...you know as well as I do anyone that breaks the law loses these rights, hence prisons, illeagals are breaking a law, they no longer have these rights, that is unless you also go against the basic idea of prisons...and police...and locked doors...) hmm and the persuit of happyness, yep they can persue it all they want, Step 1, become legal, otherwise you are breaking a law, and revert to liberty.

You see, the Dec. of Ind. garentees rights to those that are protected by that gov, that is why we do not go everywhere in the world shouting 'liberty liberty liberty', b/c every country has it's own setup, and the US is no diffrent, and IF you are a US citizen you are protected, unless you break a law, or try and infringe on other's rights.

So stop with the 'they have a right' speel, in the US they broke what is set down as the 'supreme law of the land' (what is interpreted by the US Supreme court to be legal) and hence are not gaurenteed anything unless they are legal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess what i am trying to say is still what you tried to side step, it would cost the US more to put the influx of millions of mexicans on welfare than it costs to hire the border gaurds...lol, no doubt about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cool, I'm a double major in math and physics, but, lol, coincidentaly, I have taken classes on both large and small (what is called macro econ, and micro econ) economy, so please, think a little, when you think that mexican immigrants would rather starve than have money from the government, learn some human nature, while you're at it

Originally posted by Chakotay
Thunder Cloud. Interesting name. Sounds Indian...

Nope, there's nothing Native American about my name -- and certainly nothing Indian about it either. I originally wanted "Squall" or "SquallLine" for my ATS name (I love watching thunderstorms roll through the evening sky), but both names were taken, and that was the next possible name that popped into my mind.

Originally posted by Chakotay
...Planetary Union. PU on the UN. The threats we all face- impact from space, limits to growth, nuclear and biological war- require a sustained global response for the foreseeable future. By following the example of the EU we can protect and extend human rights, establish a more just and effective law, and maintain the cultural integrity of member States while acheiving a lasting peace and growing economy. History has never been kind to empires that dig in behind walls. We must extend the benefits of freedom to all mankind, not to a selfish few. Count me in...

I don't want to sound harsh, but I think you've been watching too much Star Trek. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Trekker (TNG and DS9 are my favorites) -- but Roddenberry's vision of the future, particularly on Earth, has little relevance in the real world. We can meet global threats together as a planet without uniting into a single one-world government. A planet of sovereign democratic republics working together (and protecting themselves) would work much better.

Think of it this way: In your local neighborhood, you may have a crimestoppers program. Well, this involves all the neighbors in that neighborhood working together. Do all these neighbors have to give each other open access to each others' houses, cars, bank accounts, etc. to work together to protect the neighborhood? Of course not. If anything, that would impede the process of stopping crime in the neighborhood. They are more likely to accomplish their goals working together as sovereign neighbors, each respecting the other's boundaries.

As for "digging in behind walls," I don't think that people who lock their doors at night, and when they're not home, are isolating themselves from society. They're simply protecting their boundaries.

Whether we're dealing with a family in a neighborhood, or an entire nation on a planet of nations, the concept is the same -- because human nature is the same on all scales.

And, dusty1031, your rebuttal of Chakotay 's quoting Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Indepdence was a good one. Yes, everyone on Earth has the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- but the corollary to that postulate is, not at the expense of others. Part of a person's -- or a nation's -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the right to protect one's boundaries (whether they be physical, financial, etc.) from others. To go back to the small-scale analogy, would you let total strangers, who have not been approved as either friends or family, come and go from your house as you please? Eating your food, watching your TV, etc.? Of course not. The same idea applies to nations on a large scale.

In the end, regardless of scale, the arguement comes down to one of property rights. Do people, organizations, etc. all the way up to nations, have a right to their property, and to protect their property? (Citizenship is a property right too.) Or should all private property be abandoned?

If Mexicans want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they can either immigrate here legally, or protest the corrupt Mexican government, and demand their rights as Mexican citizens. If the 10 million illegal Mexicans in the U.S. would march on Mexico City in protest, I think that government would be forced to change its ways almost overnight...

i have never seen a single episode of star trek in my entire life... that isn't sarcasm either.

Originally posted by Chakotay
Call, Dusty. I hold a degree in Business with a specilization in statistics, honors.

Well you sure fooled us, I have yet to see any evidence of that in your blatently apologist threads.

Originally posted by ChakotaySupport your claims with academic references that show the demographics of social assistance to Mexican immigrant workers. All the immigrant workers I know pay their own way and refuse government assistance.

FIX UP THE WALL ... i have a little mortar I can add to that spot over there!

Here's the Google search ... social assistance to mexicans

Dealing with you is getting downright boring Chak, btw - I worked in acedemia for many, many years ... I finally got tired of dealing with "Those who can't do, teach". Why not forget the apologist liberal "academic" references and go with the realistic corporate and government analysis?

Oh yeah, your "immigrant" friends refuse government assistance because if they applied they would immediately be sent back to their stated country of origin.

thank you thundercloud, it's a rare day when I hear something of encourigement or a compleent, thank you very much, and may I also say, I truely liked your analogies, they seemed to bring the topic right to our homes,

Chuck Stevenson too, I do believe you bring in some harsh words, it's kinda a nice varience to the 'proper' politics that is displayed here

Lastly, Chakotay, you are being a good sport about this *nods*

I just smiled and enjoyed Thunder cloud's complement and so I thought I would take a moment (a post) to tell everyone nice job

[edit on 14/11/2004 by dusty1031]

Thanking you Dusty!

Watch out folks ... Here it comes!

The preceding is a link to an ATSNN Article regarding Terrorists, nuclear material and the 'open' border, if you have read the link previously, save yourself time and bandwidth. - thank you

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
The preceding is a link to an ATSNN Article regarding Terrorists, nuclear material and the 'open' border.

Just think RAH, if you'd made friends with the neighbors this kind of thing could never happen.

TEAR DOWN THE WALL

PS for Chuckie: here's a little song from Scotland for ya: 'I'll take the high road, an' you'll take the low'... you know your position reflects the morals of Milosevic or Hitler. Racism relaxes the mind, like cheap wine. I challenge you to study the two words Genetic Diversity. Hint: it is what makes America strong economically and militarilly.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Chakotay]

you are right, if this world was peachy and perfect and we could leave our doors open and unlocked w/o fear at night, then yup, wewouldn't have any problems would we. The truth of the matter is though, the reality of the world is that most people, whether actively or passively have racist thoughts twords one suit or another.

I am not sure what this has to do with illeagal people entering our country illeagaly...but yup...you take the high road, we'll take the realistic road...learn from John Lennin, in his Imagin (sp) he talks of how great, how we could live as a 'brotherhood of man...share the world....no gree and no hunger...' and yes, that sounds Great, let's take a poll

ANYONE THAT RESPONDS IN THIS FORUM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF PEACE WITH NO HUNGER, NO GREED, NO HATE, NO WARS, AND NO FEAR?

COME ON, TELL ME, DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF REAL PEACE, WITHOUT HATE, WHY NOT, IT COULD BE GREAT, ALL PEOPLE BEING EQUAL, NO ONE TO LOOK DOWN ON YOU, AND NO ONE TO LOOK DOWN ON, NO BEGGING AND NO CRYING?

you will see, everyone wants to live that way, but where does the word imagine go to...imagination, it would be nice, but thruthfully color creed race and lang do play a passive or active part in alot of decisions. You can try all you want to get rid of it, most people will hold onto it once they get old enough to comprehend (watch the disney movie 'the fox and the hound', about a fox and a dog who when young play as friends, but when older...you can guess the rest)

As such, this sentiment will only get worse with the influx of people, from both sides (whites and mexicans), especialy rtesentment from whites for what they will call 'stealing our tax $$$), as you can see here in this forum, so many more people want to have closed to moderated borders than open, why do you want to cause hate?

[edit on 14/11/2004 by dusty1031]

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
The preceding is a link to an ATSNN Article regarding Terrorists, nuclear material and the 'open' border.

Just think RAH, if you'd made friends with the neighbors this kind of thing could never happen.

TEAR DOWN THE WALL

PS for Chuckie: here's a little song from Scotland for ya: 'I'll take the high road, an' you'll take the low'... you know your position reflects the morals of Milosevic or Hitler. Racism relaxes the mind, like cheap wine. I challenge you to study the two words Genetic Diversity. Hint: it is what makes America strong economically and militarilly.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Chakotay]

Declaring a similarity to my thoughts on protecting the borders to my country to the thoughts of Milosevic or Hitler is a hienous act Chakotay, I protest your hateful action.
Acusing me of rascism when I have not incited rascism is also hateful speech Chakotay.
I will advise the Mods of your actions.

To the point you raised, if the Mexican Government was actually that interested in keeping people from crossing into the United States illegaly I am sure they could. Yet they do not, even with the knowledge that Terrorists are landing in Mexico intent on sneaking into the U.S.A. to cause damage ... is that the action of a friend?

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
Terrorists are landing in Mexico intent on sneaking into the U.S.A. to cause damage ... is that the action of a friend?

Your words speak for themselves, as the Mods have ruled. Support your contention that terrorists are landing in Mexico with documentation and hyperlinks. Any terrorist landing in Mexico will be shot by the Mexican government. You know that; a terrorist act against America is a terrorist act against Mexico, fallout blows both ways, and Mexico is our ALLY in the war against terror. Your anti-Mexican bias is obvious, odious, and boorish. I will be happy when you and I can agree to disagree and close this discussion until you have a chance to re-examine your position with the wisdom of hindsight.

Thank you all, for tearing down that rediculous wall.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Chakotay]

Originally posted by Chakotay

This tidbit might shift discussion here a bit....

North America Plans Continental Corporate Merger
www.atsnn.com...

FYI - I think this 'terrorists in Mexico' babble is just a segue into justifying the CCM.



.

I can't believe we are still talking about race.

Look, is it such a terrible thing to want to have some kinds of regulation of people? No.

People are not denied access to the US, or should not be, but they should be required to do certain things. Oddly we have a rights comes with responcibilities thing going on here in America, and we would like to keep it that way.

Regardless of the social programs and the legality of it, we should be more attentive to the situation because some of the people that come here are paid a slaves wages.

We don't need Mexico, no do we really need Canada. So there is really no need to join with them, inheriting more problems than we already have.

Why would we take on more problems when the government we have now does not really address them as it is.

Should we take on Fox and all his blunders? No way.

Any terrorist landing in Mexico will be shot by the Mexican government. You know that; a terrorist act against America is a terrorist act against Mexico

heehee, unless the terrorist is waving a twenty (LOL) sorry, sorry, I know it is uncalled for, but truthfully that is about the extent of the mexican authorities, I always take an extra $20-$60 down there when I go

anyways anyways...

yes yes, I agree with KrazyJethro, the US does not belong to mexico, and we do not really need anyother nations, but they sure help (I saw the movie Chakotay, don't go all crazy, I saw the movie 'a day w/o a mexican') but yes, that is why we need to keep a border that is not closed, in other words an open border.

BUT an open border would swamp social problems and the low end labor force, as well, it is not what the US people want, so we need a closed border.

What NEEDS to happen is to have a regulated border, one that allows those legal in (or legal at that time, like a seasonal card), one that would allow us to track them so they share the same responcibilities as us (such as taxes...etc) as well as reap the same freedoms as we do, like fair wages.

That is what we need, a pretty, tight, clean, but regulated border.

Originally posted by enigmalone
Whats more......increase the visa requirements 20 fold for countrys with a history of natives that have been proven to be criminals(terrorists).

What is this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that people from some countries are more predisposed to criminal acts, or are you just a bigot?

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
Terrorists are landing in Mexico intent on sneaking into the U.S.A. to cause damage ... is that the action of a friend?

Support your contention that terrorists are landing in Mexico with documentation and hyperlinks.

Just look around this site like in the War on Terror section, there is plenty of information ... do your own research.

Originally posted by Chakotay
Your anti-Mexican bias is obvious, odious, and boorish. I will be happy when you and I can agree to disagree and close this discussion until you have a chance to re-examine your position with the wisdom of hindsight.
[edit on 15-11-2004 by Chakotay]

Your arguments have not been well thought out Chakotay, you keep screaming the same slogans like a broken record. When you have demonstrated that you cannot reply to a thread with due diligence, you scream "racist" and throw insults and jibes. Why don't you do something positive toward the discussion such as reply to the issues raised by everyone else on this thread. The majority of us have posted, with documentation, that there are way to many potential problems with having an open border, and all you can do is play travel agent or attempt to ridicule us. Enough is enough Chakotay, demonstrate that education you received and show us FACTS that counterweigh our arguments.

Bias? If I were truly biased you would know it from post #1, if ... and it's a big IF ... Mexico were to make the nessesary changes to itself in order to integrate itself into the United States then I would agree to an open border, but as I have stated before, the social, economic, cultural, language and educational differences are too great to allow a smooth transition to an open, trusting relationship like that.

As to "agreeing to disagree", we already disagree, don't cop out with that statement. Prove your assertions, substantiate your claims and maybe this conversation can evolve into something better.

Originally posted by General Zapata
What is this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that people from some countries are more predisposed to criminal acts, or are you just a bigot?

hmmm, though you are quite right, statements like that can lead one to believe the other is a biggot, but learn about the inportants of genetics and enviroment.

Genetics account for 40-50% of a person's personality, and enviroment accounts for 50-60% of a person't personality. If a person is bread and raised in a country that is anti US, (or any country) and promotes violence against them, not only is it an enviromet thing, but chances are, their genetics reflect it too.

So yes, a person from say Syria is more likely to want to inflict violence than someone from say the UK, though that is not to say that is always the case, just genetic tendancy.

So, he is not a biggot, people from certain nations are more inclined to violence, though again I say, not always, and he is not a biggot.

Originally posted by dusty1031

Originally posted by General Zapata
What is this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that people from some countries are more predisposed to criminal acts, or are you just a bigot?

So yes, a person from say Syria is more likely to want to inflict violence than someone from say the UK, though that is not to say that is always the case, just genetic tendancy.

Dusty, I am ashamed of you. You obviously have never studied genetics, met the SAS or visited Liverpool .

I am sending Stevenson an embroidered white hood for Christmas.

Zapata, these two are probably beyond salvation. They are candidates for 'have another beer on me, my friend'. What they do not realize is, that it is you and I that will carry them home when they pass out, tuck them in, and say a little prayer to Jesus, Jose and Maria that God has mercy on their souls. Then we will let them in on our secret hangover cure the next day. I will not debate with them any more. It is hopeless. I will check in from time to time though, to make sure the final words in the forum are:

Tear down the wall.