Mexican Border Solution

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat May 27, 2006 2:32 pm

A WIN WIN SITUATION

Dig a moat along the entire Mexican border, take the dirt and raise the levies in New Orleans and put the Florida alligators in the moat.

Any other problems you have for me to solve?

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Sat May 27, 2006 2:40 pm

LOL! Have you sent that one to your congressman yet? Sounds like it would work to me! Until you get illegals stomping over in alligator skin boots!:wah:

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat May 27, 2006 6:25 pm

Boy Lon I think your onto something, I live very close to the border here in San Diego and it is a huge problem with the people coming across daily.. !! :-5 This city can't absorb much more of their cost for care, medical, housing, and you name it they get it. The whole thing is a nightmare no matter how you handle it..

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:49 am

Why not integrate Mexico into the US?

Make it another state?

After all, the way things are going -----

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 3:09 am

An ideal solution, in my opinion. Has anyone a good reason why not?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun May 28, 2006 5:55 am

golem wrote: Why not integrate Mexico into the US?

Make it another state?

After all, the way things are going -----

Call it Mexasflorinia.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 5:58 am

spot wrote: An ideal solution, in my opinion. Has anyone a good reason why not?Other than people like you accusing us of imperialism? :sneaky: Not much.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 6:03 am

I thought of one! Texans couldn't boast of being the biggest any more.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 6:09 am

Accountable wrote: Other than people like you accusing us of imperialism? :sneaky: Not much.Acc, you evidently misunderstand the nature of Empire. Golem's original admirable suggestion was "Why not integrate Mexico into the US?". The resulting union could have no sense of Empire about it at all. We've discussed the overwhelming extent to which Americans regard the citizens of all the States as "Us" in contrast to "Them". The USA is not an Empire within its borders. By all means expand them.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:18 am

golem wrote: Why not integrate Mexico into the US?

Make it another state?

-----

We can't afford them, plus, we have enough corruption in our own country without integrating their's as well.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:21 am

In what way does Mexico differ from the Indian Territories? You managed to afford those.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:37 am

spot wrote: In what way does Mexico differ from the Indian Territories? You managed to afford those.

There is no comparison. To incorporate Mexico would be a huge liability without benefit.

Many Mexicans are still upset over the "Treaty of Hildago" in which they ceded California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to the U.S. Instead of taking it back by warfare, they are doing it through osmosis.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:47 am

Lon wrote: There is no comparison. To incorporate Mexico would be a huge liability without benefit.But so, surely, would the Indian Territories have been, had the USA acknowledged prior possession. The difference between then and now is that then you sent in genocidal technicians like George Custer, America's gung-ho hands-on Eichmann, to empty the new territories of their original inhabitants. Are you telling me that the USA now feels constrained to more reasonable ambitions? What makes you think so?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:49 am

spot wrote: But so, surely, would the Indian Territories have been, had the USA acknowledged prior possession. The difference between then and now is that then you sent in genocidal technicians like George Custer, America's gung-ho hands-on Eichmann, to empty the new territories of their original inhabitants. Are you telling me that the USA now feels constrained to more reasonable ambitions? What makes you think so?What makes you think not?

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:52 am

Accountable wrote: What makes you think not? Lon's supercilious dismissive "There is no comparison" without any details of why, when obviously there is. The tone seemed appropriate, given the cold shoulder of the message I was responding to.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 8:03 am

spot wrote: But so, surely, would the Indian Territories have been, had the USA acknowledged prior possession. The difference between then and now is that then you sent in genocidal technicians like George Custer, America's gung-ho hands-on Eichmann, to empty the new territories of their original inhabitants. Are you telling me that the USA now feels constrained to more reasonable ambitions? What makes you think so?

The Indian Territories??? There were, (before white settlers wiped many of them out) over 1,000 different tribes in North America, each with a different language & culture but no cohesive infrastructure. As for genocidal technicians, that started with Christopher Columbus and continued with Pizzaro, Cortez, Hernandez, The Pilgrims, The Original 13 States, continued through the U.S. Revolutioary War 1776, on and on and on.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 8:10 am

Lon wrote: The Indian Territories??? There were, (before white settlers wiped many of them out) over 1,000 different tribes in North America, each with a different language & culture but no cohesive infrastructure. As for genocidal technicians, that started with Christopher Columbus and continued with Pizzaro, Cortez, Hernandez, The Pilgrims, The Original 13 States, continued through the U.S. Revolutioary War 1776, on and on and on.Bravo. So why this sudden timidity when faced with an identical proposal for expansion now?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun May 28, 2006 8:12 am

Wow I don't see how anyone could compare the Indian Territories to present day Mexico. The territories were just vast areas of land with different tribes of people. There was no central government unlike Mexico that has a governing body, a economy, and all the other factors that make it a nation of it's own.

Nope no comparison in my mind.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 8:18 am

Sheryl wrote: Wow I don't see how anyone could compare the Indian Territories to present day Mexico. The territories were just vast areas of land with different tribes of people. There was no central government unlike Mexico that has a governing body, a economy, and all the other factors that make it a nation of it's own.

Nope no comparison in my mind.I note in passing that all of the US treaties of the time were drawn up with individual Indian "Nations", not tribes, on the basis that they each had governments and economies and all the other factors that make it a nation of its own. So... One Nation Unchangeable, Many Nations Obliterable?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun May 28, 2006 8:21 am

Ok Spot, I'm gonna admit now your know your history better than me. However I still don't understand how you can compare something from last century to a country in modern times.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 8:23 am

spot wrote: Bravo. So why this sudden timidity when faced with an identical proposal for expansion now?

Spot----I suspect your knowledge of U.S. History is as limited as my knowledge of Wales. Further, I suspect that you might have interpreted my initial post as being somewhat racist when in fact it was an attempt at humour and since my own heritage includes the surname Trujillo and my given name being Alonzo (Lon) ???????

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 28, 2006 9:31 am

Accountable wrote: I thought of one! Texans couldn't boast of being the biggest any more.

They can't now. That title goes to Alaska.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 9:33 am

golem wrote: They can't now. That title goes to Alaska.Shush! That doesn't count.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun May 28, 2006 9:54 am

Great post here on this politically charged never ending problem. Folks I live 15 minutes from the border have all my life, and will till I die. The only thing that would force me out of my home town of San Diego would be incorporation of Mexico into the US.

I doubt that would ever happen so I don't worry about it much. I have traveled extensively in Mexico actually driven from San Diego to Cancun twice, it is beautiful country with a population of homeless hungry people much larger than anything we have here is the US. Who live in cardboard box houses with no running water, and just above the cardboard houses is the town richest person living large with giant walls around their homes so they don't have to see the poor people.

Remember this folks we would never be allowed to live in Mexico ever as citizens. No amnesty (sp) would ever be given to us for entering Mexico Illegally. We would never get social services in Mexico they would throw our butts in jail and kill us if they could.

They want what they can't have in their own country because of their leadership. We need to close our borders no one should come across illegally it is as simple as that. Amnesty should not be given to those here illegally they have broken the law send them back. There are many Hispanics that enter this country legally everyday what would amnesty say to them.

I know my views won't be popular but their are my view, as I live in the eye of the problem I see it up close and personal each and every day.. WE NEED TO CLOSE OUR BORDERS. :-5

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:04 am

CARLA wrote: I know my views won't be popular but their are my view, as I live in the eye of the problem I see it up close and personal each and every day.. WE NEED TO CLOSE OUR BORDERS. :-5I agree with you entirely, Carla. I can't imagine why you're all pissing around doing nothing about it. Get it done, for goodness' sake.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:06 am

CARLA wrote: I know my views won't be popular but their are my view, as I live in the eye of the problem I see it up close and personal each and every day.. WE NEED TO CLOSE OUR BORDERS. :-5
:yh_clap I happen to like your view :yh_clap

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:23 am

I agree Spot I don't know what they are waiting for CLOSE THE DAMN BORDERS Then work with the Mexican government to provide for the needs of its native people. Where is written that we provide a new life for those that enter the country illegally. We constantly create so damn many shades of gray with our laws and we are paying the price daily. On this issue we should be firm you enter illegally you go home. If your here illegally you go home. :-5 I don't know of a more equitable way to handle it. As we all know our bribe taking, shifty dishonest reps and senators keep playing both ends agains the middle, bunch of crooks (sp). The ones that speak the truth get blown out of the water...:-5

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:42 am

CARLA wrote: Then work with the Mexican government to provide for the needs of its native people.Simpler still - stand back and let it happen internally without interference from the rich kids up north.

There's an editorial in The Providence Journal of Rhode Island on May 18 which concluded "the United States encourages perpetuation of corrupt societies and governments in Mexico and points south by letting illegal immigration from those places reduce any pressure for local reform. Instead, the downtrodden residents can go north to improve their lot, often sending money to their families back home" and I consider that to be a fairly crucial factor in favor of building a non-porous border and adjusting the criminality issue so that nobody finally criminalized in the USA remains there. It will leave the USA with difficulties, but it will finally provide a platform for Mexican politicians prepared to tackle corruption and inefficiency in their domestic economy.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:46 am

AMEN TO THAT SPOT...!!

Mexico is a totally corrupt government. We have to force their hand or California and my hometown are doomed..

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:49 am

spot wrote: Simpler still - stand back and let it happen internally without interference from the rich kids up north.

There's an editorial in The Providence Journal of Rhode Island on May 18 which concluded "the United States encourages perpetuation of corrupt societies and governments in Mexico and points south by letting illegal immigration from those places reduce any pressure for local reform. Instead, the downtrodden residents can go north to improve their lot, often sending money to their families back home" and I consider that to be a fairly crucial factor in favor of building a non-porous border and adjusting the criminality issue so that nobody finally criminalized in the USA remains there. It will leave the USA with difficulties, but it will finally provide a platform for Mexican politicians prepared to tackle corruption and inefficiency in their domestic economy.Pretty good armchair quarterbacking from way over there, Spot.

One word. Terrorists.

We need to secure both borders for this one reason, regardless of why the reason exists. Let the equilibrium happen through controlled floodgates.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:52 am

Good point ACC that should have been done 5 minutes after 9-11 and we would be well on our way to secure borders...:-5

[QUOTE]One word. Terrorists.

We need to secure both borders for this one reason, regardless of why the reason exists. Let the equilibrium happen through controlled floodgates.[/QUOTE]

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 10:57 am

Accountable wrote: Pretty good armchair quarterbacking from way over there, Spot.

I actually went looking for that editorial, knowing that someone somewhere had to have written something like it and knowing equally well that if I just said what I thought without external backing I'd be rubbished.

appended: It's not a term I've seen before, I had to go and look it up which is why I've been so long responding.

"The reason we call such folks armchair quarterbacks is that it is infinitely easier to recognize a bad call after a play doesn't work than it does to anticipate all the factors that can go wrong or to forestall a poor execution or to deflect the intervention of malignant fate or to juggle a host of other concatenations that can upset a play [...] The term armchair quarterback is in fact pejorative in its association, recognizing that those who sit in the comfort of their armchairs instead of being the leader on the field of play itself have the advantage of hindsight but are not really in the thick of the game themselves."Two observations, now that I know I've been deliberately and gratuitously insulted - firstly, in what sense are any of us here in any other position? And secondly, do you not feel it would be more conducive to (armchair) debate if you were to say in what way I might be mistaken, rather than merely to throw verbal turds?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 12:25 pm

Spot said: "Lon's supercilious dismissive "There is no comparison" without any details of why, when obviously there is. The tone seemed appropriate, given the cold shoulder of the message I was responding to."

Hey Spot---lighten up. You read more into a post than is actually there and are too easily offended when no offense is intended. By no comparison, it seemed obvious to me (apparently not you) that there is no comparison. I did not realize you were looking to debate the issue. The economy of the "Indian Nations" and it's individual infrastructure is different than current day Mexico. When the U.S. government took Indian lands they were taking valuable assets and gave little in return. If the U.S. annexed Mexico into it's own, they would be taking on tremendous liabilities of a third world economy and have to give much in return. In our capitalistic society that's just not good economics.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 12:44 pm

Lon wrote: Hey Spot---lighten up. You read more into a post than is actually there and are too easily offended when no offense is intended.You surprise me, Lon - "third world economy"? Mexico has the 14th largest economy on the planet in terms of Gross Domestic Product, and it's the the world's ninth largest oil exporter besides. It's a big player. I think one truth of the matter is that the US gains more from cheap production facilities and artificially maintained low incomes than it would if the private economy of Mexico were subject to the legal constraints enforced on companies in the USA.

I might more readily lighten up if I didn't read things like "I suspect your knowledge of U.S. History is as limited as my knowledge of Wales" on a public board.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun May 28, 2006 12:56 pm

spot wrote: You surprise me, Lon - "third world economy"? Mexico has the 14th largest economy on the planet in terms of Gross Domestic Product, and it's the the world's ninth largest oil exporter besides. It's a big player. I think one truth of the matter is that the US gains more from cheap production facilities and artificially maintained low incomes than it would if the private economy of Mexico were subject to the legal constraints enforced on companies in the USA.

I might more readily lighten up if I didn't read things like "I suspect your knowledge of U.S. History is as limited as my knowledge of Wales" on a public board.

If they are the 9th largest oil exporter, and rank 14th then why do they have so many poor? Why do they have such high crime? and the big question... Why is the U.S. so much more appealing than their home country?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:14 pm

Simple really the Government is corrupt, is has, and always will be. The people in Mexico have nothing, not even their land is there's. Anything and everything they may own belongs to the state and is taken at will. The rich have everything and the poor have NOTHING, there is no middle class. They would give you the shirt off their back and the food off their plates if they had any. They are a humble and gracious people for the most part who have no hope of ever living a life other than poverty unless they cross the border illegally by the hundreds every minute of every day....:-5 Mexico needs to take care of it own, not our job, not our responsibility. Somehow the people have to rise up and turn it around isn't that the way its supposed to be done..

[QUOTE]If they are the 9th largest oil exporter, and rank 14th then why do they have so many poor? Why do they have such high crime? and the big question... Why is the U.S. so much more appealing than their home country?[/QUOTE]

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:23 pm

Spot said:

I might more readily lighten up if I didn't read things like "I suspect your knowledge of U.S. History is as limited as my knowledge of Wales" on a public board.

Must be some cultural differences here Spot. I don't see what is wrong with what I said, in fact it was quid pro quo. And the public board thing I really do not understand. At any rate, if you were offended, I sincerely apologise.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:35 pm

Lon wrote: [quote=spot]I might more readily lighten up if I didn't read things like "I suspect your knowledge of U.S. History is as limited as my knowledge of Wales" on a public board.Must be some cultural differences here Spot. I don't see what is wrong with what I said, in fact it was quid pro quo. And the public board thing I really do not understand. At any rate, if you were offended, I sincerely apologise.[/QUOTE]quid pro quo? You made the remark in post #21. Where on earth did I step out of line in the preceding 20 posts, that you feel you were retaliating in some way?

The "public board thing" is that your comment regarding your suspicion of my knowledge of U.S. History will be readable by anyone and everyone long after both you and I are dead. Just how public can you get? It is, of course, quite possible that your knowledge of Wales is encyclopaedic, but your choice of words doesn't imply that. I'm aware that my knowledge of U.S. History can only be described as pitifully inadequate, but your stressing this as though it invalidates even my questions seems rather an odd approach to logic. It's far simpler just to answer them from an informed position, surely?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:38 pm

[quote=spot]You surprise me, Lon - "third world economy"? Mexico has the 14th largest economy on the planet in terms of Gross Domestic Product, and it's the the world's ninth largest oil exporter besides.

You are right of course about their economy not being third world, however the per capita income of their citizens is 1/4 of the U.S. and 40% of Mexico citizens live below the poverty level. Their economy doesn't seem to filter down to the poor guy on the streeet.

.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 5:11 pm

spot wrote: I actually went looking for that editorial, knowing that someone somewhere had to have written something like it and knowing equally well that if I just said what I thought without external backing I'd be rubbished.

appended: It's not a term I've seen before, I had to go and look it up which is why I've been so long responding.

"The reason we call such folks armchair quarterbacks is that it is infinitely easier to recognize a bad call after a play doesn't work than it does to anticipate all the factors that can go wrong or to forestall a poor execution or to deflect the intervention of malignant fate or to juggle a host of other concatenations that can upset a play [...] The term armchair quarterback is in fact pejorative in its association, recognizing that those who sit in the comfort of their armchairs instead of being the leader on the field of play itself have the advantage of hindsight but are not really in the thick of the game themselves."Two observations, now that I know I've been deliberately and gratuitously insulted - firstly, in what sense are any of us here in any other position? And secondly, do you not feel it would be more conducive to (armchair) debate if you were to say in what way I might be mistaken, rather than merely to throw verbal turds?You've been deliberately and gatuitously ribbed by a friend. I think you call it taking the **** out of someone, or something like that. I'm sorry it came across differently. The smiley (

) was sincere.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 28, 2006 5:22 pm

Accountable wrote: You've been deliberately and gatuitously ribbed by a friend. I think you call it taking the **** out of someone, or something like that. I'm sorry it came across differently. The smiley (

) was sincere.Ah. Not at all, old man. I had a trying day, much of which has been induced by Microsoft (a company which, when companies are finally admitted to the ranks of the Sainthood by the Roman Catholic Church, will be among the first, don't mistake my momentary peeve for a lack of utter lifelong gratitude).

Could someone else perhaps take on the onerous task of welcoming newbie fundamentalist-defective Christian evangelists? I am fully aware that I sound unkind whenever I see one. Personally I'd not let any of them marry my daughter, but they have as much of a place on FG as I do, bad cess to them and may their boils continue to grieve their waking hours. I'm not good at welcoming anyone - Billie Piper could log in tomorrow and I'd curl my lip contemptuously - and this is not a good attitude, but these dregs of the mental health community are just not my cup of tea at all.

What were we talking about?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:54 pm

spot wrote: What were we talking about?
:wah: Trying to prevent our national anthem being changed to that olde Irish ditty, "Green Grows the Grass of Something-or-other" :guitarist

911 · Post by **911** » Mon May 29, 2006 9:59 am

When these Mexicans become legal citizens and they commit a horrible crime, will we have the option of shipping them back or will we have to put them in our already over crowded prisons?

Those stupid government officials who think we are idiots said if we get rid of the Mexicans who will do our dirty work? Well, they won't be doing it any longer. It will be illegal to pay them less than minimum wage.

Those that will be paid minimum wage will not be able to live on it and they will stop working and go on welfare, sit on their cans and rake in the money.

I agree, shut the borders and let them work it out for themselves or go south, there's so much more down there.

I never paid them much attention before the marches and them crying out for their 'rights'. But then I got mad. Of course, this is not like a democracy or anything where we tell out representatives what we want to happen. :-5

Post by **spot** » Mon May 29, 2006 10:12 am

911 wrote: I never paid them much attention before the marches and them crying out for their 'rights'. But then I got mad. Of course, this is not like a democracy or anything where we tell out representatives what we want to happen. :-5Nothing could be easier. http://www.congress.org

I do hope you take advantage of the facilities there, having complained that it can't be done. The sooner the USA reaches a point where everybody within its borders on a given day has permission to be there, the better. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. I find it hard to imagine that any argument exists which would dispute the suggestion. Seal all the borders and rectify matters immediately.

Power to the People!

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon May 29, 2006 10:33 am

[quote=911]When these Mexicans become legal citizens and they commit a horrible crime, will we have the option of shipping them back or will we have to put them in our already over crowded prisons?

If they are given citizenship, then of course they will have all the rights of citizenship, like a trial by jury, unless they are treated as the Japanese American Citizens at the beginning of WW 2.

I agree, shut the borders and let them work it out for themselves or go south, there's so much more down there.

The Mexican & Canadian border is pretty long and damn near impossibe to shut down all of it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 29, 2006 10:46 am

spot wrote: Nothing could be easier. http://www.congress.org

I do hope you take advantage of the facilities there, having complained that it can't be done. The sooner the USA reaches a point where everybody within its borders on a given day has permission to be there, the better. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. I find it hard to imagine that any argument exists which would dispute the suggestion. Seal all the borders and rectify matters immediately.

Power to the People!

RIGHT ARM !

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 29, 2006 1:17 pm

spot wrote: Nothing could be easier. http://www.congress.org

I do hope you take advantage of the facilities there, having complained that it can't be done. The sooner the USA reaches a point where everybody within its borders on a given day has permission to be there, the better. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. I find it hard to imagine that any argument exists which would dispute the suggestion. Seal all the borders and rectify matters immediately.

Power to the People!Reagan did that already. It was a disaster - encouraged thousands more to flood in, as I recall.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 29, 2006 1:29 pm

911 wrote: [...]

Those stupid government officials who think we are idiots said if we get rid of the Mexicans who will do our dirty work? Well, they won't be doing it any longer. It will be illegal to pay them less than minimum wage.

Those that will be paid minimum wage will not be able to live on it and they will stop working and go on welfare, sit on their cans and rake in the money.

[...]
Most get well over minimum wage, considering that they get their full pay without any taxes withheld (except those who commit fraud and forge official documents, a felony). The criminal employers are complicit, saving thousands in payroll taxes, insurance, etc.

I truly believe that someone who would go through so much to work so hard to send money home to take care of their families, would be loathe to settle for a welfare check and food stamps.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 29, 2006 2:41 pm

Accountable wrote: Reagan did that already. It was a disaster - encouraged thousands more to flood in, as I recall.I think you must mean his Administration - I never believed that senile old actor was anything but a front-man for a White House team. Rather like the current fading playboy.

If it was a disaster then they failed to do it either sensibly or adequately. The failure to successfully implement doesn't invalidate the desireability of the outcome. By all means refuse to newly-register as citizens any who are not currently citizens, sweep the nation with police from one end to the other with a fine trawl net, gather in everyone without "permission to be there" and place them on the other side of the wall you've already by then constructed. The key concept is not having anyone criminalized within your borders by reason of a lack of acknowledged legal entry or right of residency. Go into lockdown for all I care, just remove this outrageous stigma of "criminal" from people on the basis of laws your nation, and not they, passed. At the moment America's like a naked whore in a cathouse window holding up a sign saying "lick me" to solicit passing trade. Shut the window and put some clothes on, please.