Catholic bishops call for end to "inhumane" worksite ICE raids (CNA)

[Writer]

Isn’t the real root of the problem the economy and social issues in Mexico? If the US Catholic Bishops really want to solve this they need to be working with the Mexican Gov and their Bishops. They can also call in the policies of the US Gov to help. Their is nothing keeping them form solving this at the real root cause.

That is a good point. Mexico’s economic failure is the root cause. While I agree the raids raise some troubling questions, they are often associated with deplorable working conditions. People who hire these illegals don’t care about working conditions, because who’s going to tell? So, there is a sense that this represents a kind of servitude. As a government employee, I am not sure that the bishops are looking at the big picture here.

I am going to post some excerpts of my writings on this topic a couple years ago–if it adds anything of value to the debate. I probably just have too much time on my hands.

…On the other side of the immigration debate, however, stands something called law. As one legal immigrant recently explained it to me, illegal immigrants to him are like burglars who enter a home uninvited and then demand to stay on for the meal. Those who have immigrated to this country from Mexico are quick to suggest, however, that the “doors” of our homeland are standing wide open. Between weak Border Patrol enforcement and many of our businesses depending upon this cheap labor pool, immigrants often believe that there is an unofficial policy of looking the other way when it comes to illegal immigration—until, that is, it becomes a political hot button again. While laws do have to be respected, sometimes the rule of law must be tempered with mercy and a higher justice.

A recent article by Paul Driessen entitled “Immigrants, Reconquistas and Economic Systems” reminds us why immigrants are making the trek north in the first place: the Mexican government and its antiquated economic systems are failing its citizens. Perhaps a three prong United States policy might be successful: encouraging legal immigration, stimulating cultural assimilation and unification of immigrants, and undertaking a long-term strategy aimed at the modernization of Mexico itself. Unless Mexico is able to care for its own people, we’re simply treating the symptoms and leaving the wound to fester. I was recently in Yakima, Washington at the same time Mexican President Vicente Fox arrived in town to meet with Pacific Northwest governors to share mutual concerns. Perhaps there is reason to hope that the current Mexican administration is more willing today to work with state, federal, and humanitarian representatives to bring Mexico into the modern world.

 While there are many possible approaches to consider, one interesting option would encourage legal immigration, increase cultural unification, and strengthen our military’s preparedness.  This approach would entail a system where qualifying immigrants might be granted accelerated citizenship in exchange for joining a branch of the United States armed forces.  Learning English and US history would, of course, be among the requirements.  This program could also help to increase Hispanic representation within the military, since the US Census and Pew Research Center data indicate that Hispanics make up nearly fifteen percent of our population, but they only account for about ten percent of our armed forces.  As we must avoid making the same tragic errors as the Roman Empire with regards to its use of foreign armies, however, we would be wise to continually stress cultural unity at each turn.  This simply illustrates the kind of  “out of the box” solutions we may consider when we constructively discuss the problem of illegal immigration.

 If it is true that most illegal immigrants desire to adapt to our way of life and our uniting English language, then I suggest we do whatever we can to help them in this courageous endeavor.  While many would be in support of a massive deportation program for illegal immigrants, this strikes me as cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face—both in terms of national demographics and Christian mercy to the poor.  After all, Christ reminded us that what we do to the least of these, we do to Him.  Something tells me that in the end, our country of origin is going to be far less important to our God than the kindness we showed to our fellow man.  I am reminded of a passage from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice concerning mercy.

The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
’Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
The Christian body must stand tall and strong and reflect the light of God to the world. Part of our duty certainly includes doing unto others as we would have them do to us. Following the teachings of the Bible is not only required in order to win eternal life, but it is also critical for our nation’s continued demographic health. The Catholic Church’s Boston Catechism from the 1860s answers the age-old question of why God created us with the wise answer of “to know him, love him and serve him in this life, so as to be happy with him in the next.” The life-giving Gospel has the power to transform and strengthen us as we become the men and women God desires us to be. Whatever our country of origin may be, the Gospel can also be said to unearth who we truly are: men and women created in the image of God. As we conform to God’s true purpose for our lives by placing ourselves last, we receive freedom through the assurance that we are doing what is right before our God. When we turn to look, we will see that He is walking beside us on our journey and illuminating our way.

 

[Ed_Rand]

That is a good point. Mexico’s economic failure is the root cause.

On that note, has anyone here looked into the vast amounts of literature and research that demonstrate how NAFTA has damaged the Mexican economy? (not to mention transfering thousands of decent jobs to Mexico)

 

[JReducation]

C’mon, JR, one doesn’t have to be a diplomat to have an opinion. Admit everybody who wants to come here, or only some number? Will we be selective or not?

What’s just, JR?

I am not here to debate with you or anyone what I consider to be just. My opinion is irrelevant once the bishops have spoken. It would be a violation of our Holy Rule for me to say anything other than what the bishops have already said. Go to the EWTN site, read the bishops’ statement and you’ll know what is just and what I belive to be just. It is not for me to believe anything other than what the bishops say in a unified voice when that voice is in union with the Pontiff and the Gospel.

They have been very clear. The method of implementation is unjust. Read their documents. You have the same obligation as I do to listen to the successor of the Apostles and to hold our country accountable to the teachings of the Apostles, unless it compromises the soul. Thus says the Rule of St. Francis and his Letter to the Faithful, of which you are one.

When the successors of the Apostles speak what reflects the Gospel and the moral tradition of the Church, my right to a personal opinion is exhausted and loving obedience takes over.

Let us pray that we will do what the Gospel wants us to do.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

Pope Speaks Out on Migration Emergency

70 Illegal Immigrants Die Off Maltese Coast

zenit.org/article-23517?l=english

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 31, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Migration has become an emergency in our times, and one that demands solidarity and effective political solutions, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope said this today as he commented on the deaths this week of some 70 would-be immigrants off the coast of Malta, said to be one of the worst such incidents recorded in the country.

According to news reports, 78 would-be illegal African immigrants set sail from Libya on Aug. 21. The small boat found itself in the middle of a storm and capsized. Maltese fishermen rescued eight survivors on Tuesday.

Authorities have found only three bodies, but according to the survivors, four women are among the dead, including three who were pregnant.

After reciting the midday Angelus with several thousand people gathered in the courtyard of the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, the Holy Father said the tragedy “seemed to surpass previous incidents in terms of the number of victims.”

Emergency

"Migration is a phenomenon that has been present from the dawn of human history, and it has always, for this reason, characterized the relations between peoples and nations," he said. "The emergency that migration has become in our times, nevertheless, calls out to us and, while it solicits our solidarity, demands, at the same time, effective political answers."

The Pontiff applauded the humanitarian work of various regional, national and international institutions that are addressing the problem of irregular migration.

He also called on the countries of origin to “show a sense of responsibility” and to work to "remove the causes of irregular migration and cut off at the root all of the forms of criminality that are linked to these causes."

Benedict XVI continued: "For their part, European countries, and all other countries that are the destination of immigration, are called to, among other things, develop through consensus initiatives and structures that continue to adapt themselves to the needs of irregular migrants.

"The latter must be made aware, on the one hand, of the value of their own lives, which are a singular good, always precious, that should be safeguarded in the face of the grave risks that the pursuit of better situations exposes them to and, on the other hand, the duty of legality that is imposed on all."

“As the [Pope],” he added, “I feel a profound obligation to recall everyone’s attention to this problem and to ask for the generous cooperation of individuals and institutions to deal with it and to find solutions.”

As we can see the Church is not opposed to laws and rules regarding irregular migation. What concerns the Church is the value of these lives, their dignity and their treatment. In addition, the Church is concerned that the nations of origin and the host nations are not developing the proper programs, services, laws and systems to deal with the situation so that it no longer needs to happen or when it does happen, people are treated as “always precious”. This is what bothers the bishops about our current system. It does not treat people as precious.

We have the moral obligation to demand that our government treat everyone as precious, not just our citizens.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Church does not have specific proposals, not being in the government business.

Part of the problem with this whole topic seems to be that everybody has a complaint to make, but nobody has a solution.
Ted Kennedy and John McCain thought they did with “McCain-Kennedy”, but the people overwhelmingly rejected it, including, it seems, the majority of Americans of Hispanic descent.

What we have now is, in effect, a “Hispanic second-generation preference system”, whereby government largely looks the other way and tacitly allows illegal immigration precisely because it is a Hispanic preference. Americans complain about it, but not enough to absolutely demand that legislators end it.

It’s a disciminatory system, of course, precisely because it favors Hispanics.

But I guess it’s what we’ll keep, since nobody seems to have a more “just” plan.

 

[JReducation]

The Church does not have specific proposals, not being in the government business.

Part of the problem with this whole topic seems to be that everybody has a complaint to make, but nobody has a solution.
Ted Kennedy and John McCain thought they did with “McCain-Kennedy”, but the people overwhelmingly rejected it, including, it seems, the majority of Americans of Hispanic descent.

What we have now is, in effect, a “Hispanic second-generation preference system”, whereby government largely looks the other way and tacitly allows illegal immigration precisely because it is a Hispanic preference. Americans complain about it, but not enough to absolutely demand that legislators end it.

It’s a disciminatory system, of course, precisely because it favors Hispanics.

But I guess it’s what we’ll keep, since nobody seems to have a more “just” plan.

You’re absolutely right that no one seems to have a concrete workable solution on the table. I agree with you 100%.

However, as Catholics we may never place the interest of our nation over the moral demands of the Church. If the Church says that the government is doing something immorally, we have an obligation to demand that the government re-examine its methods and change them.

It is part of Catholic tradition for citizens to keep government moral. That has never changed. Citizens have dropped the ball in many countries, not just the USA. This is what this issue is about.

The Bishops say that the government is doing something immorally. Catholics need to respond by demanding that the government look into it and fix it. It’s the job of politicians, statesmen and women, and those who are experts in law and politics to come up with solutions. It is the Catholic citizen’s job to demand that the government conform to the Gospel.

That’s what the Bishops’ statement is about. The government can enforce any just law, but must use methods that conform to the Gospel and the mind of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am given to understand that in the UAE, the standard of living is quite high, due to the oil wealth. People are very well off even if they don’t work.

Now, if I managed to get myself into the UAE and get whatever check it is that the government hands out, and get a job that pays three times what the same job pays in the U.S., am I really treated unjustly and immorally if the UAE seines me up one day and sends me back to the U.S.?

 

[JReducation]

I am given to understand that in the UAE, the standard of living is quite high, due to the oil wealth. People are very well off even if they don’t work.

Now, if I managed to get myself into the UAE and get whatever check it is that the government hands out, and get a job that pays three times what the same job pays in the U.S., am I really treated unjustly and immorally if the UAE seines me up one day and sends me back to the U.S.?

You’re missing the point of the bishops. The method is flawed, not the law. Also, read the post the I put up by Benedict XVI. We have an obligation to treat every human being as precious.

If the authorities use a method that fails to do this, then the method is morally flawed, even if the law is morally right.

I get the sense that you want to protect the government from the Church. Am I reading you right?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’re missing the point of the bishops. The method is flawed, not the law. Also, read the post the I put up by Benedict XVI. We have an obligation to treat every human being as precious.

If the authorities use a method that fails to do this, then the method is morally flawed, even if the law is morally right.

I get the sense that you want to protect the government from the Church. Am I reading you right?

Fraternally,

JR

Where do you want the UAE authorities to pick me up? At work? At home? On the street? In church? In a store? Where?

 

[Writer]

Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s World Over made a good point on a different issue that, when the bishops make proclamations having more to do with international policy than faith and morals, there is a real danger that they are stepping out beyond their expertise. It’s not that they shouldn’t feel free to speak as they wish, but the bishops and the wider membership of the Catholic Church, need to remember that national policy is often based on information to which they and the public simply aren’t privy–or it’s too complicated to make accurate assessments without understanding the big picture.

For example, when there was a large immigration raid in Oregon, I was initially of the position that this was a bad thing. What the Church leadership may not grasp, however, is that it’s not necessarily that simple. In the case of the Oregon raid, the employer was (in a sense) engaged in a sort of slavery. Work safety laws were being broken in about every category you could imagine. This included under-age workers and others using electrical equipment with wires extending through puddles of water on the floor. It was a death trap. In other words, there are other dimensions to these raids than simply people working without proper papers. This kind of black market labor also creates safety and health issues for all of us. From what I have seen, I don’t see that these bishops understand these related and sometimes subtle issues terribly well.

What we need to figure out as a country is how can we mercifully enforce our immigration laws and simultaneously perhaps help Mexico come into the modern world. Until Mexico’s economy works, this problem will persist. As illustrated in my earlier post, there are no easy answers.

 

[Wirraway]

I see. No doubt the Nazis said the same thing.

And no, I’m not saying you’re evil like the Nazis. Only that dismissing charges of inhumanity as “buzzwords” hardens your heart and allows you to push whatever ideology you may wish without your conscience interfering. It is a very dark road.

Edwin

I doubt the nazis described their own conduct as inhumane, so you need to rethink your argument.

“inhumanity” is a buzzword in the absence of anything that’s actually inhuman, pal. and I’m not seeing anything inhumane about it, only that someone’s pet goats have been gotten real good. detainees are afforded their due process rights under the law, which beggars your “nazi” analogy, which, by the way, has been overblown and nauseatingly tedious for the last 20 years.

if you think I’m “pushing ideology” down some “dark road” as an SO B without a conscience, be a man about it, even though this is the internet, don’t dance around the accusation. whatever you’re trying to call me, say it.

and I’ll be happy to respond.

 

[Wirraway]

It might be interesting if people who think our immigration laws are unjust to describe what they think would be a just system.

It would likewise be interesting for people to describe a “just” system that is also in the best interests of the U.S.

you’ll rarely get a coherent description from any of the pro-illegal advocates. the possibility of reform where non-immigrant work visas and temporary guest workers replace unlimited immigration leading to permanent residency is not in their agenda.

 

[Ridgerunner]

you’ll rarely get a coherent description from any of the pro-illegal advocates. the possibility of reform where non-immigrant work visas and temporary guest workers replace unlimited immigration leading to permanent residency is not in their agenda.

This is getting a trifle irritating. I understand when the Church doesn’t have specific political programs. That’s not the busines of the Church, and that’s fine.

But I do have difficulty understanding individuals who decry the way things are, call them “unjust” and “immoral” and all that, yet have no suggestion at all as to how to make the immigration system “just” or “moral”. Do those who say it’s unjust think we should simply ignore illegal immigration? I guess I’m getting somewhat inclined to think so.

And what with Mexico? Lots of people want to talk about how we need to aid Mexico and all that, but again, when it comes to specifics, what?

 

[Writer]

And what with Mexico? Lots of people want to talk about how we need to aid Mexico and all that, but again, when it comes to specifics, what?

Some kind of aid program tied to demonstrable improvements in their unemployment rates and financial condition of the nation, I suppose. I believe that the Paul Driessen article referred to earlier may have had some more specific, concrete ideas, but I’m not certain. I would be very wary of giving anything more than we de before there are clearly strings and expectations firmly attached. Like the bishops, I’m also not an expert on the issue of immigration.

 

[JReducation]

This is getting a trifle irritating. I understand when the Church doesn’t have specific political programs. That’s not the busines of the Church, and that’s fine.

But I do have difficulty understanding individuals who decry the way things are, call them “unjust” and “immoral” and all that, yet have no suggestion at all as to how to make the immigration system “just” or “moral”. Do those who say it’s unjust think we should simply ignore illegal immigration? I guess I’m getting somewhat inclined to think so.

And what with Mexico? Lots of people want to talk about how we need to aid Mexico and all that, but again, when it comes to specifics, what?

But that’s the job of legislators. social scientists, pollitical scientists and diplomats, to make things happen in an efficient and just manner. The role of the Catholic citizen is to make sure that those in charge follow the moral law.

As to the bishops not being well informed, that’s not always the case. There are many inside dealings between the government and the Catholic Church. Many bishops work very closely with local and national government on many programmes. The Catholic Church runs many programs for the Government of the USA and is a vendor of services to the Governent (local or national). Catholic Charities has been involved in the issue of immigration since the 1980s. The diocesan commissions on social justice and the Episcopal Conference Committee on Social Justice has been involved in this issue since the late 70s and early 80s. They have been telling the Government that they had to do something to make the system more just.

The bishops of Latin America have been telling their governments that they have to clean up their act and have denounced the corruption that leads people to flee their country. Let’s not forget the bishops, priests and religious who have been imprisoned and killed in Latin America over the years. The most famous one was Bishop Oscar Romero, who was a very good man and tried to impress upon his country that violence was not going to solve the problems of poverty or imperialism. Both sides hated him. Only the poor working man caught in the middle listened to him. They shot him during mass.

It’s not that the Church has been silent on either side of the border. It’s that there is money involved and people rather listen to money than to the Church. That’s frustrating.

The Church is saying, you have to come up with just laws and just ways to enforce the laws, to the USA. It tells the country of origin, you have to brainstorm to find ways to improve the quality of life of your people so they won’t have to leave. All of these nations have access to experts and these matters. They have a moral obligation to use those resources and to experiment. If one thing doesn’t work, try something else.

This is what drives the Church crazy and why the Church says that the State is action immorally. It’s not using its resources in a moral and humane way.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

But that’s the job of legislators. social scientists, pollitical scientists and diplomats, to make things happen in an efficient and just manner. The role of the Catholic citizen is to make sure that those in charge follow the moral law.

As to the bishops not being well informed, that’s not always the case. There are many inside dealings between the government and the Catholic Church. Many bishops work very closely with local and national government on many programmes. The Catholic Church runs many programs for the Government of the USA and is a vendor of services to the Governent (local or national). Catholic Charities has been involved in the issue of immigration since the 1980s. The diocesan commissions on social justice and the Episcopal Conference Committee on Social Justice has been involved in this issue since the late 70s and early 80s. They have been telling the Government that they had to do something to make the system more just.

The bishops of Latin America have been telling their governments that they have to clean up their act and have denounced the corruption that leads people to flee their country. Let’s not forget the bishops, priests and religious who have been imprisoned and killed in Latin America over the years. The most famous one was Bishop Oscar Romero, who was a very good man and tried to impress upon his country that violence was not going to solve the problems of poverty or imperialism. Both sides hated him. Only the poor working man caught in the middle listened to him. They shot him during mass.

It’s not that the Church has been silent on either side of the border. It’s that there is money involved and people rather listen to money than to the Church. That’s frustrating.

The Church is saying, you have to come up with just laws and just ways to enforce the laws, to the USA. It tells the country of origin, you have to brainstorm to find ways to improve the quality of life of your people so they won’t have to leave. All of these nations have access to experts and these matters. They have a moral obligation to use those resources and to experiment. If one thing doesn’t work, try something else.

This is what drives the Church crazy and why the Church says that the State is action immorally. It’s not using its resources in a moral and humane way.

Fraternally,

JR

Still no specifcs. Just complaints and moralizing about how raids are “unjust” and “immoral”. No specifics and no solutions.

In default of any of the reformers in here coming up with anything, here’s my “plan”.

Do nothing different at all.

The present system is, in effect, a “Hispanic Preference” system that lets immense numbers of illegals into the country, the vast majority of which are Hispanics because they can walk here, whereas, e.g., Filipinos can’t. Its downside is that the U.S. is a richer “pasture” for Hispanic criminals than are their own lands. That is left to law enforcement. The only time anybody does anything is when an illegal gets arrested for something else (and isn’t in a “sanctuary city”) and gets deported, or there is a raid on some plant that hires so many of them as to be obvious. Anti-enforcement people on here think those places are all cruel sweatshops anyway, so why not raid them, rescue the slaves, send them back to their original homes and families, and impose penalties on the places that operate those sweatshops.

In time, the illegals either go back home voluntarily (Many do permanently. Virtually all go back and forth regularly.) or stay here and raise families. Their children are American citizens; a privilege they would never have if their parents stayed in their home countries.

Net gain for Hispanics. The only ones with legitimate complaints to make are those who can’t walk into the U.S. from where they originate.

 

[Ed_Rand]

Do those who say it’s unjust think we should simply ignore illegal immigration?

That’s what’s been happening for the last 4 decades. Obviously, we who advocate change, would like to see the government actually take real steps to improve the immigration situation.

And what with Mexico? Lots of people want to talk about how we need to aid Mexico and all that, but again, when it comes to specifics, what?

Yes that is a large part of the problem. A repeal of NAFTA would be a good start. Every country that has ever developed has employed protectionist policies.

Believe me Ridgerunner, there are plenty of possible solutions that we could throw out there that would be much better than the status quo. A lot of common sense solutions.

Whoa… It just occured to me that it may be that many Americans are seeing these raids and understanding that this is just one part of an acceptable long-term solution. Instill some fear, depopulate them a bit to acceptable levels to where they’re not competing for any decent jobs, doing all the work us native americans wouldn’t want to do, then build the fence. Nice. I hope not.

At least our health care system wouldn’t be in shambles… Does anybody have figures on how many American women got breast implants last year? Is heart-surgery available for lap-dogs yet?

 

[Ed_Rand]

Let’s not forget the bishops, priests and religious who have been imprisoned and killed in Latin America over the years. The most famous one was Bishop Oscar Romero, who was a very good man and tried to impress upon his country that violence was not going to solve the problems of poverty or imperialism. Both sides hated him. Only the poor working man caught in the middle listened to him. They shot him during mass.

A good point to remember about that situation is that the US had been giving military support to the brutal government of El Salvador for years before the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Bishop Romero himself sent a letter to Jimmy Carter asking for a suspension of military aid because he saw how it was leading to the massacre of his own parishoners and his friend and fellow priest, Rotilio Grande. Even after the Archbishop’s assassination, when he took office, Reagan greatly increased the military aid to the brutal government.

All this talk of “what’s to be done?” has been avoinding the fact that the US has been meddling in the affairs of these countries for decades.

Ridgerunner, you spoke of Guatemalan immigrants earlier… Have you read about what happened to popular leader Jacobo Arbenz? The short story as far as our involvement: CIA orchestrated coup followed by military support for various brutal regimes.

This coup happened in 1954, 1 year after nearly the same thing happened to popular leader Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran. A CIA orchestrated coup followed by 30 years of support for the brutal dictatorship of the Shah. Some interesting original CIA documents regarding the coup here. Just search “Mossadeq”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s what’s been happening for the last 4 decades. Obviously, we who advocate change, would like to see the government actually take real steps to improve the immigration situation.

Yes that is a large part of the problem. A repeal of NAFTA would be a good start. Every country that has ever developed has employed protectionist policies.

Believe me Ridgerunner, there are plenty of possible solutions that we could throw out there that would be much better than the status quo. A lot of common sense solutions.

Whoa… It just occured to me that it may be that many Americans are seeing these raids and understanding that this is just one part of an acceptable long-term solution. Instill some fear, depopulate them a bit to acceptable levels to where they’re not competing for any decent jobs, doing all the work us native americans wouldn’t want to do, then build the fence. Nice. I hope not.

At least our health care system wouldn’t be in shambles… Does anybody have figures on how many American women got breast implants last year? Is heart-surgery available for lap-dogs yet?

All this CIA rabbit hole plot stuff is irrelevant. Far and away most illegal immigration is from Mexico, not those places. But I think you just told us who you’re voting for in November. He claims not to like NAFTA, but doesn’t favor repealing it, though. :whacky:

Some would disagree with your proposition that kicking Mexico out of NAFTA would benefit Mexico. www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2006/032406
Nevertheless, I think a lot of Americans would support kicking Mexico out of NAFTA. Certainly American produce companies, manufacturers and truckers would. Keeping Mexican trucks out of the U.S. would also make Homeland Security’s job easier. Obviously, you would have to get Canada to go along with it, as I very much doubt Canada would want trade barriers between the U.S. and itself. But Canada might not care too much about Mexico and think it ok to kick Mexico out.

Oh, and not every country that has developed did so through protectionist policies. American development was largely financed by British capital, notwithstanding the early unpleasantnesses. Brits still own more American assets than all other foreign concerns put together, so I guess it hasn’t hurt us too much.

Well, okay, that’s part of your plan at least. Will kicking Mexico out of NAFTA stop illegal immigration all by itself, or is anything else required?

 

[Ed_Rand]

All this CIA rabbit hole plot stuff is irrelevant.

Silly me. “rabbit hole plot stuff” that’s hilarious. It’s called history.

But I think you just told us who you’re voting for in November. He claims not to like NAFTA, but doesn’t favor repealing it, though. :whacky:

Good low-blow there. Did I strike a nerve? You’re usually a little more composed than that. btw, I had no idea of his postition on NAFTA, and really don’t care either.

Oh, and not every country that has developed did so through protectionist policies. American development was largely financed by British capital, notwithstanding the early unpleasantnesses. Brits still own more American assets than all other foreign concerns put together, so I guess it hasn’t hurt us too much.

Are you really going to argue that the US didn’t use protectionist policies to aid development? We still use them today.