Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N

[Brenda4God]

I think you are right, they are jealous. But sometimes I wonder about how great we are in God’s eyes and if they really should be that jealous. We kill a million and a half babies a year. More and more of us are okay with gay unions. We kill people like Terri Shaivo. We spread smut and filth around the whole world. We run in to help countries if they are white or have oil, but usually don’t care about the mass murder going on in Africa.

I love my country, but I wonder sometimes.

 

[Ituyu]

I am in certain ways surprised at some of the harsh opinions expressed here because Mexico is “considering” its rights. It could be that Mexico has no recourse. However, NAFTA under international law is a treaty. Would the fence violate the Treaty? Would the fence be a breach of our agreement? Why is it so “unreasonable” for Mexico to look into this matter? Sounds to me like a perfectly friendly and reasonable question of Mexico to seek an answer. There are also questions of natural migration routes and the environment. Maybe they have recourse maybe not. But if they do based on our agreement as a Nation, it would be very embarrassing to be dragged into an international court of law and be found guilty of violating a Treaty. To some people it may matter but it seems by what I’ve read here that it’s okay to do what we want even if we’re contractually bound by agreement or intentionally harm the environment.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/North_American_Agreement_on_Environmental_Cooperation

 

[St_John]

You make a salient point, ituyu. I wonder if this fence will affect migratory animals? I learned in history that it was the railroad tracks that really killed off the American Bison. They wouldn’t cross it in order to migrate. I’m not sure if there are any large migrations north and south of the Mexican boarder by land that have been considered. Hopefully there will be the usual enviornmental impact studies, it does sound like it might be disruptive to the enviornment.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a waste of money and materials though.

 

[Ituyu]

You make a salient point, ituyu. I wonder if this fence will affect migratory animals? I learned in history that it was the railroad tracks that really killed off the American Bison. They wouldn’t cross it in order to migrate. I’m not sure if there are any large migrations north and south of the Mexican boarder by land that have been considered. Hopefully there will be the usual enviornmental impact studies, it does sound like it might be disruptive to the enviornment.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a waste of money and materials though.

I agree. Especially when one considers that the border is almost two thousand miles and the fence is 700. We slow them down and we cause more deaths but don’t solve the problem which we were instrumental in causing by closing the “legal” door arbitrarily even though we knew that the implementation of NAFTA if it were to work as desired would require more Mexican immigration. It worked and the additional immigration occurred as it always has through the laws of Supply and Demand. I think we should do what we should have done in the first place, allow them in as “legal” residents. They’re already here and they are an integral part of our economy and society that contributes to our growth. Measures to deport them or ask them to leave and then come back are spiteful and a waste of resources that could be better used in whatever “legalization” process we create.

 

[Jeffrey]

Simple way to not cause more deaths… don’t try to come here illegally.

I agree. Especially when one considers that the border is almost two thousand miles and the fence is 700. We slow them down and we cause more deaths but don’t solve the problem which we were instrumental in causing by closing the “legal” door arbitrarily even though we knew that the implementation of NAFTA if it were to work as desired would require more Mexican immigration. It worked and the additional immigration occurred as it always has through the laws of Supply and Demand. I think we should do what we should have done in the first place, allow them in as “legal” residents. They’re already here and they are an integral part of our economy and society that contributes to our growth. Measures to deport them or ask them to leave and then come back are spiteful and a waste of resources that could be better used in whatever “legalization” process we create.

 

[Ituyu]

Simple way to not cause more deaths… don’t try to come here illegally.

Opening the “legal” door would be the most practical as it addresses the issue. A fence doesn’t address the need on either side of the border for jobs/workers. In fact a fence contradicts the natural market forces of “Supply and Demand” that have always influenced the influx of immigrants from south of the border.

 

[Jeffrey]

Gotta stop the flow of illegal immigrants before we do anything esle.

Opening the “legal” door would be the most practical as it addresses the issue. A fence doesn’t address the need on either side of the border for jobs/workers. In fact a fence contradicts the natural market forces of “Supply and Demand” that have always influenced the influx of immigrants from south of the border.

 

[Ituyu]

Gotta stop the flow of illegal immigrants before we do anything esle.

REALLY? WHY? We can open the “legal” door tomorrow and stop the flow of “illegal” immigration virtually over night and without the waste of life and valuable resources.

 

[Jeffrey]

Giving the illegals here amnesty alone would be a HUGE financial burden. They already are. Then to open the flood gates?

Ahh… no.

REALLY? WHY? We can open the “legal” door tomorrow and stop the flow of “illegal” immigration virtually over night and without the waste of life and valuable resources.

 

[Ituyu]

Giving the illegals here amnesty alone would be a HUGE financial burden. They already are. Then to open the flood gates?

Ahh… no.

Actually we’ve been through this before. The vast majority of economists attribute our economic growth to immigration both legal and “illegal”. Your problem is that you continue to add up costs “ONLY” without considering the benefits as economist do. Our economy would not be experiencing the growth we’ve experienced and now they become THE growth market in this country. That is one reason why you see so many companies competing for the Latino dollar. Consumption creates jobs, tax revenues and growth. They are the fastest growing segment of society which again computes to greater consumption, jobs and more growth in the future. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot by putting a wrench in that market. Really your position always seems to boil down to one point, you don’t want THEM because “cost” accounting ONLY is not the proper way to evalulate their impact. One also needs to consider what they add and economists agree that after subtracting the costs we have a NET benefit. One also needs to consider what would have happened without them. Fact is this is only one component of our need for additional immigration. Our low birth rates and longevity will require more immigration too.

money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes

latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fi-immigecon1oct01,1,2312516.story

 

[Jeffrey]

Yup… and it was proven that they are a burden illegally… and would still be a burden legally.

What really needs to be is whatever country they felt the need to leave needs to be dealt with be it the South and Central American countries, and Mexico.

Actually we’ve been through this before. The vast majority of economists attribute our economic growth to immigration both “legal” and illegal. Your problem is that you continue to add up costs “ONLY” without considering the benefits as economist do. Our economy would not be experiencing the growth we’ve experienced and now they become THE growth market in this country. That is one reason why you see so many companies competing for the Latino dollar. Consumption creates jobs, tax revenues and growth. They are the fastest growing segment of society which again computes to greater consumption, jobs and more growth in the future. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot by putting a wrench in that market. Really your position always seems to boil down to one point, you don’t want THEM because “cost” accounting ONLY is not the proper way to evalulate their impact. One also needs to consider what they add and economists agree that after subtracting the costs we have a NET benefit. One also needs to consider what would have happened without them. Fact is this is only one component of our need for additional immigration. Our low birth rates and longevity will require more immigration too.

money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes

latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fi-immigecon1oct01,1,2312516.story

 

[Ituyu]

Yup… and it was proven that they are a burden illegally… and would still be a burden legally.

What really needs to be is whatever country they felt the need to leave needs to be dealt with be it the South and Central American countries, and Mexico.

The ONLY thing you’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt is you inability to accept the facts. Costs are only half of the facts. And, Jeffrey we are dealing with our own needs. Our needs include their labor. How do you propose the problem be “dealt with” that would solve the problem of their need for work and our need for labor? As long as we need their labor, there is a disincentive for us to solve the problem. Unfortunately, for the impoverished “illegals” that come here, they are but pawns of two governments. And, ours has held the upper hand in creating their situation by making something “illegal” that all our immigrant ancestors did before them.

 

[Jeffrey]

Look in the mirror.

The ONLY thing you’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt is you inability to accept the facts.

 

[Ituyu]

Look in the mirror.

Except that I’ve considered your facts and have given you plenty of unbiased references from the media and economists. You basically take an anti immigrant stance and you are unable to support the rationale for your arguments other than you don’t want THEM here. Economically there is no reason to rid ourselves of the vast majority of them, religiously…same results. Legally? We could legalize them tomorrow but that would not be acceptable to those who want to stop “immigration” from the south. It’s not just “illegal” immigration, it’s anti all immigration by those who see them as a threat to the status quo. And, that my friend IS the foundation of your argument.

 

[Jeffrey]

Not even close… but believe what ya want.

cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html

You refuse to believe the facts… thats your business. You are unable to prove to me why we should give amnesty to millions of illegals that are criminals to boot. Then open the flood gates…? Forget about it.

You think i’m anti all immigration… nope… just anti illegal immigration. So once again… you are wrong. So don’t worry about my FOUNDATION.

[SNIP]

The Bottom Line. This report has focused on only the fiscal impact of illegal aliens at the federal level. It is almost certain that they also create a large fiscal deficit at the state and local levels.36 Thus, the results in this report only deal with part of the costs of illegal immigration. On the other hand, it must be remembered that this report says nothing about the overall fiscal impact of households headed by legal immigrants. The fact that unskilled immigrants who are legal residents impose large fiscal costs on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain on federal coffers. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled. That having been said, we find strong and convincing evidence that the costs of illegal immigration are significant at the federal level and those costs would grow dramatically if illegals were legalized. Of course, there are many other issues to consider when deciding what do to about illegal immigration. But given the costs of illegal aliens and of any amnesty, it would probably make more sense to enforce immigration laws and reduce illegal immigration. Reducing the supply of unskilled labor would force employers to increase wages and invest in labor-saving devices in order to meet their labor needs.

If we instead chose to increase the number of unskilled workers in the country through immigration, then we at least have to understand that such a policy has negative fiscal consequences. Perhaps legalizing illegal aliens may be justified on humanitarian grounds, or as a way to improve relations with other countries. Conversely, enforcement might make more sense because it reduces job competition for unskilled Americans, or for national security reasons. But this analysis shows that, at least with regard to the federal budget, there is a high cost to unskilled illegal alien labor and this must be part of any policy discussion.

[/SNIP]

Except that I’ve considered your facts and have given you plenty of unbiased references from the media and economists. You basically take an anti immigrant stance and you are unable to support the rationale for your arguments other than you don’t want THEM here. Economically there is no reason to rid ourselves of the vast majority of them, religiously…same results. Legally? We could legalize them tomorrow but that would not be acceptable to those who want to stop “immigration” from the south. It’s not just “illegal” immigration, it’s anti all immigration by those who see them as a threat to the status quo. And, that my friend IS the foundation of your argument.

 

[Ituyu]

Not even close… but believe what ya want.

cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html

You refuse to believe the facts… thats your business. You are unable to prove to me why we should give amnesty to millions of illegals that are criminals to boot. Then open the flood gates…? Forget about it.

You think i’m anti all immigration… nope… just anti illegal immigration. So once again… you are wrong. So don’t worry about my FOUNDATION.

[SNIP]

The Bottom Line. This report has focused on only the fiscal impact of illegal aliens at the federal level. It is almost certain that they also create a large fiscal deficit at the state and local levels.36 Thus, the results in this report only deal with part of the costs of illegal immigration. On the other hand, it must be remembered that this report says nothing about the overall fiscal impact of households headed by legal immigrants. The fact that unskilled immigrants who are legal residents impose large fiscal costs on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain on federal coffers. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled. That having been said, we find strong and convincing evidence that the costs of illegal immigration are significant at the federal level and those costs would grow dramatically if illegals were legalized. Of course, there are many other issues to consider when deciding what do to about illegal immigration. But given the costs of illegal aliens and of any amnesty, it would probably make more sense to enforce immigration laws and reduce illegal immigration. Reducing the supply of unskilled labor would force employers to increase wages and invest in labor-saving devices in order to meet their labor needs.

If we instead chose to increase the number of unskilled workers in the country through immigration, then we at least have to understand that such a policy has negative fiscal consequences. Perhaps legalizing illegal aliens may be justified on humanitarian grounds, or as a way to improve relations with other countries. Conversely, enforcement might make more sense because it reduces job competition for unskilled Americans, or for national security reasons. But this analysis shows that, at least with regard to the federal budget, there is a high cost to unskilled illegal alien labor and this must be part of any policy discussion.

[/SNIP]

If you were telling it like it is: One, you would use a reference that is not highly biased and exists to support the agenda of the anti immigrant group FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies. I’ve posted thelink to their connection before. Need I repeat it? TWO, you would welcome more “legal” immigration to meet our labor needs. But you are against that too. So please, don’t expect me to fall for the old “Some of my best friends are Mexican “legal” immigrants”. Again the truth is your points are merely veiled anti immigrant rhetoric. If you wish to continue this tonight, you may. But, I bid you a good night.

 

[Jeffrey]

I told it like it is… if you chose to ignore it… not my problem.

And yet once again… I said I have no problem with legal immigration. I just don’t feel the millions that came over illegally should be granted amnesty.

I also think that the ‘labor shortage’ is not as bad as the lib MSM makes it out to be. Even if there was… so what. If they can’t fill the jobs then they can’t. We’ll live.

Your links are obviously biased… but thats your business.

There is nothing wrong with the **anti ILLEGAL immigrant **orginization CIS that I know of.

And keep the racist remarks to youself.

If you were telling it like it is: One, you would use a reference that is not highly biased and exists to support the agenda of the anti immigrant group FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies. I’ve posted thelink to their connection before. Need I repeat it? TWO, you would welcome more “legal” immigration to meet our labor needs. But you are against that too. So please, don’t expect me to fall for the old “Some of my best friends are Mexican “legal” immigrants”. Again the truth is your points are merely veiled anti immigrant rhetoric. If you wish to continue this tonight, you may. But, I bid you a good night.

 

[Ituyu]

I told it like it is… if you chose to ignore it… not my problem.

And yet once again… I said I have no problem with legal immigration. I just don’t feel the millions that came over illegally should be granted amnesty.

I also think that the ‘labor shortage’ is not as bad as the lib MSM makes it out to be. Even if there was… so what. If they can’t fill the jobs then they can’t. We’ll live.

Your links are obviously biased… but thats your business.

There is nothing wrong with the **anti ILLEGAL immigrant **orginization CIS that I know of.

And keep the racist remarks to youself.

Fact is Jeff, CIS is anti “Illegal” and anti “Legal” admissions of immigrants south of the border. What Pro-Immigration positions do you support? NONE that I can see.

 

[Jeffrey]

Ppl that immigrate legally to begin with. Not ppl that come over illegally then demand amnesty.

Fact is Jeff, CIS is anti Illegal and anti “Legal” admissions of immigrants south of the border. What Pro-Immigration positions do you support? NONE that I can see.

 

[Ituyu]

Ppl that immigrate legally to begin with. Not ppl that come over illegally then demand amnesty.

No Jeff, that’s your version of a pro “legal” immigrant stance not a pro immigration stance. What immigration measures do support to bring more “legal” immigration?