immigrants

***transferring this from another thread.***
taken from the jail thread message 82 and our citizens earned this right by what exactly? you were lucky enough to be squirted out of some broad that lived here. these people came here through great travail and have made a life from nothing. you (since you obviously have internet) were born with a silver spoon in comparison. i just thought i'd counter your ridiculous statistic with one equally meaningless. i notice you ignored the idea that maybe our police aren't able or interested in protecting these people. i'd bend over backwards to make anyone's life better. i was lucky enough to be born into favourable situations. but i'd rather improve the situation in mexico. but instead of seeing that, conservatives just want to shove developing countries into a box, shut the lid, and ignore it. oh yeah, and call me a communist because i take the time to care about another person who can't give me money.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-11-2006 11:46 AM

Moved from old thread on American jails. Actually I have had the idea for some time that there should be a massive movement of young Americans into Mexico to help them build up their economy. Plenty of rich Americans go down there to retire. I don't know if that contributes anything to the economy or not, but I'm thinking of things like helping to develop farmland, not just hire people but start farms or other enterprises and set them up so that the local people have a share in them. If Israel can do it with their desert beginnings, so can Mexico, but it takes commitment and foresight.I know plenty of church groups from all over America go to Mexico on a short-term basis to help out local communities, but that's just a drop in the bucket. My own church is sending a group for a week next week. They will help with the needs at an orphanage, are taking supplies of all kinds. Sometimes building projects are part of the help they offer. Sometimes it's a medical mission where doctors give their time to the locals. But again, it's very brief, and only a drop in the bucket of what is needed.To help Mexico would take a massive movement of people young and energetic enough to work hard to do something to improve conditions overall. If something along those lines got started I'd guess that a lot of the would-be illegal immigrants would be attracted to the projects they developed. It could be a profit-sharing arrangement or even something kibbutz-like so that all the workers have a reward from their labor. They should start new communities with schools. Practicalities are not my strong suit so I don't know how this would work out in reality, but if great numbers of dedicated energetic people were involved I'd think much is possible.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 01:23 PM

I think the introduction of Fair trade rather than free trade policies would go a long way to helping a lot of developing nations.
Unfortunately the capitalist system encourages trade for the best price without reagard to who is getting screwed at the bottom of the pile. If people have the prospect of getting payed a fair wage in their home nation they will be less likely to want to emmigrate.south america has been ravaged by aggressive multinationals demanding ever cheaper produce.

I think more would be accomplished from a direct hands-on grass roots approach than anything involving international law. You could be right about one facet of the problem but the solution would have to be a lot bigger than that anyway. Buyers naturally try to get the best deal, that's only sensible, and it's one of the reasons capitalism produces wealth --and the production of wealth benefits a whole nation. If you want to help the workers you have to change things where they are so that they too can produce wealth for their own benefit. If you simply restrain or divert the wealth of the producers to the poor you make everybody poor.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 12:41 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 12:42 PM

The lifestyle that we all enjoy is made possible by the exploitation of the third world. This has been the case for hundreds of years and isn't going to change anytime soon. What we need to do is find a good balance between quality of life here and quality of life for others around the world.The problem is that there are simply too many people and not enough resources. It's a drastic thing to say, but the human race would be much better off if we could reduce the size of our population by 75+%. Please, I beg you, DON'T have more than 2 kids. You are simply screwing everyone else over (and yourself) when you do.It should be no suprise to anyone that people are sneaking in here. Even the poor in the US have color TV and running water.I disagree with a lot of other liberal types in that I think we have to build a wall or increase enforcement along the border. I'm not necessarily in favor of mass deportations or anything, but if we can't control immigration then any law we make concerning immigration is 100% worthless. We need to find a way to let people in who want to work legally and also prevent anyone from entering illegally.Right now it would be child's play to smuggle a nuclear warhead across the mexican border.

If Americans keep reducing the number of our offspring as we have been doing by various means, that will certainly guarantee that the immigrants will take over because they aren't as stupid as to kill off their own children by abortion. Developing resources makes more sense to me than artificial reduction of the population.I don't know about this exploitation-of-the-third-world explanation. I think America became wealthy and powerful by hard work and the freedom to experiment. That attitude is what has to be exported to the third world and it may take a lot of people power as well. It's fine to give help, the more the better, and to restrain exploitation too, but if the people of the third world aren't trained in how to develop the wealth of their own countries, it will all be lost anyway.

Hi Creavolution.I agree with the notion that fair trade and the industrialized world could do more to help less-developed countries. From what little I understand, the schism between richer and poorer countries is a product of past economic and political history, as well as current policies.According to Environmental Science, 9th edition; In effect, these systems keep LDC in a "perpetual role of resource suppliers to the more-developed countries". I'll get down from my soapbox now.

Faith, this isn't just about America. This was going on LONG before the USA even existed. Europeans have been exploiting the third world since the 1400s. Heck, the Romans were doing it back in 50 BCE! I'm not trying to pass a moral judgement, just stating a fact. There is only a limited amount of natural resources.... you speak of developing resources; this simply isn't possible. There is only so much fresh water, copper, oil, coal, etc. etc. etc. I don't think the USA is any better or worse than anyone else about exploiting the third world. All of western society does it... Japan does it. It's just a fact.You think people in the third world don't know how to develop their own resources? I'm sure every saudi arabian could live a very nice life with the oil money...... but the western world has seen to it that oppresive regimes that control all the oil are in place (which of course makes oil MUCH cheaper).Like I said, this has been going on since the days of the roman empire... I'm not trying to pass a moral judgement, just stating some facts. I personally do really enjoy the quality of my life and am up in the air about a lot of these things.Edit: Abortion has NOTHING to do with this.This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 04-11-2006 01:33 PM

I am sure that Native Americans were saying more or less the same as this 250 years ago!What are Americans if they aren't immigrants?Brian.

This is a typical liberal analysis that goes directly against what is needed to help the situation. The differences between richer and poorer are completely a matter of internal attitudes, philosophies and political policies. America got rich because of policies that promoted freedom of individuals to pursue wealth (no, I'm not saying the system was perfect or that injustices didn't need to be redressed, but the system has also allowed for redress).Poor countries on the other hand are kept that way by corrupt exploitive and tyrannical politics within the country more than by anything external caused by wealthy countries.We send aid to corrupt nations and it never reaches the poor, it makes their leaders rich. Changing international policies isn't going to benefit the poor, only the usual corrupt leaders. In fact, oddly enough, it could be those exploitative corporations who hire the poor of third world countries, that are improving their lot more than anything else we do or might do.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 01:42 PM

Capitalism also produces a lot of poverty. Look at how the developing world has been destroyed by free trade policies...
Developing nations made reliant on imports through world bank and IMF conditions placed on 'loans' requiring that they purchase they're food and raw materials from abroad rather than encourageing self reliance. Exactly, this will never happen as long as, multinationals bully the producers into producing at usustainable prices to increase their own market value.

Yes, I do tend to be America-centric, so I need your correction, but this is also partly because America is always being blamed for everything. But yes, I get your point.But see my last post. I don't think this is all the fault of the external exploiters but very much of internal corrupt politics in third world countries. The people are kept oppressed and individual enterprise doesn't even get to the point of being a daydream because they are so busy keeping themselves from dying of starvation, or simply dying, period, by starvation or the latest tribal uprising.I also think the Saudis have the responsibility for the problems there, and not us. They have the oil. Those Saudis who have gotten rich off oil are the very few and they are outrageously rich. Why is it always our fault?I just don't share your worry about resources. That's the least of human problems.

Faith, have you taken modern history? You should know that this is 100% false. Almost all of what we call the third world was ruled as colonies by western governments as recently as 60 years ago. Most of the middle east was controlled by Britian for example. In addition, many of the govts. that are in place now were put in place by the USA or USSR as basically puppet govts. during the last 50 years.What was presented to you was not a liberal analysis. Of course the schism between rich and poor is the result of economic and political history as well as current politics. That's just a fact. I think you are reading too much into it. The problem is of course that if these third world countries improve their quality of life the quality of life here will suffer. What US politician in their right mind would support that? Anyone who shops at walmart, target, etc... and likes the low prices is implicity supporting the exploitation of the 3rd world. Is it wrong? I don't know; I freely admit to doing it and enjoying the low prices... It's a difficult issues and definitely isn't black and white.

See. Exactly what I'm talking about. Keep aborting our children and leaving our border unprotected and in a very short time America will be just another impoverished section of Mexico.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 01:53 PM

Let's see how the Saudi govt. took power and who supported them" This is not surprising... the UK basically controlled most of the middle east during the first part of the last century.Now, who supports the Saudi govt today? Who sells them M1 tanks and F-15 fighter jets? What president is good friends with the ruling family? What president's father is on the board of the group taht manages most of the investments for the saudi royal family? (I am being a bit unfair to bush, clinton never did much about the saudis either).This the govt that we are helping to prop up and keep in power: And Now, is only America to blame? Absolutely not... England was the country that initially controlled most of the middle east and a lot of the current problems can be directly traced to English policies.Saudi Arabia - WikipediaAmerica is not the only country to blame; anyone who thinks that doesn't know their history. But we are certainly propping up some pretty awful governments.