How bout we talk about the CAUSE of illegal immigration?

[DiverDave]

Grinding poverty, a mega-rich class, the politics of bribery, the Catholic church and their policy of world religious domination by having more kids then you can support.
If my kids could live better because I waded a river, I would do it in a heartbeat.
Fix the problem here?
Nope, change the world the folks are trying to escape.

Now, where did I put that Nomex suit?
Oh, Nomex is: http://www.dupont.com/nomex/

[mandyky]

1. Actually I'd rather talk about REAL solutions

not what they are discussing in Congress. I agree that corporate/rich responsiblities need addressing, and that poverty is an issue. But population and church issues get tricky. I mean, we can't condone policies like China has where only one child is allowed and other such measures, although real sex education, as opposed to abstinence only, plays a big part in fighting poverty and unsupportable births...

[EVDebs]

7. "An ounce of prevention is worth ...." The entire Race to the Bottom

globalization trip that Thomas Friedman worships is what is behind it all, and corporations (see the movie The Corporation) are all certifiably psychotic "persons".

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Like NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other deals that encourage poverty?

Exactly what has Vincente Fox done for HIS workers? Why are they STILL risking their lives to come here to work illegally? Why can't they find decent jobs in Mexico?
Why is the second highest percentage of the Mexican GNP made up of the money that Mexican workers send back home from the USA?

[BrklynLiberal]

20. This is being discussed by Al Franken right now on AAR 12:56

[Jim Warren]

3. Change the world

well sure....why not?

However, Mexico could solve it's own internal problems easily and quickly by breaking up the oligarchy that has held a stranglehold on that place forever.

J.P. Getty once quipped sardonically: "Pemex is the only major oil company to never show a profit"

[Bridget Burke]

9. Yup, breaking up an oligarchy is really easy & quick!

It was tried 1910-1920 & about a million Mexicans died. And 1.5 million came North. (It's OK--some of them were rich.)

The US was stunned by Kent State. Have you heard about the Tlatelolco massacre of 1968? Hundreds of students & workers were shot dead. www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB10/intro.htm

The front-running candidate for President of Mexico is to the left of Fox--& the PRI candidate. There's hope. And Mexicans have been turning out in huge numbers to support him.

Do you have any more glib suggestions about what the Mexicans should do?

[Jim Warren]

26. Kent State? Mmmmm

No, not glib at all. But if you choose to read my comments that way, I'd prefer glib to your response; a dour and dismissive sophmoric lecture.

If Lopez Obrador is the candidate your touting with "hope" and "left of Fox--& the PRI candidate", then God bless and all the best, but I wouldn't hold my breath over major reform. Obrador still has not cleared the taint of the corruption scandals of his administration from '05.

BTW, just so you know before mouthing off, my wife of 19 years is from Oaxaca where I lived for 10 years and traveled before that for 20 and our 18 yo son is half Mexican.

[Bridget Burke]

62. OK. Please let us know exactly how Mexico can "quickly & easily"....

Break up the oligarchy. Just a brief outline will do.

Sorry if you found me "dismissive." However, I didn't use the phrase "mouthing off."

[OutsidetheBox]

68. Actually Obrador was set up by the oligarchs....

They made a big stink out of a little fart to try and nail Obrador to the cross. Even back then the elite knew he would be hard and virtually impossible to beat in 06 so the plan was mustered to taint him before he could officially run. Even after the entire smear campaign and threats of imprisonment the elite had to back off because they had nothing, zilch, nada. It was a smear campaign designed to destroy a threat to the elite that failed. When they threatened to prosecute him for a little indiscretion one million Mexico City citizens marched in solidarity to the Zocalo, and that was the end of that. Obrador will be the next President, a positive development for Mexico, and the world.

[DiverDave]

43. Glib?

I was just throwing out my take...and I don't think I intended any to be "glib"
Sorry you think that, wasn't my intention.

[benevolent dictator]

61. We could quickly and easily solve a lot of our own problems

if we'd just get rid of the facist administration we've got running our country into the ground. No problem, right?

[raccoon]

64. You said that right.

Just like we could have a national health plan if we got a Democrat in the White House--NOT.

[IsItJustMe]

4. This post with this link makes no sense. Dysfunctional at best

[DiverDave]

5. Um, Nomex makes fireproof suits

and I was getting ready for the flamefest...course I didn't count on a response to the link.

Oh, and thanks for the insult. the first one today.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. ROTFLMAO!!!

[IsItJustMe]

24. OK, I get it. Dry humur.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. I think he was assuming he would be flamed for his post, so he was

making reference to getting a fireproof suit.
It was his attempt at humor.

[IsItJustMe]

29. The jokes on me I guess. Now I see the humor. It's like water, it takes

a while to soak in sometimes.

[BrklynLiberal]

32. Good analogy

:hi:

[CottonBear]

30. Nomex is fireproof & is worn by firefighters and race car drivers. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Your arguments are agenda driven, so discussing it on your

mostly subjective terms is almost useless.

The only objective way to discuss any human migration is in terms of push and pull factors, as defined by the science of demographics.

Many places have a mega rich class (The US included) over population independent of the Catholic church, (Mexico invented the birth control pill, and population growth has slowed there considerably in the last 40 years,) and bribery is found around the world.

You do mention the high rate of poverty, which is a push factor yet you completely dismiss pull factors as at all relevant.

While I concur that people do migrate to save the lives of their children, very few migrate simply and totally so that their children will have a better life. If the Saudis would pay you 50% more than you are currently making would you migrate there? Some might but many wouldn't. The push and pull factors together are not sufficient.

However, your call to discuss the causes of illegal migration is a great idea. Until we take it out of the subjective realm and understand the causes, legislation to correct or control the problem is bound to fail.

[DBoon]

13. Actually, you have a good point

to what extent is NAFTA and immigration propping up a corrupt unjust system in Mexico? Is Bush bailing out his buddy Fox? Is mexico deliberately exporting their economic problems?

[DiverDave]

14. No agenda here

but when is someone gonna ask the Mexican government about the conditions for the vast majority of their people?
Is that subject taboo?
Would I go to Saudi?
If my kids were hungry, and the only thing I could get here was 4 bucks a day?
Again, I gotta say, yes I would.
I think that desperation plays a big part in wanting to come here.
And most of the Latin folks I know DO love their children enough to want a better life for them.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. The US has systematically helped what was the worlds longest

running dictatorship in the world to fleece the country, and for a long time.

Mexico just became somewhat of a democracy in the year 2000. So the ruling classes of both countries are complicit in the economic misery of the masses in Mexico.

Economic desperation is indeed a big push factor, as apart from say, "a better life." By that I mean survival is a much bigger push factor than say lifestyle.

The agenda I saw in your OP was to somehow bash the Catholic Church as a prime push factor. I don't believe that's true. In fact the ability to move and still retain your religious identity is much more of a pull factor.

There has been a long tradition of coming to the US to work, since the 30's. There are whole villages historically devoid of working age males on a seasonal basis. Many Mexicans joined the US armed forces and fought in WWII

If I were to make a quick list of push and pull factors it would include:

PUSH
1. Survival (Both physical and economic)Lack of employment opportunities and low wages. historic oppression of the poor.
2. Close access with close return-ability.
3. Good transportation and communication systems between the US and MEX.
4. Historical tradition. Almost a coming of age ritual for young men in some areas.
5. Disgust with the Mexican status quo. The belief that it is "broken" and can't be fixed.

PULL
1. Higher wages and plentiful work opportunities
2. Many family and friends already here.
3. Mexican identified communities already here. SO the ability to interact with others and be culturally "at home."
4. Good transportation and communication systems between the US and MEX.
5. The belief that anything is possible in the US.

I'm sure I'm missing some but it's a start.

edited to add: I'm writing this in as much of a "value neutral" way as possible, that is neglecting the political battles here over whether immigration is a good thing/bad thing or how much immigration is a good thing/bad thing.

[EVDebs]

16. Try Robert Samuelson's article or Paul Krugman's latest two

The Hard Truth of Immigration
No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many of them are poor or unskilled workers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8100266/site/newsweek/

North of the border
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_032706O.shtml

and

The Road to Dubai
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003578.php

All pretty much spell it out without ad hominem attacks, just reason and logic.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Those are political arguments dealing with whether and how much

immigration is politically acceptable to the US. (and they are pretty well written)

I'm more interested in discussing the causes of migration. If people understand the causes then the political solutions stand a chance of working. If we start from the political and ignore or diminish the causes then political solutions stand a much less chance of success of achieving the desired result.

[sui generis]

17. that was pedantic

as long as we're criticizing posts and not content, I would add my .02 that you could have been more constructive and participatory and a little less superior.

Just sayin' :shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

54. Point taken. But in my defense, I thought the OP strayed somewhat from

from the causes of migration to grinding his/her own axe as regards the Catholic Church.

I'm an agnostic who has plenty of criticism to offer for many religions, the Catholics included, but I believe those aren't very relevant to the causes of migration in this case.

[sui generis]

63. the church does have some blame

not FOR poverty but for encouraging fatalism in people to accept their lot in life, while hoping for a better afterlife.

That means that people value life and their own lives less, and I think it leads to social stagnation in developing countries. The church happens to be mostly catholic in Mexico, and the catholic church is finding its own footing again among socially conservative countries that happen to be mostly developing nations. It CAN'T accept modern thinking from a declining western and developed nation population when it has a growing social conservative base in developing countries.

You're right it is astray from this topic, but it does have bearing on some of the issues facing developing nations on the whole. I'll agree that it doesn't really have anything directly to do with causing migration though; those are the economic and identity factors that you've pointed out.

[Bridget Burke]

18. The Catholic Church has influence in Mexico because the people want it.

In Colonial days, some churchmen opposed the cruelest practices of the Conquistadors. Hidalgo & Morelos began the fight against Spain--they were both priests.

Benito Juarez & other early rulers confiscated Church property & passed anti-clerical laws. Some of this was necessary, but not all. Many indigenous communities had ejidos--communal land grants held by the Church. These were abolished & many of the people lost their land to business interests in the name of modernity.

The 1910-1920 Revolution led to further anti-Catholic laws & the Cristero rebellion. In recent years, a balance has been achieved. For example--priests & nuns are now allowed to wear religious garb in public.

The Church's role in Mexican history has many dark aspects. But it should not be blamed for all the inequities in modern Mexico. It only survives there because of the wishes of the Mexican people.

[Jim Warren]

34. Sorta like saying

drug dealers survive in the neighborhoods because of the wishes of the users.

[Bridget Burke]

51. And DU survives because we contribute....

You could make quite a few comparisons.

Don't look down on the Mexican people as helpless victims.

Edited to add: Well, "we" don't contribute to DU. But I do.

[DanCa]

10. Hmm most Mexican immigrants will probably be catholic.

We haven't talked about that yet. :evilgrin: But your right we have to address the causes of illegal immigration.

[DBoon]

11. Are you talking about the USA or about Mexico here?

Oh, you mentioned the Catholic Church - you probably meant Mexico then. Otherwise it sounds just like what we have here.

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

12. Unfortunately the status quo serves both the US and Mexican

governments, to say nothing of the corporations.

This shouldn't be the solution to the problems yuou described.

:-(

[sui generis]

15. the very real issues:

No minimum wage enforcement; a maximum wage (yes that's right) for many service sector jobs, a culture where the displaced native americans don't live on reservations but are worked to death and fourth class citizens in a third class citizenry, rampant overpopulation for the available resources, and meager social programs even for those who are qualified.

An economy sucking at the fair weather glory tit of tourism and unwilling to expand in a meaningful way, a government that won't guarantee that foreign investments won't be nationalized in the next election, and all the attendant ills that accompany poverty; extreme corruption in government, drugs, human trade, petty crime, organized crime, and abundant nameless victims.

Make no mistake, most of Mexico IS much of the worst of the third world, corruptiong, poverty, bribery, injustice. By comparison, American poverty is something to aspire to.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Back in the thirties when the President of Mexico demanded that

the multinational oil companies pay minimum wage and treat their workers as required by the Mexican constitution, the oil companies lost in court over these issues. They appealed to the Mex. Supreme Court and the President then nationalized the oil sector, at which point the US started a total embargo against Mexico, which fell apart when we needed Mexican oil for WWII.

Who buys all those Mexican drugs? Who supplies the arms the Mexican government uses on it's own people? Who demanded an end to the tortilla subsidy, the transportation subsidy, and the switch to free market economy? Who required Mexico to change the constitution so that foreign investment indeed is now coming in. (Who do you suppose owns the maquiladores on the Northern border?) Why does GM close their plants here and open plants in Mexico if they could be nationalized by the next government? Is GM really that stupid?

So Mexico can't win i guess, either way they go.

"Poor Mexico; So far from god, so close to the United States."

[sui generis]

69. we have to meet halfway

If we open up transportation to Mexican trucks, then they better meet safety spec for U.S. highways, including their drivers. If Mexico had as much disposable income per capita as the U.S., you can bet they'd be buying their own drugs.

Mexico is not blameless here. America is not completely intolerant and irrational. We can't just open the checkpoints and normalize commerce, and you know that. Socio-economically, Mexico has to go through a period of raising their internal standards, marketing its resources more effectively and more competitively, and uplifting itself more meaningfully. Incursions onto the Texas highways to sell tortillas or cocaine in a truck that's bleeding brake fluid and putting out more soot than lead smelter is not winning points, and neither are those of our legislators that are willing to turn a blind eye to it in the name of "free markets".

You can't have a substantially poorer market on one side of the border and expect economic upliftment at the expense of an economic downturn on the other side of the border. East Germany and West Germany went through this. And now Mexico and Far Northern Mexico (Texas and New Mexico, et al) have to go the extra step and look a little further forward than Trickle Down, Part Deux.

Mexico can win, but whatever Mexico is doing today is enough to give them what they have and no more. If they want something better or different, then that's what they'll have to do going forward, is something better and different. What they have now is not working so well.

[OutsidetheBox]

19. How about the role of the good ol' USA?

For over 70 years the PRI was the dominant oligarchic power in Mexico, called the perfect dictatorship because of its perpetual and systematic manipulation of elections and of the electorate. Left unmentioned in these threads is the role America played in securing that this perfect dictatorship, comprised of right wing European ancestry oligarchs, was maintained in power so that America could maintain its total control over Mexico. Everyone in Mexico knows that elections were charades, especially in 1988 when Salinas de Gortari (American puppet) was defeated at the ballot box by the social democrat candidate Cardenas. Salinas went on to privatize, after he fudged up the economy big time, almost every single national company with the exception of PEMEX. He introduced neo-liberal policies, structural adjustment programs and helped initiate NAFTA, all to the great detriment of most Mexicans. This is the push factor that is far and beyond any pull factor. Supression of wages in cities, multinationals leaving Mexico for the next bottom dweller nation, the destruction of the Mexican farmer thanks to American subsidies to American farmers (due to NAFTA) strangulated rural Mexico. Today, most migrants are from rural Mexico, as they have been since the early 1990's, left with no other choice but to find work up north because American imposed NAFTA and neo-liberal policies have destroyed their way of life. Seems to me America is reaping what it has sowed, and to not acknowledge this reality is to live in fantasy. I think most migrants would rather be the slaves of Americans than the malnourished corpses destroyed by American imposed market colonialism. Push and pull factor number one: The American Empire

[Bridget Burke]

53. But--it looks as though you actually know something about Mexico!

Is that allowed when the country is discussed?

You aren't just glibly suggest the Mexican people "fix" their own government. As if they hadn't tried. And--not as though there's no hope for the future.

I was visiting San Antonio when the 1988 election was stolen in plain sight. I've paid special attention to Mexican politics since then. I've lived in Texas most of my life--but in San Antonio, I realized just how close we are.

[DiverDave]

55. I guess you STILL think

that I am being "glib"
Well, I guess you can think that, even if my intention wasn't the least bit "glib"

Discussion was all I was seeking, not insults...but thanks for your input, you seem to enjoy showing me what an idiot I am.

[Bridget Burke]

60. Sorry that you took offense.

I was complimenting someone who had done a bit of research.

And I have not used the word "glib" in response to ANY of your posts. Someone else suggested that Mexico can "quickly & easily throw off the oligarchy." However, he failed to indicate exactly how.

You started this thread to gather information. That's always a good idea.

[OutsidetheBox]

57. What a concept! Actually take off the blinders to the real causes.

America the great can never be to blame for the wave of migrants across the border. Hell no, we didn't help push them out of their nation due to our greed and arrogance and gluttony. And now we blame brownies for being here, even though our lives are made more comfortable thanks to the new slave class, our prices for foods and services are cheap as shit thanks to our slaves, our lawns are mowed, our kids nannied, our beautiful hands remaining soft thanks to the hard labor taken off our backs. We are a nation of hypocrites and ignoramuses, uneducated and unthinking. It is deja vu all over again, the fall of the Roman Empire redux...

[DiverDave]

70. That was a good post!

no, it was a great one.
Thanks.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. A good argument IMHO. Thanks! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Al Franken is talking about this right now on AAR...

[JStuart]

23. many dems have it all wrong.

Illegal Aliens HURT unions.

They are NOT voters, there's precious little political gain from pandering to them. Repugs love them because they fuel their economic machine. Support unions, have the union guy next door install your new waterheater and not an illegal.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. "Many dems"=classic repuke straw man hahahahahahahahahahhaha

b'bye

[JStuart]

31. and that means????

:confused:

huh? Don't you understand? Immigration is a wedge issue that can be used to take down the repugs in 06...

You're not a union worker, I see.

[greyl]

36. Welcome to DU! :) nt

[Bridget Burke]

56. As a Staunch Union Man/Woman....

Please let me know what you think about this piece I found in today's Houston Chronicle.

Three reforms to fix our growing immigration mess
Give undocumenteds full rights in the workplace

By LINDA CHAVEZ-THOMPSON and RICHARD C. SHAW

They are undocumented Latino workers tending manicured lawns in River Oaks and building new Houston homes. They are women, born in El Salvador and Africa, who tend our children every day. They pay taxes. Many have families and have been contributing members of our communities for years. We rely on their labor each and every day.

Yet their basic rights — the right to a minimum wage, to a safe workplace and fair treatment — are routinely trampled upon, undermining basic standards. This exploitation hurts all of us, foreign- and native-born alike. An overhaul of our nation's broken immigration laws is long overdue.....

•First, our government must uniformly enforce laws on workplace standards. All workers, including immigrants, should earn a minimum wage, have safe jobs and receive fair treatment. When immigrant workers are treated poorly, workplace standards are dragged down for all workers.

•Second, to achieve a blanket standard of workplace rights, we must reject guest worker programs. Because workers in these programs are always dependent on their host employers for both their livelihoods and legal status to work in the United States, guest workers are never truly free, rendering them ripe for exploitation. And too many employers — from the crab houses on Maryland's Eastern Shore to high-tech firms in our nation's cities — have abused these programs and stepped on workers' basic rights.

•Finally, reform proposals must provide a meaningful path to permanent residency for those undocumented workers already here, paying taxes and contributing to their communities.

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3768140.html

Linda Chavez-Thompson is executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, and Richard Shaw is secretary-treasurer of the Harris County AFL-CIO.

[greyl]

35. You may enjoy learning what the strawman fallacy really is.

That way when you accuse someone of using it, there's a better chance that you're correct.

[BrklynLiberal]

37. ...

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

[greyl]

39. No, you're not getting it.

Your statement that JStuart was using a "typical repuke strawman" was the strawman(and obvious ad hominem(and plain rude)). You didn't argue with the substance of JStuart, you attacked them personally.

JStuart didn't "invent a fictitious persona" to argue with. He/she was making a general statement - not broad brush either.

[BrklynLiberal]

40. and its relevance to this discussion in general and my OP about Franken

specfically?

[greyl]

44. Why are you asking me?

Why not ask the person you implied is a republican troll?

It's possible that since they are newish here, they simply replied to the end of the thread(your post) instead of to the OP.

But that's just speculation.

[OutsidetheBox]

33. I'll hire the person that does the best job and has the best talent

[EVDebs]

49. If a citizen of the US breaks the law and hires an illegal immigrant...

I would think that strict enforcement and/or penalties on THOSE lawbreakers would be sufficient, don't you. An old saying "the fastest way to get a bad law off the books is strict enforcement". In this case it is a good law that needs to stay on the books.

My possible solution: a class action lawsuit by the illegal immigrants who are ususally paid less than they should be (and no hope of collecting on SS or Medicare payins) against those very employers.

The employers somehow must be held accountable.

[jwirr]

22. Robert F. Kennedy wrote a book about that. At that time

something like 87% of all farmable land belonged to 14% of the people in Mexico and was left unused. He suggested land reform but that will never come from US support. Capitalists - you know. There are several plans for ending poverty in the world out there but none of them take into account the nature of mankind or free will. Thus they do not plan for the greed and self interest that pervades our world. Until those elements can be considered I do not think we are going to get very far.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Brown people! Brown people! Scary dirty brown people!

Take THAT you voice of reasonableness!



And they'll rape your daughters too!


lol

[radwriter0555]

41. oh PLEASE. Talk about over-dramatization. Try, why work THERE for $2

an hour when you can go to the US, do the same work for $10 or more per hour?

That's all it is...

You're making it far too complicated.

The workers go to the US to make bank.

[DiverDave]

47. I know that

but the reasons that they HAVE to come here can be fixed...on the south side of the border.
I would bet that the vast majority would prefer to stay home, if they could get decent pay.

[BrklynLiberal]

48. The work is NOT available THERE, even for $2 an hour.

That is the root of the problem.
This is one of those broken Vincente Fox promises.
He was supposed to start creating all these jobs for his people.
This ex-Coca-Cola executive has done NOTHING for the working people of Mexico.

[JStuart]

52. maybe we can hire

Mexicans living in Mexico to build the 700 mile wall... they're awfully good with masonry.

:sarcasm:

[BrklynLiberal]

67. That is what one of the Repukes suggested. No kidding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=838344

[Cleita]

42. Of course, but your position makes too much sense.

Most would rather blame the victims in this.

[DiverDave]

46. Folks,

I wasn't trying to be a smartass, or glib, or anything else when I started this thread.
I just thought that the root causes of the migration to the U.S. could be debated and discussed here.

Am I an idiot?
Yep, most of the time, but I *think* some of my points are valid.
To me anyway.

[EVDebs]

50. A willing US employer, who wilfully breaks the law, provides the jobs....

We're addicted to cheap labor, blame the enablers.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. I think so to. I just didn't agree with all of them. I do agree that

most people will migrate to ensure the survival of their children. Look at the dust bowl, for instance.

My only point of criticism on that point was semantics. "A better life" isn't enough of a pull factor in many cases, but survival definitely is, especially when migrating to a foriegn country.

[Bridget Burke]

66. And I pointed out I didn't call YOU glib....

I did use that rude word--but to someone who knows exactly what Mexico must do. But he won't say how.

I think you started this thread to get some ideas. Good for you! We all need to continue educating ourselves.