Mexico Voters Fear Nation on Edge of Chaos

Mexico Voters Fear Nation on Edge of Chaos

here's an excerpt:


Anyone have anything to help make some sense of this violence?

Drugs are bad.

mmmkay, and we wonder why illegal immigrants are coming to the US?

Wikipedia Mexican Genreal Election 2006

Some information about the upcoming elections. This Wiki entry was last updated May 16, 2006.

Hmm how much oil does Mexico have... we could, you know, liberate them.

now here's an interesting dilemma...

We can pull all troops out of Iraq(oil), but we would have to invade Mexico(oil).

We could call it the "OIL FOR OIL" scandal

Any supporters?

Yet another reason to build that wall.

Briana Dawson

I relish good debate, so I wonder if you can elaborate on how a combination of wall and fence that serves as a force multiplier to border patrol is equivilant to the BERLIN WALL.

What was the function of the Berlin Wall and how did it fail? How would it compare to the proposed combination of wall and barricade that would be built in addition to the current length of fence and wall that the border patrol considers useful and successful?

How is it similar? The obvious answer is that they are both walls that are used to impede or control migration of people. The Berlin wall was used to keep people in and our proposed wall is to keep people out. Even with the heavy security and the "death strip", thousands managed to sneak through the Berlin wall.

The wall we're talking about building won't have nearly the level of security and isn't a complete wall along the border. I don't think it will be a great of a deterrant as people think it will be. Immigration routes will continue to move to more remote areas where there is no fence. We'll see more tunnels than we already do, more creative ways to sneak right under the nose of the border patrol.

I find this whole proposal an ass-backward way of approaching the 'problem' of illegal immigration. Instead of attempting to go after thousands of individuals who are coming here (and not just from south of the border, either), why are we not making efforts to reduce the draw for illegal immigration and reworking the immigration laws to make the process easier and faster?

Occasionally, Langston Hughes springs to mind...

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?


Or fester like a sore--
And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

Since thousands is a couple of orders of magnitude less than millions, I would estimate it be alot more successful than the current status quo.

Just as the most top level security system doesn't stop really determined people from hacking the CIA website... So, do we drop the security measures on the website? I doubt sterilizing a medical room will make it 100% germ free. But there are workable tolerances. That's what the real life is made out of: workable tolerances.

Why should the US have to do that? Is it that people seem to miss the point that the US is a soverign country and is in it's full right to make it as hard or as simple as they need it to be to get in? And not necessarily hard just for the fun of it. But, immigration (citizenship or residency) should be a controled source of population designed by the state to fill in the country's needs in several aspects of it's economy. Take Canada, for example. With all their open mindness and peacefulness, who can enter their country and become a citizen "just because"? Those who seek Canadian residence or citizenship must pass a very strict filter I sincerely doubt 80% of all current illegal immigrants in the US even could dream of passing (and I'm being conservative). And you could go on and on on other countries where you'ld already need to have a pending labor contract to even think about getting such priveleges.

I don't understand why it's so hard to see that illegal is illegal. You can take the cheerios letters and flip them all around. But it's still that. I firmly believe the US is in it's full right to determine who recieves such status as citizen or resident, and under what circumstances they recieve it.

If a country can't limit and protect it's borders... is it really a country?

From: Marker Dinova

Since thousands is a couple of orders of magnitude less than millions, I would estimate it be alot more successful than the current status quo.

Not when you have the level of security that they had on that small stretch of wall.

That's what the real life is made out of: workable tolerances.
I wouldn't call walling off my country from the rest of the world 'workable tolerances'. Your mileage may vary.

From: Marker Dinova

Why should the US have to do that? Is it that people seem to miss the point that the US is a soverign country and is in it's full right to make it as hard or as simple as they need it to be to get in?

Fine, make it hard - I don't care, but how about placing heavy fines on companies that hire illegal workers, creating an incentive for people to come over and stay. Those companies should be held accountable for contributing to the 'problem'.

Placing a wall around this country will not stop people from coming over illegally. It is debatable as to how much it will reduce the number of immigrants.

I'm not necessarily saying that the wall is the solution, but I also don't see anything wrong with a wall with controlled entrance points. I really don't see what's the fuss. It wouldn't be locking out the country. You will still have traffic. You'll just have alot less illegal traffic.

The sad thing is, however, that the US has got to the point where it actually has to discuss something like that.

The issue isn't to make it hard. The issue is that it shouldn't be bent and twisted around just because other countries want it easier.

Totally, completely and 100% agree with you.

Placing a wall around this country will not stop people from coming over illegally. It is debatable as to how much it will reduce the number of immigrants.I also agree with you on that one.

Mexico, along with Ireland and Italy, is one of my favorite countries to visit and let me tell you why. The people there are so kind and courteous and I am not speaking of the tourist traps that most North Americans and Europeans frequent. My husband and I once took a driving trip of the nothern half of Mexico and we had the time of our lives. No, we did not feel threatened by the "natives" as they tried to figure out what my husband's bellows of El Beero meant as I did by their no comprendros.

What is going on in Mexico troubles me, not because I am an American dedicated to protecting out sacred soil, but because I care about them as a people and a culture that is at least if not older than than that the US of A. They are a people to be respected and not joked about with notions of iron fences or invasions to get their oil.

I am suggesting that we open our border to them the same way we opened it to the "white races". We will be a better country for it.

That's exactly what the debate is about, how much more fencing (or walls) do we want, if any more at all? At what point do we hit diminishing returns? The argument here is a matter of how much not if. I think that most people would say that some increase is needed.
Border Patrol Struggles to Find Enough New Agents

That's what many are saying, the difficulty of entry is not matched to the needs of the country. There is demand for more workers is there. A streamlining of the guest worker program would be a good step. Current Guest-Worker Program Requires Patience I also think that it would be good to make it easier for unskilled workers to work toward citizenship legally. Legal U.S. Entry Options for Unskilled Workers.

Some say that the risks of allowing more legal immigrants into the country we should be
willing to import more goods and/or put up with higher prices for food and manufactured goods. Maybe they are right, the US has a very high standard of living and a little hit to that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I'm not sure where the line should be, but I do think that we should increase our legal channels for immigration of unskilled workers.


This is abolutely true, but when the laws of the country are out of step with the needs of its citizens then they need to be revamped. I lived in Arizona for many years and there are a lot of people who are more than happy to turn a blind eye as long as they get things they want cheaper.

Basically, what I want to say is that there is a high demand for unskilled immigrant workers. Channels for legal immigration are not even close to being able to satisfy this demand. Enough people benefit from allowing illegal workers to enter that it has become a rampent problem. We need to increase legal immigration/guest worker programs to reduce the numbers of illegal immigration. Once we do that, it will be much easier to crack down on illegal entry.

Illegal entry is bad. It makes i difficult to keep criminals and other undesireable foreingers out of the country. It also makes it easy for employers to exploit workers under threat of deportation. Both of these situations are ones we need to work to eliminate.

Since we don't really have comprehensive information on illegal immigrants in the US (if we did they'd have been deported) I'm forced to assume that by "being conservative" you mean "talking out of your ass".

No. I'm making an informed guess: I know what are the criteria used to filter who does and doesn't get residence in Canada because I am applying for it. If any illegal immigrant could check "yes" to even half of them (which by the way includes having a professional degree, a preferred post graduate or higher degree, more than a couple of thousand dollars in a bank account apart from the >3K that you need to spend for the process itself AND nearly perfect english or french, certified by an international institution that THEY specify), you can bet 100% they probably wouldn't even seek illigal migration into the states at all.

So yes, Michael. I deeply believe I am being conservative, since the remaining 20% of the 12mil would be people with such high life conditions and professional preparation that by some awkward mistake has entered the US illegaly and has not already tried to do something about it.

I believe I am not offending anyone in this forum and am using proper language to post in what I believe is a civilised discussion. Please, lets keep it that way...

I totally agree with you. What I dissagree is with the notion that some people have, both from outside and (surprisingly) inside the US that, should they decide to put up a wall or tighten border security any other way, they are not in their own right to do so.

I see your point and agree.

Totally. A planned legal channel and selection criteria - at least - should be put in place or reformed if already existant.

That is true, though it's a dangerous path to walk. Some people are unaware of the nation's "big picture" and, as we all humans, seek only their personal well-being.

In my country, on a remote area of it, there was a situation where a catholic priest was building schools and hospitals and fixing streets with money he recieved by the sides for protecting drug dealers in and even from out of the community. He was "discovered", charged and arrested.

Justice prevailed, right? Then why was the community mourning this loss? What was the right thing to do? One might say, as some effectively did, that he was doing a good job since the local town authorities had abandoned the community and this man was delivering. But, does the end ever justify the means?

Agreed.