Sailorman, the Census Bureau’s current estimate of the U.S. population is 304 million. Which makes your point even more valid.

Now, I think that immigration has made the U.S. what it is today and that continuing to favor immigration into the U.S. is essential to maintaining our position in the world. But I think it’s ridiculous to have uncontrolled immigration into the U.S., for lots of reasons. And I think it’s ridiculous to reward illegal aliens with citizenship.

We’ve got 300 million people (oops), and I don’t think we’d all disappear.

Also, note the thread is talking about unauthorized (e.g. “illegal”) immigration, and that AFAIK not a single person has suggested stopping ALL immigration.

That can be a valid point. Just how badly is what we are doing actually excaberating the situation, and how much of this is Mexico’s own doing?

I’m trying to recall where I’ve stated that immigration into the U.S. should be reduced. I can’t think of anything, though.

and curiousgyrl answered:

The easiest way to get what you want if this is really your position–that the is to legalize all immigration to the united states and the status of pepople who have already done so.

Your paraphrase of my position is invalid. The negative of “should be reduced” does not equal “legalize all immigration”. Controlling immigration (and not rewarding lawbreakers with citizenship and the privileges thereof) is not the same as reducing it.

Currently the Commander of the Chihuahua state police, Fernando Lozano Sandoval, is being guarded by the El Paso Police Department at Thomas Hospital. In 2008, there have been 17 law enforcement personnel killed in Juarez. Information received from the DEA indicates that a war is occurring between the Vicente Carillo Fuentes Cartel and El Chap Guzman Cartel. Information has been received that Hit Squads from both Cartels are active in Juarez and that some of the targets will flee to El Paso and try to hide there. Information has been received that these hit squads will enter in unguarded isolated crossing of rural Texas and El Paso country to try and kidnap the targeted individuals and take them back to Mexico or act against them here. Emails hav been sent out to Law Enforcement in Texas, advising them to be extra careful during traffic stops, since these hit squads have been instructed to kill LEO’s they encounter.
There are 2 Border Patrol agents in prison right now for the death of a known cartel member, drug guy. He was shot during an altercation, but made it to Mexico with lead in his butt. We extradited him, then he died over here from complications of that shooting~~ now they’re in prison & have been for at least a couple of years. Bush had the opportunity to pardon them, but he chose not to.
No one ever hears about these things though.
Fixing the economy wont help the citizens when the drug cartels are running everything. I dont blame one single person trying to escape from that.

…you will find that you and I will likely have broad points of agreement.

Yeah, okay. But we also seem to have points of disagreement: I think that the onus is on us, as the party with greater power and thus greater ability to fix the situation, to stop doing the stuff that we’re doing that’s exacerbating the situation FIRST — before we start taking actions to lay the burden on poor unemployed Mexican laborers. Once we’ve cleaned up our own act, only then do I think it’s permissable to take punitive action to force Mexico to clean up theirs (if it is still necessary). To do otherwise is not only ineffective (it’s far easier for us to change the US government than it is for them to change the Mexican government), but it’s also pretty selfish and cruel.

And when U.S. politicians start proactively doing things for other countries, which said other countries can do themselves… well, they won’t be in office for long. nor should they be.

So, by this logic, US politicians who passed laws against investment in South Africa with the goal of ending apartheid were (and should have been) cast out of office? Ditto for those passing laws to encourage Cuban governmental reform?

I think you’re conflating the populace of a country with the government of that country. The Mexican government can withdraw from NAFTA, but given the corruption in their government, the Mexican people effectively cannot.

Furthermore, I think you’re forgetting that the whole idea was to reduce illegal immigration into the US. That’s not doing something for Mexico, that’s doing something for the US. That it helps the Mexican people (at the expense of rich Mexican politicians) is just a happy side effect.

And the MExican government, apparently, still is. Which is why it would be strange (and oddly patriarchal) for the US to withdraw from NAFTA in order to benefit Mexico. After all, Mexico can withdraw from NAFTA on its own, whenever it damn well pleases, merely with six months’ notice.* We can’t stop them. And when U.S. politicians start proactively doing things for other countries, which said other countries can do themselves… well, they won’t be in office for long. nor should they be.

*(see, e.g., http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/chap-22.asp#A2205 which covers NAFTA withdrawal. If you want the full text of NAFTA, see http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/naftatce.asp instead.)

Just not true. The problems have been there for decades prior to the current wave of mass immigration from Mexico (which is by no means the first of its kind), and are likely to persist if the people return. It’s just not as easy as “This is good for everyone!” Mass deportation/repatriation/whatever you want to call it would have negligible benefits for Mexico, and if the cessation of the influx of extra American dollars into the economy is taken into account, it’s likely to have a negative affect. If you don’t really care, or you feel that the benefits to America trump Mexican losses/inert & adverse circumstances, then fine, but it’s better to say that than to pretend that people on both sides of the border are likely to benefit.

But in my case, that would not be accurate. What I’ve argued is that we need to stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders and do whatever we can to get the ones that already have to leave. That has nothing to do with my views on immigration.

I’m trying to recall where I’ve stated that immigration into the U.S. should be reduced. I can’t think of anything, though.

The easiest way to get what you want if this is really your position–that the is to legalize all immigration to the united states and the status of pepople who have already done so. *Poof* no more “illegal” “aliens,” just immigrants!

Which is exactly what I propose we don’t do. I don’t think we should be trying to “fix” Mexico, either by ignoring millions of illegal aliens from that country or by exerting external political pressure on it or trying to use a carrot/stick approach with funding. I think we should make it impossible for illegal aliens to live in the U.S. That will make them go home, and give their home country’s governments an incentive to fix the problems that caused people to leave in the first place.

Now, if we’ve adopted trade policies that are a problem, that’s different, as it’s an action we took and I’m willing to listen to arguements on the topic. Arguments that I have yet to hear - there’s lots of assertions that NAFTA, etc. are causing Mexico problems but no links to anything that would actually back that up.

But regardless; we need to not only make it a lot harder to illegally get into the U.S., we need to make it a lot harder to illegally stay here.

How possible (if at all) is to change the culture of corruption in a country without also making major structural changes in the government? I am not sure that this is something than can easily be achieved by “encouragement.”

Since this is being offered as a sort-of alternative to other means of stopping illegal immigrants from entering the U.S., it’s important that it be somewhat realistic.

So what are the proponents actually suggesting? That we drop NAFTA and immediately see an effect? A vague proposal like “let’s make things better in Mexico” is sort of hard to use as an alternative.

Ooh, I should mark this on my calendar — the day that I finally get to take a position to Amp’s left (as opposed to the usual pattern of shifting hurriedly leftward when he makes a good point). I’m fine with essentially open borders for non-terrorists. If I don’t get kicked out of the country for a DUI, why should someone else?

pointed question: are mexicans the only “unauthorized migrants” in the u.s.?

Yeah, this was my question too, because just looking at Southern California, that’s not the case at all. And there’s so many issues involved in each case. For one thing, the gross disparities in how political asylum is allotted out to immigrants in different countries just in Central America or in some of the Caribbean nations for example.

And there’s little discussion about European migrants or undocumented immigrants in most of these conversations as well. Just a general observation and not intended to single this posting out.

But thanks for raising the issue of the role of NAFTA which has been destructive on so many different levels, including for many women. It should be more of a feminist issue in my opinion.

it depends on what your definition of “fix” is. even extreme right wing hate groups recognize that NAFTA is not good for u.s. citizens economically, which is why they opposed it. is it “fixing” mexico if you obliterate something that is profoundly harmful to yourself?

The thing is, positioning u.s. as a ’savior’ or inherently ’superior’ to mexico doesn’t allow space for the recognition of the weak middle class, abandoned working class, and outright attacked poverty stricken people in the u.s. The U.S. can fix things for *all* of us (including the weak middle class, abandoned working calls and outright attacked poverty stricken people in Mexico) if it eliminates NAFTA, CAFTA and the peruvian trade agreement–but it won’t–not willingly at least. these things are too beneficial to corporations that are intimately invested in continuing the idea that there are only a few jobs here and there, and unionization is too expensive, and a livable world wide wage is something only ‘dreamers’ consider feasible.

The u.s. is very close to being almost completly post industrialized–which means, soon, all the jobs will be gone, and we’ll be in the same position the people we fight to keep out are in.