|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:18 am
Sydney Morning Hearld: Don't fence me in: Mexico lashes border planQuote: MEXICO CITY: Mexico says it may go to the United Nations to challenge US plans to build hundreds of kilometres of fences on its southern border. The Foreign Secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, said the plan was offensive. Asked if he would take up the issue with the UN, a step some Mexican politicians have called for, Mr Derbez replied: "Without a doubt, we are examining, with the foreign relations legal team, what options are open at an international level and we will take them." The US President, George Bush, yesterday signed a homeland security funding bill that includes $US1.2 billion ($1.6 billion) for fencing along the US-Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants and criminals sneaking over. The outgoing Mexican President, Vicente Fox, has called the plan "shameful" and compared it to the Berlin Wall. Mr Fox has spent his six-year term lobbying for a new guest worker program and an amnesty for Mexicans working illegally in the US. On Thursday, all eight parties in Mexico's Congress joined forces to exhort Mr Fox to use all diplomatic means to try to stop the construction of the fence. Mr Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said the US Congress was unlikely to approve enough funding to finish the project, despite the $US1.2 billion approved. "There is no money to build it, so it won't be built," he said. Although some say the whole project could be finished at a cost of $US2.2 billion, others say it could be much higher. The president-elect, Felipe Calderon, who takes office on December 1, has also attacked the plans. "One could stop more migrants with a kilometre of new roads and development than with a wall," he said. There are an estimated 11 million Mexicans in the US. Where does Mexico or the UN get off telling the United States what it can do about its own border? That they would even entertain the idea of interfering in what is a sovereign right of the United States is outrageous.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:13 am
Pssh. This is nothing compared to the Berlin Wall. Unless of course, we have countless numbers of guard towers, guards, and tripwires to catch any immigrant that tries to cross.
And how would building new roads stop the flow of immigration? That would just seem to encourage them, as if the United States is just going to bend over and take it in the rear.
Mexico must be admitting that it sucks, so it's encouraging its citizens to go to the United States illegally to get a job that payted no better than the one they had in Mexico, all while not paying for taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:46 am
Der Freischuetz And how would building new roads stop the flow of immigration? That would just seem to encourage them, as if the United States is just going to bend over and take it in the rear. It is a not so subtle demand for more foreign aid and investment in Mexico. Aggressive panhandleing. My response to such a demand would be millions for defence but not a penny in tribute. Der Freischuetz Mexico must be admitting that it sucks, so it's encouraging its citizens to go to the United States illegally to get a job that payted no better than the one they had in Mexico, all while not paying for taxes. Indeed. It is essentially a form of economic colonization as far as the Mexican government is concerned on the matter. Remittances from Mexicans living in the United States is Mexico's largest source of foreign income. San Deigo Union Tribune:Remittances are Mexico's biggest source of income, says FoxQuote: NEW YORK – Money sent from Mexican workers in the United States to their families back home has reached a record $12 billion in 2003, Mexican President Vicente Fox said Wednesday. Remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment," Fox told reporters after a meeting with Mexican-American businessmen. "The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated by Mexicans in Mexico," Fox said, adding that his country has the ninth-largest economy in the world. "If we could add up the two products, Mexico would be the third or fourth economy in the world," he said. Fox said the money transfers grew after Mexican consulates started giving identity cards to their citizens in the United States. "The cards are working. All doubts have been cleared up," Fox said. "Almost 2.5 million people have them, and we want all Mexicans to have them." The cards, known as "matricula consular," allow holders to get driver's licenses in some states, open bank accounts and send money home. Police have found them useful when arresting some illegal immigrants. But critics have raised concerns over whether the cards provide legitimacy to illegal immigrants. Money transfers from Mexican immigrants working in the United States to relatives back home reached a previous high of $10 billion in 2002, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington. It is essentially admitting that Mexico's economy sucks. Frankly, I think the US government should target which countries contribute the most to illegal immigration and add a tax to remittances sent to those countries as a means to finance this border fence if money seems to be such a big issue regarding its construction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:07 am
berlin wall wtf is that guy on. he is compareing something that seperated one country to something that is going to seperate two countries. i bet the mexican leader laughs at the fact his country sucks so much that half its population leaves in the us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:09 am
Kazuma It is essentially admitting that Mexico's economy sucks. Frankly, I think the US government should target which countries contribute the most to illegal immigration and add a tax to remittances sent to those countries as a means to finance this border fence if money seems to be such a big issue regarding its construction. Sounds like a plan, but how many would actually go along with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:28 pm
Claims that the wall to be built on the southern border is in anyway like the Berlin Wall are spurious, at best.The bill signed by Bush only proposes the build a fence along 700 miles of the border. That is, 700 miles of a 2000 mile border. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, and I ask anyone to show me how this wall seeks to achieve this end. The rest of the, what...1300 miles (?)... will be monitored by cameras, sensors, and other technology to help Border Patrol find those sneaking into the country. Parts of the bill increase funding to Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and similar organizations. However, the bill signed by Bush was a approval of a fence, not the funding. I hear that's coming from a second House appropriations bill. T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council, said that the fence will (ideally) funnel illegal immigrants into certain stretches of the border that are highly rough (mountains, canyons, mean places)...making the Border Patrol's job a little easier. Look guys, I hate to say this, but Bush has never supported border enforcement. He only signed the symbolic "I think we should build a fence" bill because most polls show that only two-thirds of the country support border enforcement. This does not mean Bush is likely to sign a "let's fund that fence" bill, no matter what the popular will is on the subject. To answer Kazuma's first question, Mexico has the right to complain about what the United States does with its own sovereignty. How did they get this right? Well, the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America ( Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America gives the Mexican Government just that right. And people who actually believe the wall funding will be spent on a fence, read this In Border Fence's Path, Congressional RoadblocksLook guys, we have to admit it to ourselves. The Republican Party has yet again pulled a switcheroo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:05 pm
Patton Look guys, I hate to say this, but Bush has never supported border enforcement. He only signed the symbolic "I think we should build a fence" bill because most polls show that only two-thirds of the country support border enforcement. This does not mean Bush is likely to sign a "let's fund that fence" bill, no matter what the popular will is on the subject. Indeed. On the issue of border controls Bush has been, at best, incompetent and, much more likely, duplicitous with the base of the Republican party and the American people. It is my single biggest gripe with the president. Patton To answer Kazuma's first question, Mexico has the right to complain about what the United States does with its own sovereignty. How did they get this right? Well, the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America ( Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America gives the Mexican Government just that right. The SPP has a few useful bits, but I think it surrenders way too much of the United States sovereignty. Any presidential hopeful which makes it part of their platform to repudiate this agreement (or at least broad swaths of of its most noxious parts) has made a major step towards winning my vote. I do not want to see the United States go down the same drain that the Eurpean Union is going down. They have. There are some, namely in the Congress such as Tancredo, Royce, and Rohrabacher who I generally trust on the subject, but taken as a whole, the Republican party has failed its supporters and the country as a whole on the matter. I wish they would dig up TR and put him in office... Anybody got a copy of Necromancy for Dummies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:48 pm
*sigh* Is it me, or are both parties starting to lose resolve on certain issues? Or have they been for some time now? Why can't anything be done for certain anymore? It's quite frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:02 pm
Der Freischuetz *sigh* Is it me, or are both parties starting to lose resolve on certain issues? Or have they been for some time now? Why can't anything be done for certain anymore? It's quite frustrating. As for the Republican party, I think it is a mixture of trying to manage different constituencies and taking much of their base for granted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:28 pm
The U.N. is a joke anyway, Kaz. We can't take anything they say to heart. After all, not like they'll force anything they pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:39 pm
Amora-Bunny The U.N. is a joke anyway, Kaz. We can't take anything they say to heart. After all, not like they'll force anything they pass. Indeed. The United States holds a Security Council veto so I harbor no visions of blue-helmeted peacekeepers being deployed in the United States and molesting the local children, as whey are wont to do when they are "peacekeeping", but I dislike the United Nations intensely. Not because it is ineffective (I would love it to be even more ineffective) but because I have a general distrust for international institutions that infringe on the sovereignty of the United States and I dislike any venue where the United States does not dominate. I see it more as an insult against the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:56 pm
Kazuma Amora-Bunny The U.N. is a joke anyway, Kaz. We can't take anything they say to heart. After all, not like they'll force anything they pass. Indeed. The United States holds a Security Council veto so I harbor no visions of blue-helmeted peacekeepers being deployed in the United States and molesting the local children, as whey are wont to do when they are "peacekeeping", but I dislike the United Nations intensely. Not because it is ineffective (I would love it to be even more ineffective) but because I have a general distrust for international institutions that infringe on the sovereignty of the United States and I dislike any venue where the United States does not dominate. I see it more as an insult against the United States. I've forgotten but... wasn't the UN created to help against communism? If so, isn't it pointless since the USSR's crash in 91? Or, if it was more correctly related to keeping peace and policing the world, isn't it failing dramatically in concerns with Hezbollah and Iran, Sudan and the Darfur ordeal, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:47 pm
Amora-Bunny Kazuma Amora-Bunny The U.N. is a joke anyway, Kaz. We can't take anything they say to heart. After all, not like they'll force anything they pass. Indeed. The United States holds a Security Council veto so I harbor no visions of blue-helmeted peacekeepers being deployed in the United States and molesting the local children, as whey are wont to do when they are "peacekeeping", but I dislike the United Nations intensely. Not because it is ineffective (I would love it to be even more ineffective) but because I have a general distrust for international institutions that infringe on the sovereignty of the United States and I dislike any venue where the United States does not dominate. I see it more as an insult against the United States. I've forgotten but... wasn't the UN created to help against communism? If so, isn't it pointless since the USSR's crash in 91? Or, if it was more correctly related to keeping peace and policing the world, isn't it failing dramatically in concerns with Hezbollah and Iran, Sudan and the Darfur ordeal, etc? The UN was established, at least from the United States' point of view, as the latter. Kissinger, in his book Diplomacy, notes that Franklin Roosevelt believed in the idea of "Four Policemen" to maintain peace and order in the international community. It was basically an attempt to rehash the failed concept of Wilsonian idealism that is collective security. This collective security which has repeatedly failed and will continue to fail because it is far too broad and there is no consensus on what constitutes a threat to that collective security nor consensus on what measures to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:05 pm
Wikipedia The UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious allied powers with the hope that it would act to prevent and intervene in conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible or limited. The organization's structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding, which has led to calls for reform. The United Nations was supposed to do what the League of Nations did...and has proven to be as much of a failure as the LoN was. One, it ignores the fact that, without proper wielding of blue-beret legions, the United Nations can not enforce any resolution that gets beyond the veto powers. So there is no umph behind anything the UN says. Second, the organization ignores the inate ambition of nature and nations. What is seen in the small is seen in the large. Take Iraq and North Korea. Can anyone count on the fingers of their hand the number of resolutions passed against Hussein, any number of violations would have (in a logical world) led to punishing Iraq with more then sanctions...everyone remembers the utter success Oil for Food was right rofl ? Mexico can do nothing useful in the United Nations because we have a veto. I don't doubt that the UN will pass a condemnation of the US for enforcing its own sovereignty...can anyone say Israel? But really, unless Mexico stresches its SPP muscles then the UN can't do anything. Oh, and I just saw Slate.com's article Will Bush Veto the Fence Bill?. It seems I might be wrong...Bush might have signed the appropriations bill but not the authorization bill. Which is just as disturbing, because that smacks of straight collusion with amnesty adherants as well as simple trickery. And after ten work days after the presentation of the bill, Bush can veto the bill without actually vetoing the bill...the good old pocket veto. I'm sorry for being skeptical, everyone. But to be quite honest, I know Bush is an open borders man...so I see him for what he does. I like him in some things, but I refuse to be bamboozled even by guys I support. And further...Kazuma, do you know what website I can go to so I can see how Representatives and Senators vote on specific bills?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Kazuma I wish they would dig up TR and put him in office... Anybody got a copy of Necromancy for Dummies? I would love to see someone like Teddy Roosevelt reincarnated, but I have to settle for men like Buchanan, Gingrich, and Tancredo...and Buchanan has said he's too old to run. To think, another Bull Moose Party ticket xd *huggles his beloved history books* ::to Der Freischutz:: This mostly involves the resignation of both parties' historic causes and positions. The GOP was founded on much different ideals then the actions of the modern GOP. And actually, the Democrats have not changed much...they were founded on dominating and controlling other human beings, and they continue to do so to this day. Slavery, the original Ku Klux Klan (post-Civil War), most of the reformed Ku Klux Klan (1916-30s), Jim Crow Laws, socialism, welfare, the New Deal, etc. The fact that the GOP is compromising on their principles speaks more of Republican weaknesses then Dem beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
