Welcome to Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest with limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You can also take part in our Private Debates where you can test your skills against an opponent. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. After you Register the advertisements will disappear on the site!

Go Back   Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums > Political Issues > Immigration

Immigration Discuss and Debate the Politics of Immigration here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:49 AM
Freeman15's Avatar
Gone
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 118
Location: San Antonio, TX
Age: 22
Posts: 660
Rep Power: 1
Freeman15 is on a distinguished road
Default A thought.

Have any of those of you in favor of Mexican migration thought at all about where these people are coming from? They're coming from a third-world, largely impoverished, crime-ridden, corrupt nation. So you want to open your hearts and allow these people into our country so that they might improve their standard of living yes?

It appears to me that Mexicans took control of their country in 1821, and have done little to advance it technologically or socially. Why would we WANT these people in our country? Ignore the language barrier, lack of education, and crime problems for a second (if you can), and ask yourselves if Mexico's current state is not the direct result of deep-rooted cultural problems. An inspection of the barrios of America (and I live in San Antonio folks, I live it everyday) indicates that when these people arrive, they congregate in miniature "Mexico's" within this country, that become very similar to Mexico proper; poor, corrupt, and underdeveloped.

Now some of you will call this post racist, and others will claim that Mexicans have failed to develop because of some vast white conspiracy against them, but the fact remains that Mexico has had independence for nearly as long as the United States, and yet despite a wealth of natural endowments represents one of the best examples of a failed civilization in the Western Hemisphere (though it has NOTHING on some African nations).

So I ask, do we really want to import any portion of this society into our own? Would we not be MUCH better off utilizing a skills-based immigration policy like we did in the mid-late 20th century?
__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 12:04 PM
Skeletom182's Avatar
SPQRatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 163
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 768
Rep Power: 1
Skeletom182 is on a distinguished road
Default

I'd have to agree here. The only people crossing the border illegally are those who have low skill sets and aptitudes for the most part. All the US is getting is lower wages, more taxes, increased crime, and a group of people who for the most part don't give a flying frak what America is about. I'm not saying that many of these people aren't hard workers or good people. However, I think they are doing more harm than good.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 12:20 PM
Phædrus's Avatar
Sarcasm on the rocks.
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 152
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,375
Rep Power: 3
Phædrus is on a distinguished road
Default

For the record, there is now no longer such a thing as a "third world country." First, second, and third world countries only existed in the Cold War era, where they roughly corresponded as such:
First World: NATO members, allies of the US, capitalist countries
Second World: Warsaw Pact members and communist countries.
Third World: everyone else, generally poverty stricken

Today the countries are designated as either "More Developed Countries" (MDC's) or "Less Developed Countries" (LDC's). A good way to judge is to look at the per capita GDP: if it's under $10,000 USD, it's an LDC. If it's over $20,000, it's an MDC. However, that doesn't always apply, since many Middle Eastern countries which are classed as LDC's have per capita GDPs of $20,000 + because of oil exports, and there's also the big $10,000 - 20,000 gap. It's a good idea to use the same indicators as the HDI: per capita GDP, literacy rate, and life expectancy, as well as indicators of infrastructure growth, such as physicians per person and TVs/internet modems per person.

Mexico is actually a low end MDC. It's just that the US gets a lot of poor immigrants from the poorer northern section of the country, while the middle and upper class individuals live in central Mexico and have no reason to emigrate anyways.

Also, many of the immigrants that cross the Mexico-US border actually aren't Mexican, but are from Central and South America. Guatemala, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, they all contribute greatly to the flow of immigrants.
__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 12:44 PM
Congressman
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 25
Posts: 1,315
Rep Power: 3
White Rabbit is on a distinguished road
Default

An American is calling Mexico "crime-ridden"???

Pot, meet kettle.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:05 PM
Freeman15's Avatar
Gone
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 118
Location: San Antonio, TX
Age: 22
Posts: 660
Rep Power: 1
Freeman15 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phædrus View Post
For the record, there is now no longer such a thing as a "third world country." First, second, and third world countries only existed in the Cold War era, where they roughly corresponded as such:
First World: NATO members, allies of the US, capitalist countries
Second World: Warsaw Pact members and communist countries.
Third World: everyone else, generally poverty stricken

Today the countries are designated as either "More Developed Countries" (MDC's) or "Less Developed Countries" (LDC's). A good way to judge is to look at the per capita GDP: if it's under $10,000 USD, it's an LDC. If it's over $20,000, it's an MDC. However, that doesn't always apply, since many Middle Eastern countries which are classed as LDC's have per capita GDPs of $20,000 + because of oil exports, and there's also the big $10,000 - 20,000 gap. It's a good idea to use the same indicators as the HDI: per capita GDP, literacy rate, and life expectancy, as well as indicators of infrastructure growth, such as physicians per person and TVs/internet modems per person.

Mexico is actually a low end MDC. It's just that the US gets a lot of poor immigrants from the poorer northern section of the country, while the middle and upper class individuals live in central Mexico and have no reason to emigrate anyways.

Also, many of the immigrants that cross the Mexico-US border actually aren't Mexican, but are from Central and South America. Guatemala, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, they all contribute greatly to the flow of immigrants.
We're all terribly impressed. I took international relations and governance classes two years ago, and understand the newspeak. I still use third-world country because it is understood by everybody, and countries like Somalia aren't "less developed", they aren't developed at all.

This thread is about MEXICAN immigration, not Panamanian, not Columbian, not Peruvian, MEXICAN. Stay on topic please.
__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:05 PM
Freeman15's Avatar
Gone
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 118
Location: San Antonio, TX
Age: 22
Posts: 660
Rep Power: 1
Freeman15 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post
An American is calling Mexico "crime-ridden"???

Pot, meet kettle.
Never actually been to Mexico have you?
__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 01:19 PM
Lumara's Avatar
aka Stalin.com
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 26
Location: A holler in Tennessee
Posts: 5,366
Rep Power: 8
Lumara has a spectacular aura aboutLumara has a spectacular aura about
Default

I agree with Freeman, and I HAVE been to Mexico. FYI there were safes in every hotel room and we were told to lock up all valuables such as cameras as well as money because the (Mexican) maids would steal them.
__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 02:20 PM
Skeletom182's Avatar
SPQRatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 163
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 768
Rep Power: 1
Skeletom182 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman15 View Post
We're all terribly impressed. I took international relations and governance classes two years ago, and understand the newspeak. I still use third-world country because it is understood by everybody, and countries like Somalia aren't "less developed", they aren't developed at all.

This thread is about MEXICAN immigration, not Panamanian, not Columbian, not Peruvian, MEXICAN. Stay on topic please.
Indeed. It is similar to calling illegal aliens "Undocumented Workers." What a load of politically correct horse manure.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 02:37 PM
Chan's Avatar
Congressman
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 133
Location: Buffalo, New York, USA
Posts: 5,500
Rep Power: 7
Chan has a spectacular aura aboutChan has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman15 View Post
Have any of those of you in favor of Mexican migration thought at all about where these people are coming from? They're coming from a third-world, largely impoverished, crime-ridden, corrupt nation. So you want to open your hearts and allow these people into our country so that they might improve their standard of living yes?

It appears to me that Mexicans took control of their country in 1821, and have done little to advance it technologically or socially. Why would we WANT these people in our country? Ignore the language barrier, lack of education, and crime problems for a second (if you can), and ask yourselves if Mexico's current state is not the direct result of deep-rooted cultural problems. An inspection of the barrios of America (and I live in San Antonio folks, I live it everyday) indicates that when these people arrive, they congregate in miniature "Mexico's" within this country, that become very similar to Mexico proper; poor, corrupt, and underdeveloped.

Now some of you will call this post racist, and others will claim that Mexicans have failed to develop because of some vast white conspiracy against them, but the fact remains that Mexico has had independence for nearly as long as the United States, and yet despite a wealth of natural endowments represents one of the best examples of a failed civilization in the Western Hemisphere (though it has NOTHING on some African nations).

So I ask, do we really want to import any portion of this society into our own? Would we not be MUCH better off utilizing a skills-based immigration policy like we did in the mid-late 20th century?
I don't care where they come from as long as they do it legally.
__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-20-2007, 03:21 PM
Freeman15's Avatar
Gone
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 118
Location: San Antonio, TX
Age: 22
Posts: 660
Rep Power: 1
Freeman15 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chan View Post
I don't care where they come from as long as they do it legally.

So we should have no quota on the number of immigrants we allow into the country annually?
__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On






     Top Political Sites  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 AM.
Political Fever 2007/2008
   Word Search   |   Family Friendly   |   AdSense Forum   |   Game Cheats   |   Coupon Codes   |   Spore Game   |   Xcode Forum   |   Political Forums   |   Internet Marketing   |   Social Networking    |   Sudoku   |   Mobile Marketing   |   Web Forms   |   Articles & News   |   Loans & Credit Repair   |   Online Coupon Codes   |   Loans   |   Sudoku Puzzles   |   Map Games   |   Spore Screenshots