Hey, here is one way to get more voter support

[Quark]

Those rat bastards, reuniting a child with his father as per his father's wishes and the law!

[kandrathe]

Those rat bastards, reuniting a child with his father as per his father's wishes and the law!

You can frame it that way if you like. The laws were in a gray area, and they chose which law they wanted to enforce in that case.

The other side of that coin would be that he was also a refugee, whose mother and stepfather took him on a raft to escape Cuba for a better life in the US. Rather than honor the parents desires, which they risked and gave their lives for, we made him into a political spectacle, and a hero for Castro. And, it's not like he didn't have a group of loving relatives in the US who would have raised him, and cared for him. His great uncle Lazaro Gonzalez had pursued and been granted adoptive custody. Elian was conceived after the divorce and Juan, his biological father, had never been his parental father. Lazaro had legally filed a petition for Asylum, and the justice department intervened (being politically motivated) to prevent Elian from ever getting a hearing. Sending him back was a political act, not one of compassion.

In the end, the attention he's gotten in Cuba will end up giving him a decent life there too, however, I'd speculate it's nothing comparable to what he'd have had here.

But, this is deflection from the bigger point. How did Elian's father, a poor Cuban, get such a prominent and powerful Democrat as his lawyer? Isn't it odd that Eric Holder gets propelled into the Democratic elite by using a SWAT team to kick down the door to get custody of a 6-yr old staying with relatives? It's just a reminder that it's our tolerance of the tactics of the Janet Reno's that will allow the rise of the jack booted thugs in our governments slow descent into Fascist dictatorship.

[Jester]

The laws were in a gray area, and they chose which law they wanted to enforce in that case.

Not that gray. His family in the United States asked the courts for asylum. It was not granted. They appealed. It was rejected. They defied the order. The authorities insisted, and tried to negotiate. They rejected that too.

What part of this is ambiguous? Force was used because the US side of the family was escalating it into an organized protest, not to mention an international incident, and would not back down, full stop.

I'm not a big fan of Janet Reno's heavy-handed use of force here. (Neither am I a fan of the Miami Cuban exiles, who tend to be a few bananas short of a Woody Allen movie...) But this incident has basically nothing to do with the general Democratic party policy on Cuba, or on Cuban migrants - except insofar as they would rather avoid a major incident. Even the most lenient enforcers deport some people sometimes, and even the harshest let some slip through the cracks. That's not the point at all.

-Jester

[DeeBye]

who tend to be a few bananas short of a Woody Allen movie...

I'm totally stealing that line.

[Quark]

Isn't it odd that Eric Holder gets propelled into the Democratic elite

Kandrathe's insinuations strike again! "Look, I'm not saying there's anything shady going on! I'm just concerned that people might think something shady is going on!"

[kandrathe]

Not that gray. His family in the United States asked the courts for asylum. It was not granted. They appealed. It was rejected. They defied the order. The authorities insisted, and tried to negotiate. They rejected that too.

You omitted the parts where Elian's Miami relatives attempted to negotiate with the Justice Department and Elian's biological father. You omitted the fact that it is extraordinary that the US justice department gets itself involved in cases that are in INS jurisdiction. There was no due process, and justice was thwarted. Elian never had a single Asylum hearing.

But, Greg Craig did get the Justice department to grant Asylum in the US for two Bolivians who are charged with crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killings, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Sánchez Berzaín.

Force was used because the US side of the family was escalating it into an organized protest, not to mention an international incident, and would not back down, full stop.

They were uncooperative. They didn't want this boy to get sent back to Cuba. How odd.

To me, it is pretty apparent that the Democrats in the Clinton administration were creating a political incident with the Republican Cuban community. And, again I would ask, how did Elian's father, a poor Cuban, get such a prominent and powerful Democrat as his lawyer?

Kandrathe's insinuations strike again!

I'm not insinuating anything. Greg Craig and Eric Holder are the best of friends. They've got ties to lots and lots of stuff together... And also to Goldman-Sachs...

[Jester]

Not that gray. His family in the United States asked the courts for asylum. It was not granted. They appealed. It was rejected. They defied the order. The authorities insisted, and tried to negotiate. They rejected that too.

You omitted the parts where Elian's Miami relatives attempted to negotiate with the Justice Department and Elian's biological father.

The justice department enforces the law, it doesn't decide it. They can accomodate the way the outcome is reached, but it is unconstitutional for them to override the courts' decision.

There was no due process, and justice was thwarted. Elian never had a single Asylum hearing.

What do you mean, no due process? He was a minor. He is the ward of his parents, unless there is some reason to presume otherwise. The Miami relatives had their day in court to gain that authority, and they were rejected. They appealed, and the Supremes refused to hear the case. That's due process.

They were uncooperative. They didn't want this boy to get sent back to Cuba. How odd.

Uncooperative? They threatened US officials with armed violence. They started a riot. That's a good few steps above uncooperative!

And, again I would ask, how did Elian's father, a poor Cuban, get such a prominent and powerful Democrat as his lawyer?

...

But, Greg Craig did get the Justice department to grant Asylum in the US for two Bolivians who are charged with crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killings, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Sánchez Berzaín.

Does it disturb your geopolitical conspiracy theory at all, that it was Evo Morales, committed socialist and Castro's 2nd closest ally, who demanded their extradition? That the killings they were to be extradited for were against left wing, rather than right wing protesters?

Greg Craig's profession is not "democrat." He's a laywer. I'm pretty sure if someone ponies up his fee, he's available for hire. It wouldn't surprise me if the Cuban government, through one channel or another, paid his bills. Or maybe just some of the million or so people sick of the Miami Exiles and their stunts.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The justice department enforces the law, it doesn't decide it. They can accomodate the way the outcome is reached, but it is unconstitutional for them to override the courts' decision.

Wow. Rose colored blinders? Miami family court granted custody to Lazaro Gonzalez, and Janet Reno decided they did not have jurisdiction. Not a court, her. On April 19, 2000 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Elian's Miami relatives to block his return to Cuba. The Justice Department ignored the District Court and raided the Gonzalez residence on April 22nd. Juan and Elian were forced to stay in the US for 2 more months until the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

My beef here is not that Elian was returned to his father. This was the proper decision, and the legal precedence abounds for custody to remain with immediate family unless they are found (by due process) to be unfit. This case gets gray because, as a refugee washing up on our shore, even a boy refugee, he should have the right to his day in court (for asylum). A judge should then apply the law, and he should have then been reunited with his father. But, all other consideration aside, Elian had dry feet, and so should have been processed as any other refugee. But, as I've said, the right decision would be that the boy should be returned to the custody of his surviving closet relative, unless that relative was found to be unfit (again, by due process). None of that due process was allowed to happen.

What do you mean, no due process? He was a minor. He is the ward of his parents, unless there is some reason to presume otherwise. The Miami relatives had their day in court to gain that authority, and they were rejected. They appealed, and the Supremes refused to hear the case. That's due process.

Being handled by various Federal and State bureaucrats and their conflicting interpretations of the law is not a due process. The family in Miami had many days in court (just not the right court) fighting for due process, but the decision to send him back was made by the US justice department in January. From this point forward (until June), they were avoiding getting egg on their face. If the family could have held off the Justice department until November, and Elian had been in the US for a year, due to the special status of Cuban refugees he would have automatically been granted US citizenship.

They were uncooperative. They didn't want this boy to get sent back to Cuba. How odd.

Uncooperative? They threatened US officials with armed violence. They started a riot. That's a good few steps above uncooperative!

You know that just because the police wear riot gear and launch tear gas into a crowd or into people homes that it's not actually a riot. A protest, even an illegal protest is not a riot. There were allegations of burning tires, and throwing rocks, yes. Different people have differing accounts of what happened, however, what is consistent is the use of force by the government against the people.

Back during the RNC held here in Minneapolis, groups of protesters dropped bags of cement from overpasses onto the buses carrying the conference participants. They had planned on bringing and tossing plastic bags filled with urine and feces onto them as well. Thankfully, the FBI raided a house and arrested 5 individuals making actual bombs. The crowd in Minneapolis was more belligerent than what I saw on the news that April in Little Havana, and they didn't call what happened here a riot (I'd call it an organized confrontation by modern brown shirts).

Now, this so-called riot occurred on April 23rd, the day after they came and raided the Gonzalez home while the Gonzalez family was in Washington still trying to get Elian back. I'm not sure how you conflate the Miami Gonzalez family with the protesting Cuban-Americans. Simply put, the Gonzalez family felt secure in defying the INS because the 11 Circuit Court had granted them a stay in sending Elian back pending their appeal, and for all intents and purposes, Miami had granted guardianship to Lazaro Gonzalez. No other form of due process had revoked his guardianship, and no court order required Elian to be given to his biological father. The due process you are claiming was that the US government has the right to deny due process when a 6-yr old with his dead asylum seeking mother washes up on our shore.

And, again I would ask, how did Elian's father, a poor Cuban, get such a prominent and powerful Democrat as his lawyer?
...
But, Greg Craig did get the Justice department to grant Asylum in the US for two Bolivians who are charged with crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killings, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Sánchez Berzaín.

Does it disturb your geopolitical conspiracy theory at all, that it was Evo Morales, committed socialist and Castro's 2nd closest ally, who demanded their extradition? That the killings they were to be extradited for were against left wing, rather than right wing protesters?

Greg Craig's profession is not "democrat." He's a laywer. I'm pretty sure if someone ponies up his fee, he's available for hire. It wouldn't surprise me if the Cuban government, through one channel or another, paid his bills. Or maybe just some of the million or so people sick of the Miami Exiles and their stunts.

It disturbs me that we deny asylum to a 6-yr old boy, but give haven to monsters. In this case, Evo Morales is right, and we should extradite them to Bolivia to face their legal system.

Greg Craig is much, much more than a lawyer. That is merely the access card that gets him into the power broker game. How many high priced lawyers become White House Counsel? And, if he is as you suggest, morally bankrupt for a price, then who better to counsel the President? And, you assume incorrectly that I distinguish much between the power elite that prop up our leadership whether it be Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Craig's defense of monsters may be just a high priced lawyer grubbing for blood money, or maybe it's about power. Perhaps Morales represents a moral clarity and a more pure democracy than what the powerful in this world will tolerate. How dare the Bolivians take control of their own countries resources. If it catches on throughout the world, who will be left to exploit? We need to look behind the monsters, to the Frankensteins who are creating them.

Closer to the original topic -- Jon Stewart nails it.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't see the liars and crooks in both our governments finding an alternative solution. As I said above, too damned lazy.

I guess that's what I'm asking about. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they're stupid, or maybe there's no good solution. (Or all three, of course.)

If I'm reading you correctly, the proposal is a broader, regulated, seasonal labour program, and a policy of shoot to kill at the border?

-Jester

You'd be surprised at the results you get in changed behavior at "informal border crossings" when you use deadly force. I learned something about that in the mid east a few years ago, when dealing with infiltrators across a border. Deadly force works very, very well in getting behaviors to change.

But by itself, it doesn't solve what I contend are two core problems.

1. Our economic reality was ignored in the late 80s when Reagan just went for the amnesty issue. An actual improvement to our protocols would have allowed for two things: controlled immigration and better visibility on who and what is coming in, and LESS exploited underground labor. Read The Lost Girls, Texas monthly, a year or so ago. Learn what the cost of condoning a black market in labor is.

2. Improving Mexico's internal government, which thanks to the latino machismo BS, won't happen any time soon. Also, a lot of the jobs that once left for Mexico left for China in the last fifteen years.

Occhi

[Jester]

But by itself, it doesn't solve what I contend are two core problems.

1. Our economic reality was ignored in the late 80s when Reagan just went for the amnesty issue. An actual improvement to our protocols would have allowed for two things: controlled immigration and better visibility on who and what is coming in, and LESS exploited underground labor. Read The Lost Girls, Texas monthly, a year or so ago. Learn what the cost of condoning a black market in labor is.

2. Improving Mexico's internal government, which thanks to the latino machismo BS, won't happen any time soon. Also, a lot of the jobs that once left for Mexico left for China in the last fifteen years.

No, it doesn't fix the problems, which is the issue. Immigration is going to happen, one way or another. If enforcement becomes stricter (or lethal), it will reduce migration, but it will also drive it further underground, leaving the remaining migrants even more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Indenture becomes worse the harder it is to get into the country, and the resulting drop in wages and remittances will increase the economic incentives to move. I'm really not sure that exploitation is the cost of condoning a black market, so much as the cost of a highly restrictive migration policy, and of the illegal migrant's dilemma: endure the abuse, or get thrown out out the country when you seek help.

Fixing Mexico's political economy is a much larger task. I think increased migration might actually help, by helping alleviate some of the poverty. But I think it's a much, much larger problem than machismo. Plenty of countries are muy macho. They don't all have ongoing civil wars with drug gangs.

Which would lead me to my other, strangely related point, which is that ending the drug war at the same time would take a lot of stress off of Mexico's government in the medium term, it would improve conditions on the other side of the border.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Which would lead me to my other, strangely related point, which is that ending the drug war at the same time would take a lot of stress off of Mexico's government in the medium term, it would improve conditions on the other side of the border.

This is a good point. There are multiple demand/scarcity issues here. The border becomes the point where the chasm of difference is expressed. In both cases I feel what we need to do, and what we want to do, is to have better control over the importation of both labor, and recreational drugs.

That isn't to say we shouldn't also work on reducing the demand.

I mentally made a connection to the discussion we had earlier on HOV lanes, and how they create more accidents by creating a large difference between the faster moving HOV lane and the bumper to bumper non-HOV lanes. The same thing happens with the economic disparity, or the availability of drugs disparity across borders.

The question for traffic is; do you abandon the HOV lane, add more enforcement, increase the number of lanes, or convince more people to use transit or stay home?

So, the parallel to the economic disparity would be; Do we abandon the border? Or, do we add more fences, mine fields, border patrol? Or, do we work on Mexico's economy so there is less need to come to the US? Or, do we create a safer, more efficient vehicle for legal immigration?

[Taem]

In both cases I feel what we need to do, and what we want to do, is to have better control over the importation of both labor, and recreational drugs.

So, the parallel to the economic disparity would be; Do we abandon the border? Or, do we add more fences, mine fields, border patrol? Or, do we work on Mexico's economy so there is less need to come to the US? Or, do we create a safer, more efficient vehicle for legal immigration?

You put it so bluntly: Mexico /can't/ do anything on their own without American intervention. I'd say your the one with rose colored blinders on in case you didn't get what Ochci was implying; they have a choice to reform too. Your so focused on what America can do for Mexico instead of what Mexico can do for Mexico.

To me, it's like the parents who drill into their kids, "don't do drugs," only, they push too hard and the kids rebel and end up being junkies on the street. Occhi is right that there is a machismo sexist attitude prevalent in most, if not all of Mexico and it's politics. Might the Mexican American war been the catalyst for this attitude? I don't know, but Karma is a bitch. We can revise all the policies here we want in America, but in the end it still solves NOTHING when at the end of the day you still have a country that doesn't give a damn about you or your policies or issues.

So the real question is, how do you get Mexico to change Mexico? Because I have a feeling once their country's attitude changes, things will change for us here too, but without their willingness to alter their path, no matter what we do in our country, no matter how hard we try, no matter what laws we enact, amnesty we give out, or drugs we make legal, nothing will really change the problem of illegal immigration so long as Mexico is unwilling to help its own people become better citizens and improve it's economy so that its citizens don't feel they have to come to America just to make enough money get out of poverty in Mexico (44.2%). Nothing will really change until that happens.

[kandrathe]

You put it so bluntly: Mexico /can't/ do anything on their own without American intervention. I'd say your the one with rose colored blinders on in case you didn't get what Ochci was implying; they have a choice to reform too. Your so focused on what America can do for Mexico instead of what Mexico can do for Mexico.

Sure they can. They haven't. We can wring our hands at their failure to stop their cops from being druglords, or we can do something about it on our side of the border. Part of wielding power is also understanding your limits. I've spent many a year attempting to push a rope. It doesn't work.

To me, it's like the parents who drill into their kids, "don't do drugs," only, they push too hard and the kids rebel and end up being junkies on the street.

So you are saying we are pushing Mexico too hard to clean up their mess?

Occhi is right that there is a machismo sexist attitude prevalent in most, if not all of Mexico and it's politics. Might the Mexican American war been the catalyst for this attitude? I don't know, but Karma is a bitch. We can revise all the policies here we want in America, but in the end it still solves NOTHING when at the end of the day you still have a country that doesn't give a damn about you or your policies or issues.

Sure, and we put up with Kim Jong Il, Castro, Saddam, Khadafi, Al Asad, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure how we can take the moral high ground here when our own CIA uses drug smuggling money to fund their black ops. I don't know if PAN can continue to grow, and if PRI(Partido Revolucionario Institucional) were to lose control of the corrupt states, then maybe things can change. Our problems with Mexico are really limited to 4 states (of 32) -- they are corrupt, far from the capital, and happen to border the US.

So the real question is, how do you get Mexico to change Mexico?

And, you are accusing me of rose colored glasses! No, I'm drowning in cynicism. I just take it as a given that Mexico will remain a messed up 3rd world pain in our backside. Anything more, and its a bonus.

Because I have a feeling once their country's attitude changes, things will change for us here too, but without their willingness to alter their path, no matter what we do in our country, no matter how hard we try, no matter what laws we enact, amnesty we give out, or drugs we make legal, nothing will really change the problem of illegal immigration so long as Mexico is unwilling to help its own people become better citizens and improve it's economy so that its citizens don't feel they have to come to America just to make enough money get out of poverty in Mexico (44.2%). Nothing will really change until that happens.

Then we are f***ed.

[Taem]

To me, it's like the parents who drill into their kids, "don't do drugs," only, they push too hard and the kids rebel and end up being junkies on the street.

So you are saying we are pushing Mexico too hard to clean up their mess?

I'm saying that by telling them what to do in their country, they are inadvertently stepping back and doing nothing. Here comes another analogy, only because it happened to me last night: dog was thirsty after running in the park, tried to give dog water by "showing" him where it was, dog didn't want water because he felt like he was being forced and that desire to rebel was greater than his need to quench his thirst. All living organism have that desire; it's what causes us to strive, overcome adversity, and evolve, but in Mexico's case, it's not a good thing.

So the real question is, how do you get Mexico to change Mexico?

And, you are accusing me of rose colored glasses! No, I'm drowning in cynicism. I just take it as a given that Mexico will remain a messed up 3rd world pain in our backside. Anything more, and its a bonus.

We can wring our hands at their failure to stop their cops from being druglords, or we can do something about it on our side of the border.

I agree with you that America should do it's part - I'm not disputing this - but I don't believe anything will ever be completely resolved until Mexico does its part, and when I see posters saying, "we" should do "this" to solve the immigration problem, it makes me sad because only Mexico can really fix Mexico's issues. We can do our part here in America, sure, but how can you move such stubborn people to help themselves? You solve that riddle and you've just come up with an answer to the core issue of immigration from Mexico.

How many hundreds of thousands have we (the US) spent sending troops overseas to help teach poor Afghans and Iraqi's how to read and write, about fairness and democracy? Yet we spend millions, maybe even billions annually to stop the war on drugs which might better be spent sending in troops into Mexico to help the indigenous people learn to make a difference in their community. You don't know how many stories I hear from my employees about "where they come from" in Mexico where there is no electricity, no paved roads, no running water. I'd say a good 50% of our workers have about a grade-school education in Mexico, if they are lucky! I'm not exaggerating! There are *better* ways to help Mexico than to "shoot to kill", or even make drugs legal - although this one would make a big dent.

[kandrathe]

I'm saying that by telling them what to do in their country, they are inadvertently stepping back and doing nothing. Here comes another analogy, only because it happened to me last night: dog was thirsty after running in the park, tried to give dog water by "showing" him where it was, dog didn't want water because he felt like he was being forced and that desire to rebel was greater than his need to quench his thirst. All living organism have that desire; it's what causes us to strive, overcome adversity, and evolve, but in Mexico's case, it's not a good thing.

But, but, but... isn't this exactly what every nation does to every other nation? Be it other nations chastising the US, which we ignore in favor of our own foreign and domestic policies. Or, when the US chastises or pressures other nations, which they ignore in favor of their own foreign and domestic policies. The nature of sovereignty is that you get to do, as a nation, whatever you can get away with before some international coalition grows enough of a spine to impose sanctions, or the other nation(s) you PO'd strike back (if they feel they can not get stomped). It's not like we can actually grab the failed Mexican politicians, bring them to Juarez for a day, and figuratively rub their noses in their mess. Once in awhile, we will find some common ground with another nation where our foreign, or domestic agenda's align. Otherwise, in general, everyone focuses on their own foreign and domestic agendas, and they tell outsiders to take a flying leap (if they can be that tactless). Mostly nations politely (impotently) suggest to each other during a 10 course government funded extravaganza that they might want to look, if they possibly could, at that issue with which they are concerned. It often is forgotten before dessert.

I agree with you that America should do it's part - I'm not disputing this - but I don't believe anything will ever be completely resolved until Mexico does its part, and when I see posters saying, "we" should do "this" to solve the immigration problem, it makes me sad because only Mexico can really fix Mexico's issues. We can do our part here in America, sure, but how can you move such stubborn people to help themselves? You solve that riddle and you've just come up with an answer to the core issue of immigration from Mexico.

Mexico has no interest in keeping its most impoverished citizens in Mexico, why should they? And, for the illegal drug trade, consider that its economic impact ($40 billion / yr) is almost as large as PEMEX ($70 billion / yr). Do you really think Mexico wants to or can excise a tumor that big from its economy?

How many hundreds of thousands have we (the US) spent sending troops overseas to help teach poor Afghans and Iraqi's how to read and write, about fairness and democracy?

Not as much as we've spent teaching them how to better kill each other.

Yet we spend millions, maybe even billions annually to stop the war on drugs which might better be spent sending in troops into Mexico to help the indigenous people learn to make a difference in their community.

You don't send in troops to "make a difference", unless that difference is that you want those people dead. We need to stop looking at our military as the deliverer of Police, or Social Services. And... Beyond the objections of US citizen in spending our blood and treasure thusly, Mexico might object to us sending troops into their nation. We aren't really the UN nation building corps sent on our whim to any nation where the standard of living falls short of rural Alabama.

You stop the war on drugs, by decriminalizing drug use and by putting in place an enforceable set of tariffs and taxes. You allow legal growers, and importers who are willing to pay the tariffs and taxes access to the market, and make the costs of the illegal market untenable. You drive the illegal market out of business. Once you control the market, then you can influence the consumer behavior. For example, tobacco consumption (from 1965 to 2006 falling from 42% to 20.8% of adults in the US).

You don't know how many stories I hear from my employees about "where they come from" in Mexico where there is no electricity, no paved roads, no running water. I'd say a good 50% of our workers have about a grade-school education in Mexico, if they are lucky! I'm not exaggerating! There are *better* ways to help Mexico than to "shoot to kill", or even make drugs legal - although this one would make a big dent.

And, we care about Mexico over say Kenya due to its location? Yes, as individuals we care. How much should we expect our federal government to do in bringing social equity to the entire world (not just Mexico). Because, right after you solve the Mexico problem, you'll have the Brazil problem, or the Philippines problem, or China, or India. We should also note that we don't have the resources (i.e. we have a deficit/debt) to plan for our own peoples future, let alone take on that of the planet.

As for quality of life issues... Back when I was in grade school, my family had a little cabin up north in rural Minnesota 25 miles from a paved road. During the summer, my mother, sisters, and I would live up at the cabin. We didn't have electricity (oil lamps at night). We had a hand pump, with a well we put in ourselves. We had a garden, in which we grew much of our own food and we fished off the dock. We had an outhouse, which was a scary 100 yards walk from the cabin at 2am -- not to mention the spiders. And, since I was in grade school, I only had a grade school education. I don't remember suffering (except the walk to the outhouse -- and the spiders). Maybe a better measure of poverty would be having a dirt floor, or no access to fuel for cooking, or not enough nutritious food.

[Taem]

When I mentioned "troops", you could substitute that for diplomats, government sponsored missionaries, spies... I get your point however: if Mexico's problems are from the drug trade, remove drugs.. duh! But I'm saying that even before drugs was the epidemic it is now, we still had an illegal immigration issue in American from many nations, but particularly Mexico, due to the political state and poverty of Mexico, and curing drugs is only part of the answer.

And, we care about Mexico over say Kenya due to its location? Yes, as individuals we care. How much should we expect our federal government to do in bringing social equity to the entire world (not just Mexico). Because, right after you solve the Mexico problem, you'll have the Brazil problem, or the Philippines problem, or China, or India. We should also note that we don't have the resources (i.e. we have a deficit/debt) to plan for our own peoples future, let alone take on that of the planet.

Yes, absolutely! If your suggesting fixing the drug issue will solve both America's and Mexico's illegal immigration problem (the issue this topic is based on), then I'd say your wrong! Mexicans come here to get out of poverty, because they see it as the only way to make ends meat sometimes, working a minimum wage job that's triple (or greater) what they'd receive in Mexico. It's not even a choice for them, it's a necessity and I fail to see how fixing the drug-trade will give Mexican's more, better, and higher-paying jobs.

As for quality of life issues... Back when I was in grade school, my family had a little cabin up north in rural Minnesota 25 miles from a paved road. During the summer, my mother, sisters, and I would live up at the cabin. We didn't have electricity (oil lamps at night). We had a hand pump, with a well we put in ourselves. We had a garden, in which we grew much of our own food and we fished off the dock. We had an outhouse, which was a scary 100 yards walk from the cabin at 2am -- not to mention the spiders. And, since I was in grade school, I only had a grade school education. I don't remember suffering (except the walk to the outhouse -- and the spiders). Maybe a better measure of poverty would be having a dirt floor, or no access to fuel for cooking, or not enough nutritious food.

Perhaps in your case, but there is a proven correlation - one YOU have shown ME a few times in the past - between poverty and crime in today's age. Short on time here so I'll make this quick; are you now disputing that fact now? Anyways, I'm enjoying this conversation. I look forward to your response.

[kandrathe]

... however: if Mexico's problems are from the drug trade, remove drugs.. duh! But I'm saying that even before drugs was the epidemic it is now, we still had an illegal immigration issue in American from many nations, but particularly Mexico, due to the political state and poverty of Mexico, and curing drugs is only part of the answer.

They have the same root, but different branches one produces criminals, and the other refugees seeking a better life in greener pastures (like on the TV show Dallas). Mexico's main problem is that once in awhile, they can get it right and make a productive economy for awhile. The proverbial goose, laying the golden eggs -- which is promptly eaten by greedy and corrupt politicians.

Yes, absolutely! If your suggesting fixing the drug issue will solve both America's and Mexico's illegal immigration problem (the issue this topic is based on), then I'd say your wrong! Mexicans come here to get out of poverty, because they see it as the only way to make ends meet sometimes, working a minimum wage job that's triple (or greater) what they'd receive in Mexico. It's not even a choice for them, it's a necessity and I fail to see how fixing the drug-trade will give Mexican's more, better, and higher-paying jobs.

Perhaps in your case, but there is a proven correlation - one YOU have shown ME a few times in the past - between poverty and crime in today's age. Short on time here so I'll make this quick; are you now disputing that fact now? Anyways, I'm enjoying this conversation. I look forward to your response.

I'm not.

But, ask yourself why is there a difference between what occurs south of the border, and what happens north of the border. The demographics are essentially the same, the availability of drugs and guns is the same (in fact, I argue guns are more freely available throughout the US than in Mexico). Why is El Paso so much different than Juarez? Sure, we have some violence, and even some minor corruption of officials, but nothing like what happens south of the border. There is something very different in the very core of the two systems -- something that will take Mexico a very, very long time to change, if ever. Which is why I patently reject your notion that we need to wait for Mexico to change... I would even say that there are fatal flaws in the fundamental structures in the Mexican system, such as their legal system.

http://documentaryheaven.com/presumed-guilty/

[Taem]

But, ask yourself why is there a difference between what occurs south of the border, and what happens north of the border. The demographics are essentially the same, the availability of drugs and guns is the same (in fact, I argue guns are more freely available throughout the US than in Mexico). Why is El Paso so much different than Juarez? Sure, we have some violence, and even some minor corruption of officials, but nothing like what happens south of the border. There is something very different in the very core of the two systems -- something that will take Mexico a very, very long time to change, if ever. Which is why I patently reject your notion that we need to wait for Mexico to change...

I just had to throw this in: New Mexican President

He has also reassured the Mexican and the international press that he will not return to the old PRI tactics of making deals with the drug cartels in exchange for peace and payoffs, even as several governors and politicians of his party are under investigation for having ties with organized crime.

The PRI has quite a history on them: PRI

This article is not a Fox article, but originated with the AP: PRI Legacy

Basically, the PRI is the institution that help convince many Mexicans to leave Mexico to America seeking jobs. Not to mention their bloody and very corrupt campaign style left much to be desired. Now that they are back in power, I'm sure things can only get better from here on out, right <sarcasm poker face on>??? Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it.




Regarding the Following:

Which is why I patently reject your notion that we need to wait for Mexico to change...

I never said we should wait for Mexico to change, or at least, what I was trying to convey was that we don't need to only focus on our issues here in the US, but can help Mexico by not interfering with them in an confrontational manner - such as by telling them what they need to do to stop the war on drugs - and instead focus on teaching their citizens to be better people, the same way we are doing it in Afghanistan. That's all I was trying to say the whole time, but my circular logic took awhile for me to pinpoint that idea concisely until now. This isn't implying we can't do our part here in the states, nor is it implying we should wait for Mexico's Arab Spring to arrive; what it is implying is I feel we could best serve Mexico in a passive way by teaching them, using the same tactics we have been using overseas to teach Democracy and higher-education. By constantly criticizing their president and telling him how he should fight the war on drugs, well, I don't think it's doing anything but pissing the Mexicans off - there are better ways than what we are doing /in/ Mexico currently. Sometimes to fix the present, you must focus on the future.

[Jester]

I never said we should wait for Mexico to change, or at least, what I was trying to convey was that we don't need to only focus on our issues here in the US, but can help Mexico by not interfering with them in an confrontational manner - such as by telling them what they need to do to stop the war on drugs - and instead focus on teaching their citizens to be better people, the same way we are doing it in Afghanistan.

Good luck with that. I think the response to "teaching their citizens to be better people" would be entertaining to watch.

Mexico is not Afghanistan, nor is it Syria. It is a country with serious issues, but they are surely not waiting for benevolent gringos to show them how the cool countries do things.

-Jester

[shoju]

I never said we should wait for Mexico to change, or at least, what I was trying to convey was that we don't need to only focus on our issues here in the US, but can help Mexico by not interfering with them in an confrontational manner - such as by telling them what they need to do to stop the war on drugs - and instead focus on teaching their citizens to be better people, the same way we are doing it in Afghanistan.

This is the type of thinking that kills me about our government. I love my country, I love my freedoms, but I also can admit that there are a lot of fundamentally broken parts of the process.

The idea, that our government wishes to impart "U R DOOIN IT RONG" signs on the rest of the world drives me bananas. At times, it is as if they don't look at history, culture, religion or the lack there of, when they decide they want too...... "help".

Things work the way they work in the US by and large because of the country's history, and it's people's history.

The same thing isn't going to work in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Egypt, or other places.

The culture is different. Their values are different. Even assuming that the general non oppressed populace of the world could agree that something isn't right, making changes, and trying to say "u shuld do it lak meh" isn't the answer.

As I'm growing older, I am more sad than anything at the "borg mentality" that I sometimes feel is generated by my fellow Americans and our Government.

oh man... I made a Star Trek reference. Someone shoot me.