Off duty police killed by invader
 

The man accused of being drunk behind the wheel of a sports car that killed a Flint police officer was arraigned Tuesday on charges that included second-degree murder.

Ramon Felix Pineda stood mute in 52-2 District Court before Judge Kelley Kostin, who denied bond based on the severity of the charges and his status as an illegal resident of the United States. "I don't find any comfort the bond would give Mr. Pineda the conviction to show in court," Kostin said.

link

What's the definition of a troll?

Hit-and-run posting? Same topic over and over and over? Intentional inflammatoriness? Starting threads but never responding?

From the same article -
*my bold for emphasis*

The charges carry a life sentence - so we get to "let 'em all in" and then clog our prison system.. .. .. and waste tax dollars on them too. Thats a great idea! I'd rather let the people who have something to offer in and keep out those who wish to abuse our wonderful country.

Yeah, cause soooo many of those illegal immigrants are murderers rapists, or cop-killers right?

An unfortunately high number, yes, Dana.

Based on percentages, Dana? I have no idea, do you? As far as simple numbers are concerned, yes the number is very high - to me even one is too many. Although they were mostly here legally, look what a dozen or so did on 9/11. Read the reports from the border states where an inordinately high number of crimes are repeatedly committed by ILLEGALS. Many of them simply vanish back across the border to avoid prosecution, then return to do it again.

Let us be in control of our own borders - why is that too much to ask?

Hmm. If there were mostly here legally, I'm not sure this example serves any purpose in this argument :eyebrow:

I'm here legally. Do I get lumped in with the illegals for the sake of example too? Or only if I break the law?

Depends, do you have evil intent and malice aforethought? Not learning to fly but not land, are you?

I have quite brown skin....

Try a higher factor sun screen. Other than that, we don't care, just so long as you've got one of those pink IDs. (or formerly pink. I think they changed the color of the green cards recently).

It's a dellightful shade of cream. With lots of fancy holograms and stuff. And a picture of a convict pretending to be me on the front.

Sorry as you were, I don't think troll_troll was after this information [/hijack]

And in the "turn the tables" department...http://www.officer.com/online/articl...ion=1&id=37570

The example displayed what that a very small number can do a whole lot of damage if they want. My point is to control our borders and then let in as many or as few as is best for our country as a whole.

Flint has his own police force?

Holy crap!

Does that mean RK is now a troll? 2/3 ain't bad:p

I dont see why that wouldnt be agreeable to everyone. I have no problem with immigration, but I was pretty pissed when my truck was hit by someone who was here illegally and my rates went way up when my company had to pay for it (some time ago). I realize that it seems conceited to worry about my insurance rates when that person would end up being deported, but it's a small example of a big problem.

Maybe Mexico should start doing something that would make their people not want to run north

If you were a Mexican outlaw, and the police were looking for you, where would you go?
That's why we're getting so many criminals sneaking in, along with the people just looking for work. But if you say, it's a bad law so ignore it, that's what happens.

Mexico does not create the problem. Problem is created by the same people who caused the first ever failed international trade conference. The Doha Round completely collapsed. The entire world walked out of Cancun three days early do to two nations who so demonstrated contempt for free trade - United States and France.

US provides corporate welfare to cotton, soybeans, corn, sugar, and a long list of other crops. Newest corporate welfare is ethanol. We charge $0.50 for every gallon of imported ethanol. That is a nation who beleives in free trade?

Most of these crops are better grown in other nations such as Mexico. Ethanol that acutally takes less energy to make is in Brazil. Nations that could actually employ their own citizens if, for example, the US did not subsidize 50% of all sugar.

Why do fruit drinks now have so much sugar and no fruit? Again, with sugar paid for by the US government, why would they want to provide a drink that was healthy? Profits are now so high selling corn syrup as Apple Juice. Governement pays for that corn syrup. Government also makes it difficult for Jose to start a farm growing corn or making corn syrup.

Just one example of why American desperately needs so many illegal immigrants and why Jose cannot start in business in Mexico doing what Mexico could do better.

Meanwhile, this is all too complex for most Americans. Easier is to blame all problems on dirty dumb Mexicans. Just another emotion based in racism and 'knowledge without first learning the facts'.

Doha has failed - directly traceable to anti-free trading nations called United States and France.

If you were a US outlaw and the police were looking for you, where would you go?

Australia.

I, Jimi, and every other criminal in US pop culture would flee to Mexico.
Where do aussie criminals go ali?


Jimi Hendrix - Hey Joe

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand
Hey Joe, I said where you goin' with that gun in your hand

I'm going down to shoot my old lady
You know, I've caught her messin' around with another man
I'm going down to shoot my old lady
You know, I've caught her messin' around with another man
And that ain't too cool

Hey Joe, I've heard you shot your woman down,
shot her down, now
I said I've heard you shot your old lady down,
You shot her down to the ground

Yes I did, I shot her
You know, I caught her messin' round, messin' round town
Yes I did, I shot her
You know, I caught my old lady messin' around town
And I gave her the gun
I SHOT HER!

Hey Joe, alright
Shoot her one more time, baby

Hey Joe, said now
Where you gonna run to now?
Where you gonna run to?
Hey Joe, I said where you gonna run to now?
Where you, where you gonna go?
Well, dig it

I'm goin' way down south,
Way down to Mexico way
Alright!
I'm goin' way down south,
Way down where I can be free
Ain't no one gonna find me

Ain't no hangman gonna,
He ain't gonna put a rope around me
You better believe it right now
I gotta go now
Hey Joe, you better run on down
Good by everybody
Hey Joe, uhh
Run on down

Why can't Jose start a business, growing whatever, for Mexicans?
That's not a nice thing to say about them.I thought NAFTA was supposed to be the be all/end all, for fixing Mexico's problems.

Easier for you to blame the US - that seems to be your solution to everything. Lets stop all subsidies then - is that your solution?? We can then offer the money to mexico while our own farmers become unprofitable. Perhaps what you are saying is beyond me or just not entirely correct - I don't know which. This is dangerous, but here goes, care to elaborate?
BTW You didn't use "mental midget" nor "traceable to top management" once - I'm proud of ya.

Where do Aussie criminals go? Usually to prison if they get caught. Otherwise, they seem to have a penchant for Europe these days. Spain in particular. There's not really any one particular country that has been glamourized as 'the' place to go if you're trying to avoid the law though.

I suppose maybe they end up in the outback waiting to lure unsuspecting english tourists to their lair.

Isn't the criminal's nationality irrelevant?

Probably...but there have been a couple of cases in the outback involving english tourists over the last decade or so. i'm thinking maybe they're the victim of choice.

By tw's logic, wouldn't we be causing massive economic and social collapse in other countries as well? Wait, we must also be responsible for the massive incompetency of the Mexican government and their unwillingness to perform basic governmental regulation of the economy. And after all, we're their only hope because there's no way Mexicans can buy products made in Mexico!

How does Jose grow sugar when American government subsidies for sugar make sugar prices less than what it costs Jose. Even American sugar growers would be bankrupt if trying to sell at those prices without government subsidizes. And that was the entire complaint against both US and France in the Doha round. A complaint so loud that most all countries in the world walked out of Cancun three days early.

NAFTA was supposed to open markets. And then Americans kept putting restrictions on free trade such as requiring goods be transferred to American trucks at the border. And then we restricted all Canadian lumber for years because it was selling at better prices. Well, yes. There are some reasons for anti-NAFTA restrictions. But we have this fact. Mexicans must come here to work for farmers. Those same agricultural products that could just as easily be grown in Mexico. But Mexican farmers cannot compete due to American corporate welfare that makes it impossible for other nations to sell competitively.

What is the price of your orange juice? What was it only two years ago? That gallon of orange juice selling for $6 could have been selling again for only $4 IF we permit Brazil to export their oranges. Where is this free trade? Where would so many immigrants go for jobs? Brazil. More illegal immigration solved by eliminating corporate welfare and other anti-free trade laws - by creating free markets.

Obviouisly not. It you think that, then you did not see what is happening. However, notice the disruption of Mexican tortilla prices when Americans started spending money on ethanol - and suddenly shortages of American corn appeared in Mexico. Why do Mexicans not grow their own corn? They cannot. Mexican grown corn does not get subsidized by the American government. They import American corn.

Do we make life harder for some by restricting free trade? Are you denying what most all nations walked out of Cancun three days early? They made that point bluntly years ago. Are you denying why the only GAAT trade round has collapsed? Or are you denying this only because you never heard it?

So why hasn't the Mexican government put tariffs on American goods to make their own industry more profitable within the domestic market? :eyebrow:

Why would they want to start a trade war? This is working for Mexico. Sending so many workers to work in Mexico or the US - Mexico prospers either way. Why do American farmers not move operation to Mexico where they could grow the same crops with less labor costs? Because they would not get those massive American corporate welfare payments.

The question here is why do so many Mexicans must come to America to work? The problem is so easy to fix. Stop subsidizing an agriculture industry because it has so much Congressional influence (Archer Daniels Midland). Then crops would be grown where crops are best grown and where labor is plentiful and hard working. Anti-free trade by United States and France makes that difficult.

Perchance are you denying massive corporate welfare to big corn, big sugar, big cotton, etc? Do you love it when the American government subsidizes all these industries? Why? Why would you support corporate welfare? Why do you approve of industries that exist and must import 1.8 million illegal immigrants only because of foolish laws?

Nice tactic. Even in 8th grade debate class we understood that "if you don't know the answer then I won't tell you" was bullshit. So everyone walked out of the conference, I don't even need to address that because you haven't used to to say anything directly relevant to Mexico's situation.

You obviously have never taken economics at any reasonable level tw, or you've selectively forgotten rules. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", 'after this, therefore because of this'. Econ 101 tw, one of the classic errors in economic reasoning. You rant about American businesses and cite an example of other countries getting angry, yet you never drew a line from that conference directly to the situation in Mexico.

By your logic we should be in total economic collapse due to competition from countries like China that use strict wage control and other tactics that are illegal here to keep their prices below our operating costs.

Dear god, I can just imagine the spittle on your screen after that little gem.

"Perchance are you denying massive conspiracy to attack America? Do you love it when the Arab nations subsidize all these terrorist training camps? Why? Why would you support people who want to kill Americans? Why do you approve of leaving ourselves vulnerable to future attacks only because of foolish laws?"

I knew I recognized that style of debate from somewhere!

I've asked you this before, and so far you've completely ignored me: do you believe that it is a good idea for all of our food production to take place outside of the country? Do you not see how that could put us in a very precarious position the moment those particular countries decide they are not our allies anymore?

Why do you see enemies everywhere? For example, the entire lemon crop was lost in California (according to reports). Did you notice how much of our fruits come from Chile - and have for decades? Yes there are problems with some sources. But, for example, American chickens are too dirty for China standards. Don't think for one minute that America has some market to purity. And don't believe all these myths that crops from outside America are at risk. Do you avoid bananas because you fear?

Getting food from numerous nations only puts us in a precarious position when we see enemies lurking everywhere and when we hate free trade.

Let's see. Titanium is essential now in paints. Russia is the world leaders in titanium production. Therefore the American paint industry is at risk? Nonsense. Interdependence among nations is essential to world stability.

Its a good thing only American spinache is trying to kill people. Otherwise we might start threatening other nations as evil. Its a good thing only American food processing factories spread listeria in KFC and Taco Bells for years. After all, American food is so safe.

Its not a tactic. Posted are the facts. So why do you see anything but those facts? If you think otherwise, then where are your numbers?

Defined is a condition that other nations have called unfair. They wants their fair share of the pie as promised by free trade. How does the world self destruct only because the US perverts free trade using corporate welfare? The only place that exists is in a fantasy. Nothing posted here even implies that. Where are the millions committing suicide in the streets because America subverts free agricultural trade? These events only occur when you expolate things I never said nor even implied.

Meanwhile I still don't see you admitting or denying a single fundamental fact. Why do you ignore basic fact to try and start a pissing war? So the world did not walk of Cancun three days early because US and France refused to open agriculture to free trade? You are the one challenged to admit or deny that fact. Why so much silence on fundamental facts? Why instead do you now want to start a pissing war.

Or why do you now see a worldwide conspiracy? Explained is why America does not have enough illegal immigrants. Why do you forget the topic? I explained a good reason why we need more illegal immigrants. You will not even discuss Cancun? Why do you completely ignore massive government corporate welfare?

You tell me. Why did the world walk out of Cancun blaming two nations for subverting free trade. Notice my questions stay on topic. Why do so many American businesses need illegal immigrants? If you don't like the reasons why, then pray tell us.

Tw hasn't taken into account Mexico's near-complete lack of a middle class. Wouldn't suit his argument, I suppose, nor his instincts.

And why France in particular when the action seems to be general across the E.U., I do not know. Their hugest subsidy is over 9B Euros for beef production. Sugar's way down the list.

I'm right in the middle of the California lemon crop. It took damage, but it was not totally destroyed in the late freeze. It's still a solid number three moneymaker in this county, after strawberries and nursery stock and in spite of very tough Chilean competition.

[sidebar] What happens when you start with an incorrect ASSumption and go off on it repeatedly - then are proven incorrect or challenged on your initial ASSumption only to argue some point derrived from that originally incorrect ASSumption? I'm just askin cuz I think I've been seein it and awful lot lately. [sidebar]

Everything marked in red has nothing to do with what I said. The relative safety or cleanliness of American food is completely irrelevant, and people will not starve without paint.

The rest of your points are reasonable. Yes, interdependence is good, and no, we cannot operate as if every country is going to suddenly cut off our food supply just for spite. But the fact is we already do have a large degree of imported food. As you pointed out, much of our fruit comes from South America, up to almost 100% of it in the winter. But if we eliminated all farm subsidies, then that number would basically go up to 100% of all of our food, all of the time. Being entirely dependent on other countries for our food is not a good tactical position to be in. The lemon crop in California failed, so we had the Chilean crop to back it up. But what happens when the Chilean crop fails, and we have no more California lemon orchards because we drove them out of business? No lemons at all for anyone. Diversification of food sources is important even if it is not the most economically beneficial in the short term.

I'm all for free trade and eliminated subsidies--for every industry except food.

Wait a second....one step back....

Ducky is back??

tw, you need a serious course in proper argument style and common fallacies. I suggest you start with A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston.

No, that's a shitty step back. No one cares. We're discussing something else now. Get over it.

Titanium means we must resort to leaded paint again. The point was a comparison to food and all other human life necessary products. Nobody can corner the market on food. But titanium comes from too few places and is required for American essential materials. Lead is no longer acceptable. If you worry about "a good tactical position", then worry far more about titanium. Nobody can corner the market in food.

Completely bogus is that American agriculture will disappear - a 100% collapse - without corporate welfare. I routinely tire of those fear tactics from that (and other) industries. We protected the American tire industry for so long that the entire industry became anti-American. As a result, most of the American tire industry had to be sold to foreigners.

Remove the welfare and agriculture still produces more that enough to feed America. And exports should not be subsidized by American taxpayers. Suddenly without that corporate welfare, then America is richer, more productive, still produces more than enough food, and all those other countries also produce food so that America has many new sources should we need them.

History shows that deregulation and free markets result in increased industry productivity and greater market diversity. You have assumed that without corporate welfare, then all agriculture will go bankrupt. Why do American farmers who are productive need corporate welfare? They don't. And American agriculture still provides more than enough to meet domestic needs. Another dirty little secret is who prospers most from that corporate welfare - and it's not the farmers.

Review who gets that welfare - ie Archer Daniels Midland. IOW if we eliminated corporate welfare, then ADM who is one of the largest purchasers of Congressman would have to make profits from innovating - not buying government favors. BTW, where is most of the cost in food? Almost nothing goes to the farmer - maybe about one slice in a loaf of bread. The majority of those bread slices goes to the middle men - ADM, et al. Who most prospers from corporate welfare - both from export subsidizes and from government price supports that increase food costs to the consumer. That's called corporate welfare. It mostly goes to the middle men.

It is ridiculous to assume American agriculture would fail without corporate welfare. Without that welfare, the nation's wealth would increase by not subsidizing exports. The industry would do just fine. And those illegal immigrants suddenly find agricultural jobs in their own countries.

Most worry about imported foods only because we cannot trust THEIR crops. China wheat glutton is a latest example of what people fear most and therefore what I assumed you were posting. Since nobody can corner the market on food, then I never even considered that is what you meant. Since removing government subsidies does not mean loss of domestic agriculture, then I never assumed you would even consider that impossible probability. Remove all government subsidizes and America still harvests 100% of our domestically produced foods - 0% dependent on foreign sources for those foods.

What happens when the Chilean lemon crop fails? American lemon crop that is also productive without corporate welfare does quite nicely. If the American crop also fails, then suddenly lemons from Africa arrive. Why? Because as soon as American stops subsidizing exports with government money, then suddenly African nations also join the lemon industry. A diversity of sources then increases because we stopped silly corporate welfare - we stopped subsidizing exports mostly to enrich the middle men such as ADM - we stop needing so many illegal immigrants - and those immigrants find agricultural jobs at home.

Returning to the original point. We need more illegal immigrants with so much corporate welfare subsidizing exported foods. Our nation would be richer, would still produce more than sufficient food domestically, AND other nations would also become food producers - if we eliminate corporate welfare to the middle men. Suddenly we don't need so many illegal immigrants, they have jobs at home, AND we then have far more sources for our food requirements. In the case of fruit, we need not be so dependent only on Chile. Africa and the Middle East are other excellent food sources if they were permitted by free markets to be competitive.

That fear of free markets was the reason for complete and angry collapse of the Doha Round of GAAT. The entire world walked out three days early because France and the United States so fear free market economics in agriculture. France, BTW, is represented by the EU. But it is quite obvious who sits right beside the EU representative constantly - a Frenchman.

Which is it? Either the agriculture stays here, or it moves to Mexico. If you want to argue that some but not all of it would fail, fine, but your desired outcome here is for some of it to fail.

Nobody can corner the market on food, but a single country can certainly allow itself to be excluded from the industry.

How can you possibly back this up? How do you know how many domestic farms will go bankrupt when faced with farms using cheaper labor in Mexico? I would love to believe that fierce competition would somehow encourage innovation and leave our farms more productive than they are now, but I think the reality is simply that the majority of them would shut down.

Stop thinking in extremes. There is no ‘black or white’ answer. All farmers don't stay or move as your post asks. The obvious answer is 'both'. Agriculture both stays and goes - as I had posted previously. There was no contradiction. That post all but begged you to think farther - discover how 'both' are the correct answer.

Just as in the titanium example - if you think the logic is irrelevant or flawed, then more likely there are underlying facts that you have overlooked. BTW, every 'red' sentence was relevant. But it implied what you did and did not grasp - that my post was woefully too short.

Some farming will expand elsewhere. Since we are not exporting crops with massive government subsidizes, then some unproductive farms will move, or be purchased by foreigners, or other changes that make America more productive. But those changes will be small. Again, where does most all corporate welfare go? It was posted previously - which is why those changes would be small.

As proven by history repeatedly, when corporate welfare is removed, the productive parts of that industry make that industry stronger, larger, more productive, and more profitable. But if corporate welfare gets too large and is applied too long, then the industry is destroyed - must be owned by foreigners or other solutions to save it.

You are also still confusing farmers with others - where most corporate welfare goes. Why do you assume ADM will go bankrupt without corporate welfare? And why do you assume an ADM that actually must compete in a free market rather than buy politicians is a bad thing? Why do you assume making ADM compete would harm farmers?

We saw same thing only a few years ago when George Jr protected anti-American big steel - and harmed a productive American industry - steel reprocessors. Did you assume both were the same industry as you have done with farming? Why?


Where is this "single country can certainly allow itself to be excluded from the industry"? Please, an example because I have no idea what you mean. No country excludes itself from an industry when the industry operates in free markets. But let's put this in the context of where this comes from. You claimed free markets would mean all American farming would end. Then you said without American farmers, America could be excluded from buying food on international markets. Well neither is reality separately or combined. Do you claim that the world can conspire to deny America food? That is sheer nonsense - not possible in a free market especially when the product is so fungible.

Notice how the Arab world with all region oil has denied israel oil.

I know many left and right extremists use such reasoning to promote fear. I certainly hope you have learned to ignore such nonsenical rationalizations. Free markets work - there is no exclusion.


Countries lose industries when industries are protected by corporate welfare. Why did America lose most of its tire industry? Because government protected that industry - all but banned all foreign tires for spin doctor reasons. American tire industry conspired to keep the radial tire out of America for 27 years - then conspired further to hide truths even using a Supreme Court ruling.

They kept the radial out because American wages are too high, yada yada yada? Nonsense. They kept the radial tire out because anti-Americans feared to innovate for 27 years. If tires that only lasted 10,000 miles suddenly lasted 40,000 miles, then profits will be lost making less tires, yada yada yada... Due to government protection, all major tire companies (except Goodyear) were lost. Was the country excluded from the tire industry? No. If anything, America excluded itself from the industry by using corporate welfare to protect a diseased industry. If free markets had fixed problems, then the thing that destroyed a tire industry would have been eliminated. But we protected the disease - and destroyed the industry.

Why was Chrysler saved? Government refused to save Chrysler. With bankruptcy looming, Chrysler was forced to fix the problem. Within four years and without any government money, Chrysler went from near bankruptcy to record profits. Threat of bankruptcy - free market forces - fixed Chrysler.

What saved NYC? When NYC went begging to the Federal government for protection, Gerald Ford said (according to the NY Post), "Drop Dead". As a result, NYC fixed its problems.

What does corporate welfare do? Applied too large and too long means foreigners may even have to buy it to save it. The nation is still not excluded from that industry. But protecting the unproductive only means bankruptcy does not eliminate the only problem and save workers jobs.

You have assumed classic myths that Americans cannot compete in free markets. It is a lie to say free markets would end all American farming. Archer Daniels Midland, et al would say that. Propaganda that is only true when Americans refuse to learn, refuse to innovate, are stifle by anti-innovation management, or become lazy due to corporate welfare. History of America is that every industry competes successfully and routinely when that industry must compete in a free market and when that industry therefore innovates.


A Wall Street Journal front page article demonstrated fallacies in your low wage assumptions. Quality Coil in CT looked at Mexican wages after NAFTA was approved. Mexicans would work for 1/5th wage. He moved operations to Mexico salivating over the profits proven by his spread sheets. Two years later, he was back in CT desperately trying to save his company; seeking his old employees. As is repeatedly demonstrated in Economic papers, the reason why wages were so much lower in Mexico were factors such as people and an infrastructure; those workers less than 1/5th as productive. Quality Coil needed workers in CT who were paid five times more money to become profitable again.

What you call fierce competition is simply normal everyday competition that routinely creates innovation. Tell me something about agriculture. What has so massively changed in agriculture in only ten years? A change so significant that the answer should be obvious. What in the past ten years is the biggest change in agriculture? Just another example of why American agriculture can easily compete and why the so rich and profitable middle men do not need government subsidies. What has changed?

C'mon man Are you serious? Can't you get your point across in 50 words or less - try not repeating yourself repeatedly. Geez

Yeah. I have to admit it, but even though I find quite a lot of what tw says interesting (in amongst the bizarre stuff are some real gems at times), but faced with a screen of tightly packed text I just swtch off. I can handle a bunch of text if what I am reading is a story (if one of you post a lengthy anecdote or something that utilises language stylishly) but when it's a technical argument of some kind I just switch off. It'd be different if it was on paper I suspect, but on the screen my eyes just glaze and I start skim reading for pertinent points.

That, my good man, is the funniest thing I've read all day.

You yourself have pointed out many times how there is no such thing as a television made in America anymore.

I know the whole competition-drives-innovation spiel. And I agree with it--for every industry except food. All of your examples from the auto industry and the paint industry are irrelevant, no matter how many times you repeat them. Unless you start to examine genetically-modified foods, which have not found much enthusiasm in the markets, there is not a lot of room left for innovation in agriculture. We've pretty much got it figured out. All that remains is to make the process cheaper through labor and transportation costs.

Then why is it you believe that ending farm subsidies will send all these Mexican agricultural workers back to Mexico, or in any way encourage them to stay there in the first place?

Clodfobble failed to grasp the statement. I drank coffee one night with a guy from the Labs who installed medium power transistors in RCA production plants after RCA Semiconductors refused to participate. Production made possible the first 'all solid state' television - XL-100. When the Semiconductor group realized their stupidity, they complained to RCA Corporate. Bottom line, the guy ended up suffering the wrath of corporate and was denied a raise that year. So you tell me why TVs are now made overseas where, for example, Akio Morita of Sony was an electrical engineer; not a business school graduate. Just one in a long list of examples for why America lost the television industry.

America was not excluded from the industry by other nations. Companies like Zenith and RCA replaced innovation with cost controls; then ran to government for protection. One legacy of that government protection is inferior technology in American HDTVs. The better technology is used everywhere in the world - but not in America where we implemented a technology to protect Zenith. Only exclusion of
America from the television industry was by American bean counter mentalities that stifled innovation by running to government for protection.

Every one of those examples completely applies also to agriculture. Same problems in other industries demonstrate why American agriculture might be unable to complete. What perverts the productivity of every American industry? Corporate welfare.

And then we add facts. Room for and future possible innovation in agriculture is massive. Whereas you somehow have assumed "not ... much enthusiasm in the markets" for genetically-modified foods, the reality is completely different.

The US and Canada grow the bulk of transgenic crops - 60 percent by area cultivated. That is no enthusiasm? Also enthusiastic for transgenic crops and trying to play catchup are Argentina, Brazil, India, and China.

Golden rice is perhaps the best-known transgenic crop developed specifically to meet the needs of undernourished people. Then along came Golden Rice 2 that increased the amount of beta-carotene by about 20 fold. All this being instituted by parts of the agricultural industry less dependent on corporate welfare (many phrases stolen from Scientific American of Sept 2007).

Meanwhile, innovators are researching even better genetic crops that become perennials. Therefore destructive deep till plowing can be eliminated. Another innovation that American farmers should be expected to pioneer. Just another example of why enthusiasm is rabid for genetically modified crops - in direct contradiction to popular spin and myths.

What are the profit increases due to transgenic crops? For cotton: 31% in Agentina. 12% in Mexico. 69% in India. 299% in S Africa. 340% in China. We have hardly begun to innovate in agriculture; in direct contradiction to myths that would also protect agriculture with coprorate welfare.

I don't. Again expolating in extremes. One problem is that American (and French) corporate welfare means Mexicans cannot grow those same crops in Mexico. For example, Mexicans are dependent on American corn for tortillas when that corn is best grown in Mexico by Mexicans - who then need not flee to America for jobs. Does that say all corn production would halt in America? Only if expolating in extremes. In reality, that means some production best performed in Mexico moves to Mexico. Labor stays in Mexico to become business owners. More corn is consumed when the undernourished have jobs and can afford many foodstuffs (including crops best grown in the US). Everyone prospers.

Why are crops not being grown where they are needed most, where they are grown best, and where the labor is available? (In part) because American and France so massively subsidized agriculture. So massive is that corporate welfare that the entire world walked out of Cancun three days early. So entrenched is that anti-free market attitude in US and France that the Doha Round will be the first international trade conference to ever fail.

Again, this does not eliminate all 1.8 million illegals. But we are so in denial as to even believe agriculture needs corporate welfare AND that little enthusiasm exists for genetically-modified foods. Same myths that also foolishly claim foreigners stole the television industry. Erroneous beliefs claim innovation is not possible in agriculture and spin myths about illegal immigration; rather than grasp the realities.

Best thing we can do is eliminate agricultural corporate welfare; make possible for Mexicans to competitively grow crops best grown in Mexico instead of the US.

This is simply a repost of your last novel - nothing has changed. You keep regurgitating the same thing. You are the one who is not grasping the reality.
Much of the difficulty that America faced and faces in many industries are wage differentials. Simply put, our workers make much more than other countries workers - what is the average compensation of a union worker versus that of a worker in China or Japan, or any other significant country for that matter? Please include all benefits like health, dental, vision, disability and life insurance as well as investments & retirement plans. Most, if not all of the "competing nations offer this to their employees. Our labor costs per unit produced is significantly higher and this drives many of those industries overseas. These examples have nothing to do with farm labor.