Mexico Is Gonna Sue Us.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Then you know it has always been a problem and an issue.

Isn't that what I said?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The illegal immigration issue has grated on a lot of people for a very long time. So it's not surprising when it finally comes to the spotlight, so many people are eager to jump in with their long ignored opinion.

I've bitched about this for years, long before 9-11, but I found myself preaching to the choir. Everyone would nod in agreement then look at the floor and shuffle their feet, helplessly.
Now that it's reached the spotlight, the stifled have become vocal, seizing an opportunity they thought might never come.

[tw]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

but why dosn't the government in Mexico invest in itself? I think that is a big part of the problem.

As noted previously, lack of free trade would only be part of the problem. Mexico has a law that only Mexicans can invest in their oil industry - Pemex. This creates a serious shortage of investment money even for that industry. Oil industry cannot generate enough for investment because they need so much more. Even Mexico's oil industry needs foreign investment.

Government doing investment? Mexico must create jobs for millions. Government cannot (and should not) do that. Investment comes from free market investors. Mexico has a shortage of investment and a shortage of citizens creating new business such as exportable agriculture products.

UT cites what appears to be major investments on Mexico's US border. What looks like major investment on Mexico's border is trivial compared to what Mexico needs to create a million new jobs.

Mexico needs capital - investment - job creation. Shortage of investment (due to other factors including US laws) is but another reason why Jose Mexicana must take a least desirable path - illegally immigrate into the US for employment.

What looks like major investment - what really are the numbers? One number that is obvious - Mexico has no labor shortage even though millions of workers leave for work. Jose Mexicana needs jobs - not blame.

That is the difference from what so many have posted here. Some blind nonsense about enforcing laws does not solve anything but an ego itch. Major economic problems exist. Major and obvious. Anyone who thinks these people flock to America only for an easy life are lying to themselves or worshipping Rush Limbaugh. Many are in denial. Therefore this problem will only fester. Big walls and armed troops will never cure a problem by attacking symptoms. Massive illegal immigration and poverty are only symptoms of ignored and denied economic problems. Problems that truly free markets have a bad habit of curing. Problems that could not exist (on this scale), in part, if NAFTA was really a free market trading zone as believed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I think tw and I have extremely divergent views on the nature of and proper purpose for government.

How is (why, where, or what is) that so?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Isn't that what I said? I've bitched about this for years, long before 9-11, but I found myself preaching to the choir. Everyone would nod in agreement then look at the floor and shuffle their feet, helplessly.
Now that it's reached the spotlight, the stifled have become vocal, seizing an opportunity they thought might never come.

Nope... It is not what you said, you stated the opposite. I made the statement that I made in response to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I've crossed the Canadian border many, many times. Never a problem going in, always a problem coming back.
I want all the illegal Nigerians out of MA so I guess I'm racist.

The illegal immigration issue has grated on a lot of people for a very long time. So it's not surprising when it finally comes to the spotlight, so many people are eager to jump in with their long ignored opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitsune
Could have fooled me. The sudden demand for new laws that comes from the American public seems to be based entirely on a newly fueled passion for a problem that has existed for years but only recently hyped up by distraction-oriented politics..

If the Mexican/Southern American Nations want a better life they need to take their nations back for themselves and make them worth staying in, period... not act like cowards and leave, going to another country for a quick cash-grab.
Imagine what the US would be like now if we had done that during the depression.
It smacks of cowardice to me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Take your meds and read what I wrote again. Not what Kitsune wrote Just what I wrote. Where do I say it's not a problem?

[Shocker]

Ok, well there are just a few issues I would like to raise about tw's posts. It seems to me that in many of his posts, he raises the same issues or arguements in order to support his position. Tariffs, quotas, free trade, etc...

One that stuck out to me has been his "burgernomics", big mac index, and the economic concept known as "Purchasing Power Parity". For those who are unfamiliar with this, it is defined as "is an estimate of the exchange rate required to equalize the purchasing power of different currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes, most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic products (GDP) using market exchange rates does not accurately measure differences in income and consumption."

tw assumes that, given you may buy a big mac in Mexico for $2.66 compared to $3.15 in the U.S., then Mexico would naturally be a superior place for companies to invest were it not for U.S. barriers to free trade. To use this as an example though, of why illegal immigration exists is not appropriate however. There are more forces at work here which influence the PPP between given countries. Yes, trade barriers are a part of what cause disparity in the PPP, however much more goes into it which both complicates and moots his point. For example, could not a big mac cost more here simply because we Americans demand more of them? From the law of supply and demand, we can tell that as demand rises, so does the cost. Maybe Mexicans demand less so the price reflects that. Also it is easy to say that the sum of the parts (of the big mac) given PPP should be the same across borders, but what about those things considered "non-traded goods", such as the cost of the service and preparation of the food, as well as the productivity of the workers at any given McDonalds across the globe. It seems that tw only introduces these topics to confuse and try and support his position, but a firm understanding of the concept actually works against that. So, for a better understanding, here is a research report put together by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on just this topic. I recommend the part starting on page 6, titled "Why does PPP fail?" http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi...3/11/pakko.pdf

Now, he also refers much to GATT and the US failure to support it's side of NAFTA to promote free trade between the US and Mexico. First, it is a slow and tedious process to create a Free Trade Area, or FTA, and while we may not be there completely with Mexico, we are definately making progress. Since 1995, the WTO has received notification of more than 100 FTA's, more than double that which were formed under GATT between 1947 to 1995. tw would like you to believe that because the US subsidizes our agriculture industry, then we are in an unfair advantage over Mexico, however almost all developed countries, including Mexico, provide some sort of support towards their farmers. You may want to check out thier "PROCAMPRO" program, which is the only program in the region which provides direct cash to their farmers. Also, as of 2003, nearly 900,000 jobs have left the United States to either Mexico or Canada as a direct result of NAFTA. While it is true that NAFTA has created jobs in the US, the net effect is negative, namely because what NAFTA has done is do away with most of the barriers to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico. You can read all about it here:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147

And for anyone who thinks I'm just bullshitting to prove a point against tw, then here is the other sourse I used, primarily starting at page 9:
http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf


Sorry for the long post, but it is something that I felt that needed to be said.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shocker

One that stuck out to me has been his "burgernomics", big mac index, and the economic concept known as "Purchasing Power Parity". ... There are more forces at work here which influence the PPP between given countries. Yes, trade barriers are a part of what cause disparity in the PPP, however much more goes into it which both complicates and moots his point.

From the first paper:

The attractive feature of the Big Mac as an indicator of PPP is its uniform composition. With few exceptions, the component ingredients of the Big Mac are the same everywhere around the globe.

That eliminates a supposition that different countries demand major differences from Big Mac. Minor differences can account for a $3.15 verses $2.66 disparity? Of course not. That difference is so great as to be explained by factors that distort free markets.

Figure 1 demonstrates a correlation between the Big Mac index and the Penn World Table (PWT) that measures same PPP using a larger data set. PWT also demonstrates Purchasing Power Parity in Mexico and other Central / South American nations is ever worse than The Economist suggests. Whereas 2000 data using Big Mac says difference is 88% (84% in 2006), PWT says disparity is worse - 61%. If we replace the "Big Mac" index with PWT, then reasons for illegal immigration are more obvious. Let's stay on topic. Topic is not minor variences in how PPP is measured. Topic is that PPP also explains illegal immigration.

The paper does demonstrate a Big Mac index will be less accurate. Of course and obvious. A Burgernomic data set is smaller - only one product. But still a Big Mac index agrees with the PWT. Trivial variations of $0.11 and 7% are not relevant to the topic: illegal immigration. PWT says economics disparities that would create illegal immigration are even worse. Data from Pakko and Pollard only support points made in this discussion that economic disparities exist where NAFTA should have eliminated them.

Such wide disparities would exist when external factors distort markets. Pakko and Pollard demonstrate why 7% and 14% differences could exist between "Big Mac" and PWT. But PWT cites a 35% difference between Mexico and US whereas "Big Mac" only claims 20%. PWT confirms price disparities so great as to only be explained by market factors not found in free markets. After a decade plus, we still don't have market parity? This is a same problem that caused virtually every nation to storm out of Cancun in anger and disgust.

Instead of aruging over micro difference in how PPP is measured, why not address the topic - illegal immigration?

BTW it does not matter is Mexico also applied price supports to their agriculture. No other nation so subsidizes agriculture so much by percentage or by dollar amount. No other nation in this discussion even comes close to what the US does to dump agriculture products onto other nation markets and to restrict agriculture trade. How much tariff do we put on ethanol? 54%. That is free trade? But again, this is why virtually the entire world walked out of Cancun, in anger, three days early. Where else has such a mass walkout ever happened?

A paper from Robert E. Scott says NAFTA has moved almost 1 million jobs to Mexico. Good. That means another 1 million that need not immigrate illegally AND that are not ready to join subversive activities. But then if Scott's data were relevant, then why are so many coming to an America that has lost so many jobs? Why does America need millions of illegal immigrants to do jobs that Scott's data says does not exist?

There is this well proven economic trend that contradicts Scott's paper. How do you make more jobs? Each company does same with less people every year. That job loss means more jobs in the economy. Scott's logic pretends that economic trend does not exist.

Yes these are good peer review papers. Pakko and Pollard suggest economics disparity is even worse - thereby suggesting that illegal immigration is due to even worse economics disparities that should not exist with NAFTA. Scott's paper claims job loses in an economy that has not seen job losses. Scott's paper suggests free trade would actually lower illegal immigration by some 800,000 jobs. IOW Scott suggests that without NAFTA, then illegal immigration would be even worse.

Finally Shocker, why does illegal immigration exist? Why is it so necessary? With so much economic data, why do you not answer the question? Why do you instead argue over how PPP is measured? Why do you ignore a fundamental fact - virtually then entire world walked out of Cancun in anger and disgust blaming only two nations who refuse to be free traders - US and France?

We have an illegal immigration problem created, in part, because America has so changed - is not the free trade advocate it once was. Why does virtually then entire world walk out of Cancun three days early complaining speicifcally about US undermining free trade? We give the airlines $8billion without string attached and call that free trade? We put up tariffs of up to 400% to protect some of the world's worst steel manufacturers - and call that free trade? We put 54% tariffs on ethanol when we want to become less dependant on oil from unstable regions? We force Canada to put tariffs on their own lumber exports - when NAFTA is about trade without tariffs. Is that because we want to promote free trade? We apply corporate welfare to sugar, cotton, corn, and so many other agricultural products thereby making it impossible for other countries to create jobs in those industries. Those illegal trade distortions mean more immigrants must come illegally for jobs created in the US by trade restrictions.

Shocker - why do you ignore Cancun and the threatened collapse of the Doha round? Why do you argue minutia on how PPP is measured rather than address illegal immigration? The question is simple: "Why does massive illegal immigration exists and why is it so necessary?"

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I think tw and I have extremely divergent views on the nature of and proper purpose for government.

How is (why, where, or what is) that so?

[Tonchi]

:sigh: Time to speak up as the one person here who lives knee-deep and shoulder to shoulder with illegal immigrants every day of her life, talks to them constantly, knows their families, watches the Hispanic newscasts and reads the editorials out of Mexico every day. You can talk about Economics and market dynamics all you want, but what it REALLY boils down to is that every company, every farm, every bank, every media outlet, every industry and every hiring process is under the control of "the 23 Families". Not the Mafia concept, it's an oligarchy. Those 23 Families (a term explained to me by one of the Longorias, one of the more powerful units of this oligarchy) collect all the money in Mexico. They make W's version of trickle-down economics look like grade school. They set all the prices, determine the wages and who will be hired, collect all the money, and control all the ecomony as far as what is available for distribution. They own practically all the politicians, directly or indirectly, so no laws will every be passed concerning monopolies or unfair practices. They have also instigated a policy which forbids the hiring of citizens who are of other racial or national groups, even though they are born in Mexico or have received citizenship; i.e., a Mexican-Korean citizen will not be able to get a job as a policeman or firefighter, and he may not run for public office. I find this situation particularly odious because Señor SLIM, head of one of the Families, is a Lebanese immigrant; he now owns the entire communications industry of Mexico (every phone and cell phone and internet connection pays into his bank account) and most of the department stores. THIS is why there is such a horrible crisis in Mexico and why everybody is running for the border. Everything existing in the country is no longer available to 95% of the population on a legal basis. What is the only other option? Revolution. Either that or miraculously managing a change through the ballot box even though the elections are as rigged as everything else is. That is why Vicente Fox has failed his country so monumentally. He was claiming his administration could fix all that, but nothing whatever has changed as far as most Mexicans can see. We can also thank Fox for encouraging them all to leave and move up here, and he just got through making speeches here about how we have to lighten up on our immigration stance. Right now, money earned in the US and sent to relatives back in Mexico is the only thing preventing a total collapse of the Mexican economy, it is their largest source of disposable income even though it originates outside their borders and no taxes on this payroll are paid to the Mexican treasury. It's obvious why Fox does not want that flow to stop. He will not be getting anything like it from the people/families who are REALLY ruling Mexico.

[tw]

UT previously cited a good paper entitled Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States. Symptoms of the malaise started with

Traditional indicators of noncompetitive performance still apply: corruption (the most seductive activity humans can consummate while clothed); ...

After having tried most everything in Africa with little success, the World Bank and IMF are slowly changing their opinions. Corruption is a reason for the malaise; not just a symptom. The '23 Families' example would be just another reason for inequity between Mexican and US economies. Inequities that are also suggested by a PPP disparity.

Listed as one reason for illegal immigration is US economic policies that stifle overseas job creation - 'corporate welfare' that has increased with the George Jr administration. Corruption ('23 families') would be another example. IOW instead of blaming and prosecuting Jose Mexicana (the victim), and instead of big fences and military operations; we should be identifying and addressing reasons for illegal immigration.

Curing symptoms never solves problems. Curing symptoms is the solution advocated in Washington and was also advocated by many posters earlier in this discussion.

Kudos to Tonchi. Posted is what others did not: identify another reason for an illegal immigration problem. A major difference between posts that blame Jose Mexicana as a problem; rather than view Jose Mexicana as the victim.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Kudos to Tonchi. Posted is what others did not: identify another reason for an illegal immigration problem. A major difference between posts that blame Jose Mexicana as a problem; rather than view Jose Mexicana as the victim.

Oh, OK...I get it. When I refer to the corrupt Mexican government, I'm not identifying a reason, I'm "blaming Jose Mexicana". When someone else referrs to the corrupt Mexican government, citing details, they're being insightful and courageous.

Dunno about you, tw, but I don't have to cite which capo a footpad is working for to know when I'm being mugged. Of course the illegals are victims individually are victims as well as street-0level criminals. But collectively--illegals and their south of the border exploiters-- it's their country.

The greedy capitalists north of the border are making a smaller profit exploiting the illegals they hire at the expense of legal workers. But, as Tonchi points out, the big winners aren't in the US. Follow the money...about $20 billion last year, as far as we can tell.

[Tonchi]

TW, you're driving me up the wall by writing Jose MEXICANA. Mexicana is an airline. Mexicano is what a male from the country of Mexico is called. So please write José Mexicano and María Mexicana from now on. Oh, and ICYC, the Mexicans themselves call these designated representative names "Fulano(a)" (or "Fulano de Tal" when they want to be fancy)

[MaggieL]

Well, you don't have to actually know anything about a culture you are adopting as an Official Victim. You just use them as long as is politically expediant, and then discard them...as the labor movement, blacks and gays have already discovered. Illegal aliens will eventually discover this too if the liberals have their way.

"If we make you citizens through amnesty you'll vote for us, right?"

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You just use them as long as is politically expediant, and then discard them...as the labor movement, blacks and gays have already discovered.

Well, they may discover that if the conservatives ever stop attacking long enough for the liberals to be able to discard them. I doubt we'll ever know.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, they may discover that if the conservatives ever stop attacking long enough for the liberals to be able to discard them.

What a joke....being under attack from conservatives never prevented liberals from discarding an Official Victim Group when it was convenient. In fact it's usually used as the excuse....remeber "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Not to mention DOMA.

That's one big problem with collectivism...once you're "collected" you're unecessary.