Amnesty In America

[Urbane Guerrilla]

None of the four answers provided are what I think of the matter.

I'm really not very interested in any of the provisions of this Act. It does nothing to address the root cause of the problem: that other nations lack a middle class into which the mass of the poor may bootstrap themselves, either within or between generations. Searching for a solution, they come to a place that basically started out entirely as middle-class smallholders: the United States.

We aren't going to solve our immigration problem. The solution is in Mexico and the rest of Latin America homegrowing a middle class. They need to lose the culture of corruption that is pretty much the retirement plan for minor officialdom -- I've no clear idea how many times this multiplies, in effect, the tax burden on the people and their economy, but multiply it it clearly does. They need to secure property rights from rapaciousness public or private, and they're not too good at that yet, witness Chavez's antics in Venezuela. He'll buy them a depression yet before he's ousted.

Large Landowners vs. Everybody Else There is no way to keep things, as land-reform revolutions demonstrate. Ownership of all descriptions must be generally spread around, not exclusively concentrated, and with it, the wealth. North America got this right; Latin America needs to.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, Mexico and southward, grew out of the Spanish system of masters and peons. Every time they had a revolution, they ended up with a different master, rather than a changed system. It seems to be the nature of the people to accept masters until they become too cruel to suffer anymore.

It is NOT, however, our job to change things there, because it will just bite us in the ass again, as it has everywhere else.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

We aren't going to solve our immigration problem. The solution is in Mexico and the rest of Latin America homegrowing a middle class. They need to lose the culture of corruption that is pretty much the retirement plan for minor officialdom -- I've no clear idea how many times this multiplies, in effect, the tax burden on the people and their economy, but multiply it it clearly does. They need to secure property rights from rapaciousness public or private, and they're not too good at that yet,

I agree with a lot of this except the anti-socialization part but do you think the US has anything to do with this?

witness Chavez's antics in Venezuela. He'll buy them a depression yet before he's ousted.

Besides the dip in the early 2000's, Chavez has done decently well for Venezuela. They are in a slow but steady rise since the dip, which mainly had to do with oil prices.

Originally Posted by xoxoxbruce

It is NOT, however, our job to change things there, because it will just bite us in the ass again, as it has everywhere else.

I wouldn't say that. Just because all of our modern way of changing things in other countries has bitten us in the ass doesn't mean that if we do it right, it can't perform miracles. The biggest problem we've had is that we try to force other countries to our way of thinking and do to take matters into our own hands.

We can't forget how well the Marshall Plan did for European countries after WWII. There are ways of helping countries get out of poverty, but we just haven't been exercising them lately.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

snip~ I wouldn't say that. Just because all of our modern way of changing things in other countries has bitten us in the ass doesn't mean that if we do it right, it can't perform miracles. The biggest problem we've had is that we try to force other countries to our way of thinking and do to take matters into our own hands.

Yes, aiding will help many countries but unilaterally deciding another country has to change is pretty arrogant.

We can't forget how well the Marshall Plan did for European countries after WWII. There are ways of helping countries get out of poverty, but we just haven't been exercising them lately.

Well, the Marshall plan took the ashes of Europe and reconstructed it in our own image. Whether that was best for the people there is up for debate. Sure it made them economically successful but what was the social and cultural cost?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sure it made them economically successful but what was the social and cultural cost?

Very expensive, as it has been for our social, health, and judicial systems.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Very expensive, as it has been for our social, health, and judicial systems.

What does that have to do with the Marshall Plan?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What does that have to do with the Marshall Plan?

What does the Marshall Plan have to do with our current situation?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What does the Marshall Plan have to do with our current situation?

We loan out money and help in other ways to jumpstart the Mexican and Central and South American economy.

It is one way that we might be able to solve the immigration problem and help our neighbors while we're at it.


Also, Americans are as hard-working as ever. The idea that Americans are lazy come from misleading statistics, hollywood, and a way to motivate people to work harder for less money. Everyone I work with except me and a 70+ year guy has two jobs.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sure it made them economically successful but what was the social and cultural cost?

No matter what they do their culture will most likely be lost. Its sad but it has happened to basically every first-world country that exists today.