Imigration

[DuncanONeil]

Maybe instead of spending so much time and energy on keeping "them" (other human beings) out, we should fix the issue that is causing "them" to so desperately want to come to America (though coming from a poor country to America for a better life has been the way it's gone since this country was founded, and don't tell me every person who came here had the right papers).

You have the concept here both correct and incorrect at the same time. Is it wrong for people to "desperately want to come to America "? No! But to do so in an illegal fashion is wrong. As for having the "right" papers! That set of requirements has changed over the years. All in all you seem to be saying that we should have no borders or rules for entry into the country. How do you wish to justify that position.

One big reason Mexico is so poor is because of NAFTA. We sell U.S. corn in Mexico under "Free Trade" for so cheap that the native Mexicans can't sell their own corn. They can't farm their traditional staple crop and live off of it. They're starving. Oh, and it's our fault.

Mexico was poor long before NAFTA! This is supported by the fact that as a nation we granted amnesty to somewhere between 12 - 20 million illegal aliens in 1986 (under a Republican President). If Mexico was not "poor" then why were so many of them here? NAFTA did not come along until 10 years later. I note that you gloss right over the trade advantage for Mexican companies into this country. "Some[who?] argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis." (^ U.S.-Mexico Corn Trade During the NAFTA Era: New Twists to an Old Story USDA Economic Research Service)
"According to Issac (2005), overall, NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from a few industries such as textiles and apparel, in which rules of origin negotiated in the agreement were specifically designed to make U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers. The World Bank also showed that the combined percentage growth of NAFTA imports was accompanied by an almost similar increase of non-NAFTA exports."
"Maquiladoras (Mexican factories which take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years ... This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa."
"Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated" ( NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico’s Agricultural Trade LiberalizationPDF (152 KB) p. 4)

If you were starving and your family was starving would you wait for papers to save them, or would you risk annoying the people in the rich country just above you? Think about what you would do if you were in "their" shoes.

Then I am to presume that you would advocate that a person that steals food from the supermarket not experience any legal consequences? That they are to be permitted to break the law just because they are experiencing hard times?

When people have nothing to lose, fancy laws, papers, and highly-guarded borders aren't going to do a thing, they will still find a way to a better life.

Just like the rest of us did.

This is an attempt to change the debate from one of reason to one of emotion. The problem there is one of unintended consequences. One of which is that I can no longer order meat from my local chain supermarket because the meat cutter can not understand what I am saying to him!

By spending all of our efforts on trying to keep "them" out and removal once "they" get in, we waste all of our time and money and energy on a futile effort. As long as Mexico is a miserable place to live and the United States is a better to go, people will find ways in. Instead, wouldn't it benefit everyone if we treated the problem at the source? And then if you want to say "what business is it of ours how Mexico wants to run itself", look around you, it makes itself our business when their people come busting down our door. If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong.

Again an emotional based argument! We are not trying to keep "them" out. We are trying to keep the law breakers out. Why is it the "duty" of the US to repair the problems in a foreign nation? Where does the authority come from to do so? Seems to me the only legal way to accomplish what you desire is to make Mexico part of the USA! I do not think there are enough Mexicans that wish for that to occur. "If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong." I have shown earlier how you belief in this as a cause is not supported. And again your words give the impression that it is wrong for us to have borders and rules to enter the country. Why is that?