Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

[shotglass]

Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5.html) - Diplomats from Mexico and Central America on Monday demanded guest worker programs and the legalization of undocumented migrants in the United States, while criticizing a U.S. proposal for tougher border enforcement.

Meeting in Mexico's capital, the regional officials pledged to do more to fight migrant trafficking, but indirectly condemned a U.S. bill that would make illegal entry a felony and extend border walls.

"Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals," they said.

Derbez has called the measure _ which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month but still must go before the Senate _ "stupid and underhanded," but was somewhat more restrained on Monday, saying "it's not the Mexican government's position to tell the U.S. Senate what to do."

Full story. (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5.html)

[RicardoHead]

Aguilar also said migrants "don't emigrate because they lack work ...Yeah. They could always hock bootlegged polyester Polo shirts or donkey-leather jackets in TJ, and if that doesn't work out they can sell their seeesters.but rather for a series of other reasons, cultural reasons or better living conditions.What does it say about the countries south of the border when they admit that it represents improved living conditions for their own people to come to the USA and work 12-hour days and live in cardboard boxes?

[Freak]

Are our walls up yet? Hey, mayber we can have the immigrants help build the walls. Just make sure they are on the other side when we put up that last piece.

[BCP]

lolol

[Spaz59]

the land of the free and the home of the brave

[brianw13a]

"Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals," they said.


In other words:
"Criminals should not be treated like criminals," they said.

[Spaz59]

In other words:
"Criminals should not be treated like criminals," they said.

Too true. I say we repatriot all migrants, sorry criminals, from 1600 onwards.:rolleyes:

[shotglass]

Too true. I say we repatriot all migrants, sorry criminals, from 1600 onwards.:rolleyes:

You want us to send all the black people back to Africa?

[RicardoHead]

You can do all you want in Gloucester UK, Spaz. Hell, go back to living in peat bogs for all I care.

But if you want free open immigration here, then you pick up the tab for all the health care, welfare, child care, education, and other bullshit burdens the illegal immigrants dump on a system. Don't ask me to. Legal immigrants placing these burdens on society is acceptable because that is what society signed up for when it made their immigration legal. No one here signed up to take care of some illegal bastard, and though I have no issue personally with illegals that doesn't change the fact that they are here illegally and thus are criminals.

[Spaz59]

You want us to send all the black people back to Africa?

Yes. Your point is?

[Spaz59]

You can do all you want in Gloucester UK, Spaz. Hell, go back to living in peat bogs for all I care.

But if you want free open immigration here, then you pick up the tab for all the health care, welfare, child care, education, and other bullshit burdens the illegal immigrants dump on a system. Don't ask me to. Legal immigrants placing these burdens on society is acceptable because that is what society signed up for when it made their immigration legal. No one here signed up to take care of some illegal bastard, and though I have no issue personally with illegals that doesn't change the fact that they are here illegally and thus are criminals.

Did I say I wanted free immigration in your country? No.

It was what we call an 'observation'.

[BCP]

It's all a big game, really. There's a story way back in my history about one of the ancestors jumping ship, working for a couple years, and then bringing the whole family over legally. Don't know of it's true or not, but hey.

What's changed in the last 70 years is socialism. In a full market society, there's no real direct economic cost to having illegals, just perhaps heightened military/police expenses (bit of a security risk). Add everything Ricardo mentioned, though, and that changes considerably.

Same basic thing for drugs, really. I've grown up around "ravers" and watched them fuck their minds over with E while remaining essentially harmless to the population at large. Without gov't healthcare, I'd support the legalization of Ecstasy - but with our current system, no way. I don't want to be paying these guys' Paxil prescriptions for the rest of their depressed, one-big-comedown adult lives