Splintered Plank - The White House spins and misses on immigration

NRO ^ | 08/26/04 | Mark Krikorian

[Richard-SIA]

Once again we can only hope that the body of delegates will force this plank to be re-written.

[meema]

bump

[american spirit]

Yeah, Mexico does have a solid middle class....only it's located in LA, Dallas, Houston, etc. and unfortunately the "under" class from Mexico that's now here is creating a burden on communities that's almost to the breaking point. Anyone defending the immigration policies of our fedgov or Mexico's has to be delusional.

[FITZ]

Then why on earth would so many millions be fleeing? Remember when Detroit was the car capital --- people were moving to Detroit --- but people are trying to leave Mexico by the truckloads.

You're making the claim there is virtually no unemployment in Mexico and all the jobs are solid middle class --- but they are coming here to be $5 an hour janitors and even cheaper gardeners. That would not be the case if you were presenting facts.

[FITZ]

Also you conveniently missed the "underemployment" part:

'Underemployment'

Mexico's broader ``underemployment'' rate, which also includes employees earnings less than minimum wage or unable to find more than 35 hours of paid work a week, rose to 9.03 percent from 6.86 percent the previous December.

Since we all know by now that minimum wage in Mexico amounts to about $25 a week --- about $4.50 in dollars a day --- and a third of those considered employed don't make minimum wage (that's less than $25 a week), it's obvious that you can say less than 4% unemployment --- because that leaves out those making $10 or $20 a week and they cannot live on that.

[FITZ]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aFyPw.JnOUng&refer=latin_america

[FITZ]

And from your own link:

(a) Employment
"Employed persons are all persons aged 12 years and over who, during the reference week:
took part in economic activities for at least one hour or one day in exchange for an income in cash or in kind, or without receiving payment;
did not work but had a job;
were to start work in any occupation within at most one month."
"Also considered as employed are all persons who, during the reference week, were on holiday or on sick or other leave, travelling, settling private business, and/or attending courses whilst receiving pay.

Persons who are ill or laid off without pay, or affected by a strike or labour stoppage, by the end of a farming season or bad weather, market shortage of materials, lack of funds or customers or of a vehicle, or by mechanical breakdown or for any other reason, are considered as employed, provided always that they are sure of being able to resume their work within less than one month."

Employed persons include:

full- and part-time workers seeking other work during the reference week;
persons who performed some work for pay or profit during the reference week, while being subject to compulsory schooling, or retired and receiving a pension;
full- and part-time students working full- or part-time;
paid or unpaid apprentices and trainees;
paid and unpaid family workers (unpaid family workers temporarily absent from work must return thereto in less than one month to be considered as employed);
private domestic servants (working for pay);
members of producers' co-operatives;
volunteer and career members of the armed forces.

(laid off without pay??? That doesn't sound like employed but it seems they use somewhat different definitions)

[FITZ]

This source gives the underemployment rate of about 25% with 3.3% unemployment.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2129.html

Plus I think we can consider that the one out of five Mexicans who is in the USA were unable to find much work in Mexico.

[Southack]

"You're making the claim there is virtually no unemployment in Mexico and all the jobs are solid middle class..."

No, I'm not making a claim. I'm simply posting their government's facts.

On the other hand, you are making numerous claims that aren't supported by the referenced facts. For one thing, you keep assuming that the *only* reason for immigration is economic.

Jews didn't flee Germany because of economics, but because they were being rounded up and killed. This is *not* to say that's what is happening with Mexicans, but rather, merely points out that there are some *non* economic reasons for immigration. You aren't considering any of those potential non-economic reasons, and blinding yourself to such things greatly reduces your chances of ever accurately understanding any situation.

Likewise, you are ignoring the growth of the domestic Mexican middle class simply because it doesn't fit with your preconcieved notions. Ditto for the annual production of 2.5 million cars in Mexico.

And until you are ready to discuss *facts*, you aren't going to be intellectually prepared to talk about Mexico's real problems, of which there are many...because Mexico also has some few successes, and those successes factor in to the equations.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[FITZ]

There might be some limited success --- after all how many American jobs have been sent in recent years to Mexico. You talk about "Mexican cars" but those are American cars being built in Mexico now because we shut down our own factories to give them what they couldn't do on their own.

Mexico has an over 70% unionization rate of it's labor --- and we --- with about a 10% unionization rate believe unions are the cause of our poor economy --- it would be difficult to believe a society that unionized could be doing so well.

And figures put out by the Mexican government --- showing an almost perfect economy while millions are packing up their bags to leave aren't that believable -- especially when they admit that 25% or so are what they call "under-employed" --- which might mean that selling chicklets on the street only brought in $5 a week.

[Southack]

"And figures put out by the Mexican government --- showing an almost perfect economy while millions are packing up their bags to leave aren't that believable..."

Should I simply accept that you are going to dismiss all reasons for immigration, save for economic? This is at least the third post that you've made in which you directly tie immigration solely to economics.

And I'll grant that immigration *can* be economically motivated at times, but you seem to be claiming that the only reason that anyone ever immigrates anywhere is for economic reasons. That's shaky intellectual ground, as I can show instances of wars, corruption, crime, social, or political opportunity (e.g. carpet-baggers) that also fuel immigration.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[FITZ]

I think we could be quite sure that if the economy of Mexico offered the majority some kind of future, most would prefer to live in their own country.

There is always a certain percent who are explorers of sorts, or who find they prefer another culture and country to their own or adventure --- but when you see massive migrations on this scale there is something pretty drastic driving it.

[FITZ]

Anyhow I'm not completely negative about Mexico --- it's a very wealthy country with vast natural resources --- and it competes with England in number of billionaires. It's in dire need for some serious reforms --- but becoming a complete dependent on the USA while keeping the same government and corrupt laws isn't the way. When some control is placed on immigration and the people see their own homeland as their future then they will push for the changes to happen. It might not be easy or completely peaceful but delaying the changes by keeping the borders open isn't going to make it easier. At some point the reforms have to happen --- or something else will.

[NewRomeTacitus]

You speak of 'facts' touted by the Mexican government. In the defense article you posted we can see how fond they are of reality.

"Mexico is sensitive about sovereignty issues, especially in regard to its powerful northern neighbor. Security threats were perceived as being exported by the United States, with Mexico tasked with shouldering the burden of any new security measures."

I'd say they were sampling too many of their illicit exports if I didn't know they're trying to make their primary sin against us look like just the opposite. Thus they prove our distrust of them is wholly justified. All this pussyfooting around with an obnoxious and corrupt adjoining country who is using OUR territory for THEIR population expansion is patently ridiculous. How many subversive acts, flat out lies and outright betrayals are we supposed to allow before we crack down?

FITZ is correct about the illusion of a Mexican middle class. Their true middle class are the 12 million-plus neoslaves who send over $30 billion a year that keeps Mexico's excuse for an economy afloat. Pretty slick, insuring conditions for success are minimized within the country while turning those economically displaced (and flatly unwanted) citizens into remote sources of currency at the United States expense.

The auto giants you cited only went into Mexico because of our government's deal-brokering and their ability to withstand the impact should those operations go belly up. Now the Euros are moving in to take advantage of our (less than ethical) inroads:

"Labor (in Mexico) costs about one-seventh what it does in the U.S., and overall production costs are about 20% lower."

Boy, that's really helping Mexico build its middle class (sarc off). Obviously Mexico regards NAFTA far less rigidly than we do when other bodies come around waving cash. Except for a few privileged catbirds NAFTA has been a failure all around, especially for the Mexican farming peoples, and the NTAA will spread similar cultural upheaval throughout the Americas.

Belittling those who would support the Constitution Party because it has no effective power at this point makes it look like you believe might equals right. If those in solidly Democrat bastions should use their vote to promote positive change giving it to the Republicans seems to be the futile gesture. Third parties garner qualifications for succeeding elections by their support in a current one. That success forces established parties to modify (ie: reform) their platforms to win back disgruntled voters. Better government results and America benefits.

[Southack]

"Belittling those who would support the Constitution Party because it has no effective power at this point makes it look like you believe might equals right."

Any political Party that doesn't have $100 million for a Presidential campaign simply isn't a player. Voting for a non player is like betting on a horse that isn't even in the race, i.e. it is a sure loser.

Further, any political Party that isn't running for the majority of local, state, and national offices (e.g. House, Senate) isn't a player.

Here in Alabama, the top two donors to the Libertarian Party are trial lawyer Democrats. They know that by contributing to fringe groups like CP and LP, that they can swing some 2% net of voters away from voting Republican.

In politics, that's cheap money for votes. Swinging 2% through ads can often cost millions.

...And there will always be people gullible enough to fall for the old standby lines of "vote your conscience" or "you've got to start somewhere" or "there's no difference in the two Parties," etc.

That's why you have sales people in the first place, to sway the decisions of those gullible souls who fall for such lines. A good salesperson can sell ice to Eskimos...or at least, to the right 2% of all skimmers (i.e. the most gullible of the group).

But here's the kicker: if you don't have the numbers to take over half of one of the two major political Parties, then you clearly don't have the numbers to win a national election. That's simple math.

Sadly, mathematical truisms are lost on some significant portion of our population. For that portion, salesmen reign supreme.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[NewRomeTacitus]

I could have been a little clearer. Please allow me to expand:

I believe that any conservative who lives in a deciding state has a duty to reelect the President no matter how distasteful the thought may be. Allowing a self-certified liberal-socialist traitor to gain the office would insure a leftist Supreme Court for the next generation or more. Kerry's ascension would also undo all the work (and betray the sacrifices of our military personnel) that has been done trying to reign in the fanatics still waging religious war on us.

We would be wise to retain sight of the big picture and acknowledge how third parties can be the best tools for reform (and not the spoilers that the Perot debacle made of one). If those in solidly Democrat bastions wish to use their Presidential vote to accomplish the most good, giving it to the Republicans seems to be the futile gesture. Third parties garner qualifications for succeeding elections by their support in a current one. That success forces established parties to modify (ie: reform) their platforms to win back disgruntled voters. In this way the "Thirds" work like the corruption-flushin' laxative of our democratic republic.

Presidential elections give third parties valuable public relations opportunities but shouldn't expect more in that venue. If the resultant publicity is well received by a significant number of citizens that support can then be channeled toward gaining ground in local and state politics. Should they catch on and continue into the national scene they would definitely have won their "right" to be there.

Unfortunately some people see the existence of third parties on any level as a threat that has to be crushed mercilessly. Adolf and Josef would wholeheartedly approve of those tactics.

[seastay]

A vote only counts when it is for a representative, how are US citizens being represented when every person on the planet is going to receive the backing of "our" elected officials?

It wont matter which party wins in the long run if Rove has his way and turns this county into a world state. Every amnesty immigrant by federal law will be allowed to vote thus diluting our votes in the long run should this party’s new platform be allowed to take hold and they win. Offering citizenship to every person the planet, suggests that US citizenship has no more advantage accept than being forced to pay taxes to the majority of the worlds workers so that only a few can benefit from cheep labor. Collecting taxes for more social services and diluting the political voice of the citizen is not a republic value, but then things have changed as amnesty being part of the platform does just that!

The illegal immigrants will work for nothing because their living expenses are being paid for (socialism is not a republican value), and they will vote solicits-republic in 2008 cause they are being offers amnesty in 2005, that is Roves grand plan. Slavery and plantations ended in the civil war, communism failed, but these geniuses planning the future of the republican party perhaps just forgot their history, how else can anybody explain such poor vision?

Unless this party turns back to its conservative base their own demise will be unstoppable regardless if we vote wisely. By the diluting of our votes from the registration of these new comers, every legal US citizen in the long run will have less and less representation and less and less of a political voice. Throwing away things (votes) that amount to nothing is justifiable; ...at least here in the southwest...

[janetgreen]

Unless this party turns back to its conservative base their own demise will be unstoppable

This is true, and the proof of that lies in the fact that so many older conservatives are turning to third parties because they can't bring themselves to vote for a President who has turned his back on them by liberalizing what used to be the Republican Party. No more votes for "the lesser of two evils".