Posted on 04/11/2005 6:25:32 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
good observations.
but canada has only 32.5 million people, while mexico has 105 million.
the problem in mexico is there is too little industrialization to go around.
there is virtually no middle class. canada in contrast has a large middle class. indeed, some might argue that the size of a middle class in a country predicts the quality of life and democracy. the quality of american life is the size of our middle class.
mexico is a structurally racist country.
the european-derived elites and the several thousands of manorial classes disallow social integration. unlike the united states of the 1950's they are doing nothing to remove stuctural racism.
they have not increased education. if you are not of means in mexico, your kids are probably not going on to school. education ends for many poor, rural mexicans at grade 6.
these elites deliberately encourage their masses to emigrate to the united states for several reasons:
1. reconquista, a stupid idea promogated by mexican americans in universities. (mexico only controlled parts of the american sw for 15 years, but only de facto. in reality it was only when the u.s. calvary arrived that mexicans were safe from indians. most mexicans came over the border into the u.s. for their personal safety to escape the bloodshed of the mexican revolution in 1917.)
2. mexicans in the united states send back $15 billion per year to their families. this is a major source of income for mexico.
meanwhile, the rise of manufacturing gains from nafta have been threatened by the lower wages of china. tijuana, for example, recently was the largest assembler of tv's in the world. but that has evaporated. in contrast, some areas of mexican manufacturing have been strengthened. these are areas that benefit from the close proximity of mexico to the u.s.
amen.
the pri party of mexico was in power longer than the soviet.
only in 2000 did the pan party of mexico win the presidency.
but one might argue, has pan been able to change mexico? nada. el presidente fox's 5/6 year term is a failure.
mexico is a narco-terrorist-police state.
the country is controlled from top to bottom by the corruption of drugs. interfere with them and you're dead. they've killed catholic bishops, lawyers, city and government officials, journalists, etc.
guns are illegal in mexico. (/s)
I think Mexico owes Chase Manhattan Bank millions if not billions of dollars from loans of monies to develop their oil in the 1970's plus U.S. citizens have ownership in oil companies and other companies that Mexico gives permission for them to be and stay in business shipping goods and monies back to the U.S. for profit. I would not be surprise to hear or learn that a lot of politicians have a stake in pleasing and going along with whatever Mexico wants to do.
Yep as the saying goes... follow the money.
agreed. thx, FRiend bump^
B.S....at it's best.
They are ILLEGAL ENTRANTS INTO THE UNITED STATES.
In some part's of the world...they would be shot.
redrock
My point, tongue in cheek though it might have been, was that California isn't much different today than it had ever been, "culturally speaking".
The problem is that you have a year round legislature filled with permanently elected parasites.
There was more turnover in Mexico under the PRI!
I think the only solution is to go to party-list voting and treat California as if it were a single-member district.
That way you'd get some level of turnover in the legislature!
A gazillion flat screen technologies are displacing the old ways.
Have you noticed all the stainless steel refrigerators manufactured in Mexico by a Korean company?
They look pretty good.
China isn't getting all of it.
When did Mexico allow foreigners any ownership interest in OIL COMPANIES? Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), which is the only interest empowered to pump or wholesale oil in Mexico is 100% owned by the Mexican federal government ~ or, did something change since this morning.
I did not write post #70.
but your rationalizations do not explain why mexicans in hordes are running across our borders.
the problem is...mexico.
mexico is imploding. the drug cartels threaten the future of the country.
mexico is not making progress to a viable future.
thanks,
ken
I pity would-be immigrants...
Who follow our laws and stay home.
They are dreamin' of bein' U.S. citizens...
While law-breakers ignore our borders and roam.
Good men whose honor won't let'em cheat...
Good life's what they want best.
They wait patiently all their lives...
Law-breakers queer their quest!!
I chide those scofflaw immigrants...
Who sneak accross our plains!!
They break our laws and that ain't Right...
Borders are Left's bane!!
We'll FReep 'til we are satisfied...
They won't get amnesty!!
Truth haunts the folks who live in stealth...
'Cuz FReedom is not FRee!!
I blame the greedy bus'nessman...
Who use folks' sweat and blood!!
They fail our youth by cheating...
But cheap labor's not enough!!
What message does lawlessness send?
We trample laws en masse!!
I pity would-be immigrants...
When the scofflaws get a pass!!
Mudboy Slim (3 February 2005)
Actually, Mexico has been getting much better. Previously the people would not have had enough money to escape.
Stuff happens. Numbers are missed. It's a discussion thread anyway.
I never have and never will feel the need to have the Supreme Court's backing to express my opinion and stand by it.
All I can site is a bunch of ifs in response to your apparent apology for doing nothing, but here goes:
If some Arizona Minutemen did detain some individuals who had crossed the boarder illegally...
...and if these illegals officially lodged a complaint with their (Mexican) government...
...and if the Mexican government managed to get charges filed against some Minutemen...
The Minutemen could and should claim that they witnessed a breach of the peace during the course of events that followed their intervention of an illegal boarder crossing.
The story might go: "After watching these guys cross the border, we walk up to them and asked them politely who they were and what they were doing. One of them began screaming profanities and threatened to kill us if we tried to stop them. Having witnessed this breach of the peace we detained these individuals until we could turn them over to law enforcement personnel."
I would chose to believe the word of my countrymen over that of an illegal border crosser just like a police officer's testimony is believed over that of a suspect. How about you?
Does the Ninth Amendment give the Minutemen the right to make the citizen's arrest in circumstances such as this? I think so but that's just my opinion.
Does Arizona statute preserve such a right in circumstances such as this? I think so but that's just my opinion.
Do the laws in all 50 states, governing under what circumstances a private person may make effect a citizen's arrest preserve such a right in circumstances such as this? I don't know for sure, but I hope so.
It isn't as hard for citizens to stand up and do the right thing when their government won't as you seem to maintain.
"A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment." (source)
"One of them began screaming profanities and threatened to kill us if we tried to stop them. Having witnessed this breach of the peace we detained these individuals..."
However, invasion would, by very definition, be a breach of the peace. And there are ample public statements and actions by the Mexican government showing them to be condoning, aiding and abetting the illegal immigration, so much so that the very nature of the offense changes from being one of illegal immigration to being an actual invasion by a foreign power.
Here is another aspect of effecting a citizen's arrest of illegal immigrants. Those siding with the criminal aliens, Vincente Fox, Aztlan and the ACLU, claim that unless you actually witness the illegal immigrant coming across the border, then you haven't met the standard of §13-3884, that requires that the offense must be committed in the presence of the party making the arrest.
That claim is bogus and here's why. Crimes can be classed as being either of two types: isolated offenses or continuous offenses. An example of a continuous offense would be kidnapping, where the crime in on-going, and not completed, as long as the victim is held by the offender.
"A “continuous offense” or “continuing offense” is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set in motion by a single impulse and operated by unintermittent force; it is a breach of criminal law, not terminated by a single act or fact, but subsisting for a definite period and intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences." (source)There is ample court precedent stating that the crime of entering this country illegally is an ongoing or continuous crime. In other words, as long as they remain in this country, they are in continuous and immeditate violation of the law. So it is not necessary that you actually see them cross the border, it is sufficient that you merely see them in this country in order to hold them for the authorities, providing you have sufficient cause, based on the circumstances of the detention, that they are illegal aliens.
Any case based upon the principles we've been discussing would certainly be a "case of first impression" for an Arizona court, but under the present circumstances of invasion, it could possibly be a chance worth taking. We need a volunteer!
--Boot Hill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.