Mexico is Rich- Mexican wealthy play American taxpayers for suckers

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/ ^ | 2005 | Brenda Walker

[hershey]

You can bet your bottom dollar illegals, when given amnesty and the right to vote, will overwhelmingly pull the dem. lever.

[hershey]

China refused to take back thousands of Chinese illegals caught trying to get into the US. Twenty thousand, as a matter of fact.

[Cyropaedia]

Gee...why doesn't that surprise me...

[monkeywrench]

I believe it was more like 69,000 they refused to take back.

[hershey]

Yup, and how long before China decides to really dump the unwanted on America's shores? Never mind this smuggled out of China stuff, they'll go first class.

[Shalom Israel]

I can't believe the shallowness of your arguments,....oh wait a minute you're a Losertarian.

You just said, "You're using a bad argument, so here's an ad hominem." I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

Garbage truck drivers as part of waste desposal systems can make good money. So that argument is false.

The argument is that a wealthy class requires many menial laborers to support them. I expressed it in the vernacular, citing garbage men, but that doesn't mean that the wages of garbage men in particular have any relevance at all. Hopefully, you really did comprehend the point, and you do at least realize that you're offering a red herring.

You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting.

Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty."

You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing?

Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?

...but at least Canada takes care of its poor...

You just said that socialism is a good thing for Canada. Do you also believe it would be a good thing for the US? If not, what magical test distinguishes the countries that benefit from socialism from the countries that don't?

[litehaus]

Well, over there it is ONE family--SAUD (Abdul Aziz?)and they ALL wear a distinctive head decoration/gown to show their tribe.....Not to mention attending a church dedicated to our extinction!!

[hershey]

Even better, 69,000 Chinese refused the right of 'return'!(trying to type with interference from Sophie, a minidachshund.)

[La Enchiladita]

I'm not going to argue with you. I was trying to support your point.

[Ditto]

Corruption at all levels of society keeps a few wealthy and the rest poor. Mexico, by any measure, is among the most corrupt nations.

[Rick_Michael]

Their law is 'generally upheld' but known for it's corruption. They're foreign investment laws are keeping it from advancing. And speaking as someone that doesn't like big-government, they do have to fairly tax everyone enough to get a descent infrastructure...I mean they have little or no major roads in Mexico.

Just let us govern your country for ten years and we'll change it around. ; )

LOOK at this

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Mexico

[Utahrd]

It depends on how you define "Democrat". Most of them are culturally Catholic and a surprising number of them are evangelical Protestants or Latter Day Saints.

How are they going to vote on abortion, gay rights & school choice?

No, I don't want Amnesty either. But didn't 40% of Hispanics or something like that vote in favor of Prop 200 in Arizona?

[Shalom Israel]

Mexico, by any measure, is among the most corrupt nations.

The poor are as much to blame for this as the rich, though: given the chance, the average Mexican would gladly trade places with the corrupt officials.

[HiJinx]

Follow the Money Ping!

[Ditto]

I can't argue with you on that. Corruption occurs everywhere but when a culture of corruption takes hold, it has bad effects from one degree or another when every it reaches a certain critical point. See Detroit or New Orleans. In Mexico, it has held sway for over 100 years and is totally ingrained from the top to the bottom of society. There is no level to which one can look to for help.

There is no reason, other than corruption, for that nation to have so many poor. It's all so unnecessary.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Looters of Mexico
self | December 12,2004 | self


Posted on 12/12/2004 6:26:54 AM CST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran


After spending several years starting oil exploration crews for Pemex and, I think I have The reason Mexico has become so bad.

I like the Mexican people in the fly over parts of Mexico. The mid level and workers of Pemex are good. It is the government and the high up in Pemex that are the vultures and looters. The peso was about 8 cents (12.5 to a dollar)(old pesos). When Pemex found the sito grande, a very large oil pool that covers parts of the states of Chiapas and Tabasco also a long ways into the Gulf of Mexico.

Pemex borrowed billions to produce this great oil find. The looters (government) stole most of the money and what they did buy was junk oil rigs and drill pipe, etc. 1,000 pesos which was worth about $80 now will not buy a coke. This was due to the looters stealing billions from the Mexican people.

Instead of overthrowing the looters the Mexican people had an out, they had no weapons and they could cross into America and have a much safer life. This hurts both Mexico and America as Mexico lost some of it's hardest workers. The gangbangers also came over from Mexico as they could rape and pillage at will.

The government of Mexico is propped up by the billions sent back by the illegals and by our government having borders that are too open.

The only chance I see to help America and Mexico is to seal the border, deport the people who are not here legally. We also need to arm the Mexican people so they can have a chance against the looters with their armies.

[Shalom Israel]

There is no reason, other than corruption, for that nation to have so many poor. It's all so unnecessary.

I'm with you 100%.

[thoughtomator]

30 states? Screw that. I'll be generous and offer them to be a protectorate if they want to join the US so badly. But there's no way in hell we're hooking up with a people for whom those truths are not self-evident.

[Squeako]

Bookmark

[Cyropaedia]

I simply looked at your profile then I understood why you were making the kind of arguments that you were. Libertarians (well most) tend to be brain dead when it comes to the issues immigration.

Your arguments do ring shallow.

There is a very big advantage for Mexico getting rid of it's most impoverished. The prospect of massive political unrest is something that Mexico's elite want to avoid at all costs. Either you find a way to deal with them or suffer the consequences. You still don't get it.

You are a like most libertarians, which tend to be little more than inverted Marxists.

You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting. Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty." You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing? Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?

More crap. Again, you have this absolutely myopic understanding of modern economics. A greater and greater volume of people will translate into greater and greater economic output. False.

I've stated before (on previous threads) that even the Libertarians' favorite immigration authority, the late Dr. Julian Simon understood the dubious nature of the open borders argument. This of course put him odds with the Libertarian Party and the WSJ editorial board. Simon grasped that you could not really have kind of open borders policy advocted by the WSJ & L.P. Simon at least understood (unlike you) the fallacy of "...greater aggragate number of individuals translating into greater (or more productive) economic output". He called this principle the "negative human capital externalities". Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's. It is a major liability for any economy in the modern age. A economy is on the whole much better off with a lower number of individuals than with twice the population but with half of those living in poverty.Period.

BTW, even Von Mises himself do not agree with the open borders philosophy.