Posted on 05/21/2006 4:06:24 PM PDT by Larousse2
I keep remembering the Iraqis caught in mexico who were detained for a month then released and told to "go north".
Thanks guys.
A good reason for slowing the flood of immigration. Do we need pistoleros in the street of San Antonio and Los Angeles?
I know.
Firends don't let other friends decapitate people....
Fox has certainly been a terrible disappointment.
After 70 years of PRI corruption, what do we get? More corruption, apparently.
Beyond a disappointment I'd argue. A disgrace!
The Post-Nafta Mexican Peso Crisis:
Bailout or Aid? Isolationism or Globalization?
By Brett M. Humphrey
This essay discusses the events of the 1994/1995 Mexican peso crisis, subsequent U.S. Congressional/Executive debate over sending U.S. financial aid, and executive action. The United States had entered the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) one year earlier, and investors and politicians were hailing it as a great success. The United States seemed positioned to be the financial leader of the new post-cold-war era. But beginning on December 20, 1994 when Mexico decided to no longer support the peso against the dollar, the peso’s value dropped over 50%. This devaluation hurt Mexico, international investors, and the legitimacy of the NAFTA and trade liberalization. Those in support of the NAFTA felt the side effects of inaction in response could possibly reach neighboring countries, and result in an economic crisis. President Clinton could ill afford to sit idly by. However, the 104th Congress was sympathetic towards the anti-NAFTA labor-left and the anti-NAFTA protectionist-right. The recently elected “Contract with America” Republicans were elected on an agenda of government reduction not increased spending. This essay examines events leading to the devaluation, subsequent debates, and the President’s action. It concludes that if the United States is to maintain its economic dominance it must continue towards liberalized trade and globalization, and withstand the protectionist and labor movement’s desire to move towards isolationism.
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/humphrey.htm
You got it. It's not like the tide of "refugees" is going to be a big improvement on the present wave of "migrants". We'll just have another reason to be p.c. and accept the Latinization of our country. Think maybe this is why W is trying to shore up Fox's image?
Seg
"A bloody battle between steelworkers and police..."
I thought those EMPLOYED steelworkers would have no cause for violence.
I grimace when I think of what milions and millions of UN-EMPLOYED Mexicans might do here.
I think it is going to turn bad here, and my feelings/fears were confirmed by a MinuteMan I telephoned last week.
Methinks there is something really rotten going on, and it ain't in Denmark!
At the risk of hijacking this thread, has anybody given serious thought to simply have the U.S. take over Mexico before Mexico takes over us? I mean, if we can overthrow the Iraqi government half a globe away, why can't we do it to our own neighbor?
I'm not talking about a military seizure as much as a corporate buy-out. We can make them a territory-state like Puerto Rico and, over the course of 40 years or so, turn them into five new U.S. states. We would still have border security during the transition time.
It would eventually eliminate illegal immigration and improve both economies undoing all the black market things going on in secret.
I'm not looking for reasons why this won't work (anybody can be negative) but for reasons why/how this could be accomplished.
As I see it, if we give them amnesty then we are just inviting more illegals. If we try to kick them all out, we open up a Pandora's Box of ill-will, violence, and attempts to enter the country illegally.
By simply absorbing Mexico into our own country and finding transitional ways to meld the two under U.S. law, you could end the problem as well as expand our economy and replenish our military forces.
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Oh no he hasn't. He's struggled to get them under control of his party - so that the money flows uphill to PAN, not PRI. The "police" in Mexico are nothing more than a uniformed protection racket.
Fox may be more refined in his appearance than his predecessors, but make no mistake about it: He's playing the same game and has no intention of changing it.
Were he to try, he would end up dead anyway.
Mexico hasn't changed in 500 years. If anything, it's getting worse as their population outruns their social system by leaps and bounds. Fox himself recently admitted it will be "generations" before anything changes. For a moment there, he came out of character and was honest.
Civil war, fomented on the left in Mexico, will come.
And it will, and already has, spill over into the United States.
If not, tomorrow, we may have to build a minefield.
With friends like Mexico and Prez Fox, who needs enemies?
So, you'd like to live in a country where the single largest voting block by far would be ethnic, nationalist Mexicans?
Um, it might be "U.S. law", but it would be made by Mexico.
American laws aren't handed down from the mount. They come from the people. With 140 - 150 million ethnic Mexicans constituting oh, 1/3 to 1/2 the population, they will make the rules. Unless of course you're advocating some sort of "Reconstruction" period for them where they are deprived of vote and nationality, and are psychologically "reconstructed" to not be themselves.
Personally I think it would be easier just to enforce our immigration laws.
ping
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.