Mexico To Ask The U.N. To Stop The U.S. Fence

[discdog]

no, I mean... what is their advertised reason?

It'll spoil their view.

[Tonto]

How about pay-per-shot sniper rifles?

stop teasing.

Pay-per-shot, but hooked up thru the internet?

[bartok]

I thought the US had a right to protect it's own borders & didn't need Mexican or U.N. approval.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900788_pf.html

Well, we don't.  But, it does solidify the view that Mexicans are institutionally and permanently persona non gratis in this country.  Which, while I understand the sensitivity in many areas (and, OK - I admit - I'm not sensitive, because, well, frankly, immigrants, and I suspect many of them illegal, comprise a valued and well-priced component of my local economy), I have to say I think that's a disappointing approach in the long run.

And that's not to say that illegal immigration isn't a problem, and not that we shouldn't or can't do anything about it, and not that we need to pander to them either.

But still, it seems to me it's a disappointing approach.

[discdog]

I thought the US had a right to protect it's own borders & didn't need Mexican or U.N. approval.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900788_pf.html

Well, we don't.  But, it does solidify the view that Mexicans are institutionally and permanently persona non gratis in this country.  Which, while I understand the sensitivity in many areas (and, OK - I admit - I'm not sensitive, because, well, frankly, immigrants, and I suspect many of them illegal, comprise a valued and well-priced component of my local economy), I have to say I think that's a disappointing approach in the long run.

And that's not to say that illegal immigration isn't a problem, and not that we shouldn't or can't do anything about it, and not that we need to pander to them either.

But still, it seems to me it's a disappointing approach.

 

Apparently the politicians have not heard of the Great Wall of China, or the Berlin Wall. Both failed in their attempts to accomplish their goals. Nor do they have a grasp on what it will take to stop the flow of illegals into this country. It's very simple, anyone caught using the cheap labor, you go to jail and lose everything.  If you take away the jobs, they won't be as willing to come north.

[MikeD]

I say build it tall and strong.

With lasers, and missles, and sharp spinning saws across the top. And that killer rabbit from Montey Pythons Holy Grail.

and rabid pit bulls, don't forget the pit bulls

with a moat filled with sharks with "lasers" on their heads

[Not A Nice Person]

Realistically, the wall is political grandstanding pandering to an electorate not terribly given to critical thinking . . . we already HAVE fences up, in many "high traffic" areas of the border. On the Mexico side of those fences, coyotes hide ladders they rent out to people who want to climb over them, and drug lords dig elaborate tunnel systems UNDER them . . . sometimes with train tracks laid in them to facilitate moving product through to the US. hock:

If we truly wanted to stem the tide of illegal immigration that, trust me, really DOES threaten to inundate (and bankrupt) border states, we'd make having your green card/citizenship/SSN a prerequisite to ALL public services and state/federal aid---no more welfare, no more food stamps, no more school or hospital, NO DRIVER'S LICENSES---and impose HUGE fines, or even jail terms, on employers caught hiring "undocumented workers."

Realistically? We lack the stones. Too many of our industries, including ones like Tyson that contribute heavily to political campaigns, are far too dependent on a low-cost "outsourced" (read: wetback) labor force.

NANPâ„¢
[cigar]

[Tonto]

[quote]Sorry - having a quoting problem here.....

[Tonto]

[quote]and here too 

[Tonto]

I thought the US had a right to protect it's own borders & didn't need Mexican or U.N. approval.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900788_pf.html

Well, we don't.  ......

According to who? Mexico? The UN?

[Tonto]

I thought the US had a right to protect it's own borders & didn't need Mexican or U.N. approval.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900788_pf.html

Well, we don't.  But, it does solidify the view that Mexicans are institutionally and permanently persona non gratis in this country.  Which, while I understand the sensitivity in many areas (and, OK - I admit - I'm not sensitive, because, well, frankly, immigrants, and I suspect many of them illegal, comprise a valued and well-priced component of my local economy), I have to say I think that's a disappointing approach in the long run.

And that's not to say that illegal immigration isn't a problem, and not that we shouldn't or can't do anything about it, and not that we need to pander to them either.

But still, it seems to me it's a disappointing approach.

I have no problems with anyone coming to this country - legally. Many of those that do come across are very hard working, honest people. The problem lies with the few that aren't. Do we allow drug dealers, terrorists and other hardened criminals into this country in order to "help" the Mexican economy, at the expense of the US? Or do we keep all illegals out? Hard-workers & terrorists alike? Its a tough choice.