U.S. illegal immigrants 'self deport' as woes mount

[natty bumppo 297]

There are times when choosing an emotive term is disingenuous. This is one of those times.

Big Dog,

This is what is wrong with the term. You want me to 'get over' the willful and knowing dehumanizing of an entire group of people? I call those tactics fascist for a reason. Dehumanizing the enemy was always a favorite of theirs.

People are emotional over the issue and they express their emotions. Nothing fascist about it nor is it about dehumanizing any group of people. It's about people expressing themselves. There were days when that could be done. Don't I miss those...

Its not a dehumanizing term ... it a clear description of a thing that people are doing to the US.

Yet ... if you feel it is dehumanizing to describe what people are doing ....

[HAL 9000 96]

Its not merely economic drainage. It may be per capita income that is what is looked at, but per capita income based on an average where wealth is not distributed on a national middle class model but rather a typical third world economical model. Its a no-brainer to see that the corruption is set up to maintain a status quo and that the corruption stems from the tip of the tower.

This is a good point to bring out the corruption talk since its the direct link between the support it garners directly and indirectly from Washington and by our Dollar (as well, to please to sensitive crowd out there, from the Euro and European governments that also do the same we do there). There's no refuting they're changing aspects of their national economy for the better, and even if we were to use old Reaganomics you could see a trickle-down effect by logic, but the fact of the matter is that those at the top do not like to share their entrenched domination of the local economy.

Once more segments of the population there are educated and in a better position to improve their country for the better of all, or at least those that can match willpower to manpower, then things can improve.

Alas, maybe as an alternative to just simply throwing people out (to then have to do it all over again once they return illegaly) is to use those that arrive here, offer them a program whereby instead of them leeching our system, they can be trained with the condition they legally return to their countries of origin with the goal of improving conditions for all. Sounds naive and dreamy, but its doable. We'd save deportation and silly-fences costs that don't work, and in the long term help out the rest of the planet without feeling the burden of a power that meddles in the sovereignty of other nations much like we do to others in order to maintain our hegemony.

Its a very interesting shade of grey.

The corruption is something that we didn't create nor is it something we can eliminate. The Mexican people, rather than making a run for it, are the one's that hold the key to fixing that issue and they ought to do so. One of the reasons the Mexican politicians encourage the departure of their poor and uneducated to the north is that this one of their pressure valves - if not the pressure valve - that allows them to continue their corrupt exploitation of what overall would appear to be a rather robust economy. I don't think we should support that effort as it is obviously not going to be a long term solution on either side of the border.

As for the fourth paragraph above, I highlighted the essence of it. That ain't no shade of gray but rather a burning bright pink.

I care to disagree. It is my strong opinion that we as a nation enable corruption overseas as a mechanism for our own benefit.

What benefit do we supposedly have from the corruption south of the border? I tell you: None. Which leaves your premise skating on rather thin ice.

Remember, we supported the re-building of Western Europe from rubble after WWII and, surprise, surprise, did not promote, create or support corrupt forms of government but supported the development of free societies based on democratically elected governments and a free market economy. That is what's in our interest and that is what we support.

And don't even think about taking this over to the Middle East. Apples and Oranges. While both are fruit, comparing them is not particularly fruitful.

Nobody wants to spend large sums on deportations. I think the current trend is to work on enforcing employment laws and making the US overall less hospitable to folks that are here and shouldn't be so they can head on back on their own. That will be the trend and it'll work. Not only will it remove illegal aliens by means other than actual deportation but it'll also send the right signal to our neighbors down south: It ain't worth it to come.

I'm not referring to Western Europe. I refer rather clearly to those feeder nations that give us illegals. No surprises there. Yes, comparing Western European reconstruction after WWII and Third World "Development" is comparing Apples to Oranges.

How do we benefit? Well, maybe a couple of business trips down South, for example, will teach you how our meddling in corruption benefits local contracts in our favor. You know, kind of like Chicago politics in a nutshell... Who benefits? Obviously our companies and their profits. Our government in attaining allies that push up our companies profits higher, our foreign policy and its insistence on being able to dictate an agenda to other countries. Locally who benefits? The same corrupt officials that usually send their kids off to Ivy League schools, shopping in Miami, and surprise surprise, tend in some cases to also handle crime cartels that supply Northern demands for certain products. Of course, not all is illegal activity... just lots of unethical practices that tends to favor one clan over another instead of being based on, as you call it, a real free market economy, a truly democratically elected government, and the true development of a free society.

One hint that is actually pretty close to heart: Chiquita Bananas in Colombia.

We are skirting around the same conclusion... I also believe in enforcing actual legislation. But guess what? People will STILL continue to come as long as the beacon of financial riches as large as those in the USA continue to shine. No law, no enforcement, no self-convincing that even kicking the majority of the illegals out= either by deportation at taxpayer expense, or by voluntary education like I propose, will work 100%.

The innate instinct to survive will continue in human beings.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Its not merely economic drainage. It may be per capita income that is what is looked at, but per capita income based on an average where wealth is not distributed on a national middle class model but rather a typical third world economical model. Its a no-brainer to see that the corruption is set up to maintain a status quo and that the corruption stems from the tip of the tower.

This is a good point to bring out the corruption talk since its the direct link between the support it garners directly and indirectly from Washington and by our Dollar (as well, to please to sensitive crowd out there, from the Euro and European governments that also do the same we do there). There's no refuting they're changing aspects of their national economy for the better, and even if we were to use old Reaganomics you could see a trickle-down effect by logic, but the fact of the matter is that those at the top do not like to share their entrenched domination of the local economy.

Once more segments of the population there are educated and in a better position to improve their country for the better of all, or at least those that can match willpower to manpower, then things can improve.

Alas, maybe as an alternative to just simply throwing people out (to then have to do it all over again once they return illegaly) is to use those that arrive here, offer them a program whereby instead of them leeching our system, they can be trained with the condition they legally return to their countries of origin with the goal of improving conditions for all. Sounds naive and dreamy, but its doable. We'd save deportation and silly-fences costs that don't work, and in the long term help out the rest of the planet without feeling the burden of a power that meddles in the sovereignty of other nations much like we do to others in order to maintain our hegemony.

Its a very interesting shade of grey.

The corruption is something that we didn't create nor is it something we can eliminate. The Mexican people, rather than making a run for it, are the one's that hold the key to fixing that issue and they ought to do so. One of the reasons the Mexican politicians encourage the departure of their poor and uneducated to the north is that this one of their pressure valves - if not the pressure valve - that allows them to continue their corrupt exploitation of what overall would appear to be a rather robust economy. I don't think we should support that effort as it is obviously not going to be a long term solution on either side of the border.

As for the fourth paragraph above, I highlighted the essence of it. That ain't no shade of gray but rather a burning bright pink.

I care to disagree. It is my strong opinion that we as a nation enable corruption overseas as a mechanism for our own benefit.

What benefit do we supposedly have from the corruption south of the border? I tell you: None. Which leaves your premise skating on rather thin ice.

Remember, we supported the re-building of Western Europe from rubble after WWII and, surprise, surprise, did not promote, create or support corrupt forms of government but supported the development of free societies based on democratically elected governments and a free market economy. That is what's in our interest and that is what we support.

And don't even think about taking this over to the Middle East. Apples and Oranges. While both are fruit, comparing them is not particularly fruitful.

Nobody wants to spend large sums on deportations. I think the current trend is to work on enforcing employment laws and making the US overall less hospitable to folks that are here and shouldn't be so they can head on back on their own. That will be the trend and it'll work. Not only will it remove illegal aliens by means other than actual deportation but it'll also send the right signal to our neighbors down south: It ain't worth it to come.

I'm not referring to Western Europe. I refer rather clearly to those feeder nations that give us illegals. No surprises there. Yes, comparing Western European reconstruction after WWII and Third World "Development" is comparing Apples to Oranges.

How do we benefit? Well, maybe a couple of business trips down South, for example, will teach you how our meddling in corruption benefits local contracts in our favor. You know, kind of like Chicago politics in a nutshell... Who benefits? Obviously our companies and their profits. Our government in attaining allies that push up our companies profits higher, our foreign policy and its insistence on being able to dictate an agenda to other countries. Locally who benefits? The same corrupt officials that usually send their kids off to Ivy League schools, shopping in Miami, and surprise surprise, tend in some cases to also handle crime cartels that supply Northern demands for certain products. Of course, not all is illegal activity... just lots of unethical practices that tends to favor one clan over another instead of being based on, as you call it, a real free market economy, a truly democratically elected government, and the true development of a free society.

One hint that is actually pretty close to heart: Chiquita Bananas in Colombia.

One hint for you: Chiquita Bananas was indicted and entered a guilty plea - paying a $25MM fine - in regards to their business practices in Colombia. If your assertion that the US supports and encourages corruption overseas had any validity, that indictment wouldn't have happened. Yet it did. Which shows that the US does not support the criminal corruption in Columbia but works to fight it and takes appropriate steps to ensure that we're not becoming part of it.

Chiquita pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Chiquita's sentence will include a $25 million criminal fine, the requirement to implement and maintain an effective compliance and ethics program, and five years' probation. Chiquita also has agreed to cooperate in this ongoing investigation. Sentencing will occur on June 1, 2007.

[HAL 9000 96]

Now that is a naive assertion... You're claiming something based on an extremely black/white vision that is frankly completely unrealistic knowing full well how certain themes in government get completely separate from commercial ones in places where the two go hand in hand. Do I claim we, as a government, openly foster corruption overseas? Why, that would mean there'd be plenty of media coverage all over the world, right? Then again, media agencies tend to have agendas that are controlled by business interests and are subject in most countries, including ours, to one form or another of control. I find it completely disturbing to live in a society that puts blind trust without question in its government. Do I blame our government for allowing unethical business practices? Do I blame us for being completely at fault? Again, a resounding no.

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing? Depending on what goal/interest it is we're looking at, the defense of any argument seems to garner plenty of logic on either side.

Back to Chiquita... They paid a fine because they got caught red handed down in Colombia, not because there was oversight. In this particular case, paramilitary groups were getting payments from Chiquita subsidiaries in order to keep protections active, ensure certain Chiquita companies would not be targeted for such things as kidnappings, and attacks, and, according to what I actually read in the local media down there, to also combat guerrilla groups- that usually ended up meaning randomn killing of innocent civilians living in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fine was a silly slap in the wrist- albeit, an embarrasing one. Was it a correct move? Yes. It proves that at least part of the US government is doing what it says it does. That in itself is a sigh of relief. It does not address, nevertheless, what other aspects of our government are involved in allowing this and many other things to occur. One trip to Saravena Arauca will quickly remind anyone of the early 70s in Southeast Asia. Yet its otherwise known as common knowledge down there that US involvement is by leagues way beyond what a State Department spokesperson states.

All you have to do is see things for yourself and accustom yourself to question blind faith in what is a little more than a treatment of a symptom instead of the actual condition.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now that is a naive assertion... You're claiming something based on an extremely black/white vision that is frankly completely unrealistic knowing full well how certain themes in government get completely separate from commercial ones in places where the two go hand in hand. Do I claim we, as a government, openly foster corruption overseas? Why, that would mean there'd be plenty of media coverage all over the world, right? Then again, media agencies tend to have agendas that are controlled by business interests and are subject in most countries, including ours, to one form or another of control. I find it completely disturbing to live in a society that puts blind trust without question in its government. Do I blame our government for allowing unethical business practices? Do I blame us for being completely at fault? Again, a resounding no.

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing? Depending on what goal/interest it is we're looking at, the defense of any argument seems to garner plenty of logic on either side.

Back to Chiquita... They paid a fine because they got caught red handed down in Colombia, not because there was oversight. In this particular case, paramilitary groups were getting payments from Chiquita subsidiaries in order to keep protections active, ensure certain Chiquita companies would not be targeted for such things as kidnappings, and attacks, and, according to what I actually read in the local media down there, to also combat guerrilla groups- that usually ended up meaning randomn killing of innocent civilians living in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fine was a silly slap in the wrist- albeit, an embarrasing one. Was it a correct move? Yes. It proves that at least part of the US government is doing what it says it does. That in itself is a sigh of relief. It does not address, nevertheless, what other aspects of our government are involved in allowing this and many other things to occur. One trip to Saravena Arauca will quickly remind anyone of the early 70s in Southeast Asia. Yet its otherwise known as common knowledge down there that US involvement is by leagues way beyond what a State Department spokesperson states.

All you have to do is see things for yourself and accustom yourself to question blind faith in what is a little more than a treatment of a symptom instead of the actual condition.

All I can say to you is this: Enjoy your conspiracy theories!

For me, I take comfort in knowing that people either do or do not shape their societies in a manner consistent with how they think should run. No single nation does a perfect job at it and this nation has taken bad turns more than once in history. However, through a working system of checks and balances, this nation typically identifies those wrong turns and works to correct them. Is the system working perfectly? Not by a long shot. But it is one of the more functional ones around the globe. One that other nations may want to consider adopting in a some variation fitting their own needs. To hold the US solely responsible for the plight of other nations is, for the most part, plain dishonest. We cannot and should not go around fixing everyone's mess. A lesson we should now clearly have learned. We should and do, however, ensure that US entities do not compound problems other nations have and that the US becomes a partner to other nations in their development. The overwhelmingly positive effect for other nations of trade agreements that the US has entered into (I referenced the numbers earlier) speaks volumes in that regard. What those nations do with the economic boost is largely up to them.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing?

And why are you trying to blame the U.S. for all the ills of the world?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing?

And why are you trying to blame the U.S. for all the ills of the world?

Exactly.

[HAL 9000 96]

Now that is a naive assertion... You're claiming something based on an extremely black/white vision that is frankly completely unrealistic knowing full well how certain themes in government get completely separate from commercial ones in places where the two go hand in hand. Do I claim we, as a government, openly foster corruption overseas? Why, that would mean there'd be plenty of media coverage all over the world, right? Then again, media agencies tend to have agendas that are controlled by business interests and are subject in most countries, including ours, to one form or another of control. I find it completely disturbing to live in a society that puts blind trust without question in its government. Do I blame our government for allowing unethical business practices? Do I blame us for being completely at fault? Again, a resounding no.

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing? Depending on what goal/interest it is we're looking at, the defense of any argument seems to garner plenty of logic on either side.

Back to Chiquita... They paid a fine because they got caught red handed down in Colombia, not because there was oversight. In this particular case, paramilitary groups were getting payments from Chiquita subsidiaries in order to keep protections active, ensure certain Chiquita companies would not be targeted for such things as kidnappings, and attacks, and, according to what I actually read in the local media down there, to also combat guerrilla groups- that usually ended up meaning randomn killing of innocent civilians living in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fine was a silly slap in the wrist- albeit, an embarrasing one. Was it a correct move? Yes. It proves that at least part of the US government is doing what it says it does. That in itself is a sigh of relief. It does not address, nevertheless, what other aspects of our government are involved in allowing this and many other things to occur. One trip to Saravena Arauca will quickly remind anyone of the early 70s in Southeast Asia. Yet its otherwise known as common knowledge down there that US involvement is by leagues way beyond what a State Department spokesperson states.

All you have to do is see things for yourself and accustom yourself to question blind faith in what is a little more than a treatment of a symptom instead of the actual condition.

All I can say to you is this: Enjoy your conspiracy theories!

For me, I take comfort in knowing that people either do or do not shape their societies in a manner consistent with how they think should run. No single nation does a perfect job at it and this nation has taken bad turns more than once in history. However, through a working system of checks and balances, this nation typically identifies those wrong turns and works to correct them. Is the system working perfectly? Not by a long shot. But it is one of the more functional ones around the globe. One that other nations may want to consider adopting in a some variation fitting their own needs. To hold the US solely responsible for the plight of other nations is, for the most part, plain dishonest. We cannot and should not go around fixing everyone's mess. A lesson we should now clearly have learned. We should and do, however, ensure that US entities do not compound problems other nations have and that the US becomes a partner to other nations in their development. The overwhelmingly positive effect for other nations of trade agreements that the US has entered into (I referenced the numbers earlier) speaks volumes in that regard. What those nations do with the economic boost is largely up to them.

When you can prove that I am blaming the US for all the ills of the world... then I'll bow. Of course, I'm not sure that is what you're trying to peg on me but anywhoo. I think one clear thing I can honestly argue for is fairness in the way we treat others as, coincidentially, an important part of our fight against illegal immigration. My posts clearly state that. Note how I do not condemn the trade agreements you hint at now and mention previously.

Call it conspiracy theoryism all you want... I prefer to go by what I see myself and see I have a plenty having been outside the USA long enough. And having plenty of family members working for Uncle Sam I can tell you that the machine is not as well oiled as you'd like to think.

Its not about fixing what others break. Its about not fooling ourselves that we have nothing at all to do with others' messes.

Once we start seeing beyond what our dogma would like for us to see, then we can talk on the same level ballfield.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing?

And why are you trying to blame the U.S. for all the ills of the world?

Exactly.

Guys... if I need to clarify please ask. Maybe you could find where it is I blame verbatim our government for the entirely of the world's ills. This unfortunately is the same reaction political conservatives try to use as a deviating tactic in their arguments...

In the meantime dinner is served.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think one clear thing I can honestly argue for is fairness in the way we treat others as, coincidentially, an important part of our fight against illegal immigration.

But we do that. And have done so. We've helped Mexico significantly improve it's economic output. Again, how they distribute that additional wealth is something the people of Mexico need to regulate. Instead, they're making a run for the north. That ain't going to fix a first damn thing back home. So, our responsibility at this point, as I see it, is to close that pressure valve that the corrupt elite in Mexico has enjoyed for far too long. Without that valve, maybe the people find it in themselves to roll up their sleeves and build a fair economic basis for themselves. As long as that valve exists, the rich in Mexico are only going to get richer and the poor poorer. That ain't helping them.

[natty bumppo 297]

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing?

And why are you trying to blame the U.S. for all the ills of the world?

Exactly.

Guys... if I need to clarify please ask. Maybe you could find where it is I blame verbatim our government for the entirely of the world's ills. This unfortunately is the same reaction political conservatives try to use as a deviating tactic in their arguments...

In the meantime dinner is served.

How do we benefit? Well, maybe a couple of business trips down South, for example, will teach you how our meddling in corruption benefits local contracts in our favor. You know, kind of like Chicago politics in a nutshell... Who benefits? Obviously our companies and their profits.

darn .. I've been asking for clarification all day ... yet only receive obfuscation.

To answer your comment ... oh yes I know business owners in S.A. and their business dealings (that's how I met my wife) and it's all S.A. ... not only Colombia. An idea of fthe travel time ... I've added extra pages added to my passport. I also know how the game is played... I deal in the oil and gas industry and Chiquita Bananas are well ... only the yellow gold.

[natty bumppo 297]

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing?

And why are you trying to blame the U.S. for all the ills of the world?

Exactly.

Guys... if I need to clarify please ask. Maybe you could find where it is I blame verbatim our government for the entirely of the world's ills. This unfortunately is the same reaction political conservatives try to use as a deviating tactic in their arguments...

In the meantime dinner is served.

How do we benefit? Well, maybe a couple of business trips down South, for example, will teach you how our meddling in corruption benefits local contracts in our favor. You know, kind of like Chicago politics in a nutshell... Who benefits? Obviously our companies and their profits.

darn .. I've been asking for clarification all day ... yet only receive obfuscation.

To answer your comment ... oh yes I know business owners in S.A. and their business dealings (that's how I met my wife) and it's all S.A. ... not only Colombia. And the idea of fthe travel time ... I've added extra pages added to my passport. I also know how the game is played... I deal in the oil and gas industry and Chiquita Bananas are well ... only the yellow gold.

waiting .....

[HAL 9000 96]

I think one clear thing I can honestly argue for is fairness in the way we treat others as, coincidentially, an important part of our fight against illegal immigration.

But we do that. And have done so. We've helped Mexico significantly improve it's economic output. Again, how they distribute that additional wealth is something the people of Mexico need to regulate. Instead, they're making a run for the north. That ain't going to fix a first damn thing back home. So, our responsibility at this point, as I see it, is to close that pressure valve that the corrupt elite in Mexico has enjoyed for far too long. Without that valve, maybe the people find it in themselves to roll up their sleeves and build a fair economic basis for themselves. As long as that valve exists, the rich in Mexico are only going to get richer and the poor poorer. That ain't helping them.

Here we agree and disagree... Beautiful!

We help the economy over there by helping the rich get richer in places like Mexico. Since the oligarchy is the class ruling the economy, I find it amazing how our government-brokered deals don't come with strict stipulations as to socioeconomic change. Mindo you, not the left wing kind but rather the fair kind. Unfortunately we don't work that way.

Why the hangup with trying to free our government of any kind of wrong doing?

And why are you trying to blame the U.S. for all the ills of the world?

Exactly.

Guys... if I need to clarify please ask. Maybe you could find where it is I blame verbatim our government for the entirely of the world's ills. This unfortunately is the same reaction political conservatives try to use as a deviating tactic in their arguments...

In the meantime dinner is served.

How do we benefit? Well, maybe a couple of business trips down South, for example, will teach you how our meddling in corruption benefits local contracts in our favor. You know, kind of like Chicago politics in a nutshell... Who benefits? Obviously our companies and their profits.

darn .. I've been asking for clarification all day ... yet only receive obfuscation.

To answer your comment ... oh yes I know business owners in S.A. and their business dealings (that's how I met my wife) and it's all S.A. ... not only Colombia. An idea of fthe travel time ... I've added extra pages added to my passport. I also know how the game is played... I deal in the oil and gas industry and Chiquita Bananas are well ... only the yellow gold.

Then maybe you should know better.

In the meantime, my writing here is pretty clear. All you have to do is read.

[Amby 490]

self deportation...what a great idea.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Deprivation of bennies would create and expedite the mass exodous!