Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
Bob, my thoughts are that your thoughts are unrealistic. I do not say that to be insulting, nor am I wishing to some bruhaha started that too many of our conversations wind up in. I simply find them unrealistic.
The "wall" in this case is for our security and protection. It has nothing to do with persecution, isolation, destruction or withdrawing from the world. If the word were "knife" one could be reminded of using it to murder, while another reminded of it being used as a way to cut meat, while another reminded of it being used to fashion tools for survival in the jungle. The word knife is not evil; neither is the word wall. We are spending billions of dollars to protect the country from terrorist attack. Doesn't it seem feasible to make it difficult for them to just walk on in, too?
The conservative conclusion that these people are bad for coming here and should be punished doesn't address the problem.
Really? I'm conservative and I don't feel that way. I know why they are coming here and I can't say I blame them. I have no problem with them coming here....as long as they do it in the right way, like hundreds of thousands before them have. You seem to feel that the main reasons for the heightened security is to keep Jose from sneaking in to earn a living. My feeling is that the main reason is security against terrorism and Jose just happens to get caught up in the net.
The Liberal conclusion that we need force foreign employers to pay the same wages as American wages seems unrealistic
Yes, completely unrealistic.
I think we need to ask ourselves why is Mexico, one of the most oil rich countries in the world, so poor? And then we need to ask ourselves if there is something that we can do about it.
If you need to ask yourself that, Bob, then you are not very familiar with world governments. It's the golden rule....those who have the gold, rule. The wealth of Mexico is in the hands of the government and the drug lords...and it never gets to the poor. Mexico is not alone in that endeavor. How did Haiti,one of the poorest countries in the world, have a hundreds of million dollar governmental palace with leaders driving around in limousines? How was Idi Amin a multi-millionaire while millions were starving to death in Africa? You don't have enough fingers and toes to count the countries that are rich in resources and yet the majority ofthe people live in poverty. Is there something we can do about it? No.
If you look at the time and energy and enterprise that the Mexicans have been willing to pour into Narco-trafficing, I think you'll have to admit that there's no scarcity of enterprise and energy there, nor of will and drive when the people actually feel that the goal is within their control. Even when the risks are high. How can we help them harness that spirit to good ends, ends that will be to our mutual benefit?
Beats me. If you find out, then perhaps we can use that plan on the Taliban or the dozens of terrorist organizations around the world. They certainly pour their energy into destruction, to the point of killing themselves for it. Be nice to harness that spirit to good, too, wouldn't it?
How can we help them use that energy in their own country to the ends of the development of their own society? That seems to be the question as far as I'm concerned.
Then your question is unrealistic, Bob? Do you want to try to convince the drug dealers to give up their evil ways and better their country? Do you want to try to convince the corrupt governments to do the same? That goes beyond Pollyanna thinking. Who is it that you are trying to help change their minds? Certainly not the paisanos. They have no power at all. The only way that they can fight the system is to come here. Of course you could advocate invading Mexico, throwing out the government, end corruption and killing the drug cartels if you wanted the only realistic solution but I doubt you want to go there. I certainly don't.
BY speaking about the "conservative conclusion", you are making it political when it shouldn't be. National security should not be political. Both parties should strive for that. Making it difficult for illegals to sneak into the United States should be a priority for both.
I can understand you empathy for the MExicans, Bob. I feel it, too, perhaps a little more strongly, having lived in countries like Mexico where poverty reigns and personal liberties are minimal. I can understand their wanting to escape. As I said, they ARE allowed into the country. They simply need to do it in a legal way and they are welcomed. Is it so unrealistic to require that?
To minimize our security at this time is very foolhardy and, if Obama does it, the next attack is on him. We just dodged one bullet, thanks to a faulty bomb. There should be little doubt in anyone's mind that there will be others. Reducing national security at this time is unforgivable.