I love vindication. Even if it takes NPR to deliver it:Immigrants' Home Economy Hurt by Deportations
by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro
Morning Edition, June 25, 2007 · With immigration officials cracking down on undocumented workers and the U.S. economy slowing in some sectors, the amount of money being sent back to immigrants' homes has fallen. That has caused difficulties that are starting to harm those economies. Figures from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement show 2007 is on pace to be a record year for deportations.
Everyone reading the subtext? When these people are returned to their homes their homes suffer. Listen to the entire 'cast and hear even more subtext. My favorite was that the return of these migrants would cause social unrest in Mexico. Exactly. Amazing isn't it that those same people when in the US illegally cause none of those problems.
26 comments:
F I R S T
M R T
U S
Benoit cheats....It's later where he is so the topic shows up there first!
Almost MURST!!!
Electrons travel at the speed of light... if Rob's in California and you're in Texas, technically the post would reach *you* a couple of nanoseconds before it hits me in NYC. heh ;-)
As for the topic -- "Licenses? We don' need no steenking licenses!!"
When they are in the country illegally, they are making money and sending it back. So it does make sense that when we try to halt the illegals coming in, it would cause hardship because now they're not receiving money they would have before.
Whether or not it's a good reason to tolerate illegal immigration is another issue... But it's too controversial and I'd rather rag on Casey some more...
Rob Dawg:
"My favorite was that the return of these migrants would cause social unrest in Mexico."
Non es mi problemo, amigo!
Buena Suerte!
Electrons travel real slow in wire. Besides I publish counterrotationally to reduce the difference.
Maybe we can start sending the Mexican government more financial aide in order to counteract the plunge in their economy caused by our sending their wage-earners back to Mexico.
Maybe we can start sending the Mexican government more financial aide in order to counteract the plunge in their economy caused by our sending their wage-earners back to Mexico.
Maybe we can send them Casey Serin so he can start teaching them how to become self-sufficient from blogging. iamfacingdeportation.com seems to be free.
I hate mainstream media.
120,000 sent home vs 81,000 normally. The difference is pathetic and would not cause any problems. If problems were caused, it would be more social unrest from people who have been part of a working economy revolting at being part of a non working economy.
The remittances slowing down from the slowdown in US construction is potentially a much bigger problem. if 3,000,000 people quit sending money home. It would cause the collapse of some areas of Mexico and Latin America. On the plus side 3 million people spending more money in the US would reduce the housing recession that is coming on
120,000 a year deported. Meanwhile, over 20 million are here, with about 3 million coming in per year (see the Bear Stearns study: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Bear_Sterns_20_million_illegal.pdf)
Even if you accept the census data (the illegals do turn in their census forms after dutifully checking the box saying they're illegal, as if), you have 12 million here, 1 million coming in a year.
120,000 deported is nothing.
Benoit's an hour ahead so he gets an extra hour to plan and launch his FIRST.
This calls for Massive Focused Action and some Mad IT Skillz to counteract his advantage.
Pass.
Ahhh somebody listened to the 'cast. Imagine 12,000,000 arriving "home" to await their turn to emigrate. 15% or more of the entire Mexican GDP gone in an instant. 12 million people plunged into conditions they fled or never knew. The only reason Mexico is socially stagnating is because we decant the forces for change and redirect them to our selfish purposes.
Just wait until the NAFTA superhighway opens. Open boarders for truckers with cargo. We might as well disband DEA and ICE now, and cede CA, AZ, NM, and TX to Mexico.
Their absence in Mexico also causes social problems there. Imagine towns where most of the men are gone most of the time.
Imagine a marriage where the husband spends his time in a foreign land ...
King! My man! Thank you. Sometimes it takes months to do EN tie-ins. People keep asking why I pick such "unrelated" subjects. Here we have transportation and immigration and housing construction. They are not unrelated. When the NAFTA corridor in combination with the cross border trucking licenses kick in we have ceeded an semblance of soverignty.
The immigration amnesty and border loosening bill was defaeted only to rise again. This is exactly what happens in the other "unrelated" areas EN follows.
One of my more tin-foil-hat theories to why they won't shut the border, is that good, hard earned drug money is being spent to keep them wide open.
Plus, with battles happening along the border, where our agents have to fill out forms in triplicate after consulting lawyers just to unholster their guns, and whole towns across the boder being owned by druglords...it's not hard to imagine it's having *some* influence.
Now with the "superhighway" it gets worse - it's a direct pipline into the heart of America - at least we'll get cheaper pot and coke. Too bad I don't use either.
I also suspect the Feds know that if they close the border, the druglords will dclare war openly, and we'd see Mexican soldiers fighting alongside the drug runners. The gangs inside the country already would rise up, and we'd be under attack.
Which is fine with me. Send in our troops, and wipe them out. We send tanks across the globe for "Democracy", why not to our Southern States?
Oh, that's right, it's "racist" to care about our culture, communities, and country.
I say invade Mexico, make it a state, and be done with it. That's where we're headed anyway.
You know, I can't help but think that the whole issue with immigration lately is racially motivated. You don't see people complaining about illegal immigrants from Canada or other light-skinned countries. Sure, I'll concede that he bulk of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. are probably from Mexico but it's being made out to be as if it is the only place where this is an issue.
Also, I think you are interpreting the article incorrectly. It says that the loss of income to poor Mexican families is what's causing the decline. Not that those people in and of themselves are causing the issue. It's not saying that they are corrupt, bad people which you implied in your statements.
Additionally I'll add a tinge of irony to the whole discussion. Back when Texas was still a part of Mexico, the Mexican government had to pass a number of measures to deal with illegal American immigrants. Funny how things change and yet they don't.
Honestly the whole issue absolutely infuriates me. I'm a descedant of Hispanic immigrants (father is from Cuba and my mother is from the Domenican Republic)and I know the impact that immigrants have on an area. For example, take Miami (which I'm from), 30 years ago it was little more than horse country. In fact, until a few years ago, there was an old horse stable near my house. The flood of Hispanic immigrants in the 1960's and 1980's made Miami the metropolitan place that it is today. Sure, you could say that Miami has it's issues, but so does every major metroplitan area.
As a matter of fact, Hispanics make up 57% of the population in Miami-Dade county.
Although the issue at hand is illegal immigration, I find that the language used to describe immigrants is disparaging in every way possible. Immigrants are characterized as lazy, corrupt, and unpatriotic for no other reason than because they're not white.
@M&P: There would be drugs here whether or not we're bordered by Mexico. If people want something, they'll find a way to get it. And yes, your comments are racist. How do you think people in places like Britian get drugs? It's certainly not Mexicans.
Also, Americans don't have a culture. We're a mix of everything. For example, we use french words like "concierge, silhouette" and mixed spanish phrases like "flying solo".
We all got here on a boat one way or the other, unless you're Native American, you have no right to bitch about immigrants. End of Story.
The fact that you assert that I have to give up my rights to free speech because of my ancestry is the only racism I see in this discussion.
I wasn't asserting that you can't say what you want. Obviously this is your blog and you can post whatever you want to talk about.
My comment at the end of my last post was to say that the only people with a legitimate grievance against immigrants would be Native Americans. This nation is what it is today because of immigrants. Everyone always hates the new guys though. Everyone hated the Irish immigrants when they first arrived, and then the Eastern Europeans when they arrived.
I am saying, however, that I whole heartedly disagree with your comments. I do not harbor disdain against you, simply adding another perspective to the discussion. I believe I'm allowed to do that per your comment about free speech.
To clarify: My comments about arguements such as these being racially motivated is based on my observation and interpretation of events. As you have stated your opinion, I have stated mine.
Most Americans think of Mexicans as short and dark, despite the fact that Mexican President Vicente Fox is tall and white. So what really is a Mexican, and who is in charge of Mexico? Americans are getting a confused picture, while illegal immigration is rampant, with all its attendant ills. Americans see hordes of swarthy, illiterate workers, yet American media flaunts a “white,” professional Mexican, as president. The reality is the white upperclass really does rule Mexico. Their chauvinism—and the lack of patriotism shown by most of the Mexican population—has helped create America’s illegal immigration problem.
The rulers of Mexico have always been Spanish, or what we might call, Castilian. They are indeed Caucasian, but they are very few in number. Today they make up less than 10 percent of the total population of over 106 million people. The indigenous groups (Mexican Indians) total about 30 percent of the population, and the predominant group, the famous “mestizos” (mixed Indio-Caucasian), comprise about 60 percent.
The mestizos, of course, represent most of the Mexican population migrating (legally or illegally) into America. They definitely do not appear white, but nor do they appear Indian. The 2001 estimate put 40 percent of the Mexican population below the poverty line. Most of what Americans see immigrating, particularly illegally, are in this sector.
Now, Presidente Vicente Fox, son of a wealthy Irishman (who was living in Guanajuato) has shown “exemplary” (should we say, typical?) concern for the Mexicans: he’s pushing them all out of the country, just as fast as they can cross the borders. He offers them nothing within Mexico, but instead claims they have a right to be American. A real patriot he is, Presidente Fox, for all nations concerned.
Spanish television and American media also flaunt the “white” Mexican as representative of the great country of Mexico. (CEO Mr. Robert Rose has done little to alter that public image.) This is as if to say, if we must have Mexicans, let’s have a white image, as far as possible. Never mind all that brown tide from the south. Why, Mexicans are all white and wonderful people, just like their president. Never mind those Leftist brown shirts out there in California and the Atzlan fantasy that Mexicans own the American southwest.
A confusing picture, indeed. So what shall Americans make of it?
Historically, there have always been “Mexicans” north of the Rio Grande. There were mestizos with long lost tribal connections. They had but a dim memory, if any, of their long past connections to the Acaxee, Cochimi, Cocopa, Cora, Huichol, Jova, Jumanos, Kiliwa, Maya, Opata, Papago, Pima, Sari, Suma, Tarahumara, Tepehuan, Tipai, Tubar, or Yaqui tribes. The mestizos of American history are simply “Mexicans,” and represent the one simple contrast that the American mind comprehends: Mexican people of indigenous heritage, and those of the Spanish rulers (mostly military). This simple division endures even today.
I learned something of this when I lived in Tucson, Arizona. I rented an apartment near the University of Arizona, where I was doing my doctorate. My landlady was a beautiful Mexican woman, married to a white American man. Elida was very intelligent, though not formally educated. Her specialty was social wisdom.
“There are basically five families that rule Mexico,” she told me once. “They build a wall around themselves, become richer and richer, and they don’t give a—__—about anyone else. They just don’t care. They don’t care about poor people.”
And it seems the Mexican immigrants don’t care anything about Mexico, either. And they don’t care about the United States. They have become a mass of expatriated orphans, unwanted where they were, and unwanted where they are. This is tragic.
But if there is resentment in them, it should be toward Mexico, not the United States. Mexican leadership has always robbed the natives of their land. That’s what the Mexican Revolution of 1910 was all about—the recovery of the land by the people. Given the realities of today, I’d say there’s a need for the Mexican people to focus on Mexico, if they have any national pride at all. The claim to own the American southwest is a pathetic piece of Communist propaganda, and makes absolute fools out of those who buy into it.
What happened to Mexican pride? Where are the Mexicans who care? Crossing the river doesn’t make them a different kind of human being.
I say, where is Emiliano Zapata when you need him? Where is Poncho Villa? Where are the leaders of the people, who will defend them against the careless, endless abuses of the generales in ciudad Mexico?
Alis,
Don't waste your time. Dawg has been drinking since early afternoon.
Everything about him just screams alcoholic. Its actually sad to watch.
cracker,
Alis called my position racist. What you imagine to be alcoholic meanderings was in fact a measured response to inflammatory rhetoric. But then inflammatory anonypussy is something you yourself are working on no?
Post a Comment