Blogcritics Comments on Thanks, Gerald Ford!

Comment by DJRadiohead

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:36:05 EST

Ruvy, in academic terms the question you raise is interesting to ponder. In that light, fair enough. As for staying in my same box in anger... I will admit to some anger on the subject but I don't feel like I am obstinantely staying in my own box. The idea that borders require securing to me is not some quaint, redneck attitude but rather common sense. Not all of the ire in my response was directed at you, either. I just get tired of the "Blame America First" routine. I also get crazy about the idea that we have to surrender more of our personal liberty because we can't get the government to secure the borders. We have some immigration reform needed. No question. Secure the border first and then let's talk about where we go from there.

Comment by Nancy

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:02:34 EST

I think DJ is right, in that it's the principle involved. What part of "illegal" do people not understand here? As far as diversity goes, we're already pretty diverse in this country, last time I looked. Even places that 20 years ago would have been "pure" anglo are today well mixed with hispanics, asians, & everyone else. You have to go pretty far to find someplace that is not diverse, any more. But getting back to basics, if someone wants to live here, I don't care what their motives or reasons are, they should only be doing it legally. Basta.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:44:41 EST

DJ, Let's get something clear here. I'm not lamenting anything. Illegal immigrants to the United States are not my problem. Your are welcome to all of the headaches. I have enough of my own here. All I did was to point out that the possibility of another solution (that perforce would have had to take place in the past) to give you another angle at looking at the present headache YOU face. If you just want to bang the keys in anger and stay in your same old box, that's no skin off my nose. Knock yourself out.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:32:38 EST

Solving the Mexico problem requires securing our border because Mexico won't secure theirs. Solving the Mexico problem requires Mexico to take an interest in fixing its own problems on its side of the borders. Is it up to the Canadian Parliament and Canadian Prime Minister to reform America's educational system? The world is complex. There aren't simple solutions to complex problems most of the time. So you fix what you can while you can the best you can. You try and minimize the problem even if you can't make it go away in its entirety. Ruvy, is it possible that the way borders were drawn 150 years ago has had a lasting, lingering impact? Sure. That could be a cause or a contributing factor. Personally, I don't buy that argument but I am not enough of an expert or authority to say it couldn't be factors. If one vote had changed, Americans would be speaking German instead of English. If Bill Buckner hadn't dropped the ball in '86, the Red Sox would have won a World Series a lot sooner. If Christopher Columbus had stayed home there might not be any Americans in America or Mexicans in Mexico. How far do you want to go back to find someone to blame for the situation? The borders are not getting redrawn (I hope) so it is time to deal with the situation that is rather than lamenting what may or may not have been bad decisions of the 19th Century. Should America annex Iraq to solve the oil supply problem. Or maybe we should let the UAE buy the whole country so radical Islamics will stop flying airplanes into our tall buildings. Let's just open the floodgates and tell Mexico, "Our bad. We should have taken you over 150 years ago so make yourselves at home." I can't get with that kind of thinking. Maybe I'm the dumbass. I don't know. That has been suggested to me once or twice in the past. I don't hate Mexico or Mexicans. I don't deny they have some real problems in their country. Blaming America for their problems and suggesting that securing the borders of a nation is racist is wrong. Suggesting that it is the responsibility of America and its government to fix Mexico is wrong.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:54:21 EST

I guess DJ, you just don't get the point of my comments. When you castrate a country, you leave it even more open to exploitation by foreign powers (Emperor Maximilian), to takeover by dictators (I don't have time to list them all) and exploitation by foreign powers and civil war ('member Pancho Villa and Zapata?). Had the Americans just pushed the border south from the River Nueces to the Rio Grande, annexed Texas and left the rest in Mexican hands there is a (small) chance that Mexico would not have been invaded by the French. There is as small chance that the Mexicans would have exploited siver mines, etc. It is just as likely (IMHO) that dictators would have taken over and that civil wars would have broken out. Had the Americans just annexed the whole country, the complexion of the the States would be entirely different and there would be no issue of illegals pouring in. On the other hand, the great Europeqn immigrations of the late 19th (Christian) century might not have taken place either...

Comment by Bliffle

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:29:20 EST

Solving the Mexico Problem requires hard work and good will from the administration and congress. But what we see in both bodies is laziness and narrow self-interest. Have we ever had a lazier president?

Comment by DJRadiohead

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:16:08 EST

That's right. Mexico's problem is that the US took Texas and big chunks of the desert southwest. The corruption and mismanagement of the country by military dictators and politicians has nothing to do with it. Mexico has no responsibility for its own state. It's up to America to make it prosper and it's America's fault that it doesn't.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:32:30 EST

Actually guys, Dave Nalle provided a very good explanation of the causes of the present state of Mexican-American relations - though it was at all his intent to do so. In this article he pays tribute to Young Hickory for doing what he said he would do and leaving office. One of the things that President Polk said he would do was extend the borders of the USA to the Pacific. In essence what the United States did was to castrate Mexico. They left it half a country with barely potential to develop. In 1850 this didn't matter. But now, with the ability to migrate north a real possibilty for many Mexicans, it does. With the exception of the loonies of the Aztlan website, nobody is saying that the American castration of Mexico was wrong. But now the Americans are paying the price. It might have been wiser, in the long run, had James K. Polk just ordered the annexation of the whole country.

Comment by allendrury

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:43:09 EST

As I drove around today doing some errands I thought about how some countries have imported others to do their labor over the thousands of years of history. The Egyptians did not build the pyramids but used the Jews/slaves to complete much of the construction. French businesses lured Arabs to their country for jobs that the natives were not interested in doing. Saudi Arabia does the same. The Great Wall of China was constructed by those who lost a war of conquest. I just think it comical that there is a mentality that always seems to place America at some higher level of business acumen or morality. We are just like the rest of the world.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:59:22 EST

Currency bailouts, free-trade agreements that (if unions can be believed) have been far better for Mexico than the US... I won't deny the dynamics of the 'problem' of illegal immigration could be changed if Mexico was a more prosperous nation in its own rite. US investors won't put their money in Mexico unless they believe it will be profitable and in their own self-interest. It would probably also require more than a little regulatory reform by Mexico its ownself.

Comment by allendrury

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:26:39 EST

Bliffle, I agree with you that reforming Mexico from within deserves more attention. I think for those who might differ one needs to think about current foreign policy. It is not really different than our current efforts in Iraq (if one is to believe the current administration) that by putting billions of dollars into regime change and 'democracy' through financial resources and thousands of dead and mangled solders we can have a more stable country in that region of the world. If one supports that war, then one cannot rule out your idea regarding Mexico's need for structural reform. There has also been a long discussion in academic and some government circles about changing the agriculture practices and crops in places such as Columbia to reduce the drug growing industry in these places. All these ideas take money and much thought that needs to be considered with not only our interests in mind, but just as importantly the needs and desires of the people our polices would impact directly.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:16:06 EST

Guys, we already ARE making Mexico prosperous as much as anyone can anyway. The single largest element in Mexico's GDP is money sent home by illegals working in the US. Exactly what more could we do to help them out? Dave

Comment by allendrury

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:13:29 EST

Sonny, Yes I do know something about immigrant labor and yes I do know about their living situations and working situations. In fact I was involved directly through my job to insure that certain standards had to be undertaken in Wisconsin farm fields for health and safety. I grew up in an area with these types of laborers and knew how hey were treated by employers and how those families were treated in the school system and the community at large. I have been close up to this issue in one way or another for over 30 years.

Comment by Bliffle

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:38:07 EST

"It's up to the US to make Mexico prosperous? It's up to government to make a country prosperous?" No. But it's in our best interest. And all it takes is relentless diplomatic pressure. No invasion required. But it might strain the lovely personal relationship with Vincente Fox. It might be hard work. No money required: that will come from US investors. Anyway, it's a more reasonable project for nation-building than Iraq.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:54:08 EST

But to improve Mexico would take real courage and a lot of hard work on the part of US officials, starting with the president and congress. Alas. It's up to the US to make Mexico prosperous? It's up to government to make a country prosperous?

Comment by Bliffle

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:28:59 EST

The solution to the illegal Mexican immigration problem is quite simple: make Mexico prosperous. Most illegal immigrants only come to make money (which they send back to their families and villages - these transfers are the biggest component of the Mexican economy). We have to break down the ultra-monopoly that traditional families have on ALL aspects of Mexican economy. We have to promote business, banking and ownership rules in Mexico that will allow US businessmen to go to Mexico, build a business and retain it. Many US businessmen are eager to build in Mexico and share the wealth, but you simply can't plan the future. You can't invest capital because you will lose it all thru government fiat and lack of legal recourse. Ask anyone who has tried, as I have and many of my friends have. But to improve Mexico would take real courage and a lot of hard work on the part of US officials, starting with the president and congress. Alas.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:22:59 EST

Fair enough, Allen. Fair enough.

Comment by SonnyD

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:09:10 EST

Gordon: Right, that must be it!

Comment by SonnyD

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:02:48 EST

allendrury: You really need to get out in the real world and see what is going on. And please stop calling people racists because they see a real problem that needs to be solved. You may think the billions of dollars being spent on health care and educating children of illegal workers is money well spent for people in need. What it is doing is subsidizing the profits of the Mega Corp employers who are illegally using these people in order to line their own pockets. Have you ever gone out in the field and looked at the housing migrant workers are expected to live in? I don't think you have. Some of them are living in shacks you wouldn't make your dog sleep in. Unusable plumbing, maybe a Porta-Potty if they are lucky. How would you like to work all day in the hot sun and dirt, in a field that was just sprayed with insecticide and then have no place to take a shower? Then you get to sleep in a bug infested room with cracks in the walls that you can see outdoors through. Then to top it off, when the crop is almost done and the boss wants to cut down the number of workers, he just tells them, " Sorry, I can't make your last paycheck. Get on down the road." What are they going to do, sue somebody? Not all of them are treated this badly, of course. Some employers, mostly small landowners, are real good. I've heard of some who hire tutors to teach the workers enough English to get by safely. Reading traffic signs, learning traffic laws, telling a doctor where they hurt, etc. There should be a system whereby honest workers are allowed to work and the not so honest-the thieves and drug dealers-can be kept out. And employers should be made responsible for providing decent housing and fair wages. Workers should have access to legal recourse if they are not treated fairly. Employers could also be expected to all chip in to support a health clinic to care for minor ailments and injuries and give children the shots they should all have. And that's just the seasonal workers. Year round illegal workers are another whole problem that needs to be addressed.

Comment by Gordon Hauptfleisch

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:36:13 EST

Why, SonnyD, they're a bunch of racists, I tell ya--Racists! No other explanation...

Comment by SonnyD

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:42:32 EST

It's kind of funny, but Mexico has much stricter laws than we have. If you get caught there illegally, you don't just get a free ride back to the border. You get a nice long stay in a very unpleasant jail with no idea when or if you will ever get out.

Comment by allendrury

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:01:08 EST

No Mike. Even the GOP understands (for the post part) this issue, and so you and other racists will just have to understand that we can't view the issue from your perspective due to the fact we can't get our head that far up our backside. I can tell you a great deal about the service industry and the lack of workers that these industries faced. Where have you been? What do you read? Wisconsin Dells and other tourist sites around the country IMPORT workers from Poland and Israel and other nations due to the fact they cannot get enough wokers to do the jobs from the United States. I have worked in state government for a number of years and can spot a blight on our society when I see it. And the blight is not the workers from other countries who come to live and work here, it is the racists like you, pal, who truly undermine our great nation.

Comment by Mike

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:41:32 EST

Hey Allen Drury, The first word out of any intellectual midget like yourself concerning this uncontrolled immigration is "Racist" Americans are not allowed I guess, to not want their Country overran by 100 million Mexicans and most of the rest of Central America who have no intention of assimilating like all previous waves of legal Immigration, all in the name of cheap Labor.And as far as doing jobs Americans won't do,in the previous 10 years they have taken over almost all of the construction and service sectors, that were staffed before then almost exclusively with White and Black AMERICANS.Do you see any other Country importing Millions of Illegals annually? The Prisons are already 30% Illegal Aliens, and over a Half a Million Gang Members are infiltrating our Cities.This year alone,Illegals will cost Hard-Working AMERICAN taxpayers over 70 billion dollars. And not wanting more of that is Racist? Your a Joke Dude...

Comment by allendrury

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:09:23 EST

I think that we have all had a fair share of give and take on this issue today. That is good and healthy. I think DJ presented his ideas in a well-reasoned manner. All debates should be this fun! We haven't changed any minds, but voiced our views. Have a nice evening DJ.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:47:16 EST

I never assigned any percentages. That's the crux of this, Allen. I don't think people are more fantastic or more shit because of their background or culture. You're either good people or you're a dick based on the content of your own individual character. You're right. There are illegal immigrants working and contributing. It's true. And the counter is true, there are illegal immigrants involved in criminal enterprise. What's the percentage? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Neither of them should be here because they entered illegally. Same thing with government services. Sure, some wage earners and therefore tax-revenue contributors are illegal immigrants. They are paying into the system. Some aren't. I don't care what the ratio is. Tax dollars should not be paying for government services for people who entered illegally. It is not just a dollars and cents issue but one of fundamental fairness. Again, there you go making assumptions about me and reading things into my view. You are treating me like "one of those Anglos" you hold in such contempt rather than dealing with me as an individual. I never assigned a percentage or a most to this discussion. You, on the other hand, have disparaged Anglos as a group and made sweeping declarations of the virtues of other cultures and their work ethic at the expense of Anglos. Nice tolerance and appreciation for diversity there. Apparently if you are Anglo you aren't capable of adding texture or spirit. You are only capable of racism or oppression. What a load of bollocks. Madison may in fact be safe. I don't dispute you. The idea that diversity is the reason for it is unprovable. You can assert it all you want but just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. The reason Madison might be a safe place to live is probably the result of a vast number of factors. The economy is changing whether or not illegal immigration is allowed. The act of a country securing its own borders and regulating immigration is not racist and every person who supports the idea is not some sheet-wearing, Bubba whitey who is afraid of losing his job to someone from another country willing to work for less. Does it matter that stereotype isn't true? It should.