The United States has basically been fucking over the people of Mexico for our own economic gain for years. We have done this through NAFTA, through strings attached to our foreign aid, and through structural adjustment policies mandated by the IMF & World Bank. The purpose of NAFTA was to internationalize production and allow capital to flow more freely between Mexico & the U.S. (and Canada). This translates as getting the Mexican people to do all the work for non-livable wages (internationalization of production) while the U.S. corporations get all the profit (freely-flowing capital). We have done this not only to exploit the Mexican workforce, but also to exploit Mexico's abundant natural resources to which you were referring.
In order to implement NAFTA, Mexico was made to comply with World Bank policies calling for the privatization of all land, cuts in spending for social services, and an emphasis on export production. Labor and environmental protections were also weakened. So as to comply with the privatization of land, in 1992, Mexican President Salinas changed Article 27 of the Mexican constitution, the part that had protected communal lands, which were often used for subsistence farming. Consequently, millions of Mexicans were displaced from their land and left unable to grow food for their families. Big agribusiness took over and crop use turned to exports and animal feed. Land that was rich in resources became available for international exploitation. And the people who no longer had land on which to live and grow food for their families were forced into the now less-protected workforce to be exploited by American corporations, oftentimes having to move north to border cities to work in manufacturing plants. Wages in Mexico dropped and the Mexican Secretary of Commerce said it was a good thing because it would attract more U.S. companies - nevermind the fact that the Mexican people aren't able to feed their families on these wages. The rich got rich and the poor got much poorer. So of course they started immigrating to the U.S., whether legally or illegally, looking for work.
As for your uprising, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) rose up on January 1, 1994 - the first day of NAFTA. At the time there was one political party that had been in power for like 70 years. (The party has since changed, but the situation hasn't.) Citing Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution - "National Sovereignty essentially and originally resides in the people. All political power emanates from the people and its purpose is to help the people. The people have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government." - they took over several towns in the state of Chiapas and essentially declared war on the Mexican government, which they considered more of a dictatorship than a representative government. Their purpose was not to take control for themselves, but to give control back to the people and create a democratic system instead of one where a few rich and powerful Mexicans could essentially sell the land, resources, and people of Mexico to the U.S. The U.S. response was to drastically increase the arms sent to the Mexican military, which they said were to fight the drug war but everyone knew were being used against the Zapatistas.
Thanks for explaining that scb, but don't you mean the U.S. gov when you say the U.S ?.
Yes, the U.S. government. And of course the U.S. businesses. And let's not forget the U.S. people who vote in the U.S. government and support the U.S. businesses.
Then again why fight for your own country when you can just come to america,wave your own flag,demand that america give you free healthcare,education ,driving prvliges,ect,ect, while putting it all on the american taxpayers.
Did you read the part about how the Mexican people are trying to fight for their own country but our country is keeping them down, giving them virtually no choice but to come here looking for work? This attitude that the American taxpayer is some big victim of the Mexican worker is such bullshit. It's really more the other way around.
Here were I live we're encroaching more and more into the forest homes of the bears, taking their habitat and food resources for ourselves. And then we get pissed when they wander into the city looking for food to feed themselves and their families. But should we blame them? The situation with Mexico kind of reminds me of this situation with the bears.
so I guess the 64% of arizonans that support the bill some of which happen to be latino are racist ?
and the bill has nothing to do with racial profiling. You really need to educate yourself on this subject,because either you don't know a thing about this bill or you don't even live in Arizona or both.
:roll: Why don't you just keep your drivers liscence with you instead.
"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey..."
Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.
I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)
so I guess the 64% of arizonans that support the bill some of which happen to be latino are racist ?
and the bill has nothing to do with racial profiling. You really need to educate yourself on this subject,because either you don't know a thing about this bill or you don't even live in Arizona or both.
:roll: Why don't you just keep your drivers liscence with you instead.
"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey..."
Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.
I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)
ok I'll give you that as far as when the survey was done..
So just bcos you know a few people that would oppose it it automatically makes you think that most Arizonans would??
give me a break scb.. :roll: How do you think most polls are done ??
But still the facts have not changed. Arizona's new law does not conflict with federal law. It in fact compliments the federal law. If Arizona is breaking the law the law then why doesn't the federal gov go after the cities like san francisco.or L.A. that have sanctuary cities that are clearly violating the federal immagration law by not enforcing it ? Also Federal law states that the feds dont even have to have a reason to ask you if you are here legally or not.
So let's just be honest scb. Obviously you want open borders.
Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.
I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)
ok I'll give you that as far as when the survey was done..
So just bcos you know a few people that would oppose it it automatically makes you think that most Arizonans would??
give me a break scb.. :roll: How do you think most polls are done ??
But still the facts have not changed. Arizona's new law does not conflict with federal law. It in fact compliments the federal law. If Arizona is breaking the law the law then why doesn't the federal gov go after the cities like san francisco.or L.A. that have sanctuary cities that are clearly violating the federal immagration law by not enforcing it ? Also Federal law states that the feds dont even have to have a reason to ask you if you are here legally or not.
So let's just be honest scb. Obviously you want open borders.
I have to go to work now.
have a nice day
Dude, first of all I never said that most Arizonans would oppose it and you know it. Why the need to put words in my mouth? What I said - or at least meant to say - was that the populations they excluded would be more likely to oppose it than the populations they included would. And everyone knows that selection bias invalidates (or at least decreases the validity of) research. If they took themselves and their poll seriously, they would have acknowledged this themselves.
Now please clarify your position for me. I thought your position was that the AZ law was the same as the federal law. But now you're saying it "complements" the federal law, which means it adds to it, which makes it different than the federal law. So which is it?
And now about those facts... When this argument started many threads ago I read through the bill line by line and pointed out each part that is incongruent with federal law. I'm not going to repeat myself. But the fact is that it takes liberties not granted by federal law. And sanctuary cities (which you haven't demonstrated to violate federal law anyway) are not relevant. (But I do love a good, "But HE did it TOO!" defense. :roll: )
Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.
punish the corporations, the illegals go away.
...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.
punish the corporations, the illegals go away.
...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.
Big agriculture is not small business, Big Meat suppliers are not small business.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.
punish the corporations, the illegals go away.
...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.
Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.
punish the corporations, the illegals go away.
...
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.
Big agriculture is not small business, Big Meat suppliers are not small business.
...
I never said that... i am just stating that is isn't just big busuiness to blame for hiring illegal immigrants... the thousands of low-skill/no-skill jobs are washing dishes, bussing tables, changing hotel bed sheets, running vaccuum cleaners, cutting grass, operating leaf blowers, nailing frames together, hanging drywall, etc...
Those small business owners are just as guilty as the corporate farmer or rancher.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I never said that... i am just stating that is isn't just big busuiness to blame for hiring illegal immigrants... the thousands of low-skill/no-skill jobs are washing dishes, bussing tables, changing hotel bed sheets, running vaccuum cleaners, cutting grass, operating leaf blowers, nailing frames together, hanging drywall, etc...
Those small business owners are just as guilty as the corporate farmer or rancher.
my apologies, yes. I re-read it and finally got it.
punish them all. The tea bag crowd tends to use the (insane) logic that if corporations are regulated it unfairly squeezes the small business. Even though they never seem to criticize the banks who will not lend to start small business
Here's the bottom line. I am for what's best for America and Americans. What I am against is political figures saying one thing when their interests clearly are the opposite.
Are we following the laws or not? let's decide and move on.
Comments
Yes, the U.S. government. And of course the U.S. businesses. And let's not forget the U.S. people who vote in the U.S. government and support the U.S. businesses.
I don't remember.
Did you read the part about how the Mexican people are trying to fight for their own country but our country is keeping them down, giving them virtually no choice but to come here looking for work? This attitude that the American taxpayer is some big victim of the Mexican worker is such bullshit. It's really more the other way around.
Here were I live we're encroaching more and more into the forest homes of the bears, taking their habitat and food resources for ourselves. And then we get pissed when they wander into the city looking for food to feed themselves and their families. But should we blame them? The situation with Mexico kind of reminds me of this situation with the bears.
"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey..."
Well here's your first problem with this report: poor methodology. They didn't survey people without telephones. I know when I lived in Arizona most of the people I knew - who would likely oppose this law - didn't have telephones. So right away their opinions are thrown out of this poll. I'd also bet they only surveyed people with land lines. That's gonna rule out many/most of the young people in the state. So who are they surveying then? Primarily older, wealthier, more urban, non-Indian people. That's a biased survey if I ever saw one.
I also wonder if the numbers have changed at all now that people have had time to actually read the law. (This survey was done only a week after it was enacted.)
ok I'll give you that as far as when the survey was done..
So just bcos you know a few people that would oppose it it automatically makes you think that most Arizonans would??
give me a break scb.. :roll: How do you think most polls are done ??
But still the facts have not changed. Arizona's new law does not conflict with federal law. It in fact compliments the federal law. If Arizona is breaking the law the law then why doesn't the federal gov go after the cities like san francisco.or L.A. that have sanctuary cities that are clearly violating the federal immagration law by not enforcing it ? Also Federal law states that the feds dont even have to have a reason to ask you if you are here legally or not.
So let's just be honest scb. Obviously you want open borders.
I have to go to work now.
have a nice day
Dude, first of all I never said that most Arizonans would oppose it and you know it. Why the need to put words in my mouth? What I said - or at least meant to say - was that the populations they excluded would be more likely to oppose it than the populations they included would. And everyone knows that selection bias invalidates (or at least decreases the validity of) research. If they took themselves and their poll seriously, they would have acknowledged this themselves.
Now please clarify your position for me. I thought your position was that the AZ law was the same as the federal law. But now you're saying it "complements" the federal law, which means it adds to it, which makes it different than the federal law. So which is it?
And now about those facts... When this argument started many threads ago I read through the bill line by line and pointed out each part that is incongruent with federal law. I'm not going to repeat myself. But the fact is that it takes liberties not granted by federal law. And sanctuary cities (which you haven't demonstrated to violate federal law anyway) are not relevant. (But I do love a good, "But HE did it TOO!" defense. :roll: )
Please then, forward this link to every unemployed Arizonian or American for that matter ASAP! They'll hook them up with some work.
http://www.takeourjobs.org
they never finish the sentence...
Americans are unwilling to do manual labor...without a fair wage, overtime, and benefits.
punish the corporations, the illegals go away.
Punish the small business owner... the restaurant owners, landscaping contractors, general contractors, janitorial services company owners, etc... the people who drive by the Home Depot to pick up day laborers are not IBM, General Motors or Ford... they are small business owners that are cheating the system.
Hail, Hail!!!
:thumbup:
Big agriculture is not small business, Big Meat suppliers are not small business.
Punish them with jail time, not some $100 fine.
I never said that... i am just stating that is isn't just big busuiness to blame for hiring illegal immigrants... the thousands of low-skill/no-skill jobs are washing dishes, bussing tables, changing hotel bed sheets, running vaccuum cleaners, cutting grass, operating leaf blowers, nailing frames together, hanging drywall, etc...
Those small business owners are just as guilty as the corporate farmer or rancher.
Hail, Hail!!!
my apologies, yes. I re-read it and finally got it.
punish them all. The tea bag crowd tends to use the (insane) logic that if corporations are regulated it unfairly squeezes the small business. Even though they never seem to criticize the banks who will not lend to start small business
Here's the bottom line. I am for what's best for America and Americans. What I am against is political figures saying one thing when their interests clearly are the opposite.
Are we following the laws or not? let's decide and move on.
To that point I heard on NPR today that 18% of Americans feel that BP should be given an apology.
My point? Just because you have the ability to form an opinion, doesn't mean you're not incredibly stupid.