Immigration solution

[Traveler]

I have posted about this before because I am convinced that there is nothing the government has done in the past or has plans to do will help. I have tried to take into account the many good people that have come to this country on their own to find a better life. Many have been here for years.

I am convinced that the only possible resolution to this situation is for the USA to seize control or Mexico and declare Mexico a territory of the USA. This is not the same as becoming a state and could lead to any of three directions:

1. Mexico remaining a territory indefinitely.

2. Mexico eventually being granted state hood (perhaps becoming several states)

3. Mexico eventually returning to become its own sovereign country.

I have thought this is a rather harsh stand and that many in both the USA and Mexico would prefer some kind of border war. That was until I talked to an individual I work with in Mexico. I had thought my associate would offer much resistance to the idea but I found otherwise. At first I was informed that the corruption of Mexico would be problematic and threaten a simple peaceful change. Instead, I was advised that if the USA came with force that the corrupt elements would first try to run and hide but that the Mexican people would rejoice and consider the coming of the USA as a liberating force thus assisting us in hunting down the criminal networks that is currently taking advantage of the weakness of both governments in realizing why Mexicans are fleeing Mexico and the drug Lords are using this mass migration to extend their influences, enslave peoples and profit greatly.

I discussed various ideas and came to the conclusion that this takeover of Mexico would be the only way possible to solve illegal’s coming to the USA in mass. All other measure or efforts would only mask the real problem and extend the suffering of otherwise decent peoples.

Thought and comments?

The Traveler

[pam]

Let me ask this in the consideration:

1. Would that mean extending Social Security benefits as well?

2. Would that mean increasing the minimum wage to all there?

3. Would that mean offering welfare and food stamp assistance to them as well?

4. Would that mean requiring businesses to adhere to US standards?

5. Would that mean they would pay into federal taxes?

I have lots more questions. But I guess my point is, taking control of a country whose standard of living is less than ours would take an even greater toll on our economy. We can't pay our bills now let alone offering benefits to those there as well.

Not to mention if requiring upgrading of standards the toll it would take on many businesses there financially. Which ultimately might require some kind of a bailout or an assistance program. Again we are talking big bucks here.

[Traveler]

Let me ask this in the consideration:

1. Would that mean extending Social Security benefits as well?

2. Would that mean increasing the minimum wage to all there?

3. Would that mean offering welfare and food stamp assistance to them as well?

4. Would that mean requiring businesses to adhere to US standards?

5. Would that mean they would pay into federal taxes?

I have lots more questions. But I guess my point is, taking control of a country whose standard of living is less than ours would take an even greater toll on our economy. We can't pay our bills now let alone offering benefits to those there as well.

Not to mention if requiring upgrading of standards the toll it would take on many businesses there financially. Which ultimately might require some kind of a bailout or an assistance program. Again we are talking big bucks here.

Mexico would be a territory. The law governing territories is not the same if Mexico achieved statehood. Example; the occupation by the USA of The Dominican Republic during the beginning of the 20th century or the current unincorporated territory of Porto Rico.

Mexico could be somewhat self governing but the USA would have power to pursue criminal elements on ether sides of the border and to enforce the border from both sides if necessary.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

It would be a lot cheaper for the United States to occupy Mexico than Iraq and Afganistan. Perhaps they could even take out the drug cartel (unless some unspecified intelligence operation would be left without a sufficient funding base) before worrying about the resulting rise of terrorist reprisals.

[Suzie]

What about the citizens of other countries such as Poland and other European countries and the rest of S. America?

[Traveler]

It would be a lot cheaper for the United States to occupy Mexico than Iraq and Afganistan. Perhaps they could even take out the drug cartel (unless some unspecified intelligence operation would be left without a sufficient funding base) before worrying about the resulting rise of terrorist reprisals.

Also keep in mind that Mexico has the largest single national supply of natural resources of any country in the world. A stable uncorrupt government would very quickly make Mexico an economic super power. Not only could the living standards of all Mexican be significantly increased but the entire effort of the USA in the takeover could be financed. Very soon there would be no reason for citizens of Mexico to come to the USA.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

Also keep in mind that Mexico has the largest single national supply of natural resources of any country in the world. A stable uncorrupt government would very quickly make Mexico an economic super power. Not only could the living standards of all Mexican be significantly increased but the entire effort of the USA in the takeover could be financed. Very soon there would be no reason for citizens of Mexico to come to the USA.

The Traveler

I can see no downside to sending in troops to an area that's threatened by corruption and/or violence!

It's always worked out really well in the past. Like with Ireland.

And Iraq.

Send in the boys and have them set up a stable government, Traveler. What could go wrong?

[Traveler]

What about the citizens of other countries such as Poland and other European countries and the rest of S. America?

This problem could be dealt with separately. Over 95% of illegals coming into the USA enter through Mexico. ICE could concentrate on expired visas which constitute almost all other illegal individuals.

This would also be a tremendous boost in security and allow relaxed security at air ports.

BTW it would also eliminate over 50% of our prison population. In addition if we could significantly reduce the illegal drugs coming into the USA it would also reduce our prison population. It is very possible that this action would be a cost reduction to tax payers and reduce the deficit.

The only negatives I see is that the criminal elements in government and corporations on both sides of the border would be exposed – but that is not a negative.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Okay, who are you and what have you done with Traveler?

On a serious note. You know better than to occupy an autonomous sovereign country - especially one who is a member of the UN - without provocation.

[Traveler]

I can see no downside to sending in troops to an area that's threatened by corruption and/or violence!

It's always worked out really well in the past. Like with Ireland.

And Iraq.

Send in the boys and have them set up a stable government, Traveler. What could go wrong?

As I have said - as crazy as taking over Mexico by force sounds - it is looking better and better to me. Not just for the USA but for Mexico as well. As I said before - an associate I work with in Mexico now thinks this is a good idea and he is not a radical element. Just a common citizen trying to make a living in Mexico. This could end up more significient than the efforts of the USA to rebuild Europe and Japan following WWII.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Okay, who are you and what have you done with Traveler?

On a serious note. You know better than to occupy an autonomous sovereign country - especially one who is a member of the UN - without provocation.

Just looking for the better good. The provocation is that the USA has been invaded by millions encouraged and officially supported by the Mexican government.

I am also considering the statement by the LDS church that we do what is best for the Mexican people - both here and in Mexico. I cannot think of a better policy. All other efforts I have seen suggested have already been tried and failed giving us the current unsustainable problem

The Traveler

Edited August 2, 2010 by Traveler

[Guest]

Just looking for the better good. The provocation is that the USA has been invaded by millions encouraged and officially supported by the Mexican government.

The Traveler

It is not Mexico's fault that you have unsecure borders. There are a lot of Filipino illegals here too, you're going to occupy the Philippines next?

[FunkyTown]

As I have said - as crazy as taking over Mexico by force sounds - it is looking better and better to me. Not just for the USA but for Mexico as well. As I said before - an associate I work with in Mexico now thinks this is a good idea and he is not a radical element. Just a common citizen trying to make a living in Mexico. This could end up more significient than the efforts of the USA to rebuild Europe and Japan following WWII.

The Traveler

You mean the time that war had reduced two entire nations to rubble, broke their fighting spirit and killed most of the men of fighting age for their respective countries?

Just as an aside: Can you think of any times when sending in the military to a country with a sizeable population and keeping them there as an occupying force worked well when a war hadn't decimated the population first?

[Dravin]

It is not Mexico's fault that you have unsecure borders. There are a lot of Filipino illegals here too, you're going to occupy the Philippines next?

Been there, done that.

...

Sorry, I really couldn't resist.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest]

I am also considering the statement by the LDS church that we do what is best for the Mexican people - both here and in Mexico. I cannot think of a better policy. All other efforts I have seen suggested have already been tried and failed giving us the current unsustainable problem

The Traveler

The government can't solve the problem because the government doesn't want to solve the problem. It's really as simple as that. So anything you suggest that involves the government is going to be another FAIL.

[Traveler]

You mean the time that war had reduced two entire nations to rubble, broke their fighting spirit and killed most of the men of fighting age for their respective countries?

Just as an aside: Can you think of any times when sending in the military to a country with a sizeable population and keeping them there as an occupying force worked well when a war hadn't decimated the population first?

Yes – Many times Alexander the Great would defeat an army in his conquests – be cheered by the citizens of the countries he defeated and raise from the defeated population more volunteers for his army than the army he defeated.

BTW – I am thinking that the invasion may not even be necessary once the Mexican government and it people realized that it was a possibility. It is very possible this could be solved without anything really happening.

The Traveler

PS Why do you think so many Mexicans are coming to the USA. A recent servey in Mexico indicated that 80% of their population plans to come to the USA. Think about that and tell me how to solve the problem - if all they have to do is walk across the border. And this is not just the poor people coming - A teenage baby sitter in the USA makes more than a Doctor (MD) in Mexico. You think we can do anything here to change their minds to come here in such numbers?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Traveler
Added PS

[FunkyTown]

Yes – Many times Alexander the Great would defeat an army in his conquests – be cheered by the citizens of the countries he defeated and raise from the defeated population more volunteers for his army than the army he defeated.

BTW – I am thinking that the invasion may not even be necessary once the Mexican government and it people realized that it was a possibility. It is very possible this could be solved without anything really happening.

The Traveler

So that I'm not starting an argument over what you're not saying, you're suggesting that the idea of nationalism hasn't changed in the past 3000 years and that there would be few to no Mexican Nationalists who would fight back?

And that the situation in Mexico would be cheering throngs because you're overthrowing a corrupt government?

And that this is different from the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein because...

I'm coming up blank here. How would this occupation turn out well, unlike Ireland. And Afghanistan. And Iraq.

[Traveler]

The government can't solve the problem because the government doesn't want to solve the problem. It's really as simple as that. So anything you suggest that involves the government is going to be another FAIL.

Governments can and will solve problems when enough citizens demand it. It is time for the citizens of the USA to take responsibility for what our government is doing - or not doing.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

So that I'm not starting an argument over what you're not saying, you're suggesting that the idea of nationalism hasn't changed in the past 3000 years and that there would be few to no Mexican Nationalists who would fight back?

And that the situation in Mexico would be cheering throngs because you're overthrowing a corrupt government?

And that this is different from the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein because...

I'm coming up blank here. How would this occupation turn out well, unlike Ireland. And Afghanistan. And Iraq.

I am saying that 80% of the population of Mexico would rather live where the USA is running things. You do the math.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

I am saying that 80% of the population of Mexico would rather live where the USA is running things. You do the math.

The Traveler

Traveler? 80% of Iraq would 'Rather live where the US was running things' when Saddam was in power.

I'm checking my math on Iraq and it's not working out in your favor.

You're talking foolishness here, my friend. Invading a foreign country and putting in an occupying force doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It won't work and history backs me up.

[Guest]

I am saying that 80% of the population of Mexico would rather live where the USA is running things. You do the math.

The Traveler

80% of the entire WORLD would rather live where they have the best opportunity. Let's go conquer them all! Sheesh!

C'mon Traveler! You're disappointing me here.

[FunkyTown]

80% of the entire WORLD would rather live where they have the best opportunity. Let's go conquer them all! Sheesh!

C'mon Traveler! You're disappointing me here.

Invading Mexicy is nutty.

This is crazier than driving an open-air truck full of monkeys through a Meringue Pie factory.

[Traveler]

I do not think you understand – thousands are currently dying knowing the risk they are taking to leave Mexico and come to the USA and the numbers are increasing and not just a little. Many that are already here would risk death rather than return. Stop and think about that for a moment and realize how criminal elements are exploiting this situation.

If anyone has a better more humane suggestion that has a hint of success – Please offer a suggestion that you think is better but I believe this option should be on the table so we can openly compare options. As I said – at first I thought this option to be crazy – but, is it more crazy than all the other alternatives that give criminal elements more to exploit?

Nothing done in this country will change what is going on in Mexico. Anything we do here to benefit US citizens and is humane to illegals will only encourage more to come and make the situation worse.

The Traveler

Edited August 2, 2010 by Traveler

[FunkyTown]

I do not think you understand – thousands are currently dying knowing the risk they are taking to leave Mexico and come to the USA and the numbers are increasing and not just a little. Many that are already here would risk death rather than return. Stop and think about that for a moment and realize how criminal elements are exploiting this situation.

If anyone has a better more humane suggestion that has a hint of success – Please offer a suggestion that you think is better but I believe this option should be on the table so we can openly compare options. As I said – at first I thought this option to be crazy – but, is it more crazy than all the other alternatives that give criminal elements more to exploit?

The Traveler

Migrant deaths along the Mexico ? United States border - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to that, about 500 people die a year(In a bad year) crossing the border. That's tragic.

Your solution would result in:

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anywhere from 100, 000 on up in 3 years time. Or roughly 100 times the number of casualties. And that's just civilians. That isn't people who actively are fighting against you.

For every 1 schlub who dies crossing the border, your solution will line 100 people up against the wall and kill them.

Yes. Your option is crazy.

How many are drug traffickers? How do they die? Why do they die? What happens?

[Guest]

I do not think you understand – thousands are currently dying knowing the risk they are taking to leave Mexico and come to the USA and the numbers are increasing and not just a little. Many that are already here would risk death rather than return. Stop and think about that for a moment and realize how criminal elements are exploiting this situation.

If anyone has a better more humane suggestion that has a hint of success – Please offer a suggestion that you think is better but I believe this option should be on the table so we can openly compare options. As I said – at first I thought this option to be crazy – but, is it more crazy than all the other alternatives that give criminal elements more to exploit?

Nothing done in this country will change what is going on in Mexico. Anything we do here to benefit US citizens and is humane to illegals will only encourage more to come and make the situation worse.

The Traveler

Traveler. You have traveled all around the globe and has seen what the world is like more so than the average American. Mexico is not at all unique. I would even deign to say that Mexico is in the majority of world population as far as the human condition goes. The United States of America is a beacon for all of us. But, the United States of America cannot and should not think it is the solution of all the world's problems. I am Filipino. You know what it is like over there with a government as corrupt as Mexico, if not more so. You will find thousands of Filipinos risking their lives to be a sewer cleaner in the UAE, thousands risking their lives to come to Australia, Canada, US, anywhere where there is a better opportunity. The answer is not to usurp them. Because, as much as you think Mexicans want to be Americans, my experience will tell you that as a Filipino, there is nothing more important to us than be Filipinos. You will notice that Filipinos migrating to America, even those becoming American citizens are still proud of their Filipino heritage more so than their American one. Just last night, an MMA fighter - Munoz - born and raised in California, wants himself to be identified as the Filipino fighting machine. That's basic human psychology.

Traveler, I already posted my view on immigration ad nauseum in this forum. To recap - I support the McCain-Kennedy bill except that I don't want the pathway to citizenship part of it. Here's a brief outline:

1.) Secure the borders. I mean really SECURE it. Not just play at it.

2.) Then give all the illegal immigrants the Z-visa (new type of visa) that gives them permanent residency status without the citizenship option. Yes, this is amnesty - I don't care if McCain tries to deny it.

3.) Reform the current immigration process so that it gives faster processing for legitimate immigrants while effectively weeding out the criminal element.

Then after you got that accomplished, you can foster international stability through fair trade practices - a better NAFTA and the like, supporting democratic governments, and establishing alliances. This, the US was already good at, so they can just keep doing what they used to do very well.

Can't be done? Well, you are right - all it takes is a population clamoring for it and a Congress that listens to the people.

Edited August 2, 2010 by anatess