I had to split my response. When I tried to post, I received a message that it exceeded the length. Sorry.
Quote:
Furthermore, I don't have the numbers, but I believe that if we looked at countries of the 3 million who received amnesty from Reagan, it would include Mexico, but not to the degree that people would expect for a border country (or even reflected by the numbers now). The reality is that the people who are coming in through the border NOW are immediately working and sending money back home. Many countries around the world have remittances as a sizeable amount of their GDP.
Which is why it is curious that people are framing the debate about citizenship when it's really about work. People want a greencard so that they can go home to their families as they wish, but if you have a travel visa and a work card... Most people would take it.
|
You are absolutely right. Remittances account for Mexico's #2 source of revenue. Billions are sent each month. That is money leaving this country, which creates another problem. Most of those billions would remain here to boost this economy if millions were not here illegally sending billions home. To compound the problem, millions who send monthly remittances are receiving tax-funded benefits. They use their U.S.-born children or fraud to collect. Therefore, U.S. taxpayers are supporting them while they are boosting Mexico's economy.
I have never believed the goal is citizenship. In fact, only a small percent of those with green cards ever apply for citizenship. Illegal aliens want legal status, period. The U.S. is simply a means to an end. Most are here to simply get what they can. Some will save money and return to their countries of origin to start businesses or build homes. The U.S. is being used.
Mexico's middle-class is growing by leaps and bounds, while the U.S. middle-class is being decimated, in part, due to illegal immigration. If the U.S. could dump millions of impoverished on Canada, we would also prosper, especially if our citizens send billions in remittances to boost our economy. It would be a win-win. We would not have the burden of supporting our impoverished, while we would reap the benefit from their employment in another country.
Quote:
I don't understand why Black American history was brought into this, because as I see it, while you do have refugees from civil wars receiving asylum from many countries, the majority of foreign nationals who are entering are not fleeing a similar set of oppressive laws such as Jim Crow in their home country nor are they a persecuted minority. The ebb and flow mirrors the economy of their home countries.
I've argued on this board before that I do not and will not compare the black civil rights movement or even the gay civil rights movement to the immigration reform movement because there are few and far similarities.
|
I used the example of Black Americans during Jim Crow simply to illustrate, with courage and resolve it is possible to improve one's life without fleeing to another country. Mexicans should fight to restore some semblance of law, and replace their corrupt government. As long as they flee to the U.S. nothing will change.
However, I do agree no valid comparison can be made between the plight of Black Americans and illegal aliens. As citizens, Black Americans had a right to protest and demand equality in this country. It is an affront to compare their plight to that of people living here illegally.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are crooks. Neither party has the best interest of the citizens of this country at heart. They do the bidding for Wall Street, K Street, and well-funded special interest groups. If they don't care about citizens, they certainly don't care about you. We are all mere pawns. They will say and do anything to retain their cushy seats in Congress. They lack integrity. The citizens of this country should clean house.
I wish you the best, and hope you will one day realize your dream.