Finn dAbuzz wrote: Bill
For discussion sake I will concede your point that the US stole Texas and New Mexico.
What is the practical effect of this?
I guess I wasn't clear. There is NO practical effect from this, but it does magnify the hypocrisy of someone looking down their nose at Mexicans if they reside there, especially in a State named New 'Mexico'. The balance of your questions on this are based on the misunderstanding of my point. Of course no one is
entitled to come here, and of course moving the goal line behind territorial lines from a century and half ago is ridiculous.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Why shouldn't Polk's perfidy inform us as to the potential dangers of massive immigration? Are Mexicans somehow incapable of the sort of thinking that led to Texas and New Mexico becoming part of the US?
It matters little whether Mexicans are capable of this sort of thinking or not.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Since you do not wish to consider the issue of Mexicans "stealing" the land from Spain, and Spain "stealing" the land from the Indians (an effort that the Mexicans continued after they stole the country from Spain), how many years have to pass before such historical events become irrelevant?
Irrelevant is harder to answer than reasonable. A glance at the Israeli/Palestinian dispute tells us relevance doesn't disappear with international recognition.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: If, somehow, Mexican immigration is still a problem in the 22nd century, will the relevance of the theft of Texas and New Mexico have expired?
As stated above; it is already now only relevant in residents of same displaying symptoms of holier than thou attitudes.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: At the risk of redundancy, we do not owe Mexicans entry into any of our states. They have neither a legal nor a moral right to reside within our borders.
Agreed 100% on legal, but my opinion on moral is still evolving. I personally think we're overdue for a bilateral agreement that allows free travel between the countries for law abiding citizens. America stands more to gain than lose by such an agreement, imo, but that's probably better saved for another thread.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: There are reasonable arguments for considering expanding legal immigration for Mexicans (in addition to other nationalities); but that we somehow owe them a place here is certainly not one of them.
No dispute.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: As for "anchor babies," you are naive if you do not believe that some Mexican women are indeed using their new born babies as a means to an end either independently or at the insistence of a man. At the very least they are risking the possibility that they might be separated from their child.
I am not so naïve, but the term's use here remains anathema to me, because of the callous way it's been employed. Even in those exact scenarios; we're still talking about exiling a new born baby for sins of the father. Separating children from their parents is no better.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: This notion that all an illegal Mexican immigrant need do is set foot in our country to invoke our charity is extremely problematic.
More problematic is the assumption that that is the intent of your average illegal Mexican immigrant. I doubt
you would dispute that the vast majority come here seeking opportunities to work. The last time I consulted an almanac; Hispanic Americans as a group showed lower unemployment, single parents, welfare recipients etc. than Americans in general. Indeed; in most "value" categories, they score better than whitey. This despite considerable bigotry and undue prejudice.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Have you ever traveled to a city in the Third World? If so then you have been faced with the dilemma of begging children. How did you react? Did you give all of your money to them so that you could not pay your hotel bill and was forced to join them in begging? Did you give them only that money you were keeping for your entertainment? Or did you give them some money, perhaps more than you would have thought you might, but by no means enough to seriously impact your own living arrangements?
If your response was anything other than giving them all of your money, how did you determine when to stop giving? Obviously, even if you gave everything you had, you could not respond to the needs of all the street children of the city.
As always, I generally prefer gifts to cash, payment for services I don't need, and purchases of trinkets I don't want, to outright gifts of cash to panhandlers. I have not visited the poorest of the poor, but know in advance that I prefer the micro-loan strategy to perpetuating the inverse profitability relationship between begging and working.
Finn dAbuzz wrote: I'm not saying that mysterman's solution should be adopted, although it is hardly as obscene a notion as you and some other would suggest, but I am saying that this issue cannot be resolved on a case by case basis. Hard choices must be made, not everyone will be happy and human suffering will continue. The insistence that every single pressure point of the millions that arise from this problem be resolved with zero tolerance for distress or suffering is at best foolish and at worse selfishly irresponsible.
Said solutions need not cast babies into hardship or force mothers to choose between their babies and their baby's best interest. Regardless of what solution the majority chooses; babies shouldn't be the target of the correction.
For clarification; I didn't think MM was a sick man for his suggestion; I think he's a sick man for thinking for believing it compassionate and seemingly being sincere in asking what could be more compassionate than that.
How about you simply allow her to stay here legally? Will that hurt you, your way of life, or you security in any way, shape or form?
