Living in Arizona and before that, California, I'm well aware that we live in highly populated Indian lands which were either stolen from the indigenous Indians or bought from the Mexican government a century or so ago. (Texas was stolen, remember the Alamo?)
Our concern is not and should not be concerned with the indigenous peoples but what to do with their southern cousins who live impoverished lives in Mexico and wish to join their more affluent cousins to the north.
Mexico, with a Christian ‘go forth and multiply' culture without the European work ethic has become one of the most populous nations in the world unable to support its own citizens. Obviously even with sympathy and empathy, we can't permit that culture to over-ride our own where we actually have a negative native population growth except for immigration. And we all know that capitalism requires some population growth of constructive citizens.
Thus we do need tough new border security to prevent being overwhelmed with the Mexican poor and downtrodden.
Let me say at this time that I think the nonsense concerning terrorists which has been injected into this problem is simply a tactic our national ‘fear-mongers' are using to attract those few ‘chicken littles' who really are fearful of terrorist attacks. But terrorism is a different subject for another day.
Personally, I think a ‘super fence' for up to 2000 miles is excessive, infeasible, and frankly, politically stupid - and it will never be built! We can do better than that by making it virtually impossible for an ‘illegal' to get a job in the US at any level, with ultra severe penalties for anyone who violates such laws by hiring such ‘illegal's. It seems that we are already doing that to a limited extent.
My reasoning is that the only motive for Mexicans to cross the border is economic and thus the best solution is also economic through enforced legislation.
Many, mostly Republicans are upset that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants may be allowed to become US citizens. They call it "amnesty" which rewards illegal immigrants who broke U.S. laws. Well, yes, but who are they, how long have they been here, what status have they achieved since they arrived?
Let me suggest that as we become aware of them for one reason or another, rather than deport them, we evaluate them individually in a good old capitalistic profit-loss manner. If they are solid citizens and have contributed to our nation's well-being without undue expense to the system - we keep ‘em and provide them with citizenship! Lets call it "amnesty with a touch of good old capitalistic greed".
The statement has been made that "Each low-skilled immigrant household that gets amnesty costs the American taxpayers nearly $20,000 each year...." I certainly don't have the ability to refute that statement and agree that those ‘illegal's who can't benefit our economy or cause severe loss through health or crime should certainly be returned - not accepted into our nation.
After all, we, as a people have never embraced welfare nor even shown much compassion - despite what you and I were taught in grade school about our history. The truth is that even before we were a nation we used the English system of "warning-out" described as follows:
Between 1750 and 1800, towns warned out thousands of unwelcome transients. The warning out system, used throughout New England, provided the means whereby town officials ensured that transients did not become eligible for poor relief in whatever community they were passing through. The settlement laws determined who had the legal right of residence in a particular town and hence who would be supported by that town if they fell on hard times. This was a system the colonists had brought with them from England, and for the most part, it ensured that everyone, pauper and property-holder alike, had some place where he or she "belonged." But in the increasingly mobile society of the late eighteenth century, the system became overburdened with large numbers of transients moving around New England in search of work, family, or opportunity.
Town officials spent a considerable amount of time keeping track of transients, warning them out, and sending them back to their supposed hometowns should they appear likely to require poor relief.
[Unwelcome Americans: Living on the Margin in Early New England. By RUTH WALLIS HERNDON. Early American Studies. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.)]
So let us admit that nothing is new in this respect.
It is for these reasons that the present bill in congress places limits on family-based immigration. It is certainly because of the increased concern that the immigrant family can't be self-supporting and would be a drain on the tax-paying economy.
Of a totally different nature is the dire need by primarily farmers to have a labor force to bring in the crops! Gringos, quite frankly are not only unwilling, but physically unable to do the stoop labor required in the hot fields to harvest our food - regardless of pay! Thus we desperately need a temporary worker program referred to as "the guest worker program" so that Mexicans who live in Mexico can come across the border to work in our fields, send their earnings back home to their families and return home at the end of the season. Some Mexican-Americans think that is de-humanizing, but I don't agree at all. How does that differ from some Americans going to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil fields at outrageous wages?
The problem with the old Braseros program was that there were labor camps run for the American farmers to house the migrant Mexicans. The problem with that program was that neither the farmers nor the labor camps were monitored by any level of government and capitalism was at its ugliest!
Certainly protections for guest workers in any new program should be guaranteed - perhaps with at least input if not oversight by the United Farm Workers union (UFW)!
It has been suggested that even these workers who wish should be offered some sort of path to citizenship. Those opposed to the program have chosen to severely limit the numbers of temporary workers - but in my opinion, that program should be need based.
As you can see, Mexican immigration is neither simple nor brown and white. We Americans have many faces ranging from those who feel sorry for anyone who lives a miserable existence to those who hate anyone who doesn't look just like they do, or work harder, or are richer or poorer or....
The bottom line is that we need some Mexicans, but certainly not all of them and we'd like to have the ones we get to become either productive American citizens or to go home to help raise the standards and welfare of their families and homes in Mexico.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Mexican immigration off track
All along I have assumed that, aside from the "big fence" fruitcakes, the thrust of the immigration problem with Mexico should and would be aimed toward seasonal, temporary workers who would live in Mexico and work in the US.
However, as stated by AP news: "Many in Mexico — and U.S. employers who say they need workers for low-skilled jobs — had hoped Congress would expand the guestworker program and allow more to cross legally, work a few months and then return home with their savings to build homes and businesses."
It seems that most Americans including politicians think of Mexican immigration with the idea that Mexicans are no different than the Jews, Poles, Italians, Irish, etc. who preceded them and immigrated in the last century from the horrors of their European ghettos to live here permanently. I think that is the wrong mindset.
Sure, there may be many Mexicans who want to live the US rat race permanently, just as there are a large number of ‘white' Americans who find they can retire almost lavishly in Mexico on little more than their American Social Security. That kind of immigration reform along with the stupid 2,000 mile wall can and should take its time in congress. It certainly doesn't deserve the urgency of the guest worker program which it seems, is being ignored by everyone except George Bush.
The main thrust of the immigration bill should be aimed toward the seasonal, primarily agricultural, Mexican laborer. The ability to speak English is certainly not necessary and very few if any ‘taxpayer services' would be required. Of course their medical costs and temporary housing would have to be mandated by law (with enforced standards) and covered by their American employers.
However, as stated by AP news: "Many in Mexico — and U.S. employers who say they need workers for low-skilled jobs — had hoped Congress would expand the guestworker program and allow more to cross legally, work a few months and then return home with their savings to build homes and businesses."
It seems that most Americans including politicians think of Mexican immigration with the idea that Mexicans are no different than the Jews, Poles, Italians, Irish, etc. who preceded them and immigrated in the last century from the horrors of their European ghettos to live here permanently. I think that is the wrong mindset.
Sure, there may be many Mexicans who want to live the US rat race permanently, just as there are a large number of ‘white' Americans who find they can retire almost lavishly in Mexico on little more than their American Social Security. That kind of immigration reform along with the stupid 2,000 mile wall can and should take its time in congress. It certainly doesn't deserve the urgency of the guest worker program which it seems, is being ignored by everyone except George Bush.
The main thrust of the immigration bill should be aimed toward the seasonal, primarily agricultural, Mexican laborer. The ability to speak English is certainly not necessary and very few if any ‘taxpayer services' would be required. Of course their medical costs and temporary housing would have to be mandated by law (with enforced standards) and covered by their American employers.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Near the shores of Tripoli......
One wonders why under the circumstances of the international posturing between the U.S. and Iran that any American would ‘visit' that country or even be allowed to go there by our government. If you can't go to Cuba, then why can you still go to Iran, since they tend to enjoy detaining Americans.
It would seem to me that a simple naval blockade of any and all oil shipments out of Iran to anywhere in the world would cause them to change their attitudes quite quickly. It would certainly not result in war and would impress on a lot of people that there is a world-wide economic interest in solving these otherwise religious Christian/Muslim problems.
I suspect that the Europeans, Asians and American car-buffs enjoy Iranian oil and I'm equally certain that the Iranians don't want to have to become bedouins again without a pot to pee in!
Academic from U.S. center arrested in Iran
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Washington-based academic with dual Iranian and U.S. citizenship has been arrested in Tehran after meeting with officials at the Ministry of Intelligence, her U.S. institution said on Wednesday.
Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the U.S. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Middle East program, was arrested on Tuesday and taken to Tehran's Evin prison, according to a statement issued by the center and her family.
The statement also said she needed medical attention but did not say why. She was allowed one phone call from the prison, it said. Iranian officials were not immediately available for comment.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack condemned the arrest and said Esfandiari was among a number U.S.-Iranians being detained by Tehran.
Iran has also confiscated the passport of Parnaz Azima, a reporter based in Prague for U.S. funded Radio, Farda, which broadcasts programs about Iran. Azima went to visit her ailing mother in Iran in January and has been prevented from leaving.
"We want to see them returned back to their families," said McCormack. "These two women are an academic on the one hand, a journalist on the other. They are both grandmothers and so I am not sure what it is the Iranian government has to fear from these ladies," he added.
"It is an insight into the nature of this regime," McCormack said of the case of the two women.
Esfandiari flew to Tehran in December to visit her mother. As she drove to the airport to catch a flight back to Washington she was robbed of her belongings, including her U.S. and Iranian passports, the statement said.
INTERROGATION
She applied for replacement Iranian travel documents and was interviewed by a representative of Iran's intelligence ministry, which was then followed by weeks of interrogations focusing on her work for the center, it said.
The center's president, former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, sent a letter in February to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explaining the work of the organization and seeking his help in securing Esfandiari's return to the United States.
"The president has yet to acknowledge or reply to it," the center said in the statement. "Attempts to resolve this issue through various channels and without publicity were also not successful."
Hamilton was the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group which last year issued recommendations for ending the violence in Iraq, including engaging with long time U.S. foe Iran.
The center's Middle East program focuses on the political, social and economic developments in the Middle East and examines American interests in the region and the threat of terrorism.
U.S. officials believe Tehran may also be holding former FBI official Robert Levinson who went missing early in March while on a visit to the Iranian island of Kish.
Levinson's wife was due to meet State Department officials in Washington on Wednesday to seek more information about her husband, McCormack said.
He said the United States still had no details on Levinson's whereabouts but believed the Florida resident was still alive. Iran has denied it is holding him.
It would seem to me that a simple naval blockade of any and all oil shipments out of Iran to anywhere in the world would cause them to change their attitudes quite quickly. It would certainly not result in war and would impress on a lot of people that there is a world-wide economic interest in solving these otherwise religious Christian/Muslim problems.
I suspect that the Europeans, Asians and American car-buffs enjoy Iranian oil and I'm equally certain that the Iranians don't want to have to become bedouins again without a pot to pee in!
Academic from U.S. center arrested in Iran
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Washington-based academic with dual Iranian and U.S. citizenship has been arrested in Tehran after meeting with officials at the Ministry of Intelligence, her U.S. institution said on Wednesday.
Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the U.S. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Middle East program, was arrested on Tuesday and taken to Tehran's Evin prison, according to a statement issued by the center and her family.
The statement also said she needed medical attention but did not say why. She was allowed one phone call from the prison, it said. Iranian officials were not immediately available for comment.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack condemned the arrest and said Esfandiari was among a number U.S.-Iranians being detained by Tehran.
Iran has also confiscated the passport of Parnaz Azima, a reporter based in Prague for U.S. funded Radio, Farda, which broadcasts programs about Iran. Azima went to visit her ailing mother in Iran in January and has been prevented from leaving.
"We want to see them returned back to their families," said McCormack. "These two women are an academic on the one hand, a journalist on the other. They are both grandmothers and so I am not sure what it is the Iranian government has to fear from these ladies," he added.
"It is an insight into the nature of this regime," McCormack said of the case of the two women.
Esfandiari flew to Tehran in December to visit her mother. As she drove to the airport to catch a flight back to Washington she was robbed of her belongings, including her U.S. and Iranian passports, the statement said.
INTERROGATION
She applied for replacement Iranian travel documents and was interviewed by a representative of Iran's intelligence ministry, which was then followed by weeks of interrogations focusing on her work for the center, it said.
The center's president, former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, sent a letter in February to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explaining the work of the organization and seeking his help in securing Esfandiari's return to the United States.
"The president has yet to acknowledge or reply to it," the center said in the statement. "Attempts to resolve this issue through various channels and without publicity were also not successful."
Hamilton was the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group which last year issued recommendations for ending the violence in Iraq, including engaging with long time U.S. foe Iran.
The center's Middle East program focuses on the political, social and economic developments in the Middle East and examines American interests in the region and the threat of terrorism.
U.S. officials believe Tehran may also be holding former FBI official Robert Levinson who went missing early in March while on a visit to the Iranian island of Kish.
Levinson's wife was due to meet State Department officials in Washington on Wednesday to seek more information about her husband, McCormack said.
He said the United States still had no details on Levinson's whereabouts but believed the Florida resident was still alive. Iran has denied it is holding him.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Economics and Power
[Not sure who is reading my tirades any more, but what the heck.
I had always thought that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were altruistic functions of the wealthy nations of the world to make life better in the lesser successful peoples of the world.
However, I really started to wonder about that when Bush appointed Wolfowitz of all people, to head up the World Bank partly because I didn't know that the administration controlled the World Bank and partly because I didn't believe that even they'd install a person of such questionable character as its CEO!
(Latest news indicates: "World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz attempted to fight his way out of trouble last night – but hinted that he may be prepared to resign if the charges ...)
But now, I see below, that our southern neighbors are alive and prospering and don't need our questionable charity! It seems that for most people, socialism* actually works! Our nation was originally based upon socialism as opposed to royal tyranny but we quickly forgot as we succumbed to the lure of capitalistic greed - screw the other guy before he screws you....
*I should add that our first colony, Jamestown, started out communistic but slavery (and cotton) very quickly changed that! And after the market crash in 1929 when people lost everything, there were many communes established for people to work, contribute and survive. My conclusion here is that communism works when you're hungry. ...AG]
Venezuela pulling out of IMF, World Bank
By JORGE RUEDA, Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez announced Monday he would pull Venezuela out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, a largely symbolic move because the nation has already paid off its debts to the lending institutions.
"We will no longer have to go to Washington nor to the IMF nor to the World Bank, not to anyone," said the leftist leader, who has long railed against the Washington-based lending institutions.
Venezuela, one of the world's top oil exporters, recently repaid its debts to the World Bank five years ahead of schedule, saving $8 million. It paid off all its debts to the IMF shortly after Chavez first took office in 1999. The IMF closed its offices in Venezuela late last year.
Chavez, who says he wants to steer Venezuela toward socialism, made the announcement a day after telling a meeting of allied leaders that Latin America would be better off without the U.S.-backed World Bank or IMF. He has often blamed their lending policies for perpetuating poverty.
Chavez wants to set up a new lender run by Latin American nations and has pledged to support it with Venezuela's booming oil revenues. The regional lender, which he has called "Bank of the South," would dole out financing for state projects across Latin America.
Chavez has criticized past Venezuelan governments for signing agreements with the IMF to restructure the economy — plans blamed for contributing to racing inflation.
Under former President Carlos Andres Perez in 1989, violent protests broke out in Caracas in response to IMF austerity measures that brought a hike in subsidized gasoline prices and public transport fares.
Enraged people took the streets in violence that killed at least 300 people — and possibly many more. The riots came to be known as the "Caracazo," and Chavez often refers to it as a rebellion against the status quo.
During Sunday's talks with leaders from Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti, Chavez predicted that "sooner or later, those institutions will fall due to their own weight."
"They will wear away — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and all those institutions," Chavez said.
Bolivian President Evo Morales raised complaints about a World Bank body that mediates disputes between governments and foreign investors. He said governments never seem to win their disputes against transnational companies at the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Chavez suggested that Latin countries could instead create their own arbitration body for disputes with big companies.
Venezuela is not the only country in the region distancing itself from international lenders.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said Sunday that he hopes to "get out of that prison" of IMF debt and that "we are negotiating with the Fund to leave the Fund."
Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa, recently asked the World Bank's representative there to leave and said the country paid off its debt to the IMF. Argentina also has paid back billions of dollars to the IMF.
I had always thought that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were altruistic functions of the wealthy nations of the world to make life better in the lesser successful peoples of the world.
However, I really started to wonder about that when Bush appointed Wolfowitz of all people, to head up the World Bank partly because I didn't know that the administration controlled the World Bank and partly because I didn't believe that even they'd install a person of such questionable character as its CEO!
(Latest news indicates: "World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz attempted to fight his way out of trouble last night – but hinted that he may be prepared to resign if the charges ...)
But now, I see below, that our southern neighbors are alive and prospering and don't need our questionable charity! It seems that for most people, socialism* actually works! Our nation was originally based upon socialism as opposed to royal tyranny but we quickly forgot as we succumbed to the lure of capitalistic greed - screw the other guy before he screws you....
*I should add that our first colony, Jamestown, started out communistic but slavery (and cotton) very quickly changed that! And after the market crash in 1929 when people lost everything, there were many communes established for people to work, contribute and survive. My conclusion here is that communism works when you're hungry. ...AG]
Venezuela pulling out of IMF, World Bank
By JORGE RUEDA, Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez announced Monday he would pull Venezuela out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, a largely symbolic move because the nation has already paid off its debts to the lending institutions.
"We will no longer have to go to Washington nor to the IMF nor to the World Bank, not to anyone," said the leftist leader, who has long railed against the Washington-based lending institutions.
Venezuela, one of the world's top oil exporters, recently repaid its debts to the World Bank five years ahead of schedule, saving $8 million. It paid off all its debts to the IMF shortly after Chavez first took office in 1999. The IMF closed its offices in Venezuela late last year.
Chavez, who says he wants to steer Venezuela toward socialism, made the announcement a day after telling a meeting of allied leaders that Latin America would be better off without the U.S.-backed World Bank or IMF. He has often blamed their lending policies for perpetuating poverty.
Chavez wants to set up a new lender run by Latin American nations and has pledged to support it with Venezuela's booming oil revenues. The regional lender, which he has called "Bank of the South," would dole out financing for state projects across Latin America.
Chavez has criticized past Venezuelan governments for signing agreements with the IMF to restructure the economy — plans blamed for contributing to racing inflation.
Under former President Carlos Andres Perez in 1989, violent protests broke out in Caracas in response to IMF austerity measures that brought a hike in subsidized gasoline prices and public transport fares.
Enraged people took the streets in violence that killed at least 300 people — and possibly many more. The riots came to be known as the "Caracazo," and Chavez often refers to it as a rebellion against the status quo.
During Sunday's talks with leaders from Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti, Chavez predicted that "sooner or later, those institutions will fall due to their own weight."
"They will wear away — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and all those institutions," Chavez said.
Bolivian President Evo Morales raised complaints about a World Bank body that mediates disputes between governments and foreign investors. He said governments never seem to win their disputes against transnational companies at the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Chavez suggested that Latin countries could instead create their own arbitration body for disputes with big companies.
Venezuela is not the only country in the region distancing itself from international lenders.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said Sunday that he hopes to "get out of that prison" of IMF debt and that "we are negotiating with the Fund to leave the Fund."
Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa, recently asked the World Bank's representative there to leave and said the country paid off its debt to the IMF. Argentina also has paid back billions of dollars to the IMF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)