Letters to the Editor
-
hanna
Thanks hanna, that makes more sense now.
I don't really think that this is a particularly significant event, really. Someone pointed out in these or other letters that there is still a silent majority who is very much against these protestors and who resent their misplaced sense of entitlement. These are people who are not getting lots of media coverage (when was the last time you read an article about this that actually showed the other side?) and who presumably cannot take time off of their jobs or from their families to come out and demonstrate. They will, however and hopefully, turn out on election day to make their feelings known. The question remains, which party will be left to pick up those votes?
-
Thank You, hanna69...
Your explanation of my comments are indeed accurate. I stopped following the thread of these 3 related articles on the immigration demonstrations some hours ago, as the responses are getting predictably parochial, but just dropped back in out of curiosity and found your post. I appreciate your efforts, even though you don't necessarily agree with my point.
Perhaps my comments assumed too broad a scope for some, but not all readers. My bad!
I am in your debt.
-
You are Illegal Parasites-Fix your own Country!
I'm absolutely amazed that people who have illegally invaded our country have the nerve to march in our streets and protest our laws. Why aren't they protesting against their corrupt government? The Mexican government that does not educate them,provide health care or jobs. No,it easier for them to come here and over burden our schools and health care resources,and lower our wages. It they had any balls they would have thrown out the corrupt governments they have have had ever since there has been a Mexico. They come here for the jobs,taking their lives in their hands crossing a burning desert,rather than taking back their country and cleaning up what's wrong in Mexico. Why aren't they marching against Vicente Fox? Where's all their anger and rage against the laws and policies that force them to work as virtual slaves in another country? They say their should be no borders. That only applies to them breaking our borders. People in other Latin American countries say the hardest thing in their attempts to enter our country illegally is crossing the Mexican border-they vigorously protect their borders. Well, thats one thing Americans can be grateful for. But its another example of their hypocrisy.
-
Asianchick
It's far more interesting to me to see anti-globalization liberals stumble over the vastly more complicated consequences of globalization on our own shores than listen to all the canned PC
Asianchick, you raise some good points. First, though, let me say:
It _is_ unfair that emigrants closer to us would have an advantage over Asian immigrants. Personally, I have always yearned to live and work in Europe; my parents were both European citizens, but due to certain bureaucratic idiosyncracies, I am prevented from moving there, just because the laws were arbitrarily drafted that way (I won't go into the exact ins and outs, but trust me, it's arbitrary). But the Europeans themselves made a free-trade agreement with each other, like we did with NAFTA; yet where they have made a uniform, open-borders policy (except with the most recent additions to the EU), we propose to _seal_ our borders. This makes no sense to me; though the EU still does exclude people, they have taken a sensible step in smoothing their interactions. We should do the same thing. It would seem ridiculous to me if a French person fumed, "I had to jump through hoops to get to Holland, but now people can just move there any time they please!" Have you heard _any_ European say such a thing? So, yes, geography does render some things unfair. But I think that adding a gate makes them less fair still.
It is complicated to address globalization. I have spoken often (and felt very lonely in doing so) on the need to put brakes on some of the offshoring and having all our manufacturing done by China and Indonesia, not because I begrudge anyone in India or China their living wage, but just because the precipitate nature of moving every single job offshore within only a couple of decades. It's a huge shock, that we've done without preparing for it. But since we're allowing low-wage jobs to move to those places every day, will we then say, "everyone except the Mexicans who are here"? Why?
I wouldn't characterize everyone on either side (though who says there are only two?) of the globalization debate as "stumbling" over these issues; we're all being thrown very complicated questions about globalization, that very well-read economists are arguing over, and that have serious impacts on real people's lives. Actually, if anyone feels that "well, the _obvious_ and simple answer to the globalization question is such-and-such," I'd think them likely to make worse mistakes than those who are brought up short sometimes by the contradictions or nuances in the issue. I'm certainly no economist, and I can see that I'm contradicting earlier positions I've taken on braking the headlong offshoring process, by saying "please give amnesty to illegals, and open the borders." I hope, too, that I'm not speaking from emotion, since I've known poor Mexican illegals, but not so many poor Asians. But I would certainly say that if we let each company lay off workers and move manufacturing and services overseas, lock, stock and barrel, as we do now, we should at least be consistent and allow this "inshoring" of low-wage workers, if you will.
I feel that, though opening our borders would initially create similar shocks, it would eventually reach a better equilibrium. Water that's allowed to settle doesn't break through violently, if we stop building dams around it.
-
Not going anywhere?
Well, you should be in jail. That's what is suppose to happen to lawbreakers.
It's what happens to illegals in your country.
Don't go anywhere then. But our House needs to pass get-tough legislation and put you and ANYONE who helps you break the law in prison.