Good job Arizona

[ScottR@KTP]

May 4, 2010 9:46:03 GMT -5 ktpelec said:

Apr 27, 2010 14:35:47 GMT -5 ScottR@KTP said:

I don't think they should stop them...they should shoot them. LOL
Do you think that would curtail crossing the border? If they knew there was a chance they would be used for target practice, the numbers crossing would drop drastically.

There is a lot of hate in that post. I believe that type of thinking gets the U.S. much closer to Hitler.
I agree the jobs are what the illegals are after, and that is the key to the problem. So who's children are going out in the fields for long hard low paying jobs instead of the illegals?

No hate at all...just facts. If you knew there was a chance you would be used as target practice while crossing a border, would it affect your decision making skills vs. the current setup? The fact of the matter is...we want them to cross or we would make changes to stop them.
If people need someone to work in the field, they would find them. Or matter they would resort to the 'old way of thinking'...if you want to be a farmer, have kids...lots of them to work in the fields. People will always find a way to survive...with or without illegal immigrants. People seem to not recognize the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant...if you are ILLEGAL, you need to go. If you enter our country legally...then you should be recognized for doing so.

[marcus]

Reagan should have never gave them amnesty.I dont agree with abortion.

Reaganomics was not military spending and farm subs,which I dont agree with(farm subs)

[kessinger]

Well marcus we half way agree.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2010 15:37:25 GMT -5 kessinger said:

Wouldn't NAFTA send Jobs to Mexico and not Bring Mexicans here? Reagans amnesty bill in the 80's is the reason they come pure and simple. He allowed illegals to become citizens, now they all come here for the same deal.

Lol! You didn't pay attention during this time period. Mexico lost a lot of farming to South America after NAFTA was approved. Instead of moving south for less pay they moved north, deciding to break our laws (but thats another story). You Libs hate Reagan so much I laugh my ass off. He fixed all of Carters fuck-ups and destroyed the cold war machine. Kess, you can only dig up propaganda that the UAW put out over 30 years ago that is fact less. BTW Kess, have you ever been to Arizona? I have, frequently. The past 20 years the state of Arizona has been on its knees begging the Federal govt. for help with the illegal problem. Reps, and Dems shunned the state. Now they finally get a law that would get these tax dollar sucking illegals out of their state and it becomes a race issue. Read the bill!!!!!!!!!! The police and other officers cannot just walk up to anyone and ask for papers. They have to have a legit reason. Please quit riding the Liberal Band Wagon...It makes you look like the rest of the UAW leadership...and thats not good for re-election points.

[Deleted]

Kess, you may want to thank Reagan for his amnesty bill. Or our precious union would only speak Elspanol today. It was his doing that made it illegal for businesses to hire illegals in the first place. If it wasn't for that, well I would hate to think where we would be right now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

[ktpelec]

May 4, 2010 16:01:16 GMT -5 ScottR@KTP said:

May 4, 2010 9:46:03 GMT -5 ktpelec said:

There is a lot of hate in that post. I believe that type of thinking gets the U.S. much closer to Hitler.
I agree the jobs are what the illegals are after, and that is the key to the problem. So who's children are going out in the fields for long hard low paying jobs instead of the illegals?

No hate at all...just facts. If you knew there was a chance you would be used as target practice while crossing a border, would it affect your decision making skills vs. the current setup? The fact of the matter is...we want them to cross or we would make changes to stop them.
If people need someone to work in the field, they would find them. Or matter they would resort to the 'old way of thinking'...if you want to be a farmer, have kids...lots of them to work in the fields. People will always find a way to survive...with or without illegal immigrants. People seem to not recognize the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant...if you are ILLEGAL, you need to go. If you enter our country legally...then you should be recognized for doing so.

The small family farms aren't who we are talking about, farming is huge corporations, millions of acres of produce, with a huge workforce. Just having a few more children is a simplistic approach to a very complex problem. Produce prices would skyrocket without cheap labor.

[Deleted]

* - IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12
YEARS HARD LABOR.


* - IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED
INDEFINITELY.


* - IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.


* - IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE
JAILED.


* - IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

* - IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE
BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.


* - IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.


* - IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU
GET................................


1 - A JOB,
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE,
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
4 - WELFARE,
5 - FOOD STAMPS,
6 - CREDIT CARDS,
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
8 - FREE EDUCATION,
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE,
10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON ,
11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR
LANGUAGE,
12 - AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT
YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

[marcus]

I would put a mine field up all along our border with mexico,then put up warning signs every 50 feet telling them what was ahead.This would stop the problem we have now and be cheap to do.Im 100 percent serious about this to.

[axleman]

Until businesses stop hiring illegals the problem won't stop. It's the Federal governments responsibility to protect the borders, if they refuse then the State should have the right to do it then sue the Fed for the cost. Arizona has passed this (some say harsh) law because the Federal Government refused to address the problem. Whatever it takes! Citizens should be able to protect themselves, their property, and their country from this illegal foreign invasion. Also any children born here to illegals should also be considered illegal, until the parents go though legal channels to become legitimate citizens. No welfare, schooling, food stamps, drivers license, or any other government tax payer program for illegals. Emergency hospital services (only in a life or death situation).

[ktpelec]

May 5, 2010 18:06:20 GMT -5 marcus said:

I would put a mine field up all along our border with mexico,then put up warning signs every 50 feet telling them what was ahead.This would stop the problem we have now and be cheap to do.Im 100 percent serious about this to.

LMAO. Most of the land along the Mexican border is privately owned, with a lot of livestock. Those cattle probably wouldn't work out well there with the mine field and all. I can't see where a mine field could be implimented without some huge costs involved not to mention the liability issues. We don't have the money for the resources to round up or stop the illegals now and it won't be getting any better in the future. Something like this puts the U.S. right there along with North Korea, Iran, China, ect.. shoot first ask questions later.
I feel that Arizona has the right to do what is necessary, but isn't it infringing on those "rights and freedoms" we hear we are losing all the time? If a police officer asks me for ID, I comply because don't have a problem with it.

[kessinger]

Anal,
Still explain to me what part of NAFTA sent illegals up here? Where are your FACTS?

Explain to me how you think elected conservatives are any different than elected liberals on immagration?

Conservatives want them here because its good for their business and it keeps cost's low. They have never realy tried to stop it Bush was VERY pro amnesty.......oh my bad very pro "comprehensive" and get off Reagans tit. The guy stood against everything you believe in (which made him a good president).

I have been to Texas a ton and they, LIKE ARIZONA, have always been part of the problem with immigration. They were all about cheap workers til the recession hit, example.......McCain was pro "comprehensive" before he was against it, as was Gov. Bush in Texas. So quit acting like they care. We need to fix immigration but they will never do that til they dry up the jobs for illegals. I know, I know Anal you are conservative so no one can touch a business, well til that's done sending them home does no good because they will never stay there.

As far as facts I probably back my posts up with references and articles more than anyone on here. Reagan was pro abortion, pro tax (after his first year), pro Illegal immigration, and anti union, all of this can be supported with FACTS. I don't hate Reagan, he was a good president, I just hate that you guys claim he was something he wasn't.

[kessinger]

Anal,
When did YOU read the bill. The part about only stopping them when they are committing some illegal act was amended AFTER everyone started getting upset about the bill. The original language with the amendments in color can be seen here........ www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/pdf/hb2162.pdf


So I guess you are in agreement with this.......

Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any
court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this section, including an action for mandamus.

Meaning if a cop has a truck full of Mexican looking fellows pulled over an Arizonian drives by and decides that cop isn't enforcing the law they can sue the cop (you Republicans love your law suits) So this poor cop, or county clerk or lady at the DMV gets stuck paying their court costs unless the judge agrees to make the other person pay. Notice it says they "may" grant court costs not that they "will" or "shall". So these people could get stuck with legal bills for doing their job properly.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2010 9:39:09 GMT -5 kessinger said:

Anal,
Still explain to me what part of NAFTA sent illegals up here? Where are your FACTS?

Explain to me how you think elected conservatives are any different than elected liberals on immagration?

Conservatives want them here because its good for their business and it keeps cost's low. They have never realy tried to stop it Bush was VERY pro amnesty.......oh my bad very pro "comprehensive" and get off Reagans tit. The guy stood against everything you believe in (which made him a good president).

I have been to Texas a ton and they, LIKE ARIZONA, have always been part of the problem with immigration. They were all about cheap workers til the recession hit, example.......McCain was pro "comprehensive" before he was against it, as was Gov. Bush in Texas. So quit acting like they care. We need to fix immigration but they will never do that til they dry up the jobs for illegals. I know, I know Anal you are conservative so no one can touch a business, well til that's done sending them home does no good because they will never stay there.

As far as facts I probably back my posts up with references and articles more than anyone on here. Reagan was pro abortion, pro tax (after his first year), pro Illegal immigration, and anti union, all of this can be supported with FACTS. I don't hate Reagan, he was a good president, I just hate that you guys claim he was something he wasn't.

Good God Kess, did you ever pay attention to what NAFTA is? Do I have to research and spell it out for you? Below is a partial scan on this subject. Dont challange me on NAFTA, you will only make yourself look silly in front of everyone.

[Deleted]

NAFTA provided no social contract. It offered neither aid for Mexico nor labor, health or environmental standards. The agreement protected corporate investors; everyone else was on his or her own. Indeed, NAFTA is the nation-building template imposed on developing countries by recent corporate-dominated U.S. administrations and their client international finance agencies. It is the model for the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, as well as for the Bush administration's development plans for Iraq.

Americans' understanding of NAFTA's impact on the Mexican people is obscured in part by the gap between what Mexican elites tell U.S. elites and what Mexicans tell one another. Last December former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, who negotiated NAFTA, told a Washington conference of applauding corporate lobbyists, government officials and free-market think tankers that NAFTA was a great success. "The level of trade and type of products that cross the borders," he said, "silenced even the most ardent critics."

The next day, in Mexico City, a large group of very ardent Mexican farmers broke down the door of the lower house of the Mexican Congress to denounce NAFTA and demand that it be renegotiated. Similar demonstrations -- joined by teachers, utility workers and others -- have erupted throughout the country, closing bridges and highways and taking over government offices. Polls show that most Mexicans think NAFTA was bad for Mexico. Largely because of the agreement, Salinas is the most unpopular ex-president in modern Mexican history.

NAFTA's critics did not doubt that it would stimulate more trade; that was, after all, its function. Rather, they predicted that any benefits would go largely to the rich while the middle class and the poor would pay the costs, and that the promised growth would not materialize. They were right. NAFTA is not the cause of all Mexico's economic troubles, but it has clearly made them worse. Since NAFTA's inception in 1994 -- indeed, for the 20 years of neoliberal "reform" -- the Mexican middle class has shrunk and the number of poor has expanded. Economic growth has been below the old corporatist economy's performance and substantially less than what is needed to generate jobs for Mexico's growing labor force. During his 2000 campaign, Mexican President Vicente Fox promised that under his six-year term the country would grow 7 percent per year. Two and a half years after his inauguration, growth has averaged less than 1 percent.

So the northward migration continues. Between the U.S. censuses of 1990 and 2000, the number of Mexican-born residents in the United States increased by more than 80 percent. Border-crossings diminished temporarily after September 11, but they are now as great as ever. Some half-million Mexicans come to the United States every year; roughly 60 percent of them are undocumented. The massive investments in both border guards and detection equipment have not diminished the migrant flow; they have just made it more dangerous. In the past five years, more than 1,600 Mexican migrants have died on the journey to the north, including 19 people who were found asphyxiated in a truck near Houston in May. Still, as a neighbor of one of the 19 who left told The Washington Post, "If you're going to improve your life, you have to go to the United States."

The failure of NAFTA to deliver on its promise of a better life for Mexicans represents more than just a misplaced faith in free trade. Behind the laissez-faire rhetoric, Mexico's neoliberals were pursuing a large-scale program of government social engineering aimed at forcing Mexico's rural population off the land and into the cities, where it could provide cheap labor for the foreign investment that the new open economy would attract.

Salinas and the PRI reformers did not, of course, announce that they intended to depopulate rural Mexico. The Mexican government promised that as tariffs on U.S. agriculture products fell, generous financial and technical assistance would enable small farms to increase their productivity in order to meet the new competition. But, after the treaty was signed, the reformers pulled the rug out from under the rural peasantry. Funding for farm programs dropped from $2 billion in 1994 to $500 million by 2000.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2010 9:53:30 GMT -5 kessinger said:

Anal,
When did YOU read the bill. The part about only stopping them when they are committing some illegal act was amended AFTER everyone started getting upset about the bill. The original language with the amendments in color can be seen here........ www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/pdf/hb2162.pdf


So I guess you are in agreement with this.......

Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any
court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this section, including an action for mandamus.

Meaning if a cop has a truck full of Mexican looking fellows pulled over an Arizonian drives by and decides that cop isn't enforcing the law they can sue the cop (you Republicans love your law suits) So this poor cop, or county clerk or lady at the DMV gets stuck paying their court costs unless the judge agrees to make the other person pay. Notice it says they "may" grant court costs not that they "will" or "shall". So these people could get stuck with legal bills for doing their job properly.

I read the entire bill, not a Liberal rewriting, taking it out of context. And Republicans love law suits? I never knew the ACLU was a Republican sect? The ACLU has more lawsuits then any other public or private sector in the US. Want facts on that too??

[kessinger]

Its called sarcasm Anal. And the rewrite was done by the same people that wrote the first one, not liberals.

Your NAFTA article still talks about how much more is imported and offers no evidence to why NAFTA would cause more people to come north. It only inserts a paragraph in the rest of the information

Here you go, I am sure Reagans Amnesty had the same affect:

Mexicans Say Amnesty Would Increase Illegal Immigration. A survey conducted earlier in 2009, of 1,004 adults throughout Mexico, showed that 56% of people in Mexico thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the U.S. would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Mexico is the top sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants to the U.S. Two-thirds of Mexicans know someone living in the United States; one-third said an immediate member of their household was living in the United States. 12-13 million (out of 39 million) Mexico-born people live in the United States. 36% of Mexicans said they would move to the United States if they could, even with the current recession. 69% thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans should be to Mexico. Both the bad economy and increased immigration enforcement were reasons given that fewer people were going to America as illegal immigrants and more were coming back to Mexico. October 14, 2009 Center for Immigration Studies 024190

[kessinger]

Or here:

The number of "unauthorized migrants", including those who have temporary permission or those whose status is unresolved, has grown since legalization programs began in the mid-1980s. About 180,000 a year in the 1980s; 400,000 per year from 1990-1994; 575,000 per year from 1995-1999; and 850,000 per year from 2000-2005.


Oh when did it start growing? Oh the 80's? Pre NAFTA, huh you don't say? And then it didn't really start BOOMing til years after NAFTA, when George Bush got elected and what was his immigration policy?

Hey Look Bush will let us stay.........everyone in the trunk we're going North.

Real Message of The Bush Amnesty PDF

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Digg!Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine SlashdotSlashdot Add to Mixx!Mixx Diigo Google Delicious Reddit Facebook

If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.

Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.

Not long ago, this would have produced calls for impeachment and cries that, “If Bush won’t enforce our laws, let’s elect a president who will.”

By offering amnesty and residency to millions who broke in line, broke our laws and broke into our country, Bush is not only rewarding wholesale criminality, he proposes to legalize it.

His amnesty will send this message to the world: the candy store is open, and the Americans cannot protect it. Now is the time to bust in.

As there must be billions of people willing to come and work for a fraction of our minimum wage—and exploit our social safety net—the number who could come under the Bush guest-worker program is almost infinite.

Imagine a car wash that employs 40 African-American, Latino, and white working-class folks at $8 an hour each. A new car wash down the street opens up, offering 40 new jobs at $5.15 an hour. No Americans apply. Under Bush’s proposal, that employer would be free to go to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, round up workers, and bring them in.

The new car wash with its foreign workers then drives the old car wash with its American workers out of business. Taxpayers are then forced to subsidize the newly unemployed—and pay for the medical care, food stamps, rent supplements, welfare, and schooling of all the new immigrants and their families, provide legal services when they get in trouble and pay for more cops to police their neighborhoods.

And every child born of a guest worker would, under our 14th Amendment, become an American citizen, automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. Meanwhile, Bush’s amnesty will do nothing to halt the illegal invasion that continues to this hour. If you would know what America’s social, cultural, and fiscal future will look like, take a ride through Los Angeles, capital of Mexifornia.

But why did President Bush pick now to propose as explosive an idea as amnesty, when it seemed he was holding a winning hand on the issues of taxes, national security, the economy, and gay marriages?

One sees here the cynical ploy of “Boy Genius” Karl Rove. With the filing deadlines for the Republican primaries having passed and no GOP opponent, with no Third Party challenger from the Right, and with Dean the likely Democratic nominee, Rove knows conservatives are boxed in. In the old cliché, “The conservatives have nowhere else to go.”

So Rove is executing an “apertura a sinistra,” an opening to the Left, pandering to Hispanics and Mexican President Vicente Fox, to whom Bush is to pay a visit.

But Rove may be too clever for the president’s good. For there is no hard evidence that Hispanics, other than those militants who detest Republicans, are demanding amnesty. And with Bush’s spending on foreign aid soaring, his deficits rising, and the White House refusing to veto a single spending bill, Rove & Co. may have stretched conservative loyalty to the breaking point.

For some conservatives, this amnesty will snap it. They may just get on their hind legs and fight, for huge majorities have repeatedly registered opposition to any amnesty for illegal aliens. How is the president helped by a bloody battle with his political base in an election year?

Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.”

Ike was a strong president. But in George W. Bush, we have a leader unwilling to pay the political price of doing his duty and enforcing the immigration laws of his country because he fears the reaction from the media elite and Mexican-Americans.

When it comes to standing up to truly powerful ethnic lobbies—the Hispanic Lobby, the Cuban-American Lobby, the Israeli Lobby—Bush wilts and folds every time. Nor is it a healthy sign for the future of our republic when its president offers an amnesty to law-breakers, rather than doing his painful duty to protect his country from what has now become an unstoppable foreign invasion.

The real threats to America’s survival do not come from the Sunni Triangle. They come from within, and unfortunately we have a president who either does not understand them or will not look them in the face.

Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate

[kessinger]

Yep. Reagan did the A-word
True
Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!
ShareThis
The GOP candidates keep sparring over who's tougher on immigration. In this climate, dem is fightin' words to say your opponent supports "sanctuary" or "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

But as Giuliani reminded his foes during the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, none other than Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of modern-day conservatism, signed the very law that Republicans call amnesty.

Say it ain't so!

Sorry. It's so. In 1986, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill, the first in 20 years, that legalized the status for 1.7-million people.

Some defenders of the law dispute the term "amnesty."

But here's how Edwin Meese, Reagan's former attorney general, characterizes what his boss did: "President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term 'amnesty' in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, 'the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.' "

Reagan signed the bill after Republicans and Democrats cobbled together an amnesty program in response to concerns from farmers worried about harvesting profits. The official record of congressional debates shows that lawmakers intended the program to provide a steady supply of labor for growers of perishable crops, such as cherries, grapes, peaches, etc. At the time the bill was written, however, "perishable" was defined so loosely that more durable crops such as potted plants, tobacco and seedlings were lumped in as well.

So even at the start, this program could be interpreted in ways that would benefit employers looking to save on wages.

To qualify for temporary status, migrants had to show they entered the United States before Jan. 1, 1982, and that they had continuously resided since then. They could get permanent residency within 18 months after that if they met certain requirements, such as learning English. The program took effect in 1987, also covering up to 350,000 people who had worked in U.S. agriculture at least 90 days in each of the preceding three years.

Many have called the program a success because it awarded green cards to 2.7-million migrants, giving them the hope of entry to the American middle class.

In exchange for the amnesty, the new law was supposed to have beefed up border patrols and stiffened fines for both the migrant workers and employers in cases of violation. Alas, the law failed to stop illegal immigration, and many critics of the law say the government never thoroughly regulated employers who skirted the law's requirements.

This much is certain: If the law aimed to curb illegal immigration, it failed: When the law was passed, there were about 5-million illegal immigrants; now, there's an estimated 12-million.

When Reagan signed the law, many predicted it would encourage the hiring of more migrants, especially outside of agriculture, and that this would spur the backlash against immigration that we're seeing today.

Giuliani, it would seem, brought up Reagan's legacy to show how difficult the immigration issue is. In doing so, he didn't trip any alarms on the Truth-O-Meter, which scores him a True.

[Deleted]

Kessinger, you are a true Libtard. You can twist the words and meanings around all you want, BUT YOU CAN NEVER CHANGE THE TRUTH. So youre telling me its a coincidence that all the illegals came here right after NAFTA was signed? What a crock of shit you cook! You are looking pretty silly at this point Kessinger. Go dig deeper in the Liberal propoganda machine, I know you can do better!

[Deleted]

May 14, 2010 13:21:54 GMT -5 kessinger said:

Its called sarcasm Anal. And the rewrite was done by the same people that wrote the first one, not liberals.

Your NAFTA article still talks about how much more is imported and offers no evidence to why NAFTA would cause more people to come north. It only inserts a paragraph in the rest of the information

Reposted so your Lib brain would understand

May 11, 2010 10:33:54 GMT -5 @analspasm said:

NAFTA provided no social contract. It offered neither aid for Mexico nor labor, health or environmental standards. The agreement protected corporate investors; everyone else was on his or her own. Indeed, NAFTA is the nation-building template imposed on developing countries by recent corporate-dominated U.S. administrations and their client international finance agencies. It is the model for the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, as well as for the Bush administration's development plans for Iraq.

Americans' understanding of NAFTA's impact on the Mexican people is obscured in part by the gap between what Mexican elites tell U.S. elites and what Mexicans tell one another. Last December former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, who negotiated NAFTA, told a Washington conference of applauding corporate lobbyists, government officials and free-market think tankers that NAFTA was a great success. "The level of trade and type of products that cross the borders," he said, "silenced even the most ardent critics."

The next day, in Mexico City, a large group of very ardent Mexican farmers broke down the door of the lower house of the Mexican Congress to denounce NAFTA and demand that it be renegotiated. Similar demonstrations -- joined by teachers, utility workers and others -- have erupted throughout the country, closing bridges and highways and taking over government offices. Polls show that most Mexicans think NAFTA was bad for Mexico. Largely because of the agreement, Salinas is the most unpopular ex-president in modern Mexican history.

NAFTA's critics did not doubt that it would stimulate more trade; that was, after all, its function. Rather, they predicted that any benefits would go largely to the rich while the middle class and the poor would pay the costs, and that the promised growth would not materialize. They were right. NAFTA is not the cause of all Mexico's economic troubles, but it has clearly made them worse. Since NAFTA's inception in 1994 -- indeed, for the 20 years of neoliberal "reform" -- the Mexican middle class has shrunk and the number of poor has expanded. Economic growth has been below the old corporatist economy's performance and substantially less than what is needed to generate jobs for Mexico's growing labor force. During his 2000 campaign, Mexican President Vicente Fox promised that under his six-year term the country would grow 7 percent per year. Two and a half years after his inauguration, growth has averaged less than 1 percent.

So the northward migration continues. Between the U.S. censuses of 1990 and 2000, the number of Mexican-born residents in the United States increased by more than 80 percent. Border-crossings diminished temporarily after September 11, but they are now as great as ever. Some half-million Mexicans come to the United States every year; roughly 60 percent of them are undocumented. The massive investments in both border guards and detection equipment have not diminished the migrant flow; they have just made it more dangerous. In the past five years, more than 1,600 Mexican migrants have died on the journey to the north, including 19 people who were found asphyxiated in a truck near Houston in May. Still, as a neighbor of one of the 19 who left told The Washington Post, "If you're going to improve your life, you have to go to the United States."

The failure of NAFTA to deliver on its promise of a better life for Mexicans represents more than just a misplaced faith in free trade. Behind the laissez-faire rhetoric, Mexico's neoliberals were pursuing a large-scale program of government social engineering aimed at forcing Mexico's rural population off the land and into the cities, where it could provide cheap labor for the foreign investment that the new open economy would attract.

[marcus]

He was wrong to allow the illegals to be legal americans and its just as wrong NOW to think about doing it.What he did failed to stop the illegals from coming in, now we have what 15 to 20 million more now.
Lets stop the well he did it so its ok if we do it.ITs NOT OK.The bleeding has to be stopped and arizona is going to protect itself because the FEDS have failed.

[ktpelec]

Big Business and all it's Political power will always be for cheap labor.

[ScottR@KTP]

Kess is a libturd...LMAO!!!

[kessinger]

Anal you say I twist things yet you can't seem to accept that Reagan started this, you just have to find a way to blame Clinton. NAFTA sucks he shouldn't have done it and he even agrees with that. It still isn't the cause for the ilegals, twist it all you like. You say I look silly, you may want to look in the mirror on this one.


I can admit when a Dem. does wrong you can't seem to do the same for your Papa Reagan.

Your article even acts like immigration didn't become a problem til 90, nice twist there, they just leave the Reagan years out lol, go comb the Fox website for more crap.

True conservatism, since you can't win on the facts just call em names.

[Deleted]

Hmm, you seem to forget Carter started this. You must be younger then 40 because you dont seem to remember the boat people who fled from Cuba in the 70's. Carter was the one putting the bill forward before Regan signed it. And yes Regan signed it just like Clintorus signed NAFTA. NAFTA is why we have our troubles now, because a few thousand illegals in the 80's compared to 450,000 illegals alone in Arizona is a big difference. And if you didnt grow up in the 70's and see first hand the differences up to now, you really have no business to discuss this. I was in Florida for years durring the Cuban illegal crisis and I seen first hand how Miami turned into a shit hole. And now our whole country is a shit hole because of this. Why do you want all of these tax-dollar sucking illegals here? Whats your reason? You make no sense what so ever.

[marcus]

They have to be kicked out of our country and I dont care what side does it.JUST DO IT!!

[kessinger]

Here you go again anal. Taking from the Glen Beck school of blogging. Where did I ever say that I supported illegal immigration? As you now are trying to claim I did. We were arguing about who is to blame, so instead of backing up your NAFTA claim you call me names and now claim I was arguing for something I wasn't. Glen Jones would be proud.

I did grow up in the 70's but unlike you I think everyone can speak their mind, even if they are under 30.

Of course the number of illegals is bigger now, the problem has been growing for 30 years with no one caring. Reagan ignored it, Clinton ignored it, both Bush's and now Obama ignored it. No one is willing to pay the tab to remove them so they aren't going to be removed. That is the problem with our country we ignore every problem when the times are good and money is flowing then we want to try to fix things when times get tough, but we saved no money for a rainy day and can't afford to spend the money to fix anything.

[ktpelec]

May 19, 2010 7:06:55 GMT -5 kessinger said:

Here you go again anal. Taking from the Glen Beck school of blogging. Where did I ever say that I supported illegal immigration? As you now are trying to claim I did. We were arguing about who is to blame, so instead of backing up your NAFTA claim you call me names and now claim I was arguing for something I wasn't. Glen Jones would be proud.

I did grow up in the 70's but unlike you I think everyone can speak their mind, even if they are under 30.

Of course the number of illegals is bigger now, the problem has been growing for 30 years with no one caring. Reagan ignored it, Clinton ignored it, both Bush's and now Obama ignored it. No one is willing to pay the tab to remove them so they aren't going to be removed. That is the problem with our country we ignore every problem when the times are good and money is flowing then we want to try to fix things when times get tough, but we saved no money for a rainy day and can't afford to spend the money to fix anything.

Great post Kess!

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2010 9:53:01 GMT -5 kessinger said:

I am OK with them arresting an illegal they stopped for a legitimate reason. They SHOULD be doing this. But, Arizona and other states are full of people who don't "LOOK" American. If they stop one american citizen for no other reason than to check his papers then this thing need sto be scrapped. If you claim you hate Obama because he is taking our freedom, or you think terrorists hate us for our freedom then you shouldn't be supporting this. If they make one American citizen late for work checking paper, then we have lost our freedom in order to fix something else.

Immigration needs to be fixed, this ain't that fix. BIG FAT FINES on employers that hire them, the jobs dry up and then at least when you send em home they have no reason to return. If they can find work here they will always return. A fence wont keep em out, sending em back won't. Work is what brings em here.


So marcus, Obama is a Nazi because you think he is a socialist. Even though the Nazi party isn't realy known as a socialist party as much as they are mass murderers. Yet stopping people to check thier papers, which the Nazis where more known for, doesn't get the same response from you. Why not? Are these folks not Nazi's for doing something the Nazis did? That is your rational right? If you do anything a Nazi did you are one? The Nazi's also wanted a christian nation. So if you want a christian nation are you also a Nazi?

You missed me while I was gone didn't you?

Re-reading your post here, you pretty much are defending the illegals. We are not burning them to the stake or gassing them to death like the Nazi's did. We are sending them back to where they belong. And profiling? Nah, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its sure as hell is not a chicken. If you read California's immigration laws, they read no different then Arizona's new law. If the federal govt. would do its job and secure the borders then this issue would be dead. So take your bleeeding heart Liberal Nazi BS and STFU.

[ktpelec]

How would you "secure" a 2000 mile border with varied landscape in a mostly desert like enviroment? It sounds so easy, especially when when put in such a simplistic view. With the country in financial crisis the money just isn't there for it even if it was possible.
The Nazi claim to fame wasn't killing illegal immigrants, it was ethnic cleansing, a slightly different situation yet it started with the same type of tactics.
I support Arizona's position. I also suspect that a lot of people supporting this would scream if the Police were to ask for ID with no apparent reason other than thier appearence.
This is my opinion and I understand if everyone does not agree.