posted on January 9, 2004 07:03:25 PM newOh yeah, one more thing about forefathers since you brought it up. What sort of heinous and nasty crimes did your forefathers commit to be banished to Austrailia.
One wouldthink, by that question, that all the US "forefathers" came here of their own free will. On the contrary--England sent "criminals" all over the world to get them out of her hair. Australia is just the most famous, and got more thanother places. "Criminals" included not just thieves and the like, btw. Political prisoners, debtors, prostitutes, etc. were also shipped out under the heading "criminal." Quite a lot our colonial indentured servants were from England's prisons... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 9, 2004 09:05:07 PM new
Your newsmax guy knows how to milk someone.
After having encouraged people to come over and work for you for next to nothing, by continuing to employ them;
Then insist they return the favour by giving you that amount back in oil.
Meanwhile the American military and paramilitary, the UnionCarbides, Exons, Halliburtons, are not only permitted to screw your own people but go freerange screwing the rest of the world too.
If you can't handle the heat, keep out of other people's kitchens.
[ edited by austbounty on Jan 9, 2004 09:08 PM ]
posted on January 10, 2004 01:48:52 AM new
Yellowstone - so you think that a good may to improve the situation is to take away the single largest source of income that Mexico has? How exactly do you feel that change the situation in a positive way.
Wouldn't it make more sense for us to purchase less oil from Saudi Arabia and more from Mexico thereby spending our oil dollars in a way that is more econimically responsible way for our nation by using dollars that we are already spending to help prop up a nation who we are more economically tied to, strengthening the Mexican economy, eliminating the need for its citizen to emigrate to survive?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 10, 2004 01:51:45 AM new
Krafty - there is still a lot of corruption there but they are trying. Of course if Fox's party loses the next election a lot of what has been accomplished may be lost.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 10, 2004 08:02:17 AM newWouldn't it make more sense for us to purchase less oil from Saudi Arabia and more from Mexico
I beleive that this is, in a round about way, what the author of my 2nd link is saying and I do agree.
IMO we are on friendlier terms with Mexico than we are with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's are really not our friends and it doesn't take a high school education to see it, I believe that theres a very small chance that austbounty might even be able to see that.
posted on January 10, 2004 11:04:26 AM new
::I beleive that this is, in a round about way, what the author of my 2nd link is saying and I do agree. ::
DId you actually read the article that you say you agree with? There is nothing in that articcle about increasing oil purchases from Mexico - it says that they should hand Pemex over to us.
While they note that money being sent to Meixco from the US is the #2 form of income for the nation the fail to mention that the #1 form of income is something is what they want the nation to give up. It is an interesting article in that for all of it's stats and blather, they have completly ignored the reality of the reprocussions of their proposed actions. It's a rather interesting combination of inflammatory and irresponsibility.
BTW - Now that you have brought this up for a second time - why is it anyones business how you spend your wages. Dooyou honestly believe that you spending habits should regulated by our government or should it just be Mexicans?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 10, 2004 11:42:17 AM newDooyou honestly believe that you spending habits should regulated by our government or should it just be Mexicans?
posted on January 10, 2004 02:02:03 PM new
Home a safe haven for Mexican suspects
Hundreds of Mexican citizens suspected of committing violent crimes in the United States have escaped justice by slipping across America's porous southern border into Mexico, which refuses to extradite suspects facing the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Authorities have identified more than a dozen cases in which illegal aliens were accused of injuring or killing a U.S. law-enforcement officer but are believed to have fled to Mexico.
President Bush's plan to grant legal status to millions of illegal immigrants employed in the United States raises questions about whether Mexico may agree to start extraditing suspects in all U.S. crimes.
"One of the things would be cooperation on extraditions," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank supporting tighter controls on immigration.
Mr. Bush heads Monday to the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, and a White House spokesman yesterday did not know whether the president plans to discuss extradition with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Mr. Fox has been seeking greater access to U.S. jobs for Mexicans and praised Mr. Bush's immigration proposal Wednesday.
U.S. officials don't have information on the number of violent criminals hiding in Mexico, but they believe the number is at least in the hundreds. District attorneys in most states don't keep records of crimes committed by illegal aliens, even ones who have fled.
In California, officials estimate some 350 violent felons have fled south seeking protection of a Mexican Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty and life in prison without parole represent cruel and unusual punishment.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, California Democrat, introduced a Senate resolution last month calling on Mr. Bush to put pressure on Mexico to ensure suspects wanted for serious crimes can be extradited.
"Many of these people are living free and unpunished in Mexico," she told reporters in California. "In some cases, we even know where they are."
Perhaps the most high-profile case is the April 2002 murder of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff David March, who was shot execution-style during a traffic stop. The prime suspect is Mexican national Armando Garcia, said to have fled south after the murder.
"He's believed to be somewhere in Mexico," said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
Mrs. Gibbons said the office has been working so far unsuccessfully with federal officials in the State and Justice departments to get Mr. Garcia and others returned from Mexico for trial.
"We feel that if a person commits a crime here, especially if they kill someone here, that they need to be brought back here to be brought to justice," she said. "This is where the victims are."
Mrs. Gibbons noted Mexico's refusal to extradite criminals applies only to Mexican citizens. There have been cases, she said, of non-Mexican nationals who have been extradited and tried in the United States.
A recent case in Burbank, Calif., involved extradition of David Garcia, the top suspect in a November murder of Burbank police Officer Matthew Pavelka.
Mexican authorities arrested Mr. Garcia on Thanksgiving in the border city of Tijuana. As a U.S. citizen, he was extradited almost immediately to the United States, where he most likely will face the death penalty.
Mrs. Feinstein said a survey last year by the National Association of District Attorneys determined that in addition to the California cases, there are at least 60 others being held up nationwide by Mexico's refusal to extradite.
Wrangling over extradition between U.S. and Mexican authorities is nothing new. Fifteen years passed before Rudolph Romero, the gunman who fled to Mexico after the 1988 killing of Phoenix police Officer Ken Collings, was caught, brought back for trial and sentenced.
Mexican authorities didn't agree to look for Romero until 11 years after the killing, and when they caught him, he wasn't returned to the United States until prosecutors in Phoenix guaranteed he wouldn't face the death penalty.
U.S. authorities say that is an accepted part of the process of arresting fugitives in Mexico. It's not exclusive to Mexico though.
"I know of no countries that have a no-death-penalty statute who will extradite on a death-penalty case without the assurance that we won't seek the death penalty," said Chris Dudley, chief inspector of international investigations for the U.S. Marshals Service.
However, Mr. Dudley, and others, including U.S. Marshal Geoff Shank, who heads investigations for the Northeast United States, said Mexico's extradition policy "has not negatively affected our relationship with Mexico at all."
Mr. Shank said the Marshals Service, which routinely hunts fugitives in foreign lands, gets along with Mexican police "better than anyone else."
posted on January 10, 2004 02:23:18 PM new
Pemex used to belong to us, so yes they should give it back to someone who actually knows how to make the most of it....
We should just label Mexico a terrorist state and act accordingly...
posted on January 10, 2004 02:51:38 PM new
When did Pemex belong to the US?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 10, 2004 03:36:00 PM new
I stand corrected, we did not "own" Pemex it came about after 1938.... the year when the Mexicans decided they could run their oil alone... we can see how that is working out... LOL
posted on January 10, 2004 07:20:41 PM newDistrict attorneys in most states don't keep records of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
But the states do so they can get at least some reimbursement from the Federal government.
California: Illegal Aliens
"The INS estimated in February 2003 that the resident illegal alien population of California was 2,209,000 as of January 2000. That compared to an estimate of 2,000,000 illegal alien residents in October, 1996. That was an increase by nearly 40% from the earlier estimate of 1,441,000 in October 1992.
The most recent INS estimate puts the average annual rate of increase in the illegal alien population in California from 1990 to 2000 at 73,200 aliens per year.
Based upon the new 2000 Census data, the Migration Policy Institute issued a May 2002 study that estimated California's illegal alien population at 2.3 million.
INS data listed in 1991 the number of applicants from California for the amnesty for illegal aliens adopted in 1986 as 1,624,070 (956,172 long-term illegal residents and 667,898 agricultural workers.
COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS
California authorities requested compensation from the federal government in FY'99 for the incarceration expenses for 11,236,513 days of detention for illegal aliens in state and local jails and prisons. The cost of the detention amounted to $615,860,143.
Under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), California received $237,981,284 in compensation, leaving $378,494,042 in uncompensated costs to be borne by California taxpayers. The SCAAP program began in 1994 and compensates the states and local jurisdictions only for incarceration of "undocumented," i.e. illegal, aliens who are serving time for a felony conviction or at least two misdemeanors.
In FY'00 California received $240,784,042 from SCAAP. Even though the federal assistance was higher, less money was available overall, so local taxpayers were forced to absorb a larger share of the cost of criminal alien incarceration. In FY'01 and FY'02, the amount of SCAAP payments received were $225,683,084 and $220,241,046 respectively.
FY'02 SCAAP data indicate that California's illegal alien inmate population has increased by 31 percent from the 11,236,510 inmate days in FY'99 (to 14,682,285 inmate days in FY'02).
posted on January 10, 2004 08:24:43 PM new
Am I the only person that has a hard time buying that were an average of 40,225 illiegal aliens in California prisions every single day of 2002? (14,682,285 / 365 days in a year)
No wonder the feds didn't come thru on complete reimbursement - looks like a little padding went on there.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 10, 2004 09:13:55 PM new
It's interesting that nobody ever does a count of how much aliens put into the economy. I guess as part of living here and sending their kids to school they don't buy clothes, food, cars, or pay rent. I guess gasoline is free for immigrants. I guess WalMart never gets any customers who aren't citizens. And how about all the illegals who pay into the social security and income tax system who never see a dime of that money returned. I guess that doesn't count for much.It probably doesn't hold a candle to the drain they put on our economy. But then, how would anyone know?
___________________________________
Mi abuelita me dijo "en boca cerrada no entran moscas".
posted on January 11, 2004 11:33:30 AM new
Linda - maybe you missed my point - I do not believe for a second that there were 40,000 illegals in jail every single day of 2002 in California (especially when the numbers for the entire nation was 87,000) . I think there is a serious problem with the numbers which puts all of the stats in question.
Prof -
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 11, 2004 02:55:15 PM new
Instead of helping illegals become legal to work here and live in their homeland, maybe Bush should study his own country first:
Washington, D.C. The Department of Labor released today national November unemployment numbers which showed that Hispanics are still one of the most affected communities. The rate for Hispanics rose by 2 tenths to 7.4 percent, leaving 53,000 more Hispanics unemployed in the month of November.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement:
"The President's father, George H.W. Bush, will be in Miami, Florida today raising funds for his son's campaign reelection efforts. While he eats and drinks with those who have raised at least $50,000 dollars for George W. Bush's reelection campaign, hundreds of thousands of Hispanic families in Florida and across the nation can hardly put food on their table due to President Bush's broken promises.
"There are now 437,000 more unemployed Hispanics than when Bush took office and unemployment numbers for Hispanics have risen during 25 of the 35 months of the Bush administration. Yet the President's policies, such as his tax cut plan, continue favoring the wealthy while Hispanics receive little or no benefit.
"During his presidential campaign Bush repeatedly promised Hispanics he would help them achieve the American Dream, yet with 1.42 million unemployed Hispanics, it is clear that this administration's policies have been disastrous for the Hispanic community. Skyrocketing unemployment, programs that help educate children and aid to college students are being dismantled. We see families with no way to pay for adequate health care, decreasing homeownership rates, and the list goes on. Instead of opportunity, Bush has offered only empty rhetoric, and has not helped Hispanic families achieve their dreams."
posted on January 11, 2004 06:39:01 PM new
OK - tossing out an idea that is not in some party's platform or that people are used to is not usually well recieved - but try to consider this with an open mind.
People are paying huge sums to be smuggled in to the country. People are actually dying trying to make it in.
Why not sell the right to immigrate?
How better to seperate those that are really determained to succeed?
The Romans knew that citizenship was valuable and charged all the market would bear. Remember how the Roman soldier was upset when he found out he almost tortured a Roman citizen - Paul?
Being a citizen was a huge legal protection. He commented he had paid a huge sum of money for those rights and was impressed Paul was born into them.
You could require a fee to come in and raise it for older people because they will have less time to contribute to the economy.
$10,000 for a young person say to 25.
$20,000 to 35
$30,000 to 45
$40,000 to 55
Give them 5 years to be earning as big an annual salary as they paid in an entry fee or back they go. Require they show they paid taxes each year.
At the ten year mark they have to pay a second fee the same size as the entry fee. Then they get a permenant residency without further payment.
Give them the same first five years to demonstrate a reasonable grasp of English.
Offer them help to assimilate and protection from scam artists and cultural counceling.
You could just offer a flat out entry with permenant residency to anyone who could cough up $5 million upfront. How much of a risk is anyone that can do that? Think they are going on welfare?
The agencies would be charged with keeping track of these people. If they tried to move off and get lost that would be an automatc voiding of the contract.
You could offer discounts for people with needed skills and surcharges for people with kids to bring or anything you felt made them a risk to be a drag on the economy.
posted on January 11, 2004 10:56:24 PM new
It amuses me when people who know little about a situation attempt to create policies. The average per capita income of an adult male in Mexico is around $300 a month. Aside from smuggling drugs into the country how do you think that they are going to come up with the fees you prospose. The vast majority of illegals are not paying coyotes, they are coming individually, purchasing fake documents (you can walk across the boarder with a US drivers license) or if you have the right connection with right corrupt officials, paying between $750 -1500 for legit papers and a tourist visa they use to cross legally and then stay on,
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 12, 2004 02:54:48 AM new
You applied it only to Mexicans. You are telling me you know they are alrady paying about 10% of my proposed fee already to make the very easiest entry. There is a body of potential customers from around the world many of whom have the ability to raise that sort of cash easier than a Mexican. The fees for being smuggled across the Pacific from Asia are much more than the numbers I mentioned. But there is a thriving trade in it. A legitamite entry would attract more. It would result in a better quality of people coming in. A legal entry would result in families pooling funds to send a first fellow over. Something that happened when the biggest barrier was high fees to buy passage in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The cost of travel then was proportionally similar to the fees I am proposing.
It would have to be combined with keeping the vast majority of those that enter by wading and walking across the border out. As several have pointed out it is simply a lack of political will keeping that from happening.
It's amazing how instead of a reasoned and specific response the people here dive right to the personal attack saying I know little about the situation when in fact you do not know me personally to know what my knowlege is. I am in fact one of those people that used to facilitate people crossing the border from Canada - not Mexico - and many of them were skilled trades and college educated professionals who were certain they could do well here but had no legal way in. Most of them wanted to escape the unstable govrnments and corruption at home not just a lack of work. Many from Lebanon or India were doing quite well finacially, but it offered little security to be doing so and they were more concerned with providing a good future for their kids than for themselves. Even if they had to take a temporary set-back finacially to do so. Some were looking at things as difficult as re-establishing a medical license in order to resume their lives. But it was worth it to not wonder if in five or ten years you'd be swept away because you were the wrong tribe or cast or had sided with the wrong political party.
posted on January 12, 2004 08:26:31 AM new
No wonder they kept the border patrol small...
After this reaction you know that perhaps three will vote for him....
