Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

privado

Should the US and Canada send troops to Mexico?

Recommended Posts

I thought her talk was candid and factual. As noted, she was not there to sell investments or give advice. Indeed, Multiva really downplayed that aspect. One of the interesting things she brought out was how greatly crime varies around the country. Also, how under-reported it is.

IMO it was worthwhile and we were glad that we attended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also thought the Multiva speaker gave an excellent presentation. One thing I took away from it was the concept that things will get worse before they get better, especially heading into 2012 with the presidential elections (Calderon being a lame duck). She also stated that it took about 10 years to see the improvement in Columbia. She expects it will take at least that amount of time to see positive results from the recent legal reforms and other reforms that may be coming. I think her longterm outlook was hopeful, but we need to understand that the situation is changing rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico / US relations are a love - hate relationship. If you look at the history of Mexico the people have been scammed by their own people with the help of the gringos, therefore they will fiercely oppose any gringo intervention.

Colombia overcame Pablo Escobar with the help of US forces and military but the Mexicans are too proud / scared to have any sizable force on their soil. They love the USA for the freebies and remittances but not for guidance.

Also Mexico is family oriented and the drug ties run very deep, and Mexicans would be enraged to have their family killed by foreigners even if they (family) were murderous criminals, better to have their own people kill their criminal family then foreigners as it would seem like an invasion, also with the US history of "expansionism" they would doubt even the sincerest of efforts and any timetable to leave and even then, what would be the financial incentive to do so (everybody wants money and an invading army costs $$$ and wouldn't happen because of the kindness of the US government). There would be strings attached and Mexico knows that.

The reality probably is to allow the drug trade. Let the Americans and others poison themselves. At least this way Mexico doesn't have to deal with the millions of criminals and "ninis" (Mexican term for the youth that neither study nor work / "ni trabajan ni estudian")and they will have a way (albeit illicitly) to make money which won't affect the common man.

Do you think that if they legalized drugs and / or took away the income of the criminal uneducated masses that they would all the sudden decide to be poor and give up the good life or go back to school? No, they would rob, rape, steal and murder and find other ways to make money illicitly which would greatly and more so affect the populace in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico / US relations are a love - hate relationship. If you look at the history of Mexico the people have been scammed by their own people with the help of the gringos, therefore they will fiercely oppose any gringo intervention.

Colombia overcame Pablo Escobar with the help of US forces and military but the Mexicans are too proud / scared to have any sizable force on their soil. They love the USA for the freebies and remittances but not for guidance.

Also Mexico is family oriented and the drug ties run very deep, and Mexicans would be enraged to have their family killed by foreigners even if they (family) were murderous criminals, better to have their own people kill their criminal family then foreigners as it would seem like an invasion, also with the US history of "expansionism" they would doubt even the sincerest of efforts and any timetable to leave and even then, what would be the financial incentive to do so (everybody wants money and an invading army costs $$$ and wouldn't happen because of the kindness of the US government). There would be strings attached and Mexico knows that.

The reality probably is to allow the drug trade. Let the Americans and others poison themselves. At least this way Mexico doesn't have to deal with the millions of criminals and "ninis" (Mexican term for the youth that neither study nor work / "ni trabajan ni estudian")and they will have a way (albeit illicitly) to make money which won't affect the common man.

Do you think that if they legalized drugs and / or took away the income of the criminal uneducated masses that they would all the sudden decide to be poor and give up the good life or go back to school? No, they would rob, rape, steal and murder and find other ways to make money illicitly which would greatly and more so affect the populace in general.

That is exactly why I say making drugs legal in the US will not help the problem, it will create a bigger problem in the US, and the criminal element in Mexico will turn to other areas for money, but it won't be getting a job. Of course, the ex-pat community would become a prime target for protection money, because they have deeper pockets than the average Mexican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more than the US, Mexico is a strategic stopping point for many points north and anglo countries so it would be decriminalization in many different countries, something not realistically feasible in the next 4, 5 or perhaps even 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico would only allow advisors - which are in the country now -

And - according to a UN Rep - Mexico is winning the fight against the narcos http://www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2010/232371/6/mexico-va-ganando-lucha-al-crimen-onu.htm

Magdy Martinez Soliman , Resident Coordinator of United Nations System in Mexico, said in an interview that the country "is facing down , anticipating events, and little by little we will see results very clear that the fight (against crime) not only can win but you're winning. "

And here is what Hillary said http://www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2010/232197/6/mexico-es-hoy-la-colombia-de-hace-20-anos-hillary-disiente-el-gobierno.htm

WASHINGTON / MEXICO CITY ( 09/SEP/2010 ) .- The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, leaned over to Federal Government and to legislators Congress Mexicans, noted that when the increase in drug violence , Mexico " is looking more like Colombia saw 20 years ago , and reiterated that Washington will continue supporting the fight against drug trafficking.

But Clinton's remarks were not only there, but who dared to suggest to Mexico aid equivalent to Plan Colombia to counter the drug , it warned that organized crime has become "a sort of insurgency. "

The first to discredit the words of the head of U.S. diplomacy was the technical secretary of the security cabinet , Alejandro Poire , who said he did not share the vision of Clinton. Those who do agree with the analogy of Hillary Colombian journalists were consulted by telephone.

The only similarity between the situation that lived Colombia and Mexico faces today is that organized crime emerged from the demand for drugs in the U.S., Poire said .

In the Senate had rejected the comparison. "What we can not allow a Plan Colombia in Mexico to reach the same results or worse , "said Santiago Creel.

Clinton also congratulated the President Felipe Calderón for his "courage and commitment "against the "difficult challenge " of drug trafficking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never Say Never.

Keep in mind that history simply repeats itself. The US government stated to the world, many times, that US forces, civilian and military, where in Vietnam at the beginning, purely as advisors. We are doing that now in Mexico, I´m sure. Then money and arms were shipped to Vietnam and US advisors were there to do training. We are doing that now in Mexico. The US is providing money, arms, helicopters, and other high tech equipment to Mexico. And I´m sure the US has trainers and advisors in Mexico to teach the Mexican military how to use the helicopters and other US weapons of choice. Fighting the sale and distribution of illigal drugs will become all our war IMHO, it´s inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trailrunner -

I live in Illinois, and spend summers in Wisconsin. We're going to start spending our winters in the Lake Chapala area during the winter of 2011/2012. We feel that we should start by spending one winter down there renting, while we look for the place we want to buy. To us, the situation that ex-pats are in probably isn't any more risky than it is where we live. In fact, the city we live in, the crime rate has been the highest amongst cities of it's size for over a decade. Like someone said, it's all a question of being alert to your surroundings, and not making yourself a target, or going where you should be more concerned about your safety.

Quote from above: "Like someone said, it's all a question of being alert to your surroundings, and not making yourself a target, or going where you should be more concerned about your safety." This may be good advice for living in the US, but in Mexico, Lakeside in particular, just by being an expat, you are a target. As far as not "going where you should be more concerned about your safety," based on what I've read on this forum, attempted carjackings against expats have occurred in broad daylight in parking lots by the grocery stores, robberies and home invasions have occurred in expats' residences which are not located in "bad" neighborhoods, and a recent violent beating and robbery was in a home with an expat housesitter. Not too long ago, an elderly expat was beaten up near the Lake Chapala Society offices in Ajijic, a good neighborhood. None of the instances of crimes I've read about on this forum against expats have occurred in "bad" neighborhoods in Lakeside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trailrunner -

Of course I believe that we need to address the illegal immigration situation too, but I think we handle that by making it a criminal offense to hire anyone that doesn't have valid credentials that can be verified for jobs, and by making sure that nobody is eligible for welfare that doesn't have valid credentials that shows they have the right to them. A stiff jail sentence, large fines, and even stiffer jail sentences for those that hire illegals, and can't show they were given valid credentials before hiring them, will go a lot further than trying to stop them from crossing.

When you cut the flow across the border to only those who intend committing crimes, it makes it a lot easier to deal with, because you're not dealing with innocent civilians who are just looking for a way to make a living for their families. And, by doing this, we free up billions of dollars wasted on trying to catch illegals, and use it to catch illegals intent on crime.

Just my opinion. We need to spend our capital of money and personnel more efficiently.

Quote from above: "but I think we handle that by making it a criminal offense to hire anyone that doesn't have valid credentials that can be verified for jobs" It already is against the law in the US to hire anyone who does not have proper credentials. It's not enforced, and worse yet, US corporations continue to hire illegals to avoid paying benefits, living wages and taxes. The gov't rounds up a few illegals now and then at a few companies (meat packers out in the midwest, etc), for PR purposes (trying to make the masses think that the gov't is cracking down), but the millions of illegal immigrants in the US are here working illegally, either with forged documents (huge criminal rings in the US sell social security numbers, identities, and birth certificates, etc), or without documents.

Illegal immigrants are just that -- illegal. It doesn't matter what the reason is for being in the US (trying to better themselves, etc), they are here illegally, and corporations are complicit in their crimes by hiring them. Corporations can increase their profits exponentially by avoiding paying taxes and benefits and living wages to low level workers, and the gov't has looked the other way for years. This is not a recent development. The corporate lobbyists own the government and not much will change in this regard regardless of which party is in the White House.

So, who will enforce these "stiffer fines and jail sentences" for hiring illegals suggested above? No one. The gov't is part of the problem. It would cost billions to actually set up an operation to check all employment records in corporations, levy and collect fines, spend years in court fighting the rich corporate lawyers who find loopholes. Not to mention all the millions of fraudulent social security numbers and birth certificates obtained by illegals. Who would check all of those and prosecute? I don't think many people have a grasp of the scope of the illegal immigration problem, with estimates as high as 14 million illegally in the US.

If people from Mexico want to come to the US to find better jobs and a better way of life, then they need to go through the proper immigration procedures, just like anyone else wanting to immigrate to any country. As a US citizen, I might like to retire to Switzerland. Switzerland might represent to me a "better way of life in retirement." But guess what? I can't just fly over there and rent an apartment and live indefinitely. I'll be deported after 3 months unless I go through proper immigration procedures. Same is true with pretty much any country I might want to live in to "better myself." It's unfortunate that Mexico does not provide enough jobs for its citizens, but invading the US is not the solution, and it is an invasion. When you are talking about 12-14 million people here illegally, it's an invasion. The consequences are serious, with lowered wages for US workers and millions of US jobs going to the illegals. Not to mention the reality that those of us with health insurance are paying very high premiums to cover the uninsured, many of which are illegal immigrants. The overflowing emergency rooms in the southwest US are not likely filled with immigrants who have health insurance and legal immigration documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put indeed. Just consider what the situation would be like if the U.S. adopted the Mexican laws and attitudes towards immigration. They enforce, they profile, they require Spanish and they make it plain that Mexico is for Mexicans and you better darned sure have your papers right.

ALL of which I agree with completely. What I don't agree with is a double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XZ2Y,

I don't think you thought this answer through too well. You said;

So, who will enforce these "stiffer fines and jail sentences" for hiring illegals suggested above? No one. The gov't is part of the problem. It would cost billions to actually set up an operation to check all employment records in corporations, levy and collect fines, spend years in court fighting the rich corporate lawyers who find loopholes. Not to mention all the millions of fraudulent social security numbers and birth certificates obtained by illegals. Who would check all of those and prosecute? I don't think many people have a grasp of the scope of the illegal immigration problem, with estimates as high as 14 million illegally in the US.

The law would be one that would be enforced by the states with mandate from the fed. It would be policed fairly simply by having routine mandatory availability of employment information on file within a company, showing that each person was truly identified. One agent/police officer, could go to a dozen or more small employers in a day, and check their records, to determine they have taken proper precautions. It isn't a "round-up" like we see now, nor thousands of people patrolling the border, catching less than 1 in 20, like we see now. It would require less personnel, and with clear cut laws about what is, and isn't acceptable identification, and by linking to Social Security account activity, to insure that one account isn't being used by five or six people at one time (Which incidentally does happen now, because of no control), you have much fewer illegals from the start.

Your argument against it based on cost of enforcement doesn't fly against the enforcement cost of round-ups, socially unacceptable practices of targeting ethnically, or turning our nation into holding areas for 14 million illegals, instead of making sure there aren't jobs for any of those 14 million, or social services either.

In other words, you shut the entire reason for being in the US illegally off.

As for prosecution of violators, let's face it. You either do or you don't have the authorized documentation. You're either going to pay the fine and/or do the time, because you obviously violated the law. I don't think there would be too many people willing to face fines of $10,000 per illegally registered employee, and 1 year in jail for each, and even think they could get away in the courts, when the cost is specific, and the charges based on documentation that is specific. These cases wouldn't take any time, and would be few and far between.

Americans would be more than happy to have a program like this. We could see a massive reduction in both welfare cost, and illegals working here, within weeks.

Someone stated that we pay more for insurance because of illegals getting health care. Actually, the biggest burden we pay is through taxes. Attack the real problem, and you get results. Insurance companies would like to make us believe that half of what we pay them is due to illegals, but quite frankly, the problem is that hospitals, and clinics, forced to attend to welfare illegal/legal, and getting paid low figures, contributes to increased costs for the medical field, and they pass it on to us.

The increased cost of services to the public thereby increases the cost to insurance companies, who pass that cost on to us, but it's not as big a portion of what we pay as they'd like us to believe. Our real cost is in our taxes.

Anyhow, that's what I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XZ2Y,

I don't think you thought this answer through too well. You said;

So, who will enforce these "stiffer fines and jail sentences" for hiring illegals suggested above? No one. The gov't is part of the problem. It would cost billions to actually set up an operation to check all employment records in corporations, levy and collect fines, spend years in court fighting the rich corporate lawyers who find loopholes. Not to mention all the millions of fraudulent social security numbers and birth certificates obtained by illegals. Who would check all of those and prosecute? I don't think many people have a grasp of the scope of the illegal immigration problem, with estimates as high as 14 million illegally in the US.

The law would be one that would be enforced by the states with mandate from the fed. It would be policed fairly simply by having routine mandatory availability of employment information on file within a company, showing that each person was truly identified. One agent/police officer, could go to a dozen or more small employers in a day, and check their records, to determine they have taken proper precautions. It isn't a "round-up" like we see now, nor thousands of people patrolling the border, catching less than 1 in 20, like we see now. It would require less personnel, and with clear cut laws about what is, and isn't acceptable identification, and by linking to Social Security account activity, to insure that one account isn't being used by five or six people at one time (Which incidentally does happen now, because of no control), you have much fewer illegals from the start.

Your argument against it based on cost of enforcement doesn't fly against the enforcement cost of round-ups, socially unacceptable practices of targeting ethnically, or turning our nation into holding areas for 14 million illegals, instead of making sure there aren't jobs for any of those 14 million, or social services either.

In other words, you shut the entire reason for being in the US illegally off.

As for prosecution of violators, let's face it. You either do or you don't have the authorized documentation. You're either going to pay the fine and/or do the time, because you obviously violated the law. I don't think there would be too many people willing to face fines of $10,000 per illegally registered employee, and 1 year in jail for each, and even think they could get away in the courts, when the cost is specific, and the charges based on documentation that is specific. These cases wouldn't take any time, and would be few and far between.

Americans would be more than happy to have a program like this. We could see a massive reduction in both welfare cost, and illegals working here, within weeks.

Someone stated that we pay more for insurance because of illegals getting health care. Actually, the biggest burden we pay is through taxes. Attack the real problem, and you get results. Insurance companies would like to make us believe that half of what we pay them is due to illegals, but quite frankly, the problem is that hospitals, and clinics, forced to attend to welfare illegal/legal, and getting paid low figures, contributes to increased costs for the medical field, and they pass it on to us.

The increased cost of services to the public thereby increases the cost to insurance companies, who pass that cost on to us, but it's not as big a portion of what we pay as they'd like us to believe. Our real cost is in our taxes.

Anyhow, that's what I see.

TWolf:

Your proposals are essentially what the law has been for many years. People get the impression from the way the news is reported that when a factory or other workplace is raided and most of the employees are illegal aliens that the employer is necessarily in violation of the law. Almost invariably all the illegal workers have I-9's on file with the necessary documentation noted. Whether legal or illegal, the employer would be subject to prosecution if this were not the case. The employer has to accept at face value the documents presented by the applicant unless he has positive knowledge that they are fraudulent, and would be liable if he did not and could not prove he was right.

Counterfeit alien registration and Social Security cards and counterfeit birth certificates (although impersonation in the case of valid birth certificates is far more common) can be purchased for a few dollars anywhere in the country, and usually the alien is not prosecuted even if they have them in their possession when encountered by immigration officers. There is no reason for an employer to become involved in providing false papers to an illegal alien, they will take care of that themselves. An employer cannot be violated just for accepting the documentation of an applicant that he or anyone else would suspect is an illegal alien. It would have to be proven that he knew, and how could it be any other way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carcamal,

The rules changed during the Bush era. My wife was a career HR person, and she never had a problem with illegals until they changed the rules on them, and they couldn't require full verifications of background, where she worked. In fact, they reached a point where they couldn't even keep a cop on file, of their documentation.

If there was a law that required companies to maintain a file on each employee with a picture ID approved by the states, or fed, a Social Security Card, and a third ID as well, it would work fine.

What the fed allowed added was a credit check, and that's a joke.

Like I said, it has to be a law that these things be certified. Not employer's choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWolf:

Your proposals are essentially what the law has been for many years. People get the impression from the way the news is reported that when a factory or other workplace is raided and most of the employees are illegal aliens that the employer is necessarily in violation of the law. Almost invariably all the illegal workers have I-9's on file with the necessary documentation noted. Whether legal or illegal, the employer would be subject to prosecution if this were not the case. The employer has to accept at face value the documents presented by the applicant unless he has positive knowledge that they are fraudulent, and would be liable if he did not and could not prove he was right.

Counterfeit alien registration and Social Security cards and counterfeit birth certificates (although impersonation in the case of valid birth certificates is far more common) can be purchased for a few dollars anywhere in the country, and usually the alien is not prosecuted even if they have them in their possession when encountered by immigration officers. There is no reason for an employer to become involved in providing false papers to an illegal alien, they will take care of that themselves. An employer cannot be violated just for accepting the documentation of an applicant that he or anyone else would suspect is an illegal alien. It would have to be proven that he knew, and how could it be any other way?

Having been a small business owner in the mid 90's and early 2000's- in California- we employed a mostly Mexican staff in our warehouses. Every single one of our employees had to present every document required by the federal and state government- otherwise no job. How are employers supplosed to verify the authenticity of the documents when presented???- this is the major problem of the issue -The government is the authority and technically only they can actually do that. IN fact ---once. we went to the Soc. Security Agency with one employee who had received an official Social Security number in his own name and had proof that he had a number. Soc. Security said they could not find HIM anywhere in the system because there were so many people named Martinez they refused to give him a new card because the law had changed regarding resident workers??? So he was out of luck for a job, even though he was legally entitled.

Small companies that make up the majority of employers in the US do not have HR departments. My daughter is an HR Management Requiter in the World Headquarters of a large company- she tells me the new laws really tie their hands in terms of what they can and cannot do when hiring, most of it is what they cannot do for fear of employment and liability laws.

In our case we followed the letter of the law and provided all information to both State and Federal offices as required. Social Security, FICA, etc. State and Federal Taxes were deducted from all employees pay and paid to every Gov Agency. Only once was there a question of authenticity and it took Social Security approx. 6-8 months to question the validity of a name that we were deducting and paying taxes on- He was given the choice of supplying the required documentation or being fired- he quit. Not once were we ever visited by any Fed or State official to verify documentation regarding the valdity of any our employees documents. The obvious size and proportion of this problem basically nullfies laws of state and fed. governments.

Only the misinformed believe that "illegal workers" are not paying taxes- The real issue is, they are paying taxes into somebody's account- who benefits? not the illegal- 95% probably would be elegible to receive a full refund of State and Fed Taxes, if they filed a tax return, So in reality they are paying taxes and never receiving any of the benefits. No Social Security or medicare benefits, , No tax refunds, and rarely do they apply for unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs. Where are all the multiple millions of dollars going??? to the Fed and State Govenments to be used for public programs for the majority of Americans.

So when people start complaining about medical costs used by "illegals" remember the majority are paying into the system and contributing to the basic economy just like everybody else. Should they be entitled to welfare - if they lose their job? why not, they paid into the system, even if they were doing it illegally.

It's a conundrum of huge proportions- is it solvable? probably not -which is why the Congress refuses to deal with the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet you didn't demand a state or federal picture identification equivalent to a drivers license.

Why do people keep missing the significance of an item as unique as they are? That's the item, and that's the thing that should be able to be verified through a bar code scan, to determine it's authenticity. It doesn't show authentication, and/or the picture don't match that as shown through the computer system, you simply cannot hire them.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? My wife, for her employer, demanded a picture identification, which could be a drivers license, a passport, or a state authorized ID.

You guys keep missing this. In over a decade, not one illegal person was hired for a job. But, when the rules changed to what you're talking about, they ended up with a few slipping through the cracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet you didn't demand a state or federal picture identification equivalent to a drivers license.

Why do people keep missing the significance of an item as unique as they are? That's the item, and that's the thing that should be able to be verified through a bar code scan, to determine it's authenticity. It doesn't show authentication, and/or the picture don't match that as shown through the computer system, you simply cannot hire them.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? My wife, for her employer, demanded a picture identification, which could be a drivers license, a passport, or a state authorized ID.

You guys keep missing this. In over a decade, not one illegal person was hired for a job. But, when the rules changed to what you're talking about, they ended up with a few slipping through the cracks.

How do you know not one illegal was hired??? Just because no one ever caught one?? Just your assumption

Yes, we did ask for picture ID's ( drivers license) as they could be substituted for another form of ID. However, they could be bought on the open market as well and some states issued Drivers Licenses to people as long as you had a Social Security Number- which automatically indicates you are a legal resident.

Ask yourself this question- Why are Americans so opposed to a National Identity Card???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWolf, you do get that absolutely ANY and absolutely EVERY document, or ID card, or license, or picture ID is available on the black market, right?????

I'd be willing to bet many of the IDs that your HR wife processed were fraudulent.

When I left the CA Bay Area in '04, green cards were a mere 50 bux. Everyone had one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they were fraudulent. In fact I doubt it, since the second phase of their hiring practice included background checks, bonding checks, and security checks. They had rejections beyond the initial identification, but it was based on background information that was fraudulent, not by someone with false ID.

But, if you wish to believe differently, that's your choice. No matter what I, or anyone else said, or shown as different than what you believe, would be rejected. As for my wife's experience versus anyone else, I'd say someone would have to go a long way to match it.

And yes, you can identify fraudulent IDs, if you really know what you're doing. If you're in a position that you make hiring decisions, you should know how to do it right, or you shouldn't be doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraudulent credentials is a moot point. Privado's assertion that foreign workers, both legal and illegal, are paying into the system is true. I believe that the cost of illegal workers is far less than many make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. I wonder if they really do pay in enough to the system, to offset their cost.

I think about the number of illegals in California, and the amount they apparently cost the state in welfare, and medical care.

Then there's the jobs issue. I don't know if they really take too many jobs that the average American is willing to do, or wants to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realizing that most of us who live here are well aware of the history, just a brief summary of why México won’t ask for a physical US presence.

The US invaded Mexico under the command of General Winfield Scott in 1846 allegedly because Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US when then President Polk unilaterally made the border between the US and Mexico the Rio Grande (something that Mexico had never agreed to). Further the US had admitted Texas as a slave state after Texas had won its independence, putting yet another stick in the eye of Mexicans who had already outlawed slavery after the revolution (remember Hildago).

The war known as the Mexican-American war in the States is often referred to as the La primera intervención estadounidenese en México. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, cementing the border between Texas (this also included most of New Mexico and half of Colorado) and Mexico as the Rio Grande and also cedeing the rest of New Mexico, Arizona, Californiz, Utah and Nevada. to the US. More or less 25% of the continental US came in as a result of the war, viewed by opponents in the States as a war to solidify slavery.

Basically Mexico looked at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago as worse than the Germans viewed the Treaty of Versailles. Otherwise the war was the training ground for Lee, Grant and a host of other Civil War generals, not a major reason for Mexico to care.

Given the background, why would anyone think that Mexico would like US intervention? Perhaps so the US could grab Cancun and Cabo San Lucas?

You left out the US intervention when we seized Vera Cruz in 1914, and later sent in troops into northern Mexico under Gen. Pershing to chase Pancho Villa (he ran circles around Pershing). Plus the US Ambassador was heavily involved in the plot to assassinate Mexican President Madero and install the dictator Huerta, during the Revolution. It was not for nothing that Porfirio Diaz said "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. I wonder if they really do pay in enough to the system, to offset their cost.

I think about the number of illegals in California, and the amount they apparently cost the state in welfare, and medical care.

Then there's the jobs issue. I don't know if they really take too many jobs that the average American is willing to do, or wants to do.

What's the cost? If they're employed they're paying taxes, SS, etc. all withheld by their employer. If they rent, the landlord pays the property tax. What else needs to be paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of medical treatment, cost of educating their children, and a list of public services that are stressed due to their being in the community.

I have yet to see any information that says they actually pay their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...