What I mean is what part of this are you assuming we disagree on? Were you presenting a justification of sorts for Mexican nationals to cross illegally? Yes, then we would disagree. But you didn't blatantly state that. I agree that the primary motivation to enter "by any means necessary" is the potential for a better life. The weak Pesos, health care (I would wager our ERs where they are guaranteed treatment is better than most upper scale Mexican hospitals), these are all reasons to one degree or another; but I think everyone would agree that the majority of illegal southern boarder crossings are quote, "in pursuit of a better life." I believe perhaps you have overplayed the philosophical reasoning a person hiking through the Arizona desert may be pondering. "A better life" is the simple answer, versus a group of five or six 24 year olds poised on the verge of leaving, all gathered together discussing the Utopian attraction of a truly classless society. And I'm not demeaning the Mexicans' capacity for reason, it was you that pointed out that the Mexican government was encouraging inmates and the like to relocate, not philosophy majors at "Mex U."
But let me make the American attraction even more simple. We have the most robust, dynamic economy in the history of mankind (fingers crossed boys). It drives people to relocate their lives here, it always has. However, I think you have failed to mention geography's role in all of this. The vast majority of our new immigrants (legal or illegal) are Mexican. They are our neighbor to the South. The vast majority of the UK's new immigrants (along with France's) are from North Africa (mostly Muslim). In fact the largest single ethnic group migrating to Europe are Muslims from 3rd world nations, primarily Africa. In other words Africa is (in a sense) Europe's Mexico. My point being that poor people with the drive for a better life are going to immigrate to the closest "free/dynamic" economy that can offer them that better life. Now I should add here that superior free social services such as health care & housing undoubtedly plays into the decision to move - lets face it, not every one migrates with the best of intentions or work ethic. But I don't find anything extraordinary in the premise that the populations of poorer nations will migrate to richer nations, with geography as the determining factor as to which "rich nation" they end up in. In that scenario we are the biggest magnet to be sure, but a poor North African man won't find it as easy to get here as say a Polish engineer, so perhaps he goes to Europe (and then probably saves for a move to America). People will go to the nearest land offering a better life ... period.
Now what I do find extraordinary is that the UK is allowing the "Muslimization" of their nation by introducing Muslim Courts & aspects of Sharia law within certain neighborhoods. Not to mention the US (under any administration) allowing the border to be so unbelievably porous, especially in a post 9/11 world - and especially when both of these nation's populous keep demanding the opposite. THAT is extraordinary. Now on that, and the means by which these problems should be remedied, we may certainly disagree.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Here's a topic I know we disagree on...
I'm up early this morning, and took a ride into town for gas and smokes (both of which are up in price... again) and was listening to the satellite radio discussion on immigration concerns in the Obama era.
This discussion prompted me to ask the following question: What is it about the US that makes coming here so much more appealing than anywhere else on the face of the earth?
Is it our freedoms, as defined and guaranteed under our Constitution? While this is important, I'm not sure it is a defining aspect of this nation's appeal to (for the sake of an example) a 24 year-old Mexican male with less than a high school education and no English language skills (an example that makes up more than 70% of those illegals that cross the southern border every day). While nothing to compare to the USA, the United States of Mexico is a functioning representative republic with a constitutionally guaranteed protection of the rights to free speech, worship, citizenship, adequate housing and health care (adequate according to their definition, not mine), and a lower national unemployment rate in rural areas then we have here in the US. Even with the masses of people trying to get from Mexico to the US (illegally and legally), the population is still growing, and the economy is not stagnant. In fact, Mexico saw a real economic boom after the Clinton administration helped sort out their own national currency failure, with companies from all over the world coming to cash in on the cheap labor and low corporate tax rate. Of all three signatory states, Mexico has seen the most benefit from NAFTA, enough to want to co-sponsor a new super-highway from central Mexico all the way to the Kansas for a more streamlined trade route from one country to another. This is still a topic on the table between Mexico and the US, even with the tighter economic times, so things can't be THAT bad in Mexico, right?
Is the appeal of our health care system? I know that there are many liberals who would say yes, but even with the current easy-access system we have now, who could say that it is easier for a Mexican residing in the US illegally to get American health care than it is for a Mexican still in Mexico to get Mexican coverage? Who would argue that it isn't the sick and infirm that are swarming across the border in the dark of night? The 15 to 29 year old majority do not need major medical coverage when they come to the US... the trip alone would make such an effort quite counter productive, I'm sure.
An argument could be made that it is the strength of our currency that is a large draw. Earnings made here in the US and then sent directly to family in Mexico go a lot farther than pesos, even in today's economy. This is a serious problem today, I know... but the numbers don't lie. The bulk of what is earned by illegals in this country stays in this country when it is circulated back into the system through rent, food, transportation, sales taxes, etc. Yes, we lose billions of dollars each year in monies sent out of the country... but not all of it goes to Mexico, even today. China is the biggest winner in that category.
Is the appeal based on our nation's ability to provide endless opportunity for success? Surely, nowhere on earth boasts the freedom of opportunity that the US has... but we aren't the only place to have that plus in our column. Canada, Great Britain, even some European states boast huge immigrant populations that become (as a whole) quite successful, even affluent. Still, this is the reason I believe the vast majority are coming... here there are no limits to where you can go with hard work and dedication.
I haven't had long to digest this thought, but I think the conclusion I came to is that what makes a prospective life in the US that much more appealing than an actual life in Mexico is that there are (still) no limits or boundaries to how far a person can go in the US. Like it or not, I think Mexico still suffers from a colonial-like class system, where those born to a certain station are forced by society to remain in that station, regardless of ability, drive or means.
Home ownership, meaningful employment, expanded educational opportunities are all available to Mexicans in Mexico... and probably far easier (and safer) to come by than those hoped for after a difficult, risky and illegal trip across the Rio Grande or the Arizona desert. I think it is the dream of a truly classless society that is the biggest draw, and I think I have evidence to back it up.
Former Presidente Vicente Fox, and to a lesser degree, the current Presidente Filipe Calderon, have made it very clear that they want to encourage those ready to emigrate out of Mexico to do so, at any cost. The former Presidente's pamphlets on how to successfully enter the US illegally are a great example. What I find telling is the fact that these pamphlets weren't distributed on campus at any of the national universities throughout Mexico, or at hospitals to trained doctors or RNs, or at military or police barracks... they were handed out at welfare venues, work camps, slums in the major cities... and prisons. Yes, prisons! Shouldn't THIS fact tell us all exactly who in Mexico Fox and Calderon are trying to help leave? The poor, the destitute, the unemployed... and apparently the "legally challenged" currently doing time in a Mexican jail. No one in Mexico is trying to get the doctors, teachers, skilled workers, professionals, or affluent to swim the Rio Grande or walk across the New Mexican high desert with "how-to" fliers gripped in their fists, are they?
If the society in Mexico finds it easier to help these poor souls enter the US illegally at great risk to life and limb, what does that tell us about their ability to work towards a better future in Mexico?
This discussion prompted me to ask the following question: What is it about the US that makes coming here so much more appealing than anywhere else on the face of the earth?
Is it our freedoms, as defined and guaranteed under our Constitution? While this is important, I'm not sure it is a defining aspect of this nation's appeal to (for the sake of an example) a 24 year-old Mexican male with less than a high school education and no English language skills (an example that makes up more than 70% of those illegals that cross the southern border every day). While nothing to compare to the USA, the United States of Mexico is a functioning representative republic with a constitutionally guaranteed protection of the rights to free speech, worship, citizenship, adequate housing and health care (adequate according to their definition, not mine), and a lower national unemployment rate in rural areas then we have here in the US. Even with the masses of people trying to get from Mexico to the US (illegally and legally), the population is still growing, and the economy is not stagnant. In fact, Mexico saw a real economic boom after the Clinton administration helped sort out their own national currency failure, with companies from all over the world coming to cash in on the cheap labor and low corporate tax rate. Of all three signatory states, Mexico has seen the most benefit from NAFTA, enough to want to co-sponsor a new super-highway from central Mexico all the way to the Kansas for a more streamlined trade route from one country to another. This is still a topic on the table between Mexico and the US, even with the tighter economic times, so things can't be THAT bad in Mexico, right?
Is the appeal of our health care system? I know that there are many liberals who would say yes, but even with the current easy-access system we have now, who could say that it is easier for a Mexican residing in the US illegally to get American health care than it is for a Mexican still in Mexico to get Mexican coverage? Who would argue that it isn't the sick and infirm that are swarming across the border in the dark of night? The 15 to 29 year old majority do not need major medical coverage when they come to the US... the trip alone would make such an effort quite counter productive, I'm sure.
An argument could be made that it is the strength of our currency that is a large draw. Earnings made here in the US and then sent directly to family in Mexico go a lot farther than pesos, even in today's economy. This is a serious problem today, I know... but the numbers don't lie. The bulk of what is earned by illegals in this country stays in this country when it is circulated back into the system through rent, food, transportation, sales taxes, etc. Yes, we lose billions of dollars each year in monies sent out of the country... but not all of it goes to Mexico, even today. China is the biggest winner in that category.
Is the appeal based on our nation's ability to provide endless opportunity for success? Surely, nowhere on earth boasts the freedom of opportunity that the US has... but we aren't the only place to have that plus in our column. Canada, Great Britain, even some European states boast huge immigrant populations that become (as a whole) quite successful, even affluent. Still, this is the reason I believe the vast majority are coming... here there are no limits to where you can go with hard work and dedication.
I haven't had long to digest this thought, but I think the conclusion I came to is that what makes a prospective life in the US that much more appealing than an actual life in Mexico is that there are (still) no limits or boundaries to how far a person can go in the US. Like it or not, I think Mexico still suffers from a colonial-like class system, where those born to a certain station are forced by society to remain in that station, regardless of ability, drive or means.
Home ownership, meaningful employment, expanded educational opportunities are all available to Mexicans in Mexico... and probably far easier (and safer) to come by than those hoped for after a difficult, risky and illegal trip across the Rio Grande or the Arizona desert. I think it is the dream of a truly classless society that is the biggest draw, and I think I have evidence to back it up.
Former Presidente Vicente Fox, and to a lesser degree, the current Presidente Filipe Calderon, have made it very clear that they want to encourage those ready to emigrate out of Mexico to do so, at any cost. The former Presidente's pamphlets on how to successfully enter the US illegally are a great example. What I find telling is the fact that these pamphlets weren't distributed on campus at any of the national universities throughout Mexico, or at hospitals to trained doctors or RNs, or at military or police barracks... they were handed out at welfare venues, work camps, slums in the major cities... and prisons. Yes, prisons! Shouldn't THIS fact tell us all exactly who in Mexico Fox and Calderon are trying to help leave? The poor, the destitute, the unemployed... and apparently the "legally challenged" currently doing time in a Mexican jail. No one in Mexico is trying to get the doctors, teachers, skilled workers, professionals, or affluent to swim the Rio Grande or walk across the New Mexican high desert with "how-to" fliers gripped in their fists, are they?
If the society in Mexico finds it easier to help these poor souls enter the US illegally at great risk to life and limb, what does that tell us about their ability to work towards a better future in Mexico?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
On oil...
Mind you, I wasn't suggesting that the only thing that could bring a similar situation to another Arab state as we find in Yemen is the exhausting of all oil reserves... far from, in fact.
I'm convinced that the science is correct when it says that there is at least 200 years worth of oil under the Saudi Arabian desert... even factoring in increased demand each and every one of those years. Add to that the vast reserves here in the US, in the North Atlantic, South America and (most recently discovered) off the West African shelf... all of which are still virtually untouched... and you see that waiting for the Saudis and the other "questionable" Arab states to run dry is a loosing strategy for us.
No, my comments were inferring that, should a national economy that is so utterly dependant on a single export commodity (like the Saudis are with crude oil) suddenly find that the market for that commodity is drying up faster than they can adjust their infrastructure... well, then you have another Yemen, just 13 times bigger and suddenly bordering 4 other marginally stable states.
While I will admit that Saudi Arabia has one really huge advantage over all the other Muslim states in the entire region... namely, Mecca and Medina and the tens of millions of hadjii pilgrims that come to those towns each year spending their drachmas, dinarii, sheqels, rials, pounds, and lira (and dollars, too... don't forget!), there is no chance that the revenue from the hadj could even moderately make up for the wealth lost to the Saudi family if the West could reduce its export demands by even 20%... which would equate to (literally) $200 billion each year in lost monies for the Kingdom. Cut THAT kind of revenue out of the budget, and watch the Saudis learn how to play real nice, real fast... and you can take that to the bank.
I'm convinced that the science is correct when it says that there is at least 200 years worth of oil under the Saudi Arabian desert... even factoring in increased demand each and every one of those years. Add to that the vast reserves here in the US, in the North Atlantic, South America and (most recently discovered) off the West African shelf... all of which are still virtually untouched... and you see that waiting for the Saudis and the other "questionable" Arab states to run dry is a loosing strategy for us.
No, my comments were inferring that, should a national economy that is so utterly dependant on a single export commodity (like the Saudis are with crude oil) suddenly find that the market for that commodity is drying up faster than they can adjust their infrastructure... well, then you have another Yemen, just 13 times bigger and suddenly bordering 4 other marginally stable states.
While I will admit that Saudi Arabia has one really huge advantage over all the other Muslim states in the entire region... namely, Mecca and Medina and the tens of millions of hadjii pilgrims that come to those towns each year spending their drachmas, dinarii, sheqels, rials, pounds, and lira (and dollars, too... don't forget!), there is no chance that the revenue from the hadj could even moderately make up for the wealth lost to the Saudi family if the West could reduce its export demands by even 20%... which would equate to (literally) $200 billion each year in lost monies for the Kingdom. Cut THAT kind of revenue out of the budget, and watch the Saudis learn how to play real nice, real fast... and you can take that to the bank.
Viva la Voter !!!
I wanted to make mention of something. 3 prominent Democrats, including Chris Dodd, have announced they will not seek reelection. Dodd, being the chair of the powerful ways and means committee, banking, etc, is a particularly noticeable "retirement." Chairs of powerful committees do not simply resign - this is getting bad fast for the Democrats running in 2010. Now, as to my point - knowing Rahm "dead fish" Emanuel as I do, he will not simply stand by and watch his bosses majorities evaporate. Get ready in the near future for a sweeping amnesty ("immigration") bill. He will seek to flood the polls with newly legal voters, assuming they will be fertile Democrat recruits. Just my "new year prediction" if you will.
By the way, if I may address my senator, Harry Reid: make note of Dodd sir.
By the way, if I may address my senator, Harry Reid: make note of Dodd sir.
Didn't he hear?
I don't understand ... didn't the Christmas Day bomber get the news that we are closing GITMO? How could Al Qeada have possibly recruited him when their primary, nay exclusive, recruiting tool is being denied them? "Weird, wild" (to quote Johnny Carson).
By the way, the President came out and "strongly" condemned the Intel community last night over the Christmas Day fiasco. And rightly so, for how does one appear on the "terror watch list", yet escape the "no fly" list? At any rate he described our current battle as a "war against violence." What violence? Domestic violence? Drug violence? Perhaps hockey violence? At least that war would gain us a better chance against the Canadians. I reiterate, this inability to even MENTION whom we are at war with is a sign of where this war is heading under this man.
Those Yemeni numbers of youth vs the unemployment rate are simply staggering. As we all know this could breed violent behavior in any region. Unfortunately for the West, the violence d'jour of this region is Islamic-Fascism. Just as an aside - I don't buy into the idea for one millisecond that it is poverty that causes Muslims to become militant. Doctors, engineers, and professionals of all stripes that live in nations such as the UK are primary consumers along the terror food chain. Hell, Bin Laden is a construction multimillionaire. I am simply stating what is undeniable - out of work young males by the millions is fertile ground for recruitment into whomever is that region's dominant fanatic group, be it drug cartels or Jihad. But Islamo-fascism is hardly the exclusive domain of the poor, especially its leadership. But but back to my point ....
Not to toot my own horn (not that anyone here would ever do such a thing), but I touched on this in a post many moons ago, the oil question that is. It has been the stated goal of every administration since we became an oil importing nation (and at least since Nixon) that the US become "energy independent." Well, be it the "it" fuel which we have discussed needing a moon shot style initiative in presidential leadership (not to be confused with a federal program), or whether we simply follow the F.Ryan model of domestic drilling, refinery construction & nuclear power plants by the tens of dozens, the point is we need not wait necessarily until the Near East "runs out" of oil, which is unlikely in our lifetime. But rather if the price simply plummets to near non existent profit margins due to any of the events I just described, we could see a similar result of suddenly petro rich nations descending into economic, soon followed by social, chaos. And I warned not that we shouldn't seek energy independence (quite the opposite), but rather that we should expect and prepare for that descension.
But no worries ... I have every confidence that a Commander-in-Chief whom would close GITMO; give trial to enemy combatants in civilian court; deport terrorists to Yemen; use the phrase "man-made disaster" in place of terrorism; forbade water boarding; & mirandize the enemy on the battlefield (as the AG testified may be appropriate in some circumstances) is immanently qualified to defend us in the wake of such an event. Ironically his Party's stance on domestic energy recovery is going to ensure we import more and more Petro for years to come ... perhaps that's his twist on preventing terrorism ... err ... I mean man-caused-accident ... or whatever the hell he calls it as of Wednesday at 10:24 a.m.
By the way, the President came out and "strongly" condemned the Intel community last night over the Christmas Day fiasco. And rightly so, for how does one appear on the "terror watch list", yet escape the "no fly" list? At any rate he described our current battle as a "war against violence." What violence? Domestic violence? Drug violence? Perhaps hockey violence? At least that war would gain us a better chance against the Canadians. I reiterate, this inability to even MENTION whom we are at war with is a sign of where this war is heading under this man.
Those Yemeni numbers of youth vs the unemployment rate are simply staggering. As we all know this could breed violent behavior in any region. Unfortunately for the West, the violence d'jour of this region is Islamic-Fascism. Just as an aside - I don't buy into the idea for one millisecond that it is poverty that causes Muslims to become militant. Doctors, engineers, and professionals of all stripes that live in nations such as the UK are primary consumers along the terror food chain. Hell, Bin Laden is a construction multimillionaire. I am simply stating what is undeniable - out of work young males by the millions is fertile ground for recruitment into whomever is that region's dominant fanatic group, be it drug cartels or Jihad. But Islamo-fascism is hardly the exclusive domain of the poor, especially its leadership. But but back to my point ....
Not to toot my own horn (not that anyone here would ever do such a thing), but I touched on this in a post many moons ago, the oil question that is. It has been the stated goal of every administration since we became an oil importing nation (and at least since Nixon) that the US become "energy independent." Well, be it the "it" fuel which we have discussed needing a moon shot style initiative in presidential leadership (not to be confused with a federal program), or whether we simply follow the F.Ryan model of domestic drilling, refinery construction & nuclear power plants by the tens of dozens, the point is we need not wait necessarily until the Near East "runs out" of oil, which is unlikely in our lifetime. But rather if the price simply plummets to near non existent profit margins due to any of the events I just described, we could see a similar result of suddenly petro rich nations descending into economic, soon followed by social, chaos. And I warned not that we shouldn't seek energy independence (quite the opposite), but rather that we should expect and prepare for that descension.
But no worries ... I have every confidence that a Commander-in-Chief whom would close GITMO; give trial to enemy combatants in civilian court; deport terrorists to Yemen; use the phrase "man-made disaster" in place of terrorism; forbade water boarding; & mirandize the enemy on the battlefield (as the AG testified may be appropriate in some circumstances) is immanently qualified to defend us in the wake of such an event. Ironically his Party's stance on domestic energy recovery is going to ensure we import more and more Petro for years to come ... perhaps that's his twist on preventing terrorism ... err ... I mean man-caused-accident ... or whatever the hell he calls it as of Wednesday at 10:24 a.m.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Let's talk about Yemen...
It's the poorest Arab nation in the world, and it is one of only eight Islamic republics to actually hold honest elections. It has fairly strong ties to the West, and sports an unemployment rate of more than 40% (and that's a 7 year average!). It is rapidly running out of oil (all reserves expected to be depleted by 2018) and is only now beginning to develop its natural gas production and exportation capabilities. Yemen is unable to supply even 20% of its agricultural needs to its population of 24.5 million people, and that population is growing at a rate of 100% every 29 years. Nearly 50% of its population is under 15 years of age, and less than 3% is over 60... that alone is a staggering statistic, isn't it? We see a state that, in 1950, had 4 million people in it that now has 25 million, and by 2050 will have more than 60 million... and nearly half of them will be over the age of 50.
The reason I am bringing this up now isn't because I am surprised that terror organizations like al Qaeda are digging into the sands of Yemen... that should seem obvious, given its demographics and economy. No, I'm pondering Yemen tonight because I wonder if it isn't a blue-print for what we can expect to see out of other Arab states with exploding populations and dwindling resources or sources of national revenue.
Saudi Arabia has already seen the pinch of depleted reserves, falling prices and increased competition from places like the UK, Russia and several South American states that have made petroleum production a priority. Could a similar fate be in store for them? How delicate is their security in a world where oil is rapidly becoming a four-letter word? How much of a risk does Yemen present to the Kingdom, if things continue to deteriorate over the next 5 years? With nearly 65% of Yemeni living on less than $1.45 per day, this is a country where the largest export is going to be unemployed, uneducated males between the age of 19 and 29 very, very soon. That has to scare the PANTS off of the Saudis.
What would happen if the same situation repeated in Algiers, or Libya, or Lebanon? How likely is it that this could even be something we could expect out of a post-American Iraq? With just enough security to compel the Americans to leave Iraq, isn't it possible that the fledgling economy of that country could fail to keep up with a future "baby-boom"? If in ten years, we see even a 5% increase in the Iraqi birthrate, that equates to an additional 1.3 million new mouths to feed each year in a country that has seen its infrastructure devastated and/or ignored for the last 25 years. Fifteen years from now, we'd see an Iraq with nearly the same demographics as Yemen today... 40% of the population under the age of 15, and growing at a rate 5% each year.
What do you guys think? How concerned does this make YOU?
The reason I am bringing this up now isn't because I am surprised that terror organizations like al Qaeda are digging into the sands of Yemen... that should seem obvious, given its demographics and economy. No, I'm pondering Yemen tonight because I wonder if it isn't a blue-print for what we can expect to see out of other Arab states with exploding populations and dwindling resources or sources of national revenue.
Saudi Arabia has already seen the pinch of depleted reserves, falling prices and increased competition from places like the UK, Russia and several South American states that have made petroleum production a priority. Could a similar fate be in store for them? How delicate is their security in a world where oil is rapidly becoming a four-letter word? How much of a risk does Yemen present to the Kingdom, if things continue to deteriorate over the next 5 years? With nearly 65% of Yemeni living on less than $1.45 per day, this is a country where the largest export is going to be unemployed, uneducated males between the age of 19 and 29 very, very soon. That has to scare the PANTS off of the Saudis.
What would happen if the same situation repeated in Algiers, or Libya, or Lebanon? How likely is it that this could even be something we could expect out of a post-American Iraq? With just enough security to compel the Americans to leave Iraq, isn't it possible that the fledgling economy of that country could fail to keep up with a future "baby-boom"? If in ten years, we see even a 5% increase in the Iraqi birthrate, that equates to an additional 1.3 million new mouths to feed each year in a country that has seen its infrastructure devastated and/or ignored for the last 25 years. Fifteen years from now, we'd see an Iraq with nearly the same demographics as Yemen today... 40% of the population under the age of 15, and growing at a rate 5% each year.
What do you guys think? How concerned does this make YOU?
Monday, January 4, 2010
A real evil in this world...
Damn Sid Meyers and his entire CivCity-genre of PC games...
Damn them to hell.
The kids bought me a bunch of old strategy games for the PC for Christmas (along with a casino game CD-ROM and a solitaire game), and one of them was the all-time classic CivCity: ROME. It's like crack cocaine for the PC... and I'm only about three-quarters of the way through it. It is seriously beginning to impact my daily regiment of tasks and chores (more so than even the Bund normally does) and Liz isn't always very happy about it.
I know Jambo will know the other title, too... Pharoh.
Damn them all to hell.
Damn them to hell.
The kids bought me a bunch of old strategy games for the PC for Christmas (along with a casino game CD-ROM and a solitaire game), and one of them was the all-time classic CivCity: ROME. It's like crack cocaine for the PC... and I'm only about three-quarters of the way through it. It is seriously beginning to impact my daily regiment of tasks and chores (more so than even the Bund normally does) and Liz isn't always very happy about it.
I know Jambo will know the other title, too... Pharoh.
Damn them all to hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
