the root of the problem once again...is not mexicos fault. (legal, laws)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explain what, in your opinion, would need to be done in order to 'holistically address immigration issues'.
That would be a dissertation... however I can offer this, without first securing our borders (will require US, Mexico, and Canada to work together) any attempt to address immigration issues is and has been proved to be a moot point.
Then please explain how both Germany and Japan were able to bounce back withinone generation after WW II?
Both nations suffered horrific damage as in losing maybe 10% of their population (mostly men in the springtime of their lives), they had to pay reparations, and both nations had their physical infrastructure blown to smithereens.
The one that separates the above town nations from Mexico is human capital---------AKA a 'can do' attitude as well as the skills necessary for a First World society.
As for the colony thing: England, Spain, Portugal and France cut theirs loose shortly after WW II because the former were a net liability. Now look at how affluent all four nations are today because their people concentrated on taking care of the 'home front'
Mexico has been at peace since 1910 yet that nation is still a Third World basket case--------along with the rest of Latin America. Hell: Argentina is 97% White so racism is no excuse for its failures.
It's pretty easy to explain why...acquired capital. Japan and Germany were already richer and, prior to the war allowed to participate as industrial nations. The American dollars that were pumped in also helped.
Again, the nations were wealthier than Mexico at the time and were favored more in terms of recieving funds. Thus, rebuilding with the Marshall Plan was easier. Not every part of Germany and Japan were destroyed. Meanwhile Mexico was a neocolonial state pretty much.
As with the liability thing...I take it you are not too familiar with colonial history. The main why Europeans left Africa was because they no longer had the hearts of the people. Hence neocolonialism...if you lead people to believe that they are in charge, but really they are not, you get EVEN more money. France is a prime example. Why do you think they were in my mom's country (Ivory Coast) for several years? Initially to protect French citizens (the majority left) then they came out with it saying they wanted to protect their capital that they invested.
If you are not from the developing world, you really do not have a place to talk concerning a "can do attitude". Please it's demeans only you. It shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Nobody is calling racism...did you read that in my post? Again, you don't understand neocolonialism or the developing world. You would know that Argentina could not compete with English mills since the British controlled cotton in India and Egypt. They flooded Argentina's markets with cheap British cotton. This killed Argentina's textile industry. Then England opened plants in South America. The majority of money from European companies goes back to the original country, not the country of production. This pretty much was the case on the entire continent. Not only textiles, but other forms of manufacturing as well. A good reason for this was because South America was never seen as equals, but rather a post colonial region that could be under Europe's economic rule.
It's complicated, but it's def. not related to a "can do" attitude. So, again if you aren't from here, you won't know.
deter? you better buy it...a lot of mexicans are owneres of their own plots....and trust me there not going to die of hunger the only reason they came was for work...not because they were starving....
its mexico not africa...
and the elites projected this when nafta when to effect...and mexico stop subsidising and protecting there
agriculture sector to the heavy advance agricultured sector of america...and flooded and destroy mexico domestic market...
and what happen...
have a lot of farmers....running for the border to find jobs quickly
we put in effect the trues form of capitalism...
destroy
inefficient sectors in our economy..and let seventy million of mexicans reapt the
cheap products of america...at the expense of the 30 million inefficient farmers...
And why don't Mexicans work to improve their rich nation? Why is there much prosperity on one side of the border and so little on the other? What changed? Mexico has the same vast natural resources, same two ocean coasts, better weather and climate.
Until Mexicans stop packing and running, their nation will not improve. Americans did not build a great nation by fleeing. You need dedicated patriotic people who work to make their nation something. Leaving accomplishes nothing.
It's pretty easy to explain why...acquired capital. Japan and Germany were already richer and, prior to the war allowed to participate as industrial nations. The American dollars that were pumped in also helped.
Again, the nations were wealthier than Mexico at the time and were favored more in terms of recieving funds. Thus, rebuilding with the Marshall Plan was easier. Not every part of Germany and Japan were destroyed. Meanwhile Mexico was a neocolonial state pretty much.
As with the liability thing...I take it you are not too familiar with colonial history. The main why Europeans left Africa was because they no longer had the hearts of the people. Hence neocolonialism...if you lead people to believe that they are in charge, but really they are not, you get EVEN more money. France is a prime example. Why do you think they were in my mom's country (Ivory Coast) for several years? Initially to protect French citizens (the majority left) then they came out with it saying they wanted to protect their capital that they invested.
If you are not from the developing world, you really do not have a place to talk concerning a "can do attitude". Please it's demeans only you. It shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Nobody is calling racism...did you read that in my post? Again, you don't understand neocolonialism or the developing world. You would know that Argentina could not compete with English mills since the British controlled cotton in India and Egypt. They flooded Argentina's markets with cheap British cotton. This killed Argentina's textile industry. Then England opened plants in South America. The majority of money from European companies goes back to the original country, not the country of production. This pretty much was the case on the entire continent. Not only textiles, but other forms of manufacturing as well. A good reason for this was because South America was never seen as equals, but rather a post colonial region that could be under Europe's economic rule.
It's complicated, but it's def. not related to a "can do" attitude. So, again if you aren't from here, you won't know.
Mexico is not a poor nation. It's the 12 richest nation in the world. Mexico produces more billionaires than most nations including Great Britain, Germany, France.
You just said in an earlier post the rich/wealthy are to blame. You can't seem to make up your mind.
Both are to blame. The wealthy are to blame because they support the two-class society, they want their ultra cheap servants, and they want many of them but they don't want as many of the servant class as they've now got.
The poor are to blame because they won't do what it takes to get ahead. They are breeding very irresponsibly, having 12-15 kids when they cannot feed and clothe them. They are breeding far too young, not bothering to finish an education which is actually available to them, they are not trying to improve themselves, and coming to the USA to live off government programs and taxpayer generosity is not improving themselves.
In order to "make it" in the USA, they would have to delay childbearing until they've completed their educations, obtained jobs they can support a family on, and limit family size to what they can afford. That's the same things they need to do to "make it" in their own country. The only thing is, a large number of them consider the welfare life "making it" because they live like kings they think.
It's pretty easy to explain why...acquired capital. Japan and Germany were already richer and, prior to the war allowed to participate as industrial nations. The American dollars that were pumped in also helped.
Again, the nations were wealthier than Mexico at the time and were favored more in terms of recieving funds. Thus, rebuilding with the Marshall Plan was easier. Not every part of Germany and Japan were destroyed. Meanwhile Mexico was a neocolonial state pretty much.
As with the liability thing...I take it you are not too familiar with colonial history. The main why Europeans left Africa was because they no longer had the hearts of the people. Hence neocolonialism...if you lead people to believe that they are in charge, but really they are not, you get EVEN more money. France is a prime example. Why do you think they were in my mom's country (Ivory Coast) for several years? Initially to protect French citizens (the majority left) then they came out with it saying they wanted to protect their capital that they invested.
If you are not from the developing world, you really do not have a place to talk concerning a "can do attitude". Please it's demeans only you. It shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Nobody is calling racism...did you read that in my post? Again, you don't understand neocolonialism or the developing world. You would know that Argentina could not compete with English mills since the British controlled cotton in India and Egypt. They flooded Argentina's markets with cheap British cotton. This killed Argentina's textile industry. Then England opened plants in South America. The majority of money from European companies goes back to the original country, not the country of production. This pretty much was the case on the entire continent. Not only textiles, but other forms of manufacturing as well. A good reason for this was because South America was never seen as equals, but rather a post colonial region that could be under Europe's economic rule.
It's complicated, but it's def. not related to a "can do" attitude. So, again if you aren't from here, you won't know.
As for Mexico: I will repeat; it needs to grow up.
Why I say that is Mexico's per capita income is almost identical to Argentina which brings me to another point: being that over 90% of all Argies are of either Italian or Spanish lineage (Argentina is 97% White)----------why in the hell is it so damn poor?
As for Mexico: I will repeat; it needs to grow up.
Why I say that is Mexico's per capita income is almost identical to Argentina which brings me to another point: being that over 90% of all Argies are of either Italian or Spanish lineage (Argentina is 97% White)----------why in the hell is it so damn poor?
Argentina was at one point one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Argentine, Latin for silver. However, during the turn of the century, it fared badly being essentially forced to buy European and North American goods. British trains, for example. England acquired the Falklands. You see, it was a neo-colonial state. Let's not also forget the Great Depression...the first one of the 1880s-1890s. Then Peron. My point is that Argentina like Mexico were never real states. It fared better than Mexico because of acquired wealth. It had a good base to begin with...it was a settler colony. Settler colonies fared much better. Compare Namibia to Chad. Even Zimbabwe is better off than Chad.
It is a little weird to tell a country to grow up...it's more complicated than just "grow up".
Location: The world, where will fate take me this time?
3,163 posts, read 6,505,556 times
Reputation: 1357
In all fairness, it would be naive to say it's not Mexico's fault that we are 100% exempt of sin, but it would be unfair to say that the entire blame lies in Mexico.
In all fairness, it would be naive to say it's not Mexico's fault that we are 100% exempt of sin, but it would be unfair to say that the entire blame lies in Mexico.
My father fled Hungary in 1948 and arrived here in the USA in 1951-----------he had a sponsor, etc.
As for Mexico: many other countries and societies suffered far worse yet today are socio-economic powerhouses. Germany, Japan and the Jews all come to mind--------and we are discussing since 1945.
If the above could succeed despite terrible odds------------what is Mexico's excuse?
to probe a point ...
when your father was being sponsor...
what year did you say?47 or 49?
i forgot....but guess what..
in 1954 mexican americans...during
operation ******* were uprooted and
classified as mexicans....but yet accepted 40,000 hungarians....and deporting american citizens because of their skin color....
now instead of developing the northern part of mexico and the southern part of america...with commerce they let some foreigners from around the world come and take jobs that were mean for
american continent...
now we talk about illegals and legas.
most popular saying...
"we want legals" we dont have problems with legal immigration......
bull...locals natives...always had problems with
what the GOVERNMENT DECIDED....
In 1915, the second Klan was founded. It grew rapidly in a period of postwar social tensions. After World War I, many Americans coped with booming growth rates in major cities, where numerous waves of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe DOES THAT INCLUDE HUNGARY? and the Great Migration of Southern blacks and whites were being absorbed. After World War I, labor tensions rose as veterans tried to reenter the work force. In reaction to these new groups of immigrants and migrants, the second KKK preached racism, anti-Catholicism AGAIN HUNGARIANS?, anti-Communism, nativism, and anti-Semitism. Some local groups took part in lynchings, attacks on private houses and public property, and other violent activities. Members used ceremonial cross burning to intimidate victims and demonstrate its power. Murders and violence by the Klan were most numerous in the South, which had a tradition of lawlessness.[4]
YouTube - KKK: Then and Now
IF YOU Truthfully want to understend the subject
of what I am talking about...the KLAN....THE NATIVES....DID NOT ACCEPT LEGAL IMMIGRATION...REPEAT LEGAL...NOT ILLEGAL..LEGAL. and it was pointed out to the
southern eastern europeans....CATHOLIC HUNGARIANS...
------------------------------------------------
NOW as a north american...not mexican...not american...but north american...now that your a
"native" theres so much problems in north america...and since you know american history so well why did america rise to power far apart from her greatness.? isolation..not being in european scenarios....
but guess what....those 40,000 hungarians...italians...russians...poles...etc...
could have easily been banned...and america could have collaborated way more with mexico...
his neighbor....now that things have grown out of proportion...I AM NOT BLAMING AMERICA...FOR THE PROBLEMS....
but thats just the way the world is...you mention
germany and japan...easliy recover...you want to know why?because they had the skilled force to begin with....that is the most import asset in your
wheel of progress...another thing....
what fueled industriliaziton? in the 19 century..?
iron ore..and coal...something a lot of countries lack...including mexico but germany and japan are so rich of....
second....tell me the population of japan and germany?200 million put together? let me put it like this...
europe...500 million inhabitants...
america 300 million inhabitants...
japan 130 millon inhabitants....
cananda...and australia...60 millon inhabitants...
singapore..south korea...singapore...50 millon
add them up....around a billion people...?
becaus all the citizens of europe are not rich...
like former yugoslavia, poland, romania,HUNGARY...ESPECIALLY HUNGARY...
less than 800 billion people live with salaries above 30,000 dollars while the rest of the world live with
less then 8,000 dollars ....
TELL ME...DO YOU KNOW WHATS THE LAST NUMBER FOR THE WORLD INHABITANTS..? LET ME TELL YOU ITS CLOSE TO 7 BILLION PEOPLE....
so let me tell you its not a mexican problem...
is the highly industrialised ...countries not sharing there technology soon enough for greed....
but yet now in days....feed the poor just for them to survive...since the world is screaming for reforms...
so illegals...or not...its a global problem...and what I want to let everybody know...
is forget...
HUNGARY..FORGET..JAPAN..FORGET THE EUROPEAN UNION THEY CAND DEFEND THEMSELVES..FORGET ALL THE FOREIGNERS...THAT COME....
SOLVE YOUR HOMETOWN ISSUES FIRST...
like drugs...incopetence...corroding infrastructe...
etc...etc...because all of those things are affecting the REAL NORTH AMERICANS...
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[30
now mr....your daddy wasnt one of those I am sure..huh...work five years..or 10 and the collected his social security....for 10 years..without putting the right amount of money in...huh?
scapegoats...I look for mine..too..and if you want reform...start with you..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
