U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2010, 09:12 AM
 
Location: ...at a 3AM epiphany
2,206 posts, read 2,145,800 times
Reputation: 453

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
What is even more despicable is those Americans who marched right along with them.
Absolutely. How anyone can support the blatant ruining of this nation is beyond me.

 
Old 02-13-2010, 11:34 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,967,072 times
Reputation: 22179
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
I take it you don't have much experience in the third world...if you did, you wouldn't make such a simplistic argument.

If you are poor in an area without an educational infrastructure, your best bet is to have children in order to have increased support. You are approaching this from purely a middle class American standpoint. You obviously don't understand the other narratives involved in this debate. I suggest you learn a little more concerning other cultures (specifically a 3rd world perspective or even pre-industrial perspective).
Actually your argument is simplistic beyond belief. Have many children and you're richer? Have many children because you live in third world slum conditions so you cannot feed them, educate them, clothe them and magically you will become rich from them?

Sure -- you become rich by having 12-16 kids. Sure you do. Maybe if you sell them, maybe if you make them work as child slaves in sweat shops and steal their earnings from them. Maybe the third world believes that having baby after baby that they cannot feed will get them rich but there's no way that works (which is why the third world is the third world maybe?)

No - a mother with several toddlers and several older children, and infant and another one on the way is not benefitting financially from them. Well -- if she's selling them in some way maybe but they don't help her be more productive in a job. Sure the older children can beg and steal but that is because she's unable to provide for them, not because she's getting better off by that. Sure people might toss a few more coins if a woman begging is surrounded by many toddlers and infants but no one is getting better off.

The third world benefits by changing it's views obviously. Stop having children at very young ages, get an education instead. Limit family size to what you can afford.

The third world types might decide they must have a baby every chance they get because their babies keep dying on them so having 13 or 15 might seem to them to be a way to end up with 1 or 2 that live.
 
Old 02-13-2010, 11:51 PM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,094,408 times
Reputation: 822
"Actually your argument is simplistic beyond belief. Have many children and you're richer? Have many children because you live in third world slum conditions so you cannot feed them, educate them, clothe them and magically you will become rich from them?"

No, it's actually not that simplistic. However, seeing how you don't understand what you claim to know, some of the complexities may lose you. I've condensed down the argument as to make it more understandable. However, if you really want a better picture, it's best to get more knowledge of the situation at large.

"Sure -- you become rich by having 12-16 kids. Sure you do. Maybe if you sell them, maybe if you make them work as child slaves in sweat shops and steal their earnings from them. Maybe the third world believes that having baby after baby that they cannot feed will get them rich but there's no way that works (which is why the third world is the third world maybe?)"

Okay let's play this out. There are two family villagers. One family has only two children. The other has five children. The family with two children have less children to help in agriculture, sales, or general work. Thus, less income comes into the family. The family with five children have more help in agriculture (more agricultural output), more help in sales (if they go to the market, that means more helpers to stock, sell, and advertise), or more help in general work (working in the formal sector). There is a net increase in the amount that comes in.

Once the parents with two children get older, there are less resources to aid in them in their old age. Whereas the more children you have in these conditions, the more help you will get in old age.

In richer, western societies, it makes more sense to have less children. We have employment laws. We have the money to not have children work. Children are more a net drain than a benefit.

"No - a mother with several toddlers and several older children, and infant and another one on the way is not benefitting financially from them. Well -- if she's selling them in some way maybe but they don't help her be more productive in a job. Sure the older children can beg and steal but that is because she's unable to provide for them, not because she's getting better off by that. Sure people might toss a few more coins if a woman begging is surrounded by many toddlers and infants but no one is getting better off."

Right, because children never grow up...

"The third world benefits by changing it's views obviously. Stop having children at very young ages, get an education instead. Limit family size to what you can afford."

It's not the view's changing...but rather the economic situations. Education is limited in MANY parts of the world. They are surviving the best they can, given the situation.

"The third world types might decide they must have a baby every chance they get because their babies keep dying on them so having 13 or 15 might seem to them to be a way to end up with 1 or 2 that live."

Obviously you don't really know much, again, it's really not that simplistic. Nor is it that ignorant of them.
 
Old 02-14-2010, 12:06 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,967,072 times
Reputation: 22179
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Okay let's play this out. There are two family villagers. One family has only two children. The other has five children. The family with two children have less children to help in agriculture, sales, or general work. Thus, less income comes into the family. The family with five children have more help in agriculture (more agricultural output), more help in sales (if they go to the market, that means more helpers to stock, sell, and advertise), or more help in general work (working in the formal sector). There is a net increase in the amount that comes in.
If a family owns a family owned farm, they aren't really third world types. Yes farming societies benefitted from having many children but they could afford their children, being landowners, having a farm that could feed them all.

Also if a family owns a store and uses their children to work in sales instead of attending school, they aren't really poor because they are business owners but business owners are more likely to understand the advantage of education.

Again forcing children to work may be something the third world does but it doesn't make people better off - it keeps them third world. Having children that you cannot feed, cannot educate, must force to work is third world but it keeps you third world. The children will be just as poor, just as inclined to have children of their own while they are still children and just as uneducated.

It's when you break that cycle of third world poverty and you don't start reproducing at a very young age and you don't have many children you cannot feed that you stop being third world and become middle class.

In a country like Mexico, third world living conditions are not imposed as the government of Mexico has long offered public school education but people don't choose to make the changes they must to become middle class.

Again, in a country like Mexico, if someone opts to stay in school, complete his or her education, delays the start of a family until after they've finished that education, found a job and is married and limits family size to what they can afford, they have a very good chance of being middle class.
 
Old 02-14-2010, 12:20 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,094,408 times
Reputation: 822
"If a family owns a family owned farm, they aren't really third world types. Yes farming societies benefitted from having many children but they could afford their children, being landowners, having a farm that could feed them all."

"Also if a family owns a store and uses their children to work in sales instead of attending school, they aren't really poor because they are business owners but business owners are more likely to understand the advantage of education."

Markets in the 3rd world don't have "stores" in the western sense. First off, there is no cost. Secondly, you can sell on the street if you want. Thirdly, education is not as easily accessible. Please, stop yourself from making statements when you CLEARLY don't know.

"Again forcing children to work may be something the third world does but it doesn't make people better off - it keeps them third world. Having children that you cannot feed, cannot educate, must force to work is third world but it keeps you third world. The children will be just as poor, just as inclined to have children of their own while they are still children and just as uneducated."

If it comes down to eating and having the ABILITY to TRY to pay for education, the children will GLADLY work. We send money to my cousins to go to school, but for my aunt, she worked in the fields in order to pay for uniforms and meals after school. Don't look at it via the perspective of a middle class American.

"It's when you break that cycle of third world poverty and you don't start reproducing at a very young age and you don't have many children you cannot feed that you stop being third world and become middle class."

No, since if the person in dire poverty doesn't have family to rely on...they will lead a MUCH WORSE life. The children are an investment to the overall wellbeing to the family. Their cost is less and their utility is more in the third world than in the first world.

"In a country like Mexico, third world living conditions are not imposed as the government of Mexico has long offered public school education but people don't choose to make the changes they must to become middle class."

Public schools are found worldwide. Most of Africa has public schooling. However, as in Mexico, the quality schools are typically in more affluent areas. In poor, rural areas...there are less schools and the schools are of a lower quality.

"Again, in a country like Mexico, if someone opts to stay in school, complete his or her education, delays the start of a family until after they've finished that education, found a job and is married and limits family size to what they can afford, they have a very good chance of being middle class."

Assuming the family can afford to do so. It's not like in the US. Look, you have to not look at it from ONLY your perspective. You have to look at all other variables (utility vs. cost, accessibility of education, overall social mobility, the overall economic picture of the region, etc.) You can't superimpose your middle class standard of living in these nations/regions.
 
Old 02-14-2010, 03:15 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,967,072 times
Reputation: 22179
The only way for large groups of people to become middle class is to adopt the attitudes and standards of the middle class.

Mexico is not actually a third world country with no resources of any kind. It's a rich country, part of the same land mass as the USA and Canada, same two ocean coasts, better climate and beaches. A large land mass with a large variety of climates and soils. Mexico has schools -- and in many cases does far better job educating it's people than the USA educates them. I would make the claim that the typical Mexican child IN MEXICO receives a better education than in the USA. Here they will be fed political correctness, learn an invented history of both Mexico and the USA, they will not be taught in the language of this country but in Mexico they will learn the language of that country.
 
Old 02-14-2010, 04:01 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,655,184 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
The only way for large groups of people to become middle class is to adopt the attitudes and standards of the middle class.
.
That would seem like common sense....middle class membership requires a middle class mindset. However, you can't rely on common sense...common sense once dictated that if you want to be a citizen, you have to go through the legal process. Common sense once dictated that if you want to "join" some organization, (such as a country), you must show the proper respect for its institutions, rather than 'threatening' it. And common sense once dictated that if you want to augment the workforce of a high-tech society, you must seek educated, qualified, technically-savvy workers, not those with a 6th grade education.

So much for common sense.

So you're saying that to become middle class, you need to act and think middle class? OK, that's one way..(and the way I've always thought it should be). But here's another way: What if, instead of trying to get people to "change" (their culture...their outlook...their attitude) to adapt to the middle class...what if we just RE-DEFINED what "middle class" meant? What if we tried to promote the idea that ALL people "deserved" a middle-class income, WITHOUT adopting the "values" you mentioned? What if we just laid on a load of guilt, declared that "EVERYONE has a right to the American Dream", regardless of education...regardless of behavior...regardless of cultural values...regardless of immigration status...EVERYONE was owed "the Good Life", and if we didn't actually "need" them, then it was up to us as a society to somehow "fit them in"..I think THAT is more the way things work today, don't you?

In closing, it's interesting to reflect for a moment that the entire CONCEPT of a 'middle class' really didn't exist much before World War II, anywhere in the world. Before that it was the "professional" class (college-educated, wealthy) as a small minority....maybe a few "skilled tradesmen" below...and the vast bulk of society was "poor"..or "working class" (farmers, blue collar labor, etc.) There WAS no middle class as we know it today.

So now, we import "the poor" from places where the 'middle class' is almost unknown still today..we encourage these poor to retain their old cultures and ways of thinking...and then we are dismayed when these 'poor' find themselves ill-equipped to earn a middle class income..in our society, where today, even OUR middle class is shrinking. And then, when SOME of these imported 'poor', who aren't even here LEGALLY, get "angry" with the situation...become frustrated because they 'can't make it'...we feel GUILTY, and we rub our hands together, and we insist "SOMETHING must be DONE about it".

Is it any WONDER illegals are angry with us? They can detect "guilt" a mile away....and here, our society is probably among the 'guiltiest' in human history. For an opportunist from a rough, Third World society, that's all it takes...find a "guilty", wealthy, welfare society with virtually 'open' borders and NO penalty for violating them....and the rest is 'common sense'. ('Common sense' for the illegals, that is...you 'go where the money is', and you never apologize).

Illegals are the ones with common sense...most of us here having lost it, several decades ago.
 
Old 02-14-2010, 04:38 PM
 
1,448 posts, read 2,667,591 times
Reputation: 691
Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, says the great irony of Mexican migration is that it often feeds the same problems that sent people north in the first place. "Many towns have lost the best of their labor force. There's money coming in [from the U.S.] but no job creation back home," he says. "It just shows that migration does not solve migration."

To Get Rich is Glorious: Why is Mexico poor?
 
Old 02-14-2010, 04:48 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,655,184 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Springs Gator View Post
Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, says the great irony of Mexican migration is that it often feeds the same problems that sent people north in the first place. "Many towns have lost the best of their labor force. There's money coming in [from the U.S.] but no job creation back home," he says. "It just shows that migration does not solve migration."

To Get Rich is Glorious: Why is Mexico poor?
A highly-placed Mexican priest said more or less the same thing, last year, during President Obama's visit to Mexico. (Can't remember his name...he was an assistant to the Archbishop of Hermosillo, Sonora).

While a number of Mexican speakers were busy 'castigating' Obama for 'not delivering on his promises to them'..(the 'promises' made during his campaign, to the 'people of Mexico' (?) ), this particular priest took a different position. HE 'scolded' the people of Mexico, reminding them that they had a potentially wealthy society, but had allowed their country over the years, through inertia and neglect, to come to depend so heavily on emigration to 'el norte', that entire SECTIONS of the nation now had the illegal 'export' of people, and the resultant remittances, as their MAIN SOURCE of income..so much so, that many FORMER sources of revenue were now being neglected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top