Why do Mexican citizens want to leave (college, taxi, prices)

[stevenvillatoro]

Any selective use of statistics about the economics of our illegal population cannot accurately represent the net overall impact of their contribution to our economy. Taking into account all positive and negative aspects, the most rigorous and highly-regarded economic impact studies have concluded that we gain more than we lose as a result of our undocumented "informal" workforce and illegal population. To cut-and-paste isolated statistics does an injustice to the situation, and are nothing more than misrepresentations of the bigger picture – tools of politicians and the media.

[970diego]

I know plenty of Americans and Brits who live in Mexico and would never even think about leaving. And if you think Mexico treats Americans worse than the US treats us, you're very wrong.

And yes, there is racism, and more importantly classism, in Mexico. Just like in every other country.

Thank goodness for EZLN.

[Noliving]

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

Any selective use of statistics about the economics of our illegal population cannot accurately represent the net overall impact of their contribution to our economy. Taking into account all positive and negative aspects, the most rigorous and highly-regarded economic impact studies have concluded that we gain more than we lose as a result of our undocumented "informal" workforce and illegal population. To cut-and-paste isolated statistics does an injustice to the situation, and are nothing more than misrepresentations of the bigger picture – tools of politicians and the media.

I would like to see those studies because the ones I have seen have suggested that it is negative impact and not a positive. One that I read said that when you look at their wages and then you look at the services they receive, especially if they have kids here or are born here, they actually end up costing around $30k dollars and that is after you subtract what they contribute.

What do you define as selective? I mean isn't that whats really only available? I mean I'm willing to bet your sources use selective statistics to make/back up its claim.

Also I fail to see the difference between illegal, or the euphemism that you use "undocumented"/"informal", workforce and illegal population. Unless of course what you mean by illegal population you mean those here illegally that don't have a job or are minors that are here illegally.

[Noliving]

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

The text you referred to in the provided link stated, "A new Pew Research Center poll also found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could." Going to the United States does not necessarily equate to "leaving their country," as in emigrating. For example, I'd like to go to Paris (on a vacation). That does not mean I never want to return home! Interpretation is such a tricky thing.

Ya that is true but then again if you read the question it said "if they could" that means if they had the ability to do it they would, the only reason why they have not emigrated is because they lack the ability to do that meaning it could be funds or health reasons, it means that something is actually preventing them from being able to leave but once that reason or reasons is gone they will leave is what they are saying. I disagree I think it does mean emigrating considering the rest of the polls questions deal only with immigration/emigration, so I think it is a little obvious that poll question was in fact dealing with people who wanted to leave mexico and work in the USA, not people who only want to come to the USA from Mexico as tourists and then leave like after a week or two. In fact the actual question if you read it below said if you have the means and the opportunity to live in the US would you. So clearly they are talking about emigration. You should actually read the findings and conclusion section and not just the bullet points.

Still though that result is very troubling, I mean if a little over a third of Americans wanted to lets say invade mexico, would you say "well there is a difference between wanting to and actually invading mexico" or would you say something along the lines of "That is very disturbing and something must be done to address that mindset".

[stevenvillatoro]

Originally Posted by Noliving

... if you read the question it said "if they could" that means if they had the ability to do it they would, the only reason why they have not emigrated is because they lack the ability to do that...

Your argument presumes that 'go' to the United States means to emigrate, when it could also (likely) mean to visit. The Pew statistic in question is vague in its language, and therefore subject to interpretation (and misinterpretation). It is implausible to the point of being ridiculous to suggest that one-third of all Mexicans would want to emigrate to the United States. Most Mexicans love their country, despite its problems. It is reasonable to believe that one-third of Mexicans would go (visit) the United States, if they had the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Noliving

... if a little over a third of Americans wanted to lets say invade mexico, would you say "well there is a difference between wanting to and actually invading mexico" or would you say something along the lines of "That is very disturbing and something must be done to address that mindset".

The premise of your statement does not address the point of how 'go' should be interpreted. This discussion is not about a distinction between 'wanting to do' versus 'actually doing' something. It is about what was the meaning of the 'something' in the Pew report, i.e., whether "go to the United States" meant to visit or to emigrate.

[Noliving]

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

Your argument presumes that 'go' to the United States means to emigrate, when it could also (likely) mean to visit. The Pew statistic in question is vague in its language, and therefore subject to interpretation (and misinterpretation). It is implausible to the point of being ridiculous to suggest that one-third of all Mexicans would want to emigrate to the United States. Most Mexicans love their country, despite its problems. It is reasonable to believe that one-third of Mexicans would go (visit) the United States, if they had the opportunity.

But it is not vague in its language the question specifically asked if they could would go and live in the USA, that means emigration. It is not implausible at all. But the question didn't ask about visiting it asked about living in the USA if they had the opportunity. They said yes they would live in the USA.

Did you actually read the question and findings? not the bullet point summary.

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

The premise of your statement does not address the point of how 'go' should be interpreted. This discussion is not about a distinction between 'wanting to do' versus 'actually doing' something. It is about what was the meaning of the 'something' in the Pew report, i.e., whether "go to the United States" meant to visit or to emigrate.

Oh please, all you have to do is look at what the objectives of the poll was about along with the subject matter of the other questions to figure out what the context is which tells you how to interpret "go".

So if the discussion is not about wanting vs actually doing then why did you bring it up in the first place?

We already know what the meaning is because the report specifically used the term live which means emigration not visiting. They already told you in the findings and conclusion along with the questions section what they said.

In fact this is what the bullet point said:

"Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States."

They then used another polls finding to basically confirm the above statement saying which is what your arguing over, but your are neglecting the fact that the findings for the center for immigration found that one third of Mexicans want to emigrate to the USA:

A new Pew Research Center poll also found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could.

I mean seriously dude, if they are using the other poll to show a similarity between their findings it is quite obvious that the word "go" means to live. I mean seriously dude it is quite obvious that the polls found that around one third of Mexicans want to emigrate to USA. Because if the term meant visit then shouldn't the number be way higher? Why would two thirds of the Mexican population not want to visit USA? I mean your whole argument is semantics and it has completely fallen apart

So here is what I did for you, I found that recent(September 2009) pew research center poll that the center for immigration studies used the term "go" for that research findings.

A substantial minority of Mexicans say that if they had the means and opportunity to go live in the U.S. they would do so, and more than half of those who would migrate if they had the chance say they would do so without authorization.

Most Mexicans See Better Life in U.S. – One-In-Three Would Migrate | Pew Global Attitudes Project

There ya go that pew poll that you think is vague spells out nice and clear, one third of Mexicans want to emigrate to USA. The center for immigration studies was just lazy and just want to paraphrase that finding and used the term go.


I'm also waiting on those studies that the "most rigorous and highly-regarded economic impact studies have concluded that we gain more than we lose as a result of our undocumented "informal" workforce and illegal population"

I want to see those studies.

[stevenvillatoro]

Originally Posted by Noliving

I would like to see those studies because the ones I have seen have suggested that it is negative impact and not a positive.

Seek and ye shall find. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Noliving

What do you define as selective? I mean isn't that whats really only available? I mean I'm willing to bet your sources use selective statistics to make/back up its claim.

I have no strongly-held position, although it may seem as if I might. My comments are not made here to defend or denounce illegal/undocumented immigrants. The purpose of my comments is to question the inauthenticity of the way the conversation about this topic occurs for most people. I believe that such "right/wrong" positions, by their adversarial nature, do not work. We cannot win this issue by dominance and control. Rigidly-held positions do not allow a sensitive and mindful approach for discussion and consideration, and they foster undignified and foolishly hostile rhetoric in a nanosecond. The human mind is crazy to have answers – often far too quickly – and I believe it is healthier to have a good bi-lateral dialogue that works toward a common goal. In general, a question is more powerful than an answer, because any answer excludes every other possibility. Mexico will be our neighbor for a very long time, and I simply would like a less-hysterical approach to solving common problems between two countries that have more to gain through cooperation than hostility.

Originally Posted by Noliving

Also I fail to see the difference between illegal, or the euphemism that you use "undocumented"/"informal", workforce and illegal population. Unless of course what you mean by illegal population you mean those here illegally that don't have a job or are minors that are here illegally.

We are a country which holds the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. In some cases, undocumented migrants can resolve/convert their status to secure permanent legal residency. Therefore, I prefer not to offend or have the habit of presuming someone to be illegal for labeling purposes. When you speed in your car, does your family then refer to you as their "illegal" member? It is dehumanizing and a poor trick to subtly further a negative political argument. (For argument's sake, I'm also aware that a "happy meal" isn't necessarily all that happy for the cow.) How we are programmed by the politicians, corporations, the media, and our own culture – that is where the real wake-up call is needed – a far worse problem than our undocumented population.

[Noliving]

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

Seek and ye shall find. Good luck with that.

Sorry bro but you are the one making the claim not me, it is your job to provide evidence to your claims not me. If you can't provide evidence then your argument that illegals make net positive to the USA economy is without merit.

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

I have no strongly held position, although it may seem as if I might. My comments are not made here to defend or denounce illegal/undocumented immigrants. The purpose of my comments is to question the inauthenticity of the way the conversation about this topic occurs for most people. I believe that such "right/wrong" positions, by their adversarial nature, do not work. We cannot win this issue by dominance and control. Rigidly-held positions do not allow a sensitive and mindful approach for discussion and consideration, and they foster undignified and foolishly hostile rhetoric in a nanosecond. The human mind is crazy to have answers – often far too quickly – and I believe it is healthier to have a good bi-lateral dialogue that works toward a common goal. In general, a question is more powerful than an answer, because any answer excludes every other possibility. Mexico will be our neighbor for a very long time, and I simply would like a less-hysterical approach to solving common problems between two countries that have more to gain through cooperation than hostility.

That doesn't answer my question on how you define selective

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

We are a country which holds the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. In some cases, undocumented migrants can resolve/convert their status to secure permanent legal residency.

Someone who is able to convert their status without documentation showing they are here legally would be someone who has/was proven to be guilty of being in the country illegally but were not charged.

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

Therefore, I prefer not to offend or have the habit of presuming someone to be illegal for labeling purposes.

Calling someone undocumented is saying someone doesn't have the proper documents to be in the US legally. Calling someone undocumented is the same as saying they are here illegally. Undocumented is nothing more than a euphemism to make the crime sound less like a crime.

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

When you speed in your car, does your family then refer to you as their "illegal" member?

Yes, in fact they called me the illegal driver because I kept making so many mistakes during my permit years. They also called me the violator, as in traffic violations. If you were to kill someone would your family call you a murderer?

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

It is dehumanizing and a poor trick to subtly further a negative political argument.

It is not a trick at all to further a negative political argument, increasing and finding new ways to enforce immigrations laws while not doing amnesty is not something I would consider a negative political argument.

What do you call a negative political argument?

It's better then being called an illegal alien isn't it? If I'm not mistaken the legal term is illegal alien.

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

(For argument's sake, I'm also aware that a "happy meal" isn't necessarily all that happy for the cow.) How we are programmed by the politicians, corporations, the media, and our own culture – that is where the real wake-up call is needed – a far worse problem than our undocumented population.

Oh I agree the problem is that giving amnesty to illegal immigrants falls right into their programming

[gdb63]

Originally Posted by stevenvillatoro

The text you referred to in the provided link stated, "A new Pew Research Center poll also found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could." Going to the United States does not necessarily equate to "leaving their country," as in emigrating. For example, I'd like to go to Paris (on a vacation). That does not mean I never want to return home! Interpretation is such a tricky thing.

Actually the Zogby International poll in the link says "36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could." That is imigrating, not a vacation.

[stevenvillatoro]

You are correct about the intended meaning of the Pew finding – the exact language was not in the summary report in the original link. My interest was to get clarity on the meaning, not to take any position on the matter of the Pew finding. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Here is the full text of the Pew survey question: "If, at this moment you had the means and opportunity to go to live in the U. S., would you go?" While 33 percent answered "Yes," – IF they had the means and opportunity – by itself, it hardly seems like a surprising finding. More interesting was the follow-up question to those who indicated they would go to live in the United States, "And would you be inclined to go work and live in the U.S. without authorization?" To this follow-up question, 55 percent replied, "Yes."

Thanks for the link to the full report... good stuff.