MR. BUSH, Tear down this wall. Open the border with Mexico NOW!

Should the border with Mexico be opened, like the Berlin wall coming down?

Should any citizen of our good neighbor, the Estados Unidos de Mejico, who
wishes to visit or shop in the Estados Unidos de America, be allowed to do
so by having their passport stamped at the border, like Americans do when
visiting Mexico and Central America?

Should we treat the wonderful people of our southern neighbor as they treat
us when we cross their border, with a welcome, a quick inspection, and a
fast permission to proceed?

Are they not equals in human rights terms? So, should we treat them as equals?

Or, should we build a giant wall, spend billions, fly drones, in a futile effort
to stop illegal border crossing. Why not just stamp their passports with a visa
and welcome them and their pesos?

Why not end this racism? Why not treat Mexicans like we treat Canadians or Europeans?

economy can absorb an overwhelming wave of migrants and immigrants? Whether such an impact can transform this country into e pluribus unum into another Balkans where certain societal groups split and do not combine with any meaningful commonalities?

they pay a fee and get a stamp on their passport. Not so if you are a neighbor to the south.

Absent a mechanism to round up those who overstay their welcome, it's necessary to restrict their entry.

and the gazillions of other people who want to move here via Mexico. Just walk right in.

but I am probably not saying it right. Lociento.

Although, since there are 300 million Americans and only 190 million Mexicans, it's hard to see how they can over-run us (except that they are more likely to be Catholics and to have lots of babies).

Imanam kanchu?

not "RE-conquista."

The U.S. is more than California and the Southwest.

...that made great your country.

The Balkan war was a war for defending exactly ethnic identities and systems of power.
The MIX of muslim and christian cultures made great communities everywhere until someone came and called for fight against the "aliens".
Spain was great just when christian, arabs and jews lived together. The oppression against jews and arabs during the XVII century made it poor. Cultures contribute to the richness of communities with knowledge, experience and humanity.

As to economy - well, USA like Europe had so weight an hand to peoples in the south and east of the world (South America, Africa, Balkans, Far East) that I'd say we're almost in debt. Colonialism, post-colonialism, the 70's - we've been living on other people resources for too long.

We can't go innocent, now, for the sake of economy. USA is a country of immigrants. Everyone has a right to find a better place to live.

No one has a human right to my job... granted not even me, nevertheless I won't give it up willingly.

We are a wonderful mix of cultures, all of whom are entitled to the benefits of the society we've collectively built. Regulation of immigration isn't about culture, it's about jobs.

It isn't just illegal immigration. The US chamber of commerce is lobbying for more H-1b visas, when annual caps on H1-b visas already exceed job growth in those business categories. In other words, government policy dictates that every single new electrical engineering job should go to a foreign worker.

If the Mexican border were any MORE open, there would be Baja Fresh on every street corner.

Of course, if you're talking about dropping the US government's pretense about stopping illegal immigration, I agree--do you mean "OFFICIALLY open the border with Mexico?"

:headbang:
rocknation

and for tons of money to guard the border. How about we spend that money
on services in America, like passport stamps, rest stops, exit ramps for
our fine malls, more parks and campgrounds, better roads and highways, etc?

The current immigration bill is all abut turning the border states into
police states with wall building, drones, sensors, more police, jails, etc.

Why not have a situation where we treat people equally, no matter their color
or national origin? Why not stamp their passports and say, "Enjoy your visit"?

"Bush, build up this wall and back it up with some serious firepower." (I think that there are plenty of East German border guards who are looking for work. They are used to enforcing border security quite "efficiently.")

Treat all people the same?! You been smoking something in Berkeley there fella? As my father used to tell me, "There is a tough real world out there. You shouldn't waste time with dreams of a better world. Get a job and make some serious money."

They do their shopping and return to Mexico every night.

Your information illustrates that there is some reason to allow this idea. Give the people who want to cross the documents they need to be here legally. That means some sort of tourist visa. Many who cross daily in El Paso and other border towns have worker visas, green cards. Many who live across the river and the walls cannot pass daily, for lack of documentation permitting them to do so.

The Mexican documentation was found to be to easily duplicated. We are not the only country that does not accept Mexican documentation like birth certificates because of that.

Not anyone in El Paso can cross the border, just those who have documentation/permission from the USA. A Mexican that wants to visit Big Bend Park as a tourist is out of luck, but someone fron Germany can just enter the US with their passport. I just had friends and family from Denmark visit, but my friends and family from Latin America cannot enter the USA with the same ease.

Denmark is a part of the Visa Waiver program. Which is why they can get in without a visa. The requirements and negotiations for joining the program are with the government of the United States. The countries exchange information electronically on those entering rather then using a visa.

The U.S., Mexico, and Canada all have entry requirements. This is not a practice that is singular to the U.S. government. They are distinct and separate countries, and each chooses its own practices, though they do work together and negotiate some parts of it.

Mexico, Canada, and US are working on a similar program for travelers between those countries.

Visitors from Canada currently can show a variety of documentation to enter the U.S.
Visitors from Mexico can have either a visa or a border crossing card also called a laser visa.


Is this what you are referring to for U.S. citizens traveling to the Mexican border zone?

Tourist Travel: U.S. citizens do not require a visa or a tourist card for tourist stays of 72 hours or less within "the border zone," defined as an area between 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the U.S., depending on the location

Shall we have the same laws and the same treatment that our good neighbor, The United States of Mexico, has for those who go there?

Lets refer to their Constitution.
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=93

Article 9 - The right to associate or peacefully assemble for any lawful purpose shall not be abridged; but only citizens of the Republic may do so in order to take part in the political affairs of the country. No armed gathering has the right to deliberate. No assembly or gathering that has as its object to make a petition or present a protest because of some act to an authority, shall be illegal or be dissolved, provided injuries are not suffered by the authority, nor use was made of violence or threats to intimidate it, or obligate it to respond in the manner desired.

Chapter III

Of Foreigners

Article 33 - Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualities determined in Article 30. They have the right to the guarantees of Chapter I of the first title of this Constitution, but the Executive of the Union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country.

is there a MIDDLE GROUND between a wall & an open border?

probably. but * couldn't find his ass with a map. so stasis is the best option until someone sane is in office in 09.

and i don't mean crazy old mr. mccain.

The problem is that people ARE NOT crossing at the border checkpoints. We have no OPPORTUNITY to "welcome them" nor give them a "quick inspection" and of course no way to give them permission to proceed. It would be nice to know who was coming across the border if only to know how many people have entered. Maybe even screen for convicted felons?


Need Working Visas for Mexico? FM2 or FM3
You will need a permit granted by the ministry of Interior (Secretaría de Gobernación). To obtain one you will need to fulfill certain requirements.
According to Mexican Law, foreigners may only perform those activities expressly authorized by the Ministry. You are allowed to perform any activity as long as it's legal and honest. This includes the ability to work in the country.
Both as an FM2 or FM3 holder, you may be authorized to perform several activities. These are the most common:
Business or Investor (FM2 or FM3)
You may have considered investing in Mexico and therefore you wish to learn about possible investment options. Or, you might just come down to invest, supervise an investment, represent a foreign company or perform certain commercial activities.
As an INVESTOR: You must note that there is a minimum investment amount as well as the obligation to demonstrate that the investment is beneficial to the country's development.
Scientists and Techinicians (FM2 OR FM3)
In these categories you will have to provide all the documentation that proves to the satisfaction of the authorities that you have the skills and knowledge to perform these activities.
Professionals (FM2 OR FM3) You will have to provide the authorities with all the papers that can prove you have the knowledge and skills to perform the specific professional activities. The applicant must demonstrate that the skills are not met in the workforce in Mexico.
High level management (FM2 OR FM3)
If you were appointed as a director to a company or to assume a key position you will need to obtain this immigration permit.
Members of the board (FM3)
When you need to attend to a board meeting of one or more corporations, this is the migration status you request to the Mexican authorities.
http://www.solutionsabroad.com/a_immigrationmexico.asp

I believe you are confusing tourists and migrants. Seems to me that Mexico has rules regarding immigration.

No, they can't. The object is that the U.S. open their borders first. Then once we are as poorly run as the Mexican government, with people having even less control, Mexico will open their borders.

By that time, Canada won't really have a choice.

Thats what we call progress now.

Definitions are fluid in a politics, they change all the time.

What do you call it when roughly 10% of nation A's population has entered nation B without documentation, formal consent, or legal process? "Invasion" seems too harsh a term, but it is difficult to come up with another one. Perhaps "migration". In either case, an absence of consent and control is implied, and there are consequences that come with that.

In the past five years, I have seen a tremendous influx of undocumented immigrants crush the infrastructure of my locality. Schools, hospitals, legal systems are all in free fall. Not long ago, this was a quiet neighborhood. Gang activity has changed all that. This has long been a very diverse part of metro Atlanta ... one of the reasons I chose to live here. But when your Mexican born next door neighbor sells his house and advises you in the strongest possible terms to do likewise, you know there is a problem. And not long ago I decided to take his advice and will be moving in a couple of weeks.

I'm lucky ... I'm able to get out of here. But I feel the problems attendant with illegal immigration have directly hurt my kids and forced me out of my home. You can accuse me of racism if you wish ... but that would just prove to me that the wellbeing of my family is unimportant to you, that you simply do not wish to hear what many citizens are now experiencing, and that you want us to pay the freight charges attendant with your ideological position. If that is the case, then I don't need to listen to you, either.

I regard with interest the rather draconian immigration policies of Mexico, and find therein a certain irony given the context of this discussion.

One final point. The Berlin wall analogy is completely absurd and reveals either a profound ignorance of history or extreme intellectual dishonesty. While I can concede that is possible that a better managed open border solution just might be in the best interests of the nation, shoddily constructed arguments will not win the case.

Pardon my use of analogy. This is a discussion group, not an academic paper. That is known as a hook, and I think it is an appropriate analogy, because lots of people would flood across and visit the US if they were allowed to do so. And, they would return home like tourists do, excepting a few, of course.

The OP is not about the problems you bring into the discussion. Do you assert that if we treated Mexicans as we treat Europeans, neighborhoods would decline? My question remains "Why not end this racism? Why not treat Mexicans like we treat Canadians or Europeans?"

Actually it is the intention for the future in the immigration bill. It is part of the North American Union, SPP. I believe that they are working on the changes necessary to bring this about. Mainly integrating information on travelers so criminals etc cannot flee across a border to avoid prosecution.

Neither Mexico or Canada are in the Visa Waiver Program, which applies to a variety of Europeon countries. So we treat even Canada differently from those in the Visa Waiver Program

The programs between Mexico and Canada are different but both are headed in the same direction.

This is America, if you're an American citizen this isn't about you or your family.

Sheesh, the nerve of some people.:eyes:

Read up on the history of the Germanic peoples.

In terms of our taxpayer dollars, when will this drain ever stop? Will $4.4 billion more throw at the problem stop people from sneeking across the border, of will it take $44 BILLION? We have 12 million "illegal aliens" now.

Let me do some math. 4.4 billion / 12 million = $366. That's one dollar a day for one year per illegal IF, IF it prevents 12 million more from crossing.

If the money prevents 500,000 from crossing, that's $8,800 dollars for each border crossing prevented.

So, how long will the $4.4 billion last. Will it be spent in one year? How many bilions more will follow?

AND, WHO GETS THE MONEY? With Bushco, always ask, "$$ Where do the bucks STOP ??" They increase the National debt, our children will pay the tab, and meanwhile who salts the profits away?

=========================
6/15/2007 - Senate leaders agree on plan to revive stalled immigration legislation
Associated Press - http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/06_15_Bush_Immigration_10thLd


WASHINGTON - Senate leaders agreed Thursday night to revive stalled immigration legislation ...

Bush's decision to personally announce support for the accelerated funding ... constituents doubted the government was capable of following through on a commitment to enforce immigration laws. ...

Under the legislation as drafted, money for border enforcement would be collected gradually as illegal immigrants pay the fines and fees needed to achieve legal status ...

the president .. his remarks ... "To answer these concerns I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders ..."

... Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, had previously proposed advanced funding. "The moment the presidential signing pen meets the paper these funds will be available," Graham said ...

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Mexico is just a horrible place, as we all know.

It has an inferior culture, its people are ignorant peasants.

Mexico has a political tradition and an economic system certainly not worth fighting to change, that's for sure.

So, of course Mexicans want to leave the land of their birth and come to the United States of America.

We are so superior in our advocacy of "equal rights" ... we should welcome all the brown people who will do the jobs we won't do ... native born Americans pick our own lettuce? Clean our own bathrooms? Butcher our own meat? We have more serious work like being good consumers and playing Nintendo.

So, yes, indeed we should tear down any border walls or obsacles and we should give a hearty "Welcome" to all the poor, backward, and 'wonderful' people who are willing to come north and serve us.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Its more to do with the requirements that are built into our laws, and it actually has as much to do with people leaving the country as people entering the country.

and derogatory term in non-Native groups. There is a long list of other derogatory, racist terms applied to "south of the border" residents.

One of the Native American tribes is split by the US-Mexico border. We call the US residents Native Americans. How often have you heard someone refer to an Indian from Mexico as a Native American?

There is a certain convenience in the "immigration" debate to ignore the Native American status of the "illegal immigrants" because they lived on the other side of an artificial line militarily imposed on their continent by "illegal invaders" from Europe, and that line was militarily imposed on the soveriegn nation of Mexico in 1848, after the illegal military invasion of Mexico by the United States forced a treaty ceding a vast portion of Mexico.

It is a matter of historical and cultural perspectives. Native Americans (Mexicans) are not called "illegal immigrants" because their ancestors came here 10,000 plus years earlier. It is because of "our" border.

Nevertheless, "mexican" is no more a racial term than "canadian" is.

Their nation has problems it needs to fix, we shouldn't agree to be the release valve for problems of their own making.

Our border is our border. You're entitled to think it unfair, but the border is no more arbitrary than the border that delineates your living room from the rest of the neighborhood. If you go far enough back, an argument can be made that anyone's property was gained illegitimately.

If native mexicans think of themselves as primarily mexicans, good for them.

Like Spain you mean?

Bishop of Chiapas, Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas wrote:

"…forty-nine years have passed since the first settlers penetrated the land, the first so claimed being the large and most happy isle called Hispaniola, … This large island was perhaps the most densely populated place in the world … all the land so far discovered is a beehive of people; it is as though God had crowded into these lands the great majority of mankind."

"And of all the infinite universe of humanity, these people are the most guileless, the most devoid of wickedness and duplicity, the most obedient and faithful to their native masters and to the Spanish Christians whom they serve. They are by nature the most humble, patient, and peaceable, holding no grudges, free from embroilments, neither excitable nor quarrelsome. These people are the most devoid of rancors, hatreds, or desire for vengeance of any people in the world … they not only possess little but have no desire to possess worldly goods. For this reason they are not arrogant, embittered, or greedy.… They are very clean in their persons, with alert, intelligent minds, docile and open to doctrine, very apt to receive our holy Catholic faith, to be endowed with virtuous customs, and to behave in a godly fashion."

... His guileless, peaceable people are not recognizable as the cannibals depicted by other authors. Las Casas continues:

"…into this land of meek outcasts there came some Spaniards who immediately behaved like ravening wild beasts, wolves, tigers, or lions that had been starved for many days. And Spaniards have behaved in no other way during the past forty years, down to the present time, for they are still acting like ravening beasts, killing, terrorizing, afflicting, torturing, and destroying the native peoples, doing all this with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty, never seen or heard of before, and to such a degree that this Island of Hispaniola once so populous (having a population that I estimated to be more than three million), has now a population of barely two hundred persons."

"The island of Cuba is… now almost completely depopulated. San Juan and Jamaica are two of the largest, most productive and attractive islands; both are now deserted and devastated. On the northern side of Cuba and Hispaniola the neighboring Lucayos comprising more than sixty islands … have the healthiest lands in the world, where lived more than five hundred thousand souls; they are now deserted, inhabited by not a single living creature. All the people were slain or died after being taken into captivity and brought to the Island of Hispaniola to be sold as slaves. When the Spaniards saw that some of these had escaped, they sent a ship to find them, and it voyaged for three years among the islands searching for those who had escaped being slaughtered…"

"More than thirty other islands in the vicinity of San Juan are for the most part and for the same reason depopulated…"

"As for the vast mainland, which is ten times larger than all Spain, … we are sure that our Spaniards, with their cruel and abominable acts, have devastated the land and exterminated the rational people who fully inhabited it. We can estimate very surely and truthfully that in the forty years that have passed, with the infernal actions of the Christians, there have been unjustly slain more than twelve million men, women, and children. In truth, I believe without trying to deceive myself that the number of the slain is more like fifteen million."

"Their reason for killing and destroying such an infinite number of souls is that the Christians have an ultimate aim, which is to acquire gold, and to swell themselves with riches in a very brief time…"

"… the Indians began to seek ways to throw the Christians out of their lands.… And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, 'Boil there, you offspring of the devil!' Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which they hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, 'Go now, carry the message,' meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains. … survivors were distributed among the Christians to be slaves."

From (with permission): The Cannibalism Paradigm: Assessing Contact Period Ethnohistorical Discourse.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/cannibalism.html

It's about restoring pre-columbian cultural homeland.

How does the mestizo fit into that?

Or, at least, if I do have problems, a stranger on a discussion board isn't fit to say what they are. :rofl:

Seriously, this issue has historical context, not the least of which is enslavement or "others" however defined. The word "slave" originates in our language from "Slavs" but eventually came to be defined, in actual legal context, as, for example, non-Christian. Under Spanish law, you could not enslave a Christian, and Las Casas knew that when he went into Guatemala and conveted Mayan communities. Thanks to his efforts, the Carribean fate did not befall all of Central America, and we still have millions of Maya. For centuries the Native people of the Americas were subject to enslavement. I helped free chatteled slaves in the 1960s, so we are not so far removed from these issues as those ignorant of the topic may think.

Now, regarding your amusing quip about my "problem."

You said, "restoring pre-columbian cultural homeland." There are aspects of the "Golden Age in America," as some today still call their lost past, that might be worth returning to and that serve as a goalpost for the future. Let me cite another ethnohistorian, aqnother actual witness to the context of this issue and to the nature of the culture so easily derided by the ignorant racists.

In Cuzco on Sept. 18, 1589, the last survivor of the original conquerors of Peru, Don Mancio Serra de Leguisamo, wrote in the preamble of his will the following in parts:

"(W)e found these kingdoms in such good order, and the said Incas governed them in such wise that throughout them there was not a thief, nor a vicious man, nor an adulteress, nor was a bad woman admitted among them, nor were there immoral people. The men had honest and useful occupations. The lands, forests, mines, pastures, houses and all kinds of products were regulated and distributed in such sort that each one knew his property without any other person seizing it or occupying it, nor were there law suits respecting it...

"...the motive which obliges me to make this statement is the discharge of my conscience, as I find myself guilty. For we have destroyed by our evil example, the people who had such a government as was enjoyed by these natives. They were so free from the committal of crimes or excesses, as well men as women, that the Indian who had 100,000 pesos worth of gold or silver in his house, left it open merely placing a small stick against the door, as a sign that its master was out. With that, according to their custom, no one could enter or take anything that was there. When they saw that we put locks and keys on our doors, they supposed that it was from fear of them, that they might not kill us, but not because they believed that anyone would steal the property of another. So that when they found that we had thieves among us, and men who sought to make their daughters commit sin, they despised us."

to the motives of "ignorant racist", be they white, black or brown.

As to the cut and paste snips, I'd venture a guess we both know in no way can they represent a complete historical anthro record, from the Land of the Condor to the Rio Grande, of pre-columbian people as a single homogeneous entity.

Columbus encountered The Taino, shy, gentle, island people..

Far different from the Nahuatl of Texcoco, monarchical, industrious, territorial. In Mexico, a common anecdote is that "la mordida" originated with Emperor Montezuma II, upon hearing reports of the Cortes landing, fearing it as the legend return of Quetzalcoatl, dispatched precious metals and gems as a bribe to have him be on his way.

Recent discoveries are suggesting the Maya may have been much more aggressive than previously thought.

My point is the native cultures in place at the time of first the Euro contact were widely diverse and not at all in concert with each other.

Years ago I worked with several colleagues from Spain. Over beers one day one of them quipped to me "unlike your people from the north, we always knew we were not staying"

But let me ask again, how does the modern day mestizo fit in with your recent post about historical cultures?

After the valley of Mexico where it was located.

"Aztlan" was merely the name of the (mythical) Aztec homeland in the American southwest. The Aztecs were barbarians from the north who appropriated, and refined, the bloodthirsty practices of the "civilized" Toltec rulers.

The central plaza of Mexico City is the Zocalo, built by the Aztecs as the town square of Tenochtitlan, the biggest city in the valley of Mexico, surrounded by a shallow lake which was (sadly, and unfortunately for the health of today's Mexicans) later filled in...

the foundation stones of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan are visible at the corners of the Governors Palace.

The public parks, canals, and gardens in the old part of Mexico which survive today, were built by the Aztecs.

That being said, the Aztecs were murderous assholes (much more so than the Mayans) but not as murderous as the Spaniards.

Cortez would have never conqured the valley of Mexico were it not for the assistance of hundreds of thousands of Native tribesmen who were displeased with the murderous regime.

was one group of people in Mesoamerica. Diaz del Castillo, one of the conquerors of Indian Mexico, described arriving in Tenochtitlan (Mexico City,) the greatest city in Anahuac (the One World,) on Nov. 8, 1519 as follows:

""...we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and the other great towns on dry land and that straight and level causeway going towards Mexico, we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments they tell of in the legend of Amadis, on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream .... I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about."



The fall of Tenochtitlan is generally attributed to a small pox epidemic. I recommend reading Diaz del Castillo's "True History of the Conquest of New Spain."

Regarding the discovery of Yucatan:

"When we had seen the gold and houses of masonry, we felt well content at having discovered such a country."

Regarding the second expedition from Cuba to Yucatan:

"As the report had spread that the lands were very rich, the soldiers and settlers who possessed no Indians in Cuba were greedily eager to go to the new land..."

Regarding the first battle fought under Cortes in the New World, against the people of Tabasco, Diaz writes:

"... we doctored the horses by searing their wounds with the fat from the body of a dead Indian which we cut up to get out the fat, and we went to look at the dead lying on the plain and there were more than eight hundred of them, the greater number killed by thrusts, the others by cannon, muskets and crossbows, and many were stretched on the ground half dead…. The battle lasted over an hour ... we buried the two soldiers that had been killed ... we seared the wounds of the others and of the horses with the fat of the Indian, and after posting sentinels and guards, we had supper and rested."

"... These were the first vassals to render submission to His Majesty in New Spain."

I'll read up on it in my Frommers:hi:

surprisingly, the righties are finally starting to make some noise about this angle as well as sitting at the border with night vision goggles and sniper rifles.

And they would have to pay a fair price for human labor, pay income taxes, social security, workers compensation, obey OSHA regulations.

And whose interests would that serve? More importantly given the legislation pushed by Bush, whose interests are not served if the laws are enforced instead of the border?

Let's enforce our laws instead of enforcing our border because we don't enforce our laws.

Then, ending the discrimination that does not allow Latin Americans to enter the United States as freely as Europeans won't be a problem.

GREAT POINT, yurbud!

Face reality. End the discrimination in Mexico.

We do not need their problems. We have enough of our own, including the imported ones.

poor Mexicans, there wouldn't be an issue here in the United States.

Secondly, there is no wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
Thirdly, the Russian sector of Berlin, as with East Germany itself, was part of the spoils of war for the role Soviets played in the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Fourthly, citizenship has nothing to do with one's being a Homo sapiens sapiens. If it did, I'd be sitting in Luzerne right about now.

And finally: When will Mexico end its discrimination towards and deportation of Guatemalans?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/18/america/web.0618mexico.php

So, it is a hook, a journalism device, if you wish. It is an analogy nonetheless. And, if given a chance, Mexicans would pour across the border to Orange County malls and Disneyland. Yes, there is a wall between Mexico and the United States, especially on the San Diego border. It just is not a complete wall. Bush wants to build more wall sections.

Okay, speaking of spoils of war, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado are spoils of an illegal War on Mexico, started to steal the region and it's mineral wealth. Even Abraham Lincoln said so in Congress, accusing the President of illegally starting a war. So, Mexicans were separated from Mexicans. Senator Salazar's family is a classic example.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable--a most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world,"
Abraham Lincoln, speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, subject: The War on Mexico. Delivered January 12, 1848.

At about the time of that statement Chapultepec hilltop was under siege by United States troops. The Palace defenders including military cadets numbered a mere 800. Today, they are known as The Heroes. President Polk defended his ordering the Mexican invasion, but Lincoln had this to say about what provoked the hostility,

"The marching of an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and their property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity...the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commences by the President."
A. Lincoln, July 27, 1848.

"...refusing to accept a cessation of territory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and to wage the war, bearing all the expense, without a purpose or definite object." President Polk.

On Feb. 2, 1848, the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty was signed. Mexico conceded Texas, California, and the Territory of New Mexico for 15 million pesos. In 1986, I calculated that many pesos would buy $35,714.28 U.S.-- one very cheap adobe home.

While there are disagreements on the history of the war, and lots of documentation from the treaty itself, U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Congressional research and reports, plus some, lets just avoid the discussion on which historian is right and which is wrong. The Statement made by Lincoln was in reference to the right of Texas to self-determination in spite of his suspicion that the shots from Mexico which led to the justification for the war were not on Texas land but on disputed land. Further Lincoln was in the opposite party and felt it was a grab for land.

That past, what is your point?

The land belongs to the U.S. now, and many improvements and people are living there. The States were added to the U.S. So?

The US won the West in '48, and the '49ers moved in to dig gold. End of that story. Mexico, at least what was left of it, was still free of Spain, theocracy, France, the United States, and slavery. They had another 60+ years of revolutionary times before everything resolved into the current constitution though.

all the chest beating about "nation of laws" notwithstanding.

the simple test: would you want your white daughter to marry a undocumented immigrant?

Why I judge my daughters relationships at all, I tend to judge them based on how they treat her, and others. This doesn't have anything to do with who is allowed into the country though. Immigration would be very limited if only those I felt were a proper suitor for my daughter were allowed.

To answer your question, I would not want my daughter marrying an illegal immigrant, no matter what country they were from. I would not want her to to be left alone if he were deported, especially with children. It would bankrupt them and there is no guarantee the man's home country would allow her there, or if she would want to be there.

I have taught my children to consider the future consequences of their actions.

You can take your racism "test" and shove it.

does someone have a case of the mondays?

you simply do not even matter.

but that's okay.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=ceefb621-9ec5-48ac-91a6-6f0fd7ec3db3

PDF link: http://kennedy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MDM07620_xml.pdf

Senate Bill 1348 is much discussed, but who has read the text?
Perhaps this one DU thread could be limited to those who have.

TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = READ first, then comment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x289114

and was a country together before they INVADED the country

Invasion is when your neighbor enters your country by force

I agree a fence or wall isn't going to keep people out

If we treat Mexicans the same as Canadians and Europeans then we must allow 12 million Canadians and 12 million Europeans citizenship as well as 12 million Mexicans

that makes a total of 36 million new Americans

I'd go for that

We want to have everybody treated equally right

You have confused the topic, thinking it is about granting resident status and worker status. We allow Europeans and Canadians to come to our border, and enter the country using a passport, and they pay the little fee and get a stamp in their passports.

We do not allow Mexicans to do that. Why is that? For Mexicans, we expend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them out. For Europeans, we say, "Welcome." That is the point. Perhaps we should find a better place to spend the money, and open the border to any Mexican with a passport that wants to visit, emphasis on VISIT. If any Mexican could enter the US by passing through an official border crossing in air-conditioned comfort, we could spend the money on enforcing labor laws and ensuring that workers are not exploited illegally in our country. And Mexican VISITORS could add to our tourist economy. If we deter illegal employment, visitors will return home.

at best...

Who are we going to purchase the unmanned drones from? the censors? the cameras?
How much have they contributed to whom? How much have they paid which lobbyists?
How much money have those lobbyists contributed to which Congress members?

How about the business lobbyists? Same questions.

Who will construct the 20 new detention centers? Same questions.

Instead of completely militarizing the border with a triple fence and/or "virtual fence" of continuous monitoring, and all the spying that goes with this, how about buying a few new passport stamps and allowing Latin Americans to visit the United States, as we allow Europeans, ending the discrimination.

And, instead of turning the border into a complete police state, how about stopping the disaster of illegal hiring and contracting in the US, in the process increasing income tax revenues, social security revenues, ensuring OSHA compliance, having workers compensation for workers, and ensuring compliance with labor laws.

Are you saying this legislation and the draconian police state solution will solve the current disaster? I say, bring down the walls of discrimination, bring down the walls of unequal protection under the law, bring down the walls that hide illegal employment, bring down the walls between Mexico and the United States. This legislaion requires building a second and third wall, and roads between them. If that doesn't work, should we build a rourth and fifth wall? When will we address the causes of the problem, or at least take a few steps in a proper direction instead of enforcing racism and discrimination?

let's work with the Mexican government to help them create jobs for their contrymen that will allow them a decent living. And while we're at it, let's create jobs for the people who live here, too. And let's crack down on the corporate moguls who insist on hiring people at substandard wages, which is why we have so many people coming across the border in the first place.

Let's put an end to slave labor in America.

From the Senate bill:

SEC. 5202. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
(a) ANNUAL INCREASES. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, subject to
the availability of appropriations for such purpose, increase the number of
positions for full-time active-duty border patrol agents within the Department
of Homeland Security (above the number of such positions for which funds were
appropriated for the preceding fiscal year), by
(1) 2,000 in fiscal year 2008;
(2) 2,400 in fiscal year 2009;
(3) 2,400 in fiscal year 2010;
(4) 2,400 in fiscal year 2011; and
(5) 2,400 in fiscal year 2012.

11,600 people not growing food, not making anything useful, not educating children,
but they all will need to be paid their retirement and social security. Is this
the direction our society should go in? More non-productive people futilely policing
the border, when the current border police gave us 12 million illegal aliens?????

Perhaps these 11,600 people could better serve society in another role.

immigrants at substandard wages, there won't be nearly as many people clamoring to get to the US. They don't view the wages as "substandard" because poverty in America is much wealthier than poverty in Mexico. There are houses in my area where 6 or 7 families live, violating codes. They couldn't possibly afford single family apartments on the wages they earn. Because we are complacent toward the companies that enslave them, we are lowering the standards of living that we worked so hard to build for decades...until RayGun came along and allowed people who came here illegally to stay.

Why is the Mexican government doing nothing to make its people want to stay?

I agree, in part, that border patrol is a waste of human potential. However, we do have to be careful who we allow across our border. And it is not fair that people wait years to go through the right channels and get the proper paperwork done to live in this country, when others just crash the border with no respect for the rules that were established.

or is it more flexible than that? If the former, I agree with you completely.

If, on the other hand, "substandard" could be paying $8 an hour instead of $10, or $10 instead of $15, and so on, then I am not so sure. There are fast food jobs in our area that pay over $8 an hour to start. To someone from Mexico, or anywhere in the Third World, $7.50 an hour seems like a fortune. I know legal immigrants who make more at these jobs than they did as mid-level professionals in their home land.

Immigrants throughout our history have initially worked at jobs or wages that others would not accept. They could have been excluded from the country for that very reason, if we assume that the smaller government structures of earlier centuries had that capability, but we would have missed out on all the contributions that those immigrants and their descendants made in building the country that we have not. There has always been this tension between immigrants and those who got here before them. It is not something that is new today.

For example, when contracting with the government, contractors are required to pay the prevailing wage. Would this provision apply to a guest worker program is a question in the debate/proposals.

Another question is if minimum wage laws should apply to guest workers.

Paying only the bare minimun legal wage itself can drive down wages. In many areas a McJob pays $2 above the legal minimum.

because people cannot live on what they earn.

$7.50 per hour seems like a fortune to someone living in Mexico. To an immigrant living here, it may seem acceptable as long as they are sharing living expenses with several other families in the same dwelling, which creates serious health and fire safety issues.

The fact that immigrants have, throughout history, been willing to accept slave wages in order to live here does not make it right to continue to pay inadequate wages to people. The dilemma these companies face, in paying a living wage, is not unlike that which plantation owners had to deal with after slavery was "abolished".

The fact is, though we have an amendment that abolished slavery, our society has merely dressed up slavery to look a little nicer, with a pittance of a wage and certain rights, or outsourcing to other countries...places we can click our tongues at and say, "Shame on them".

Time to slam the door--our folks got in!


(There are people here in Houston living in "unsafe" conditions. Quite a few of them are not immigrants.)

God forbid if Obrador won, they might get something resembling workers' rights.

because Mexico becomes more attractive to them than the USA. This could happen,
and it would impact the economies significantly, with capital shifting south.

He would be a breath of fresh air.

From the proposed legislation:

"The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple layered fencing which may include portions already contructed in San Diego Tucson and Yuma Sectors, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348 :

Follow the link above to a PDF version that you can copy from.

it led to widespread, pervasive, mind-numbing poverty. Hence, the union-backed immigration reform acts of the 20's.

Psst! You don't REALLY think Bush wants a wall, do you? :rofl:

in that there was a masive economy built by immigrants settling the West. The Homestead Act placed a family on every 160 acres of Indian land, railrods were built to transport their products, masive amounts of building took place, machinery factories lourished to supply them, work horses were very valuable, then an industry of producing tractors and equipment developed.

I'd say the climate and poor agricultural practices had more more to doo with the Depression than did immigration.

Regarding the wall, Bush's proposed legislation reads:

"...The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego Tucson and Yuma Sectors, and 500 of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting gain illegal entry into the United States...."

Perhaps they just want a Monica Goodling clone to grant a lot of contracts and hand out lots of deficit spending, but a wall is what we will get if that provision passes.

The Immigration Act of 1924, which included the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act or the Johnson-Reed Act, was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration to the US of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America.

The Act passed with strong congressional support in the wake of intense lobbying. There were only six dissenting votes in the Senate and a handful of opponents in the House, the most vigorous of whom was freshman Brooklyn Representative Emanuel Celler. Over the succeeding four decades, Celler, who served for almost 50 years, made the repeal of the Act into a personal crusade. Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Yes, "competition with foreign workers" was mentioned. But "racial hygiene" was also quite important to the immigrant-haters. As it is today.

They make it pretty clear they don't like border violations when it comes to their country.

to people from other Latin American nations. I traveled by land across Central America. All I needed to do was go to the border and show my passport. However, people from those nations cannot do the same at our border.

don't bother to apply and most are coming from the US southern border. It's a problem that's totally out of control and has been for years. It's been going on since before Reagan. Reagan gave that big amnesty years ago.

SO tell me, why aren't the illegals getting passports and going in through legal US crossings rather than going in illegally without passports. Is there some sort of problem with Mexico issuing passports to its citizens?

Question? What if a billion would want to come here if they could? Do we have enough water resources, schools, etc.?

I see the need for regulated immigration. Each nation needs to decide how many people it can support. There's no racism there.

you make a valid point. Immigration needs to be regulated to benefit society and deter negative impacts.

At the same time, people from Tijuana might enjoy shopping in Orange County malls. If we granted visas to anyone from Mexico holding a valid passport, as we do for Europeans and Canadians, we would not need to militarize the border. We would only have to enforce our own employment laws, which regulate employment of non-citizens. It would also put the coyotes who exploit those crossing illegally out of business.

then we do need to militarize the borders. That's happening a lot now. People overstay their student and work and travel visas. Millions of people (if not hundred of millions) would want to live in the US if they could. That's why we have the illegal immigration problem to the tune of 12 -20 million or more people here now.

militarizing the border won't help. They would already be in the country.

We cannot keep letting people walk over the borders, off ships, etc., with no visas, no passports, etc. We have to have different kinds of controls, visas and passports being just a few methods. If a person is here with an overstayed student visa, that person should be picked up and sent back to their country of origin. I think this country has to start getting tough on this issue. Beefing up immigration agents, border patrol, etc., will help keep out people with no papers of any kind who refuse to apply to enter this country.

they will not stay. The problem is illegal employment, it seems to me. The border has been militarized for a while, and that doesn't seem to have worked.

Although many people would want to live in the United States "if they could," if they also know there is no possible job here the border does not need to be militarized. Turning the border into a virtual war zone is not a realistic solution.

We grant visas to Europeans, but not our neighbors? Didn't the War on Mexico end in 1848?

I'd have imprisonment and suing for personal assets of those employers doing it. And for corporations, take revenue, assets, etc. Unless one gets really tough with the employers (the demand side of the equation) nothing will get resolved.

I am not talking about the borders being a war zone. Border security is about national sovereignty and controlling who enters the country, not war zones. Being checked at a border instead of just waltzing over without papers into another country is not about wars. When I go to another country I present my papers. People should do that when they come here too. They should legally apply to come here.

Maybe there's a problem with Mexico because there are 12-20 million illegally here, but there aren't millions of French, Russians, Chinese, Rwandans, etal without papers, are there? And maybe there's a problem with Mexico because its government put a pamphlet out telling its citizens how to enter illegally... what I consider a violation of US sovereignty.

It would only improve the economy, and equalize the workers in the job market.

From the posts, it appears some people don't realize thae Europeans can enter the US by walking in with their
passport in hand, but Mexicans cannot. I know it's not because we started a war and invaded Mexico in the 1840s,
and stole half their country. We aren't trying top stop them from taking it back, right! :sarcasm:

So, why do you think this discrimination exists?

This really saying that Dems support the NAFTA / FTAA / North American Union?

Separating grandparents and children from their loved ones with a "wall" is tragic. Europe has open borders and so should North America. Period.

The second tragedy is misplaced priorities. As with so many Bushco expenditures, one must task, $$ Where do the Bucks STOP ??

National health care, extensive mass transit, non-militaristic foreign policy, generous foreign aid, etc.

When it comes to open borders and merging neighboring countries into a voluntary political and economic union that benefits their citizens, many at DU draw the line. There seems to be much more (at least vocal) support here for building walls (physical and legal) between neighboring countries rather than pursuing integration, as Europe has done.

I've been watching to see how long it takes someone to play the racist card in one of these message strings, but you put it in the OP! Congratulations, you win! Nobody can top that! :applause:

It's only "playing" if it is not true.

That is quite a stretch.

Racism is everywhere and, sadly, will be as long as there is more than one race on earth. But you do not seem open to fair debate when you are so quick to baselessly label others with this failing if they do not agree with you.

That is what I wrote. You pose a very good question, "ARE we are guilty of racism if we don't open the border with Mexico?" now. Or, continuation of log-standing racism might be a better phrasing.

Let me put the question another way, "How woulod the average Orange County Republican feel about people from Tijuana shopping at the local malls?" That might get us closer to a true answer, in the here and now, than the generalized question, especially with regard to how the White House has formulated the legislation and who their solution appeals to. The bill mandates constructing a triple wall in San Diego.

When you asked, "Why not end this racism?" it was clear you had reached a conclusion that racism exists in the form of current and proposed US southern border controls.

On January 1 2000, 68.7% of the total US unauthorized resident population (4.8 million) was from Mexico. Canada accounted for 0.7% (47 thousand). In that year our total (legal and illegal) foreign-born population was 31 million. 9.2 million of them came from Mexico and 821 thousand came from Canada.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf

It is hard to imagine how this could have occurred under a US immigration policy that is racist against Mexicans (mostly hispanic), in favor of Canadians (mostly caucasian). And in the face of these facts, it is intellectually dishonest to infer that Americans are guilty of moral failure if we do not employ the exact same tactics to control our northern and southern borders.

You may have had a topic for fair debate but you lost me when you overtly propagandized your argument by casually playing the racism card.

Like I said upthread, racism will be with us as long as there is more than one race. And even then we would come up with of something else to fuel our bigotry. We can only treat the symptoms of this disease, we can not cure it.

U: "Like I said upthread, racism will be with us as long as there is more than one race." Race is a mental construct w/o objective reality. No anthropologist or serious scientist will support the idea that there actually are "races" of humans. Race is a mental category.

Consider how many ancestors we each have: The 1,099 Trillion Principle.
How many ancestors do we have? - http://jqjacobs.net/anthro/ancestors.html

Their definition and number are topics of some debate, however. But no matter. We could always hate each other for some other reason, such as the religious sect to which we belong. Thousands are being killed in Iraq for such a prejudice.

There are no races.

The primary target (if not target, per se, the "affected group") of those opposed to this immigration bill are a minority group, Hispanics. Are you saying that any pain or suffering that is cast upon them is acceptable because the larger goal here, the reason progressives oppose the bill, is a worthy one in DU's collective opinion? As you suggest, I will try to learn to ignore the cries of bigotry in situations like this, where a minority group is disproportionately affected by an "objective" law or its enforcement, e.g. drug laws, "three strikes and you're out", military recruitment, etc.

If we set out to "cleanse" our nation of illegal residents, is it fair to say there is an ethnic target to the cleansing? Or, is it simply a "legal cleansing"?

Support for the bill and opposition is very complicated. Kennedy supports it. What amendments would he consider acceptable and the opposite. What provision would change his vote? And, what would he like to cleanse from the legislation, given there was no need to attain compromises in congressional deliberations?

I do not like the situation of rolling a lot of isues into one bill that forces opponents of some provisions to support the legislation as the only path to resolve other issues.

I do not like the situation of compromising on some basic human rights to ensure some other basic human rights.

I don't have a vote in the Senate, and would not decide how to vote until after the amendments. But, I think airing these issues in public fora NOW is very important. Ignoring the "ethnic" and racism aspects, and its historical context, does not serve the debate. The complexity of all that is perhaps being obfuscated in the very way that security and terrorism issues are intertwined in the legislation.

Also, there is an element of political blackmail at work. Opponents will be charged with opposing homeland security if they do not approve cheap labor and continued exploitation of an ethnic minority. Supporters can be accused of not supporting labor. Go figure!! It is a political landmine, just like last time. Maybe that's the real reason for the proposed languange and bundling is to ensure failure, and to keep the cheap labor coming.

So, your post raises good questions. Basically, which side really has which interests in/of the affected monority group in mind? Esp., their citizenship, voting rights, labor rights, and equal rights generally.

That means the "target" as you put it is mostly in Mexico right now. Where hispanics are not a minority.

About half the total US foreign born population is from Latin America. And one third of the overall total is from Mexico. If we adopt policies that make immigration easier for hispanics without ensuring other racial and ethnic groups have an equal chance, is that covert racism?

Over 4 million Africans face famine and starvation. If our immigration policies are to be governed more by the needs of those in other nations, shouldn't we do something to ensure at least as many Africans get a chance to migrate here as do Latinos? Or is the suffering of Africans OK with you, just as long as we help hispanics even more than we are now in this respect?

Careless and unjustified accusations of bigotry are just versions of the fallacious argument, 'If you don't agree with me, you're a racist'. But if you're afraid of fair debate I'm sure you will be quick to haul out such terms, hoping anyone who disagrees will refrain from weighing in, from fear of being unjustly labeled as a racist.

The "targets" I was referring to are the illegal immigrants already in the country, who must either be legalized, deported or remain in legal limbo. They are in the US, not Mexico.

I do support greatly increased immigration from Africa and Asia (Canada and Europe too, if any want to come, but that is hardly controversial). I agree with you that the suffering of Africans (and Asians) is as important as that of Hispanics. Our generosity to the world should not just be aimed south of the border.

I'll look back through my posts. If I called anyone here a racist, I apologize. That sentiment is reserved for the Freeper boards. As a progressive I am used to looking critically at laws, and their enforcement, which disproportionately impact minorities, even if the laws, as written, apply equally to everyone and the unequal effects only happen in the real world.

Because if they continue to lose the working part of their population, what incentive is there for Mexicans to try to make their government more functional?

Doesn't your question answer itself? I fail to underdstand your questions. Almost everyone in Mexico works, so losing "the working part of their population" makes no sense. Are you saying their government isn't functional? Can you explain what you are trying to say?

yes, it is a failing state, overrun by narco trafficers.

If those ambitious enough to flee to a different country for a better way of life were to use their energy to make their own country more successful, it would benefit everyone in the long run

Natural landforms (if available), Short metal wall, ditch, Tall concrete wall.
The short wall is to keeps those who harass the border guards at bay. Border guards patrol from the tall wall.

Illegal immigration isn't the only problem with a porous border. Illegal immigrants (a.k.a. virtual slave labor), drugs (and associated crime), and Al Queda (and other similar groups) are all potential problems due to a weak border.

Maybe if Mexicans stayed in their own country, maybe they'll be inclined to change their own country for the better so, one day, they won't need to feel like they need to cross the border to seek a better life.

I am waiting for someone to propose a demilitarized, free fire zone, like in Korea. I bet that cuts down on immigration.

Your point about border security against terrorists is important, though I believe that the 9/11 hijackers came in from Canada not Mexico.

You make a good point about Mexicans staying home and changing their country. Unfortunately, it is the poor who choose to immigrate in order to feed their families. It is probably tough to tell them to stay home, work for long term change, and hope their families survive.

and building walls between Mexico and the SW does not solve the problem of our porous border problem. Anyone with means can get into the country undetected, plain and simple. The walls are not intended to keep out terrorists.

Customs and entry to Mexico was easy as was the return. We were treated very well both at the resort and in town. Many of the people we met travelled to the US for pleasure and shopping. This should continue. But this is very different from the border issue and the wall. There is no question of customs or visas in the flood entering the US illegally. Sorry, this is not a race issue. There are many US citizens in my city who are friends. It is a national soverignty issue.