It was reported in several places yesterday (including here) that the apparent winner of Mexico's recent election, Felipe Calderón, has sharply criticized our plans to build a fence along the U.S. southern border, saying, "The solution for migration [sic] is not to build walls." What exactly is his beef here, really?

Given that the only transnational effect of a border fence would be to reduce illegal "migration", what legitimate reason would Mexico have for objecting to it?

Given that the only transnational effect of a border fence would be to reduce illegal "migration", what legitimate reason would Mexico have for objecting to it?

Legitimate? None. But we are helping their economy immensly so I can understand why they want the money flow to keep coming back to their country while the pressue from their poor is eased. Meanwhile we're creating 100,000 jobs a month while 300,000 immigrants are coming in each month. And wages are TANKING.....

What does a president of Mexico care about our standard of living when it helps them?

Given that the only transnational effect of a border fence would be to reduce illegal "migration", what legitimate reason would Mexico have for objecting to it?

Perhaps they feel that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo signed at the point of a gun was illegally coerced. The entire southwest of the USA turned over for 15 million dollars? I mean come on. So maybe they've decided a bit of legit. "reconquista" is in order. Hmmmm, I wonder if they will allow us shared sovereignty in the region.

Seriously, as long as serious penalties aren't being leveled against employers the fence might appear to be putting the onus on only one side of the equation.

What do you mean? How does a fence put any more of an onus on Mexico than employer penalties would? Both approaches, if successful, would have precisely the same effect on that country: reducing illegal entry from there. Of course, if they're not successful, then it wouldn't make anything worse for Mexico than the current situation does anyway, so that's not a reason for them to object.

I think attacking employers should be priority one. I live in Michigan and employers FLAUNT their illegal Mexican workers. I never thought Michigan would be flooded with so many illegals, but it's starting to feel like San Diego. Construction, truck drivers, landscaping, all over the damn place.

I almost feel compelled to go start my own business and make a bunch of money off these cheap workers. It's almost like "you're a fool if you don't".

And our local gov'ts are doing NOTHING about it!! They say "go talk to your US senator or representative"....of course they don't care either but they're no where near the problem.

The wall is a nice gesture, but these people walk freely and employers give them comfort.....so the wall is a simple obstacle that boats, planes or illegal ID can overcome.

You have to look at this as kind of a game or perhaps a dance. We don't want illegals coming in by right and violating our sovereignty but we need the labor of the illegals. The game goes like this. We will try to stop you at the border or at least put up some kind of front of trying to and thereby insist on our sovereignty. However if you make it by the border guards as most of the illegals will then you are basically home free as long as you stay within certain informal parameters. We don't want to seriously upset illegal immigration as is shown by the fact that we don't have any severe penalties against employers that hire you? We need the illegal's labor.

Calderon, no doubt, understands the game and sees the fence as complicating it. Why create visibly bad relations with a neighbor when clearly you aren't serious about stopping illegal "migration." If you were you would bring the legal hammer down on your employers, who supply the attraction side of the equation.

I also imagine he is angry at certain policies of the US like taking investments that formerly went to Mexico and transferring them to Asia thereby exacerbating the unemployment problem. Also subsidies for certain agricultural commodities in this country make it hard for Mexican agriculture to compete. I imagine he thinks the fence is a bandaid for deeper problems. And then of course let's face it, he wants the remittances that go back to Mexico and the increased political clout that goes with an increased Mexican presence.

Defining "legitimate" from Calderon's perspective would produce a long list of reason's to oppose the fence. To add one more - historical presence. San Francisco wasn't named San Francisco by Anglos.

I think it's VERY debateable if we NEED that labor. Just because it gets in doesn't mean there's a need. Illicit drugs get into the country all the time, does that infer we NEED drugs?

Just like illicit drugs, illegal workers make people wealthy. We definately do NOT need the problems associated with illegal workers.

I understand the perception of a wall to the Mexicans, it's kind of like the "Official ban all gringos" day is to white Americans. Right? I think they'll survive.

We throw people in jail for buying illegal drugs. We don't throw people in jail for purchasing illegal labor. Why? because the powers that be perceive we need that labor, unlike the drugs.

You can debate whether we need the illegal labor or not but the business interests and their political pals are quite clear that their labor is needed. That's why the legal hammer does not come down on business and why your analogy with the illegal drug trade simply doesn't work.

Ever been to a convalescent home in the Southwest? I have and virtually 95% of the lower end workers are Spanish speaking. The rest are Philipinos. And it's not like these homes are cheap, so there isn't a lot of latitude to raise wages to attract more born-in-America workers.

So in other words, you're saying that the fence would be effective at getting in the way of these things happening. Yes, that's my thesis as well.


Actually, it was. It was called Yerba Buena prior to the Mexican War. (that was beside the point, I know, but I couldn't resist)

I think my general point was a bit more nuanced. My guess is Calderon feels there is an historical bond and an economic and political intertwining that the US is very much part of bringing about and he probably imagines the fence is aggressively hostile and unilateral and solutions should be worked out in a more bilateral mutually agreeable manner. The remittances, for instance, can be seen as a way Mexican labor that is useful to the US has the additional benefit of stabilizing Mexico's economy and lowering the pressure for illegal immigration - a win, win.


Interesting. First I heard that Yerba Buena was San Francisco's original Spanish name. Well you learn something new ....... Maybe Sloat got the idea from Mission San Francisco de Asis and El Presidio Reál de San Francisco. Just got myself a quick education from wikipedia.

Well employers are fined. And I'm sure drug dealers that have a lot of money buy off local police officers and maybe even local police officers are involved in pushing drugs for the money.

Just because we do little about it, doesn't mean we NEED these people here. It just means there's a FINANCIAL incentive to have them here and apparently that overrides anything else. God knows we do NOT need them here in Michigan where unemployment is starting to become staggering. God knows we do NOT need them in our hospital emergency rooms as our hospitals are closing under additional pressures. God knows we do NOT need them in our schools creating undue burden on teachers to speak spanish and also causing problems. God knows we don't need more of an ignorant poverty class that zaps social security and welfare as 2nd generation americans (I see this all the time).

NEED is what I disagree with. You can argue WANT, that's a different matter. Like drugs, people WANT illegal labor because it's cheap. People can have servants, employers can pay $5/hr when your average American would expect at least $10/hr. Or God forbid the employer doesn't even have to pay min wages, they can pay less. And employers don't have to pay for medical insurance or workers comp or unemployment or etc. etc....

Yeah, it's a sweet deal for SOME Americans to have cheap illegal labor. That doesn't mean we NEED it.



Actually the analogy does work. Did Rush Limbaugh spend time in jail for his drug addictions? Any time something affects the wealthy the hammer is not as harsh. If the wealthy benefitted from the drug trade then they would probably ignore drug laws as well. But as it turns out, drug laws generally affect the poor mostly and so the hammer comes swiftly. After all, the poor don't make the laws, right?

If you asked the average American who does the jobs that illegal Mexicans are doing in this country; if they think the hammer should come down hard, they'll agree whole-heartedly. But roofers, construction workers, landscapers, hotel workers, etc. etc. don't have any clout. The employers do.

I don't think we need these workers at all. We need to pay Americans a liveable wage.



Actually I've never been to a convalescent home ever. Have you ever seen a billionare's home? If we have money for 1000s of billinares in this country we can pay AMERICANS a decent wage to work at a convalescent home.

What this still boils down to, though, is that he sees the fence as being an effective barrier against illegal entry. If he's against the fence for these reasons, then for the same reasons, he'd be against employer penalties, or any other enforcive measure against illegal immigration, would he not?

Does this mean Calderon is against the wall built by Mexico in the south of their country? It seems if he's going to portray the US as "hostile" (roll eyes) then maybe he/they should look in the mirror. I don't think any American is going to be "guilted" into not building the wall.

Personally, the more they talk, the more demonstrations they put on, the more people become angry and opposed to illegals.

Just a nod in at the window. Irrelevant to the topic, but an interesting and necessary clarification.



As usual, wikiality can be misleading. Sloat did not rename Yerba Buena.

The mission, the presidio and the bay already bore the San Francisco name – and, as a result, people already referred to the general area as San Francisco.

In 1847, two people, Doc Semple, editor of The Californian, and Thomas Larkin, American Consul for California, bargained with Mexican General Mariano Vallejo to subdivide a portion of his holdings on the Carquinez Strait. They were going to name their new town Francisca – after the General's wife, Francisca Benicia.

The Chief Magistrate of Yerba Buena, William Bartlett, upon hearing the proposed name for this new town northeast of him, felt that such name would lead people to associate that town with the region and diminish the recognition of Yerba Buena. In a pre-emptive strike, of sorts, he immediately passed an ordinance adopting the generally accepted name of the region for the town itself.



Semple and Larkin then decided to name their town Benicia, using the second name of the General's wife.

So, "Anglos" did not create the name of San Francisco for their town, they merely adopted it for their use because of the general recognition of the area by that name.

Maybe he doesn't like the color. We certainly fix that, no problem. How about if we paint stop signs on it, or Beware of Dog or No Trespassing or Forget the Dog, beware of the Owner?

Given that the only transnational effect of a border fence would be to reduce illegal "migration",
what legitimate reason would Mexico have for objecting to it?

That question has been answered already but, I'll reiterate. A fence along the border would make it
more difficult (though not nearly impossible) for illegal aliens to come into our country and undercut
our citizens in wages. Bush said over and over that the illegal immigrants are doing jobs Americans
"won't do", but that is a total lie. We will do them, but not for the low wages that illegals will accept.
By letting the influx of aliens to continue, George Bush is effectively erasing the middle class of America.
The wealthy are receiving the tax benefits as well as the benefits of cheap labor, while the working
class are paying for all of the social services that the aliens are utilizing across the board.

The population explosion that is occurring through the baby-boom of illegals that are here, as well
as those entering our country illegally everyday is hurting America in the short and long-term while
it is helping Mexico in the short and long-term. The money sent back to Mexico is a huge help to
their economy and the more babies that are born on American soil will help the future voting blocks
of the Unites States. Already, both parties are pandering for the hispanic vote.

If we speak up about this issue we are called racist. Meanwhile, illegal aliens are marching on streets
that do not belong to them, claiming rights they do not deserve and nobody does a darn thing about
it. This country is going to hell in a handbasket, that's all there is to it.

NONE. The only source of revenue for Mexico greater than money sent back by illegals in the US is oil. To the tune of about 17 BILLION. And this is only a fraction of the cost of having these folks here. How the idiots we have in Congress form both parties get away with not addressing this issue is beyond me.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty2.htm