Massive demonstration right outside my window!

[Barnabas]

Yes, but that has no relation to why it would kill the free trade area project.

The issue would be latin american countries telling the USA what kind of integration do you mean when you make an Hadrian style wall to keep mexicans out?

[Patroklos]

You do know that all the major lines of communication that support that free trade are already monitored pretty heavilly right?

Enough that the illegal people trade coming through them has to be in the single digit percentiles.

Unless of course you believe you Prada shoes and PSPs are being humped over the mountians and deserts via stevadores.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The issue would be latin american countries telling the USA what kind of integration do you mean when you make an Hadrian style wall to keep mexicans out?

Why does integration mean that the U.S. has to stand by and do nothing while its borders are being ignored? If we're going to be partners, you'd think that the other countries should try and have their citizens respect the U.S. and its laws. Instead, the Central American countries actively encourage their citizens to illegally enter the U.S. What great partners we have.

I'd be perfectly happy to see this Free Trade Area of the Americas things fall apart. I don't support free trade with countries that don't have acceptable labor and environmental standards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You do know that all the major lines of communication that support that free trade are already monitored pretty heavilly right?

Enough that the illegal people trade coming through them has to be in the single digit percentiles.

Unless of course you believe you Prada shoes and PSPs are being humped over the mountians and deserts via stevadores.

That's not what he meant. He meant in terms of political willpower to get the deal done.

[Patroklos]

How does a wall that does not have any influence on the flow of trade goods hinder the flow of trade goods?

Unless you think the American owned factories in Mexico will stop that flow because Mexico is pissed we have decided to enforce our own laws.

Mexico needs free trade much more than we do, I can't quite see why we let stupid sentimentality complexs force our hand on economic/legal issues. It is buisness, nothing personal, as they say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
How does a wall that does not have any influence on the flow of trade goods hinder the flow of trade goods?

Unless you think the American owned factories in Mexico will stop that flow because Mexico is pissed we have decided to enforce our own laws.

Mexico needs free trade much more than we do, I can't quite see why we let stupid sentimentality complexs force our hand on economic/legal issues. It is buisness, nothing personal, as they say.

You do realize he never mentioned anything about NAFTA, right? Did you even read his post? FTAA is something entirely different, and something that must be approved by those countries who want to join that free trade association. If they consider the wall to be a slap in the face (and usually the people who are supposed to be kept out do... and Latin Americans tend to symphatize with other Latin Americans against non-Latins), then it'll be that much harder.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If they consider the wall to be a slap in the face (and usually the people who are supposed to be kept out do... and Latin Americans tend to symphatize with other Latin Americans against non-Latins), then it'll be that much harder.

Again, if they consider this to be a slap in the face, then I don't want to deal with them. Enforcing the border in no way means that Latinos would be prevented from legelally immigrating to this country. It just means that the Latinos would no longer get the unfair and preferrential access that will be given to them when an amnesty is given.

[Patroklos]

Did you see me mention NAFTA???

FTAA again is based on the concept of trade obviously, which all Latin American countries require for survival (you know not falling into complete poverty and famine), and which we only sort of need (so I don't have to pay $70 for shoes rather than my accustomed $60).

But if we want to be semantic about the FTAA, what the hell does any Latin American country care about us keeping Latin Ameican illegals, 90% being Mexican, out of our country? Again, there is no motivation for anyone, especially Mexico, to die on this hill.

Especially when the suggested impeteus to do so is some wall that has no effect on trade. Most American trade from the south is via sea anyways.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did you see me mention NAFTA???

Mexico is part of what free trade organization now? FTAA is basically just an extension of NAFTA to other Latino countries.

But if we want to be semantic about the FTAA, what the hell does any Latin American country care about us keeping Latin Ameican illegals, 90% being Mexican, out of our country? Again, there is no motivation for anyone, especially Mexico, to die on this hill.

What motivation does the US have for embargoing Cuban goods for being anti-US?

[Patroklos]

It looks like you answered your own question, not that it had any relevance to the topic at hand.

[Patroklos]

You do realize he never mentioned anything about NAFTA, right? Did you even read his post? FTAA is something entirely different

Mexico is part of what free trade organization now? FTAA is basically just an extension of NAFTA to other Latino countries.

But I suppose you could unravel this little jem of a contridiction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What contradiction? If Mexico rejects the FTAA, it is STILL under NAFTA! So Mexico has no incentive to reject FTAA... which shows he wasn't talking about Mexico, as you for some reason thought he was.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
55% of the electorate is the white, working class -- people without college degrees. As they go, so goes the elections. Can you spell Reagan Democrat?

They do tend to be socially conservative, and Starbuck Dems tend to ignore them and drive them into the tent of the rich Republicans (who IMHO economically exploit the begeezus out of them).

55% of the electorate |= 55% of people who vote.

Actual voters tend to be older, and richer, than the electorate a a whole. In the past, this fact has worked to the GOP's advantage. But guess what? Older, richer folks are exactly the ones benefitting from cheap gardners, maids, and home health care workers. The GOP has more to lose than to win by taking a hard line on immigration.

I'm also not sure the "Reagan Democrat" card really works here. After all, blue collar workers are not losing their jobs to Mexicans -- they're losing their jobs to Indonesians, who don't actaully have come here to work. The blue-collar white guys most likely to get bent out of shape about illegal immigration are the ones living in border states, and they already vote Republican, if they vote -- but they might stay home next election if they don't like what the GOP does. This issue is really a net loser for the GOP.

[Wycoff]

Interesting Web Site

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
My 10,000 foot level quick gut feeling is that the Congressional Republicans are looking for an issue to moblize their conservative base in an election year where the polls are all going against them. Otherwise why bring this issue up now? The big business Republicans don't want the issue dealt with out of fear their cheap labor will dry up while the border area Republicans in Congress are afraid of losing latino votes due to this issue. It seems that the nationalist Republicans are trying to recreate a prop 187 style voter shift based upon this issue.

Anyone think this is close to reality?

That sounds reasonable. Meanwhile the Dems are trying to make hay by continuing to be the party of ethnic / racial identity groups. To do so means that they will have a harder and harder time trying to manage their unwieldy coalition, which means that they will continue to be unable to articulate new ideas as a party. If they continue to fail they will continue to reduce competitive pressure on the Repubs. If they manage to succeed with this strategy we can all look forward to an Iraqi style political system (hopefully minus 99% of the violence) where ethnic / religious kingmakers call the shots. Ideas will be a thing of the past for parties, why not simply appeal to fear and loathing to ensure turnout (a trend already much in evidence in both major parties). I don't understand why so many Pols are so much more concerned about the short and medium term prospects for their parties than they are for the medium and long term prospects of their country.