Swine Flu Brings Out Our Racist Side
May 2nd 2009 22:08
According to the AP, the Swine Flu has added a new weapon to the arsenal of those wishing to close the border between Mexico and the U.S. I have a couple of points for such people who would like to prevent the free flow of people:
1. If the justification for closing the border is to prevent the passage of disease, then this would have to be a two-way closing. In other words, there would be no travel from the U.S. to Mexico.
2. Considering the first point, what would we do with people who traveled from Mexico to another country and then tried to travel into the U.S.? Would they not be permitted either?
3. Is trade still okay to engage in with Mexico, or would their products be tainted as well? Ending trade with Mexico would make us and, especially, Mexico much poorer. A poorer Mexico means it would be more likely that they would spread such diseases in the future.
4. There have been approximately 100 deaths from the swine flu (and about 1 in the U.S.). Doesn't closing the borders seem to be an overreaction?
5. If illegal immigrants are the problem, then this seems to support expanding legal immigration. Legal immigrants can be screened for disease. As well, the more Mexicans allowed in legally, the less will cross illegally, thus reducing the "threat" of illegals from carrying disease into the U.S.
Bottom Line: I agree that the threat of disease makes a case for reduced illegal immigration. However, the way in which this should be done would be through an expansion of legal immigration, to allow for health screening, and through lower barriers to trade between the U.S. and Mexico, to increase the standard of living in Mexico and, in turn, reduce the threat of disease.
1. If the justification for closing the border is to prevent the passage of disease, then this would have to be a two-way closing. In other words, there would be no travel from the U.S. to Mexico.
2. Considering the first point, what would we do with people who traveled from Mexico to another country and then tried to travel into the U.S.? Would they not be permitted either?
3. Is trade still okay to engage in with Mexico, or would their products be tainted as well? Ending trade with Mexico would make us and, especially, Mexico much poorer. A poorer Mexico means it would be more likely that they would spread such diseases in the future.
4. There have been approximately 100 deaths from the swine flu (and about 1 in the U.S.). Doesn't closing the borders seem to be an overreaction?
5. If illegal immigrants are the problem, then this seems to support expanding legal immigration. Legal immigrants can be screened for disease. As well, the more Mexicans allowed in legally, the less will cross illegally, thus reducing the "threat" of illegals from carrying disease into the U.S.
Bottom Line: I agree that the threat of disease makes a case for reduced illegal immigration. However, the way in which this should be done would be through an expansion of legal immigration, to allow for health screening, and through lower barriers to trade between the U.S. and Mexico, to increase the standard of living in Mexico and, in turn, reduce the threat of disease.
| 29 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Tapsearch Com Editor - Ray Tapajna
Furthermore, the U.S. has moved more than 4,000 factories to Mexico.
The Federal Government sponsored the moving of factories to Mexico starting in 1956. By 1992, more than 2,000 factories were moved primarily under the Maquiladora factory program where impoverished workers were used to make and supply goods for American consumers. When NAFTA was passed in 1993, the number of factories moved to Mexico quickly doubled to more than 4,000.
Soon after NAFTA was passed, we had our first stimulus package but it went to a Mexico . President Clinton had Congress rush 20 Billion dollars to Mexico to save the peso and the Mexican economy. Congress refused to give him more and so he reportedly he sent them more through the international money sources.
This is not trade. Mexico is the grand experiment by the Globalists and Free Traders and it has proven to be a dramatic failure. And how can components being shipped to former factories from the U.S. be called exports?
See what ten Mexican Bishops say about Free Trade.
Comment by Dr. Liberty
Borderless World
Political Craft
MLB Analyst
Also, teh Maquiladoras exist to such a high degree because of a clause in NAFTA that states products shipped from the U.S. to Mexico can either be shipped back to the U.S. duty-free or, if they stay in Mexico, taxed, This will obviously distort free trade and prevent Mexicans from gaining wealth in their country. That said, the Maquiiadoras do offer an increased wage to Mexican workers compared to what they made before these factories were available. For the U.S., people working in these factories can now allow Mexicans to work these jobs and move to a higher-paying job in the U.S. This is the specialization and division of labor of free trade.
Also, I'm not sure what a stimulus to Mexico has to do with anything?
You are right that NAFTA is not really free trade, but you are wrong that it is an experiment by "Globalists and free traders."
Mexico's trade with the U.S. has, and will, continue to assist in their ascent out of poverty, meaning a better living standard for virtually all their people in the long run. To rally against FREE trade in the aim of helping the poor will only result in hurting the poor.