Mexico protests US border agents' pepper weapons


PDA






Drizzt
August 16, 2004, 11:41 PM
Mexico protests US border agents' pepper weapons

REUTERS , Mexico City
Friday, Aug 13, 2004,Page 7

Mexican opposition legislators are up in arms over the US Border Patrol's use of weapons firing plastic bullets filled with pepper powder against Mexican migrants as they cross the border illegally.

Although the nonlethal weapons have been used sporadically for at least two years, the issue was thrust into the spotlight with a recent video shown on Mexican television of agents in battle dress firing paint ball game-style rifles loaded with florescent plastic pepper pellets at targets.

"We will not permit these kinds of acts that violate human rights," Sadot Sanchez, who heads the Senate's human rights commission and is a member of PRI, the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, said Wednesday.

Last week, Zacatecas state Governor Ricardo Monreal fired off a telegram to US President George W. Bush, describing the use of the weapon as "xenophobic and racist" and "reminiscent of the Kristallnacht [purges] in Nazi Germany."

The video shown this month also contained separate images of a Mexican lifting his T-shirt to reveal welts and bruises on his chest, presumably from pellet impacts.

The pellets are plastic-coated but break on impact, causing welts and releasing pepper dust. In Mexico, critics call them "rubber bullets."

Mexicans are traditionally very sensitive about the relationship with their powerful northern neighbor. Millions of Mexicans live and work in the US and many first crossed the 3,200km border as undocumented migrants.

Hundreds of people die every year in treacherous border crossings and previous incidents of Mexicans being shot by US Border Patrol agents caused uproar here. The introduction of the pepper weapons was in part aimed at preventing fatal shootings along the border.

Agents of the US Border Patrol's Tucson sector in Arizona, the most heavily crossed route for illegal migrants, have had the weapons for the past two years but officials say there are strict regulations on their use.

The weapons "are only ever used to defend yourself, another agent, or an innocent third party from assault," spokesman Andy Adame said on Wednesday.

"They allow us to disarm migrants throwing softball sized rocks at agents, without using deadly force against them."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would they prefer the BP use live ammo?

If you enjoyed reading about "Mexico protests US border agents' pepper weapons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
August 16, 2004, 11:47 PM
I agree, they should stop shooting pepperballs at criminals and start using FMJs.

Real bullets can't be as bad as those mean ole nasty crime against humanity non-lethal pepper rounds.

Warbow
August 17, 2004, 12:03 AM
What are these fools smoking? Kristallnacht!?

"We will not permit these kinds of acts that violate human rights," Sadot Sanchez[...]

That's rich.

"Let's worry about illegal "migrants" getting pelted with pepper balls while our own corrupt authorities have one of the worst records regarding human rights!"

Destructo6
August 17, 2004, 12:06 AM
describing the use of the weapon as "xenophobic and racist" and "reminiscent of the Kristallnacht [purges] in Nazi Germany."
That kind of analogy is a good way to flush your credibility down the commode.

R.H. Lee
August 17, 2004, 12:27 AM
Cry me a river, Senor Sanchez. We ain't played cowboys and border jumpers yet.

FNHP35
August 17, 2004, 12:48 AM
Wow, you know the Mexican Gov is weak when it's trying to use that as leverage against Bush. I think the BP's policy is way too weak. I don't know about using FMJ's... but Pepper Ball sounds like a great way to make their day very miserable if they try to cross the border. I have no respect for the Mex Gov. They owe (last time I checked) tons of water from the Rio Grande. Just... trash.

Andrew

KMKeller
August 17, 2004, 12:56 AM
Well boo freakin' hoo Governor Ricardo Monreal. Keep your homies on your side of the dotted line and we've no more issue now do we?

hkOrion
August 17, 2004, 12:58 AM
The video shown this month also contained separate images of a Mexican lifting his T-shirt to reveal welts and bruises on his chest, presumably from pellet impacts.

The pellets are plastic-coated but break on impact, causing welts and releasing pepper dust. In Mexico, critics call them "rubber bullets."

You're kidding, right? I guess we could always go back to using the "real bullets". That would at least stop the whining of the people ILLEGALLY crossing our borders.

hkOrion

joe sixpack
August 17, 2004, 01:12 AM
Yes, this is the regular bs and will continue to go on and on. Try the links below and get involved.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index
http://www.illegalaliens.us/

cheers, ab

tyme
August 17, 2004, 01:30 AM
Seems about par for the course.

Mexico whines when we don't put water stations in the desert for illegal immigrants.
Mexico whines if we try to prosecute illegals rather than ship them back across the border so they can try again.
Why not whine about non-lethal ammunition?

Sooner or later they'll whine that there's a river along part of the border, and ask us to fill it in.

DesertEagle613
August 17, 2004, 04:50 AM
I suppose if the border-crossers are throwing "fist-sized rocks" at agents, the agents could always throw some rocks back at them...

It woud be hard to argue that one, though I imagine the Mexicanos would try anyway.

flatrock
August 17, 2004, 09:03 AM
I have no problem with border guards shooting illegal immagrants that are throwing rocks at them. The pepper weapons are possibly appropriate, but when someone throws a rock at you, a bullet is a reasonable response.

Soap
August 17, 2004, 09:31 AM
No problem, then let's go back to using saps.

FrankGrimeyGrimes
August 17, 2004, 10:12 AM
Boo-freakin'-hoo!

Too bad someone can't zap Dirty Sanchez with a couple of paintball rounds followed by a couple of rounds of .45 ACP, this way he can make an "informed" opinion.

ID_shooting
August 17, 2004, 10:17 AM
First let me say that I support the whole "melting pot" theory that our imigration policies have been based on, heck, my great grandparrents came through Ellis Island in the late 1800s just like most of the folk's elders did here.

BUT...

To stay as high-roadish as possible, let's just say there comes a time when a series of M2s with thermal optics become necessary.

I say reopen Ellis Island, make one in LA and another in El Paso and let them follow the same rules and guidlines everyone else has for the last 200 years.

wingman
August 17, 2004, 12:42 PM
whole "melting pot" theory

Problem is we no longer live in the 1800's when ma and pa could move here raise 6 kids and not be a burden on the "system" this is no longer
true, states along the southern border are struggling to keep hospitals
open, schools are over crowded and looking for new funding "taxes",
crime by illegals on the rise, building more prisons to house them, cost
to "all" taxpayers is somewhere around $2400 per year,"stats I have read".

It really comes down to how many we can pay for, at what point will it
affect the quality of life of all Americans to the point that a backlash occurs.

The Mexican Government is using the American taxpayer as a source
of revenue and dumping in many cases the worst of their citizens.
Our rich dont care because it"s a source of cheap labor. Like it or not
it's a no win for the average Joe in this country. We cannot cotnrol our
future/security until we decided that we will/can control our borders and
most of all controlled "legal" immigration.

Crownvicman
August 17, 2004, 01:13 PM
So, let me get this straight. The Mexican government is complaining that agents of the US government are using non-lethal weapons to defend themselves from Mexican criminals? If the Mexican government keeps their criminals on their side of the border the "problem" is solved.

R.H. Lee
August 17, 2004, 01:32 PM
They use terms like "racist", "xenophobic", and the Nazi analogy because it works. There of plenty of America hating leftist scum occupying prominent positions in our government who bend over and grab their ankles in response to this. THOSE (our employees) are the ones we need to ferret out and eliminate (from government 'service').

foghornl
August 17, 2004, 01:53 PM
weapons firing plastic bullets filled with pepper powder Would Sadot Sanchez perhaps prefer that our guys used thin metal jacketed bullets, filled with lead alloys? ? ? ? ?

HankB
August 17, 2004, 01:54 PM
Most of what I'd want to say has been said already by previous posters . . . whom I congratulate on keeping to The High Road, as my first inclination would be to go down the original Reuters column, point by point, and insert some distinctly "non-HighRoad-ish" comments. ;)

What worries me MOST is that there are a great many OTM's - that's Other Than Mexican - foreign criminals using the wave of Mexican criminals as camouflage for their illegal entry to our country.

The Bush administration knows this, and won't do a :cuss: thing to stop it.

:cuss: :fire: :banghead: :barf:

DesertEagle613
August 17, 2004, 03:02 PM
And the tricky part is that the OTM's are probably unarmed and lack identifying characteristics, aside from not speaking Spanish. So it's not like a citizen's group could do a stakeout and zap would-be terrorists when they cross the border. Either we need to better control the flow of people, or we're sitting ducks.

PLEASE NOTE: I do not believe that simply crossing the border is reason for summary executions. Crossing the border while armed, on the other hand...

Cyanide_357
August 17, 2004, 03:48 PM
I don't believe diplomacy... and if they are crossing illegally, we should assume they are terrorists and they should be shot on site.

I am perfectly ok with people comming into this country legally, but not when they sneek in.

Skunkabilly
August 17, 2004, 04:10 PM
Racist and xenophobic weapons? LOL!!!!

Mommy, Average Guy's 1911 called me a ch***!!!! :rolleyes: :D

jefnvk
August 17, 2004, 06:24 PM
Here's my solution: Electrified razor wire, a mine field 1 mile wide, more electrified razor wire, another half mile or so of hungry German Shepards, and one last fence of electrified razor wire. If they pass that, They are welcome to stay.

wingman
August 17, 2004, 06:30 PM
Impact of Mexican
Immigration on Public Coffers

So far, this report has generally concentrated on public service use by Mexican immigrants; however, this is only half of the fiscal equation. Immigrants also pay taxes to federal, state, and local governments. The CPS contains estimated federal income tax liabilities for those in the sample. These estimates are based on adjusted gross income, number of dependents, and other tax characteristics. These estimates are useful because they can provide some insight into the likely tax payments made by immigrants and natives. Because of their much lower incomes and their larger family size, Mexican immigrants pay dramatically less in federal income taxes than do natives. The March 2000 CPS indicates that in 1999, the average federal income tax payment by households headed by Mexican immigrants was $2,156, less than one third of the $7,255 average tax contribution made by native households. By design, the federal income tax system is supposed to tax those with higher income and fewer dependents at higher rates than those with lower income and more dependents. So the much lower income tax contributions of Mexican immigrants simply reflect the tax code and not some systematic attempt by Mexican immigrants to avoid paying taxes.

In 1999, 74 percent of households headed by natives had to pay at least some federal income tax, compared to only 59 percent of Mexican immigrant households. Even if one confines the analysis to legal Mexican immigrants, the gap between their tax contributions and those of natives remains large. Using the same method as before to distinguish legal and illegal Mexican immigrant households, the estimated federal income liability of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants in 1999 was $2,538. Thus, the very low tax contribution of Mexican immigrants is not simply or even mostly a function of legal status, but rather reflects their much lower incomes and larger average family size.

The much lower tax payments made by Mexican immigrants point to a fundamental problem associated with unskilled immigration that seems unavoidable. Even if Mexican Immigrants’ use of public services were roughly equal to natives, there would still be a significant drain on public coffers because their average tax payments would be much lower. While much of the fiscal concern centers on use of means-tested programs, clearly tax payments matter at least as much when evaluating the fiscal impact of Mexican immigration. Changing welfare eligibility or other efforts designed to reduce immigrant use of public services will not change the fact that Mexican immigrants pay significantly less in taxes than natives.

While the above analysis provides some insight into the impact of Mexican immigrants on tax receipts at the federal level, it does not show the total fiscal impact of Mexican immigration. Over the last decade, a number of studies have attempted to estimate the total fiscal impact (tax payments minus services used) of immigrants on the United States at the federal, state, and local levels.

The most comprehensive research on this subject was done by the National Research Council (NRC), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted in 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime. The NAS further estimated that the total combined fiscal impact of the average immigrant (all educational categories included) was a negative $3,000. Thus, when all immigrants are examined they are found to have a modest negative impact on public coffers. These figures are only for the original immigrant, they do not include public services used or taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants.

Using the fiscal analysis developed by the NRC, it is possible to roughly estimate the fiscal effect of adult Mexican immigrants on the United States. Applying the NRC’s estimates by educational attainment and age is possible because the NRC’s research is based on the same data as this study — the March Current Population Survey.28 Using the estimates developed by the NRC and based on the educational attainment and age of newly arrived adult Mexican immigrants in 2000, we find that the lifetime fiscal burden created by the average adult Mexican immigrant is $50,300.29 It should be pointed out that these figures were based on 1996 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the fiscal burden would be $55,200 in 2000.

Since a very large share of Mexican immigrants have little formal education, the fiscal burden they create seems unavoidable. The modern American labor market offers very limited opportunities for the unskilled — immigrant or native. It therefore should come as no surprise that they use a great deal more in public services than they pay in taxes during the course of their lives. While consistent with previous research as well as common sense, the large fiscal deficit created by Mexican immigration should sound a cautionary note to those who argue that there is no harm in allowing large numbers of unskilled workers from Mexico into the country. Even if employers wish to have access to unskilled immigrant labor, the cost to taxpayers indicates that for the nation this may not be wise. Mexican immigration becomes, in effect, a subsidy for employers of unskilled labor, with taxpayers providing services such as education, health insurance and medical care, and income-transfer programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit to workers who, because of their low incomes, pay nowhere near enough in taxes to cover their consumption of services.

Gifted
August 17, 2004, 06:57 PM
So we switch from the painful, inhumane pepper balls to FMJ, which is declared by the Geneva conventions to be humane. Or we could do what Isreal did, and build a wall...

I'm all for immigration, but you gotta do it right. The problem is how to keep the quality. A lot of those early immigrants wound up in tennements. Replicating those conditions is not on the list.

I'd say, annex Mexico. Pull the troops out of Iraq, and put them to work making Mexico part of the nation all those people want to be part of in the first place.

spartacus2002
August 17, 2004, 07:02 PM
These Mexican politicians don't really care, they just love seeing the American govt get all tied up in knots trying to be PC. It's like poking a beehive to hear the bees apologize for being poked.

I'm betting that one day soon in the newspaper we'll read about some good ol' boys who picked a good ambush site on a well-used trail, and afterwards the BP comes across the bodies of the border crossers stacked up. The American people seem to be getting sick of this.

AZ Heat
August 17, 2004, 07:12 PM
I suppose if the border-crossers are throwing "fist-sized rocks" at agents, the agents could always throw some rocks back at them...
Now that would be funny!
I bet the local little league would do that for free and save us some cash!

FNHP35
August 17, 2004, 07:15 PM
ehhh, I think the Mex Politicians do care. It all boils down to money. How much money and resources (read water) can they extract (extort?) out of the U.S. Gov. The Mexican Government is no more interested in the human rights of the Illegal's than they are with the price of tea in China. It's all about money.

Andrew

Nightfall
August 17, 2004, 07:41 PM
The video shown this month also contained separate images of a Mexican lifting his T-shirt to reveal welts and bruises on his chest, presumably from pellet impacts.
Wow. They're sustaining the same amount of injury a group of kids get when they play at a paintball course. Gee, guess we better ban paintball. It's a human rights violation, don't cha know. :rolleyes:

DesertEagle613
August 18, 2004, 12:30 AM
Hmmm. Maybe someone could set up a paintball arena right by the border, with large signs to that effect. If someone wandered in anyway, they'd be caught in the crossfire because of their own negligence, wouldn't they? :evil:

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 18, 2004, 03:37 AM
I'd say, annex Mexico. Pull the troops out of Iraq, and put them to work making Mexico part of the nation all those people want to be part of in the first place.


We should annex all of Mexico and Central America. We would get a lot of inexpensive beachfront property, and the Panama canal back as well.

joe sixpack
August 19, 2004, 12:25 AM
Re: annexation

I think they are beating us to it.

flatrock
August 19, 2004, 11:55 AM
We should annex all of Mexico and Central America. We would get a lot of inexpensive beachfront property, and the Panama canal back as well.

I like the beaches in Mexico the way they are. The mexican people down in the Rivera Maya seem relatively hard working and friendly. I don't trust their government, but neither do they.

I'm afraid that if we annexed Mexico, we'd just screw up the things I like about the place.

Smoke
August 19, 2004, 12:47 PM
Next time you're in Mexico, where you crossed legally and you're spending your Americano Dolares, and get caught with a couple of Joints your Brother-in-law left in a suitcase you borrowed....lets see how the Mescan Federales treat your civil/human rights.

Smoke

454c
August 19, 2004, 05:07 PM
Money is a big part of it.The big companys and the country these people come from all benefit.The rest of us pay the bill and tolerate the problems they create.Heck yea Mexico wants us to let the illegals walk right in.They are sending lots of money back home.You don't think so?I saw it every week after pay day and not just a couple of them either.Bad for the U.S.,good for Mexico.

I grew up in the small town that I live in and saw the changes that these illegals cause in a community.It's not good or for the better.

Don't get me wrong,I'm all for immigration if it's done legally and dang it LEARN ENGLISH !!!!!!!!

rick_reno
August 19, 2004, 09:16 PM
They'd be ok with this is the bullets were filled with jalapenos and some refried beans.

That border and it's lack of control, while we're supposedly at "war", is one of the reasons the Shrubmeister won't be getting my vote come November. Wait until the next terrorist hit happens and they prove that they and whatever device they use came across that border.

mtnbkr
August 19, 2004, 11:36 PM
I like the beaches in Mexico the way they are. The mexican people down in the Rivera Maya seem relatively hard working and friendly.

Yup. My wife and I loved that area as well.

I'm betting that one day soon in the newspaper we'll read about some good ol' boys who picked a good ambush site on a well-used trail, and afterwards the BP comes across the bodies of the border crossers stacked up. The American people seem to be getting sick of this.

Can't say I'd be too upset either.

Which makes me sad because I've enjoyed my travels there and I have a mexican relative (by marriage) who is a hardworking person and good husband to my cousin. He's a welcome member of our family. This country needs more people like him. I know he's here legally, he was born here, but I'm not sure about his parents. :scrutiny:

Chris

13A
August 21, 2004, 05:14 PM
I am getting tired of Mexican officials stating what they will not tolerate when it comes to their citizens treatment when THEY violate our laws by entering this country illegally.

This country will go the way of Yugoslavia if this keeps up.

Aztlan anyone?

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emarksiporen/reference/NCR-Reconquistas.html

SIGarmed
August 22, 2004, 12:44 AM
You know why they really don't like it. The pepper is effective and its non-lethal. It works really well provided the subjects are not on drugs. Its a great tool for the Border Patrol to use and the illegals and their friends don't like it. It works too good.

The same with all the complaining leftists that want pepper spray banned. They're calling it torture. All those protesting ultra leftists would love it if pepper spray and CS gas were banned. They'd have an easier time of getting out of hand during their protests.

They're not concerned with all of the injuries and or potential lives that are saved with pepper spray and the like. The end justifies the means as far as their cause is concerned.

Ezekiel
August 23, 2004, 03:30 PM
I'm no pacifist weenie, but there are two things -- even after I let this topic die for two days so I could "calm down" after others' statements -- that I'd like to point out:

1. The Mexican (or Canadian!) border is undefendable.
2. 98.2% (last census) of the American population is not Native by descent.

The first redneck, not that I've seen any here, who proclaims, "I wuz bone hee-yah and Ize an 'merican" merely validates the Mexican viewpoint. Of course, this is merely my opinion: U.S. citizens, of which I am one, are largely hypocritical.

R.H. Lee
August 23, 2004, 03:41 PM
I don't get it...

It's the difference between legal and illegal immigration. For example, I was born in California, that makes me a native American. My father was born in Canada, but legally immigrated here along with his family when he was 9.

Border jumpers come here illegally, that means without going through the immigration process, that's why they're called undocumented.

See the difference?

Ezekiel
August 23, 2004, 04:35 PM
...is there a distinction? Does it matter in the context of our ongoing discourse?

Riley, I greatly appreciate your conscientious answer. Perhaps, I am the only one with personal difficulties with this topic. I am, you see, an American Indian. Now, I don’t buy into any of that bogus crap that someone owes me anything, or that I’m super spiritual, or that the “old ways” were the “best ways”. (I have, however, attached a photo merely to make it evident that this is a true social definition and that I am not some New Age freak.) In fact, hardcore Injun traditionalists would resent me for both being an evil assimilist and for using the word “Injun”. Further, because I went and got a “white man’s” BA and MPA, I’ve “sold out”. Trust me, I’m not “special” except in that same manner in which we all are. I do, however, have an unique view on things pertaining to immigration and America. Occasionally, I get mad…

tyme
August 23, 2004, 05:19 PM
Countries go through phases. What may have been sound national policy 100 years ago may not be sound national policy today, when we have a much larger population and a variety of entitlement programs.

"We should allow illegal/uncontrolled immigration because it was the norm years ago."
Not without reason.

There's nothing that guarantees United States citizenship to people of other countries. Immigration is one of the few areas where the Federal Government does have the power to regulate.

Art Eatman
August 23, 2004, 10:54 PM
Well, Ezekiel, I do indeed consider that I'm a native American. Anybody who was born in some particular place is a native of that place. That's one of those inescapable dictionary things. Words do indeed have meaning--and they must be consistent, regardless of politics.

Now, I'd have no problem with referring to the Amerind as the Original Americans. There's first-comers and late-comers.

Regardless of folks getting all in a swivet about who's named what, the issue with illegals is twofold.

First, they're illegal. As in they broke the law. Anybody doesn't like the law, seek to change it--just as many of us do with regard to firearms laws. In the meantime, it's the law, for good or ill.

Second, there is the physical problem, which includes the financial problem. When the lifeboat is full enough that there's little remaining freeboard, you quit taking on more people. The lifeboat simile is that we can't afford the costs to local infrastructure that are caused by illegals. This includes hospitals and the justice system, aside from "welfare" subsidies of one sort or another. Illegals are bringing in diseases that are becoming endemic, which in this country had pretty much been ended or pretty thorougly controlled. (One with which I'm familiar is TB. BTDT.)

What chaps my tail about any sympathetic views of the illegals from Mexico is that there seems to be no negative attituded toward the corrupt socio-political system which creates the need for millions of people to leave that country and seek minimal living conditions elsewhere. Were the system in Mexico worth the powder and shot to blow it to Hades--and that would be a consummation devoutly to be wished--there would not be the millions of walkers and waders. Mexico has all the raw materials resource base one could ever wish for--but the corruption down there obviates its use on behalf of the citizenry as a whole...

Art

Ezekiel
August 24, 2004, 12:09 AM
Well, Ezekiel, I do indeed consider that I'm a native American. Anybody who was born in some particular place is a native of that place. That's one of those inescapable dictionary things. Words do indeed have meaning--and they must be consistent, regardless of politics. Respectfully, I would never try to deny your consideration. Of course, taking this to a logical Webster's conclusion, anyone born from Canada to Argentina becomes a native American by definition. We, those born in the United States, conveniently forget this on a daily basis. When studying abroad, I found this to be one of those things that other nationalities just do not like about us. If words mean something -- and, like you, I believe they do -- more specificity is required.

There's first-comers and late-comers. This represents my moral dilemma! What I sometimes perceive for this issue is the equivalent of party crashers [early immigrants, both "legal" and "illegal"] showing up, drinking all the beer, and then declaring the dance is over when new arrivals [later immigrants, both "legal" and "illegal"] hit the door. To me, such is grotesquely hypocritical.

I realize two things, however. First, this is not Utopia and there are considerations beyond mine own feelings of unease. Second, someone is going to be offended because I used an analogy. (I sincerely hope not.)

Art Eatman
August 24, 2004, 11:22 AM
Ezekiel, folks--seems to me--mix up two issues in all this stuff about border-crossings. First off, there's the set of problems with respect to illegal border-jumpers and their various impacts on local residents, law enforcement and then the various infrastructures of states and cities.

Then there is the more fundamental issue of immigration itsownself. How many, and what sort, and what requirements?

It helps, IMO, to at least learn a smattering of the immigration laws/rules/regs of other countries before griping about those of the US. Heck, just look at those of Mexico! Very strict; rough to meet...

Art

wingman
August 24, 2004, 01:18 PM
Simply put most young couples decide 1, 2,3 children, how many can we care for, our country is a family at some point we must decide how many
can we care for and maintain a free, quality life for America. If we fail and
I believe we are on a road to do so then much of the world will be in
greater trouble. This is not a race issue it is a numbers problem that if
not controlled at some point will fragment this country so bad that I am
not sure we can recover.

As Art said the boat is filling up, we are losing freedom with more laws to
control the growing population, personally I would like to see a hold on all
immigration for 3 years and then a controlled number from that point. Do
I see this happening, no, because too much money is being made by a few
on the transfer of poor people. Sad to say we seem to have a policy of
waiting until a disaster before we act.:(

Ezekiel
August 24, 2004, 02:43 PM
It helps, IMO, to at least learn a smattering of the immigration laws/rules/regs of other countries before griping about those of the US. Heck, just look at those of Mexico! Very strict; rough to meet...

Excellent insight. I do appreciate your candor and well thought out reply.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mexico protests US border agents' pepper weapons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!