Marshall
Member
No, they'll work for less money, cash money. Not better, not more efficient, LESS. Heck, when 12 of them rent one house or apartment it doesn't take much to live and yes, what they have left goes back to Mexico.
This illegal infestation is out of control
- Thread starter bg
- Start date
- Status
No, they'll work for less money, cash money. Not better, not more efficient, LESS. Heck, when 12 of them rent one house or apartment it doesn't take much to live and yes, what they have left goes back to Mexico.
spartacus2002
Member
We have a Republican president? Coulda fooled me....
El Tejon
Member
Marshall, ironic? I don't think so. We've been through the hysteria regarding The Other will destroy our beloved way of life before. This hysteria is nothing new.
What is ironic is that your location lists a placed named for illegal immigrants.
What is ironic is that your location lists a placed named for illegal immigrants.
HankB
Member
So it's not right to stereotype illegal aliens as being illegal just because they ARE illegal? This response reminds me of that skit on Mad TV where the actress closes her eyes, sticks her fingers in her ears, and chants "La la la la . . . I can't hear you . . . "
From Wikipedia: An illegal alien is an individual who enters a country at a place other than a designated port-of-entry, in violation of that country's laws.
So, in fact, though they're not necessarily thieves, ALL illegals ARE criminals - by definition. Their very first act in this country - entering it in violation of our laws - is a CRIMINAL act. Asserting otherwise is just evidence of a disconnet from reality.
Marshall
Member
Oh I think it's extremely ironic that a man that is taking the side of the Mexicans flooding our country has a sig line that says:
"Western Civilization is under attack, stand ready."
As for where I live being a place named that has many illegals, I find nothing ironic about that at all. In fact, it would put me closer to the subject to have an experienced opinion on the effects of it. I don't find that ironic, I find that sensible.
Your sig line is correct, we are under attack.
I haven't read the thread, but I tire of terms like "infestation."
Here's my take on the supply side of it:
Mine-fields in the way? Anti southern accent bigotry? More thieves than you can point a stick at who'll target me because I'm not one of the protected class? Screw it -- I'm going, for my family. Maybe I can save up enough to buy a nice house with some land, and at least I can be a subsistence farmer in 8-10 years.
It's a hell of a lot better than starving.
Now, complain all you want, but there are a number of people who come here with the best of motives. Yeah, there are criminals and lazy SOBs looking to leach the system for as much as they can. But I personally think they're overshadowed by those who are willing to get paid near-nothing to do honest work.
My first experience with this was as a high-school kid working in a nursery. 3-4 of us were replaced by one mexican who understood what it was to work for 10 hours straight, and he did so for less than the bit-over-minimum-wage we were earning.
I say he earned it. And I don't like the assertions that he's some sort of cockroach that's part of a major infestation, nor do I like assertions that his life is worthless because he's taking "legitimate" work from 4 teenagers more concerned with gossip and flirting than in getting the job done.
He's here because it's the only chance he had of making a decent life. It might suck for those who insist on living in a world where kids have to attend school or be stolen by CPS, where vaccinations must be given at public expense, where ER vists must be provided to the indigent and where a simple tetanus shot costs $750 for those without insurance (ask me how I know...) which prices it outside of the ability of those who are poor but want to pay, where taxes reach nearly 50% so both people in a family need to work to make ends meet (especially where TV is the drug of choice, and it sells comsumption to the masses as the new, state-endorsed religion), and so on.
Fix the main problems, and immigration harms will fix themselves. Well, at least those harms that can be fixed. Predators will still come where the prey are, and black marketeers will still provide product so long as it's profitable, but those are separate issues from "immigration" proper...
Here's my take on the supply side of it:
- Assume I live here in Georgia, where we're in the middle of a huge recession and there simply isn't any legitimate way out. At least, not for those of us who don't initiate violence and choose not to participate in the profitable black markets.
- Assume that though my wife and I tried to be safe, she ended up pregnant anyway. I've been struggling to provide food for both of us (with her help), but now we're gonna be down to one sometimes-breadwinner and we're bringing a kid into the world.
- It turns out there's plenty of work on the northeast. I'd have to deal with Yankees (eeeeeew), but the standard of living is 6 times higher, and those on unemployment who are "poor" and doing better than the best of the non-drugrunning locals.
Mine-fields in the way? Anti southern accent bigotry? More thieves than you can point a stick at who'll target me because I'm not one of the protected class? Screw it -- I'm going, for my family. Maybe I can save up enough to buy a nice house with some land, and at least I can be a subsistence farmer in 8-10 years.
It's a hell of a lot better than starving.
Now, complain all you want, but there are a number of people who come here with the best of motives. Yeah, there are criminals and lazy SOBs looking to leach the system for as much as they can. But I personally think they're overshadowed by those who are willing to get paid near-nothing to do honest work.
My first experience with this was as a high-school kid working in a nursery. 3-4 of us were replaced by one mexican who understood what it was to work for 10 hours straight, and he did so for less than the bit-over-minimum-wage we were earning.
I say he earned it. And I don't like the assertions that he's some sort of cockroach that's part of a major infestation, nor do I like assertions that his life is worthless because he's taking "legitimate" work from 4 teenagers more concerned with gossip and flirting than in getting the job done.
He's here because it's the only chance he had of making a decent life. It might suck for those who insist on living in a world where kids have to attend school or be stolen by CPS, where vaccinations must be given at public expense, where ER vists must be provided to the indigent and where a simple tetanus shot costs $750 for those without insurance (ask me how I know...) which prices it outside of the ability of those who are poor but want to pay, where taxes reach nearly 50% so both people in a family need to work to make ends meet (especially where TV is the drug of choice, and it sells comsumption to the masses as the new, state-endorsed religion), and so on.
Fix the main problems, and immigration harms will fix themselves. Well, at least those harms that can be fixed. Predators will still come where the prey are, and black marketeers will still provide product so long as it's profitable, but those are separate issues from "immigration" proper...
Waitone
Member
Concentrations of illegal immigrants and organized crime go together like M&M's. They are never separated. A pool of illegals immigrants is the pool in which goons swim. What you say is no doubt valid. I fully understand what it means to be on hard times and what it means to make decisions like you described here. But what we discuss is policy decisions made by people who do not have to personally deal with the consequences of their decisions. They make the immigration decisions that leads ultimately to the $750 shot. They make the policy decisions which give us societal chaos while they are insulated. My wrath is not directed at the hardworking stiff here illegally. They should not be here in my ideal world but they are so now my society has to deal with the consequences. Part of those consequences impact some truly stupid decisions made decades ago for entirely different reasons (ER treatments without regard to ability to pay. Noble intent at the time; incredibly stoopid move over time). Now those same people who create the problem, and who don't live with the consequences are the same people who have the power to fix the problem,but refuse to act.
The people maintaining the problem of illegal immigration remind me of the picture of a dog laying in a cow's feed trough. The dog can not possible eat the hay, but he can keep the cows from eating. The situation disgusts me, not because of people trying to better themselves but because of those who profit at the expense of someone else misery. <I'll sign off now before I get seriously irritated.>
The people maintaining the problem of illegal immigration remind me of the picture of a dog laying in a cow's feed trough. The dog can not possible eat the hay, but he can keep the cows from eating. The situation disgusts me, not because of people trying to better themselves but because of those who profit at the expense of someone else misery. <I'll sign off now before I get seriously irritated.>
Cosmoline
Member
I just find it poetic that so many Kalifornians are complaining about the immigrants from the south destroying their state. Kalifornians have destroyed my home state, Oregon, more completely than any horde of illegals ever could. If I had my way, I'd kill the Kalifornians off and give their state back to Mexico. I've met a lot of Mexicans I like, but I cannot abide those other people from the south. Oregon should have sealed the border off back in the 70's. I might still be living there if Tom Mccall had gone through with his promise to do just that. Instead they've infested towns from Ashland to Portland, taking all the high-paying jobs and driving real estate prices through the roof. I hate them worse than poison.
Glock Glockler
Member
Derek,
Even if we assume that the majority of immigrants are not criminals or dolers, do their intentions to be a positive contribution really matter if they are a net economic drain? Even if a Mexican immigrant was working 70hrs/week at minimum wage it would work out to $22,724/yr assuming he works 52 weeks a year, so that is his contribution to the economy. How much is the schooling for one of his kids? What about the prenatal care and medical expenses for his pregnant wife? How much does his trip to the ER cost when he gets into a fight with his brother in law?
I have seen these situations in real life among good hearted illegal aliens, and the costs I mentioned were just some of the actual costs they incur on the taxpayer. It is also not surprising that they vote or whomever promises them the most bennies, and they really do not understand the complex economic implications of what they do.
How does one, in that situation, get rid of the doles? Do you think unfettered immigration will get us closer to eliminating those doles? When doing an algebraic equation there is an order of operations that must be preformed in order to get the right answer, otherwise you get big problems an it is no different with govt programs. The current situation of people in Mexico and other places is completely irrelevant to our situation in the US, no matter how bad it is for them there we will only succeed in bringing the US closer to being a 3rd country if we import economic people who cost us far more than they produce.
Even if we assume that the majority of immigrants are not criminals or dolers, do their intentions to be a positive contribution really matter if they are a net economic drain? Even if a Mexican immigrant was working 70hrs/week at minimum wage it would work out to $22,724/yr assuming he works 52 weeks a year, so that is his contribution to the economy. How much is the schooling for one of his kids? What about the prenatal care and medical expenses for his pregnant wife? How much does his trip to the ER cost when he gets into a fight with his brother in law?
I have seen these situations in real life among good hearted illegal aliens, and the costs I mentioned were just some of the actual costs they incur on the taxpayer. It is also not surprising that they vote or whomever promises them the most bennies, and they really do not understand the complex economic implications of what they do.
How does one, in that situation, get rid of the doles? Do you think unfettered immigration will get us closer to eliminating those doles? When doing an algebraic equation there is an order of operations that must be preformed in order to get the right answer, otherwise you get big problems an it is no different with govt programs. The current situation of people in Mexico and other places is completely irrelevant to our situation in the US, no matter how bad it is for them there we will only succeed in bringing the US closer to being a 3rd country if we import economic people who cost us far more than they produce.
You don't, unless you get rid of the programs.
No, it's not. We're beginning to understand that the desire for easy money, mixed with the desire to get high, leads to a drug problem that simply won't go away. Drug prohibition leads to a situation where the fix (prohibition and its effects mixed with the drug problems that still exist) is worse than the problem (drug addicts in a society where it's legalized).
It's the same here -- the desire to insure my kids don't starve to death IMHO is a stronger drive than any desire for an altered state of consciousness, and it's one that every breathing human being ought to be able to understand. Change the equation so it's "all illegals will be shot on sight" and they'll still come; they'll just defend themselves and learn to shoot first.
If they're sucking the welfare coffers dry (including the public school system), then change the frigging social benefits structure. Hell, I got a better education for $3,000 per year at a Catholic high school than I got in public high school, even though the state was spending $10,000 on me there (I was "gifted," though I don't know where the money was going). -- I'm not convinced the current benefits structure is worth anywhere what we're paying for it anyway.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Glock,
Schooling of children is not a loss. It is more appropriately categorized as an investment by the state in the future. A return is expected. Pre-Natal care may be viewed as insurance as well, if you consider children who are do not recieve proper care are more likely to incur higher costs through requiring incarceration or long-term health care.
History has shown that poor immigrants enrich our culture and economy, not destroy it.
Schooling of children is not a loss. It is more appropriately categorized as an investment by the state in the future. A return is expected. Pre-Natal care may be viewed as insurance as well, if you consider children who are do not recieve proper care are more likely to incur higher costs through requiring incarceration or long-term health care.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." -USA
History has shown that poor immigrants enrich our culture and economy, not destroy it.
I will ask again to those of an open border mind, how many can we take in,
is there a limit in your mind, do you believe there are no limits to American wealth.
In my 60 plus years I have seen changes in our freedom
most really due to population increase. More people, more crime, more laws,
less freedom, when you import enough of the third world you will have just
that.
We cannot continue to feed and cloth the world while taking in more people
then all other countries combined, exporting jobs to the third world so our
rich grow more rich, acting as a police force for the world and giving freedom
to other countries while we at home lose ours.
Each thing has an end folks we need to decide how American should be in the
future, what quality of life you want, what we now see is life based on GREED.
In the end countries that hate us need only wait we will kill ourselves.
Controlled, legal Immigration, not a hard idea to understand. :banghead:
is there a limit in your mind, do you believe there are no limits to American wealth.
In my 60 plus years I have seen changes in our freedom
most really due to population increase. More people, more crime, more laws,
less freedom, when you import enough of the third world you will have just
that.
We cannot continue to feed and cloth the world while taking in more people
then all other countries combined, exporting jobs to the third world so our
rich grow more rich, acting as a police force for the world and giving freedom
to other countries while we at home lose ours.
Each thing has an end folks we need to decide how American should be in the
future, what quality of life you want, what we now see is life based on GREED.
In the end countries that hate us need only wait we will kill ourselves.
Controlled, legal Immigration, not a hard idea to understand. :banghead:
What seems to be difficult to understand is that it's not going to be possible to stop illegal immigration, unless you make it so easy to immigrate legally that there's no reason not to.
The advantage of legalizing all immigration is that you realize that "open immigration" and our current system of providing public services are incompatible. The problem with your position is that you keep pretending that there's something we can do to stop illegal immigration, so you spend time and money there rather than correcting the free-flow of money and resources we're currently seeing and paying for.
I don't see a way to stop them, other than making the situation in the origin country good enough that there's no reason to come here.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Wingman,
You suggest that there is a limit to American wealth. I know that it is not true. I believe that Wealth is created by a person. When I come to work I "Make" money. That value (money) was not there before. I then get a portion of that money every two weeks from my employer.
I believe that any person who comes here and works creates greater "American Wealth".
The only reason we take a loss ever is because WE choose to give our money away. When I give to charity, I choose to give my money away. When I find that my neighbors are voting to give my money away, I move to New Hampshire.
I do not think that the number of "Work Visas" should be limited (Though I do think background checks are appropriate). Any person who works here, contributes.
By greed, do you mean "self-interest"? I will argue strenuously about how land-lust defined our country from the beginning. But it does not belong in this thread.
You suggest that there is a limit to American wealth. I know that it is not true. I believe that Wealth is created by a person. When I come to work I "Make" money. That value (money) was not there before. I then get a portion of that money every two weeks from my employer.
I believe that any person who comes here and works creates greater "American Wealth".
The only reason we take a loss ever is because WE choose to give our money away. When I give to charity, I choose to give my money away. When I find that my neighbors are voting to give my money away, I move to New Hampshire.
I do not think that the number of "Work Visas" should be limited (Though I do think background checks are appropriate). Any person who works here, contributes.
Check out trade statistics, they feed and clothe us.
By greed, do you mean "self-interest"? I will argue strenuously about how land-lust defined our country from the beginning. But it does not belong in this thread.
El Tejon
Member
We can stop immigrants, Derek. Just like we stop drugs!
Actually it would be easier to stop illegal immigration than drugs.
1) Remove incentives. No welfare, food stamp, healthcare unless you are a U.S. citizen. Punish employers who hire illegals with fines and jail.
2) Secure the border. Build a fence, wall, moat, whatever and man it with people to watch for incursions. Return border jumpers to Mexico
3) Provide arms and training to those opposing the corrupt Mexican regime. Encourage them to overthrow the existing Mexican government and help them replace it with an honest democracy. Provide tax credits to U.S. corporations who outsource the manufacturing of good in Mexico. Maybe even do a Marshall plan and help them build some factories and infrastructure. Bring the standard of living up throughout the entire country.
Voila! No more illegal immigration.
The drug problem is a little more complex, but I'd work on the demand side. Kill all the drug users.
Glock Glockler
Member
You don't, unless you get rid of the programs.
Derek, how do you think our hardworking Mexican immigrant friend who grosses under 23k is going to vote when it comes to schooling, healthcare, medical care and other stuff? Do you really think he will vote to make it so that he has to cover all those expenses himself when right now he pays minimal or no taxes? Why would he voluntarily increase his own expenses significantly?
You tell me how we "get rid of the programs", I think if was just that simple we would have done it long ago instead of getting getting deeper and deeper into them.
Change the equation so it's "all illegals will be shot on sight" and they'll still come; they'll just defend themselves and learn to shoot first
Incorrect. People come here to improve their situation (regardless of whether or not it increases ours), and it does not make much sense to significantly risk your life only for the possible benefit of improving it. Also, do you want people to come here who would shoot at American troops guarding the border? I sure as hell don't want a houseguest who will attack me if I don't allow him in, I think I'll defend myself instead.
You must also keep in mind that energy always flows from a higher point to a lower one. If it is very difficult and risky to get into the US illegally they will simply go somewhere else that is easier to get into. Europe is all about being "progressive" and stupid, let them take in all those immigrants and see how they do with them. England seems to have had some issues with their immigrants who, contrary to popular myth, do not necessarily integrate and make a stronger whole.
If they're sucking the welfare coffers dry (including the public school system), then change the frigging social benefits structure
I would love to, part of the problem is that govt schooling is one of the most entrenched socialist programs in the country, and it will only get more entrenched when we have more people dependant on it.
I'm not convinced the current benefits structure is worth anywhere what we're paying for it anyway
Agreed 100%, now we just need to convince Joe Public, or Jose Publico.
Schooling of children is not a loss. It is more appropriately categorized as an investment by the state in the future. A return is expected
Yes, and what a great return we have: incompetant drones completely unprepared for the modern economy who believe that govt is the answer to all our problems. No thanks, I think we'd be better off with them as ditch diggers.
Pre-Natal care may be viewed as insurance as well, if you consider children who are do not recieve proper care are more likely to incur higher costs through requiring incarceration or long-term health care
Ok, so instead of 300k for the trial expenses and 50k/yr for the duration of their sentence it will only be 30k/yr and 100k for the ER bill, what a savings!!! But what if I simply didnt let them into the country in the first place? Yeah, I think that would cost less.
We can stop immigrants, Derek. Just like we stop drugs
Tejon, I am not so naive to think we will get illegal immigration down to 0, but we can sure get it down to a helluva lot less than an open door policy would net.
So, Glockler, are we going to start applying his standard to citizens too? Should we be deporting Americans who don't contribute enough to the Greater Good of the Economy?
As I said in a previous post, it would be legally impossible to do this but it is very legally possible to forbid people entry into the country. A certain amount of poo will end up only my lawn from my dog, I dont like it and would love to eliminate it but for the mean time I have to deal with it. I do NOT, however, have to go around the whole neighborhood and invite everyone to dump their dog poo on my lawn.
Derek, how do you think our hardworking Mexican immigrant friend who grosses under 23k is going to vote when it comes to schooling, healthcare, medical care and other stuff? Do you really think he will vote to make it so that he has to cover all those expenses himself when right now he pays minimal or no taxes? Why would he voluntarily increase his own expenses significantly?
You tell me how we "get rid of the programs", I think if was just that simple we would have done it long ago instead of getting getting deeper and deeper into them.
Change the equation so it's "all illegals will be shot on sight" and they'll still come; they'll just defend themselves and learn to shoot first
Incorrect. People come here to improve their situation (regardless of whether or not it increases ours), and it does not make much sense to significantly risk your life only for the possible benefit of improving it. Also, do you want people to come here who would shoot at American troops guarding the border? I sure as hell don't want a houseguest who will attack me if I don't allow him in, I think I'll defend myself instead.
You must also keep in mind that energy always flows from a higher point to a lower one. If it is very difficult and risky to get into the US illegally they will simply go somewhere else that is easier to get into. Europe is all about being "progressive" and stupid, let them take in all those immigrants and see how they do with them. England seems to have had some issues with their immigrants who, contrary to popular myth, do not necessarily integrate and make a stronger whole.
If they're sucking the welfare coffers dry (including the public school system), then change the frigging social benefits structure
I would love to, part of the problem is that govt schooling is one of the most entrenched socialist programs in the country, and it will only get more entrenched when we have more people dependant on it.
I'm not convinced the current benefits structure is worth anywhere what we're paying for it anyway
Agreed 100%, now we just need to convince Joe Public, or Jose Publico.
Schooling of children is not a loss. It is more appropriately categorized as an investment by the state in the future. A return is expected
Yes, and what a great return we have: incompetant drones completely unprepared for the modern economy who believe that govt is the answer to all our problems. No thanks, I think we'd be better off with them as ditch diggers.
Pre-Natal care may be viewed as insurance as well, if you consider children who are do not recieve proper care are more likely to incur higher costs through requiring incarceration or long-term health care
Ok, so instead of 300k for the trial expenses and 50k/yr for the duration of their sentence it will only be 30k/yr and 100k for the ER bill, what a savings!!! But what if I simply didnt let them into the country in the first place? Yeah, I think that would cost less.
We can stop immigrants, Derek. Just like we stop drugs
Tejon, I am not so naive to think we will get illegal immigration down to 0, but we can sure get it down to a helluva lot less than an open door policy would net.
So, Glockler, are we going to start applying his standard to citizens too? Should we be deporting Americans who don't contribute enough to the Greater Good of the Economy?
As I said in a previous post, it would be legally impossible to do this but it is very legally possible to forbid people entry into the country. A certain amount of poo will end up only my lawn from my dog, I dont like it and would love to eliminate it but for the mean time I have to deal with it. I do NOT, however, have to go around the whole neighborhood and invite everyone to dump their dog poo on my lawn.
El Tejon
Member
Ian, yes, yes, yes!
Have I told you my idea about "Mopeberia"?
Have I told you my idea about "Mopeberia"?
Waitone
Member
<Poster's Comment--Interesting article about a poll conducted among "Migrants" in the US. I bolded the factoid of interest for this discussion.>
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_29/b3943007_mz001.htm
Mexico
Once a month 28-year-old Ignacio Moreno (not his real surname) walks to a small storefront on Chicago's West 26th Street and plunks down $380. It's not the rent for his two-bedroom apartment, where he lives with his wife and two kids, but an installment payment on his dream home back in Mexico. A bakery employee who works the night shift since the family came to the U.S. illegally in late 2003, Moreno is paying for $10,000 worth of cement, gravel, and bricks for the four-bedroom house he's building on the outskirts of the Mexican capital.
Moreno isn't paying a bank. He's giving his hard-earned money to the Mexican cement giant Cemex (CX ) through its Construmex program. The idea is to target migrants living in the U.S., who sent an estimated $16 billion in remittances last year -- some $3 billion of which was intended for construction, according to a Construmex market survey. Money transfers can be expensive, and family members back home frequently spend the money on other things. And many immigrants don't know how much cement to buy or how to build a roof, so their hard-earned savings often are wasted. That's where Construmex comes in: Its architects help clients design home plans and calculate how much material to deliver and at what time intervals. The company also finances the purchase of the construction materials.
In two years, Monterrey-based Construmex has helped 4,500 migrants living in the U.S. build homes or small businesses in Mexico. This year it expects $3.8 million in revenue, a mere hint of the potential. "We're certain that there's a very large, unsatisfied demand out there," says Hector Ureta, Cemex' director for low-income programs. The company's studies show that 58% of Mexican migrants to the U.S. intend to build in their home towns.
Just as some U.S. companies are tapping the undocumented market, some Mexican companies see opportunity in following customers who head north of the border. After all, many migrants straddle both worlds -- working in the U.S. but maintaining homes in Mexico. So far most cross-border efforts are housing-related campaigns conducted through U.S. branch offices. Grupo Famsa, a Monterrey-based retailer of home appliances, has nine stores in California and three in Texas, where migrants can buy a product and have it delivered to relatives in Mexico.
Then there's Hipotecaria Su Casita, a Mexico City-based mortgage lender that opened an office in Denver in 2003 and has made 350 peso-denominated mortgages, averaging $55,000, for migrants wishing to purchase a home in Mexico. Most of Su Casita's loans are for 20 or 25 years and charge 12% to 13.5% interest -- high for the U.S. but typical for Mexican mortgages. The company doesn't ask clients whether they're in the U.S. legally, but it requires evidence of earnings, such as paycheck stubs, bank statements, or a letter from an employer. So far none of its clients has missed a payment. "They don't want to risk losing their credit rating or the house they bought," says Eduardo Uranga, who heads Su Casita's migrant program. Su Casita's U.S. loan portfolio totals just $15 million, but Uranga predicts that 1,000 new mortgages will be issued in 2006. He expects that number to rise to 3,000 annually within five years. In May, Su Casita opened a Dallas office and will add others in Los Angeles and Chicago later this year.
Back in Mexico City, Moreno's mother, Alfreda Rosales, 55, stands proudly at her son's construction site. The former laundress shares a cramped room with her daughter and grandson as they await the completion of the 1,400-square-foot home. "Ignacio has always been a hard-working boy," she says, wiping away a tear. In a few years, Moreno plans to live in the new house with his family and mamá. Now he's thinking bigger -- a bakery of his own back home, a project he has already discussed with Construmex.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_29/b3943007_mz001.htm
Mexico
Once a month 28-year-old Ignacio Moreno (not his real surname) walks to a small storefront on Chicago's West 26th Street and plunks down $380. It's not the rent for his two-bedroom apartment, where he lives with his wife and two kids, but an installment payment on his dream home back in Mexico. A bakery employee who works the night shift since the family came to the U.S. illegally in late 2003, Moreno is paying for $10,000 worth of cement, gravel, and bricks for the four-bedroom house he's building on the outskirts of the Mexican capital.
Moreno isn't paying a bank. He's giving his hard-earned money to the Mexican cement giant Cemex (CX ) through its Construmex program. The idea is to target migrants living in the U.S., who sent an estimated $16 billion in remittances last year -- some $3 billion of which was intended for construction, according to a Construmex market survey. Money transfers can be expensive, and family members back home frequently spend the money on other things. And many immigrants don't know how much cement to buy or how to build a roof, so their hard-earned savings often are wasted. That's where Construmex comes in: Its architects help clients design home plans and calculate how much material to deliver and at what time intervals. The company also finances the purchase of the construction materials.
In two years, Monterrey-based Construmex has helped 4,500 migrants living in the U.S. build homes or small businesses in Mexico. This year it expects $3.8 million in revenue, a mere hint of the potential. "We're certain that there's a very large, unsatisfied demand out there," says Hector Ureta, Cemex' director for low-income programs. The company's studies show that 58% of Mexican migrants to the U.S. intend to build in their home towns.
Just as some U.S. companies are tapping the undocumented market, some Mexican companies see opportunity in following customers who head north of the border. After all, many migrants straddle both worlds -- working in the U.S. but maintaining homes in Mexico. So far most cross-border efforts are housing-related campaigns conducted through U.S. branch offices. Grupo Famsa, a Monterrey-based retailer of home appliances, has nine stores in California and three in Texas, where migrants can buy a product and have it delivered to relatives in Mexico.
Then there's Hipotecaria Su Casita, a Mexico City-based mortgage lender that opened an office in Denver in 2003 and has made 350 peso-denominated mortgages, averaging $55,000, for migrants wishing to purchase a home in Mexico. Most of Su Casita's loans are for 20 or 25 years and charge 12% to 13.5% interest -- high for the U.S. but typical for Mexican mortgages. The company doesn't ask clients whether they're in the U.S. legally, but it requires evidence of earnings, such as paycheck stubs, bank statements, or a letter from an employer. So far none of its clients has missed a payment. "They don't want to risk losing their credit rating or the house they bought," says Eduardo Uranga, who heads Su Casita's migrant program. Su Casita's U.S. loan portfolio totals just $15 million, but Uranga predicts that 1,000 new mortgages will be issued in 2006. He expects that number to rise to 3,000 annually within five years. In May, Su Casita opened a Dallas office and will add others in Los Angeles and Chicago later this year.
Back in Mexico City, Moreno's mother, Alfreda Rosales, 55, stands proudly at her son's construction site. The former laundress shares a cramped room with her daughter and grandson as they await the completion of the 1,400-square-foot home. "Ignacio has always been a hard-working boy," she says, wiping away a tear. In a few years, Moreno plans to live in the new house with his family and mamá. Now he's thinking bigger -- a bakery of his own back home, a project he has already discussed with Construmex.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Interesting article, Waitone.
Howesomever, 4,500 out of some 11 million is small potatoes. That leaves some 10,995,500 who are doing other things with their money.
Although I haven't been to Mexico City since 1978, I note that back then the population was estimated at some 17 million, which was the population of all of Mexico at the time of the Revolution in 1910. I was told that the city was growing at a rate of a Dallas a year, or some 600,000 per year. Again, 1978.
So, 4,500 is maybeso a nice number of customers for a business seeking to expand, but it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things...
, Art
Howesomever, 4,500 out of some 11 million is small potatoes. That leaves some 10,995,500 who are doing other things with their money.
Although I haven't been to Mexico City since 1978, I note that back then the population was estimated at some 17 million, which was the population of all of Mexico at the time of the Revolution in 1910. I was told that the city was growing at a rate of a Dallas a year, or some 600,000 per year. Again, 1978.
So, 4,500 is maybeso a nice number of customers for a business seeking to expand, but it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things...
, ArtWaitone
Member
Purpose in quoting the article was to show the impending problem with assimilation into US society. We already know some $13 billion IIRC transferred back to family in Mexico. I happen to think the figure is waaaay low, but I digress. The article shows how capitalism flourishes when there is freedom to meet unmet demand. The demand is for livable housing in Mexico. Mexicans are not free for whatever reason to earn sufficient wealth to build housing to meet their needs in Mexico. So the solution is to enter the US to satisfy a demand there , accumulate wealth in the US, and send it to Mexico to provide for family. There is no intent to assimilate into US culture. What is happening to the US is a direct result of cultural conditions in Mexico. The solution the elites of our society are implementing will do nothing to fix the underlying problem. It merely puts a bandaid over a tumor.
- Status
