In a way we are at war with Mexico. A war to protect our homeland, and the rights of the people of the United States of America to affordable healthcare, quality schooling and jobs.

Take a look at Mexico's immigration policy. See how they treat even legal residents from other nations in their own country. They have large balls to demand anything from us.

In the long run it may help Mexico live up to it's potential, if suddenly their government had to actually care for it's own people for a change.
 

Protect the homeland from what, exactly? We have the wealthiest, most generous nation in the world -- and one reason it got to be so wealthy and vigorous was its vaunted openness and freedom. (And, of course, cheap labor.) The country still needs both. I don't see what's changed.

I absolutely reject the idea that we're at war with Mexico. I grew up in Southern California and immigrants never offended me.
 

People got all worked up when the president of China came to Washington state and was treated better here than in Washington D.C. Well, Vicente Fox comes next week and it's plain that the state will treat him like a royale. To quote a Bill Clinton mantra: "It's the economy, stupid."
 

In a way, this whole foofaraw about the border is a scheme to distract people's attention from the war, the mess of scandals and indictments in Washington, and the President's falling approval ratings. It's also a bid by the administration to suck up to the conservatives, who are abandoning Bush in ever-increasing numbers. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, in other words.
 

What Ed Ward said. Expect Blair to dynamite the channel tunnel in sympathy any day now...
 

Isn't it, to quote Stephen Colbert, deck cahiars on the Hindenberg?
 

Right. Whipping up racial nonsense while Iraq goes to hell. Kind of what I thought. And Krauthammer's participating, maybe because he was such a cheerleader for the war?
 

I think part of what distinguishes the anti-immigrant backlash we're seeing here from what you get over there--Turks in Denmark, anyone? North Africans in France?--is the sheer scale of the question. Eleven million undocumented is a big number, and one the anti-immigrant forces are blaring from every rooftop.

I would be interested to see how that compares as a percentage of the total population to the number of illegal workers in other countries. If I weren't frantically getting ready to head to L.A. in the morning, I'd look into it myself. Anyone have any idea?
 

"Europe doesn't have walls."

What rubbish.
 

Andy, where's the wall around Europe?
 

Eleven million undocumented workers is about 3 percent of the US population. (Three percent on top of the people who live there.) They contribute around 7 percent of the GNP, according to some statistic I can dig up again. I'll put up European statistics when I find them.
 

My answer is too long to fit in here so I posted it on my blog:

http://iamadoughnut.blogspot.com/2006/05/in-answer-to-mike.html

I always like a debate.
 

Andy, you need to take my sentence in context. I know damn well that Europe has more walls -- legal, bureaucratic, mental, and physical -- than the United States. But Europe doesn't have a wall around its land borders to keep out Turks. That's the kind of thing we're talking about: a wall or series of walls to keep out Mexicans. (Not Canadians.)
 

We have affordable health care? Seriously? Does anyone really think that the US is a great place for affordable health care?
 

Well, *I* don't, but I was hoping someone else would chime in. I think the idea is that illegal immigrants either have made or will make health care more expensive. Which of course is true, but ...
 

I cant really speak about the USA but in the UK I get the exact opposite impression of health care. The costs are going up because of the ageing population, not really because of immigration and especially not because of "illegal" immigration. The health system needs cheap labour in many sectors as well as the import of trained medical labour to survive. The economy needs new labour and population growth to grow in order to pay for health care. The current British population just isnt having enough children or willing to train in health care or do low paid jobs in keeping the system ticking along. If there is (and I think there is) a exploitation question here, then its whether it is right to steal trained medical staff from poorer countries as the effects of this are to take doctors and nursing staff from the very people who need it most and the very countries that cant really afford to lose trained staff.... or am I missing something here?