If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?

[Universe Prince]

Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States? Why not arrange reciprocal rights first? Like there exists between Montana and New York citizens, which was the cornerstone of your argument.

Aren't you the guy to criticizes me for being an idealist, not considering the practical issues? And now you want to know why can't we just make Mexico be like the U.S. before we open the border?

And you're still haven't explained why we should care that Mexico has a different constitution than the U.S., which apparently is the cornerstone of your argument. Any chance you'll around to that explanation sometime soon?

[Plane]

Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States? Why not arrange reciprocal rights first? Like there exists between Montana and New York citizens, which was the cornerstone of your argument.

Aren't you the guy to criticizes me for being an idealist, not considering the practical issues? And now you want to know why can't we just make Mexico be like the U.S. before we open the border?

And you're still haven't explained why we should care that Mexico has a different constitution than the U.S., which apparently is the cornerstone of your argument. Any chance you'll around to that explanation sometime soon?

The 13 Colonies that met in convention to write our Constitution coud have been soveren states , if they were not under pressure to pool their strength.

There were many compromises hammered out in the Constitution and as a result the very diffrent states surrendered sgnifigant soverenty to the Federal Government .

Remember that there was a period between the Declaration of Independance and the Constitutional Convention , and that signing in was volentary .

The government of Mexico seems to feel no compulsion to undergo such a negotiated deal , but without the negotiation what is the deal?

[BT]

Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States?

Question repeated.

And my answer to your question lies in my question.

It is a one sided arrangement.

Ball in your court,  dodge it or play it.

[Universe Prince]

The government of Mexico seems to feel no compulsion to undergo such a negotiated deal , but without the negotiation what is the deal?

So you were complaining about the U.S. losing sovereignty, but you are now complaining that Mexico won't give up its sovereignty to the U.S.? What's up with that?

[Universe Prince]

Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States?

Question repeated.

Yeah, I noticed that. You're stingy with your answers, but you seem persnickety about not getting answers you want.

And my answer to your question lies in my question.

It is a one sided arrangement.

Ball in your court,  dodge it or play it.

No, actually the ball is still in your court. It's laying there, dead, on the floor, because you're not hitting it. The rest of us are waiting for you do something about it.

And no, the answer to my question does not lie in your question. What, exactly, is the one sided arrangement? Not demanding Mexico become a carbon copy of the U.S.? Is that your idea of a fair arrangement, Mexico forcibly restructure your government and culture, and we'll stop needlessly interfering in immigration? Now that seems a tad one-sided.

Anyway, your question is weak at best because no one was talking about a one-way transfer. Leastways, I don't recall anyone suggesting we stop people from moving to Mexico. And since you repeated the question, I'll repeat what I said before in response. Aren't you the guy to criticizes me for being an idealist, not considering the practical issues? And now you want to know why can't we just make Mexico be like the U.S. before we open the border?

Which brings us back to where we were. You keep making vague comments and asking vague questions to the effect that Mexico not being under the U.S. Constitution is grounds for strict control of immigration. So far, you haven't explained why this is so. You just just keep saying it is without offering an explanation. And for whatever reason I keep playing along, thinking eventually you'll actually explain your position. If you haven't got an explanation, then this is all a waste of time.

Please feel free to pick up the ball and resume play.

[BT]

Let's try this again. Hopefully you can keep up.

You advocate open borders, much like the borders between states here in the US.

I state that that is an imperfect analogy because the states operate under the full faith clause which means the constitutional protections afforded a New Yorker also apply to a Montanan.

No where did i say Mexico should give up its sovereignty.  I did say that their laws should reflect parity with the constitution of the US. My proposal to expand the borders was based on a federation of independent provinces much like the Canadian system. Equal protect yet a strong home rule.

I did say that open borders should go both ways and you seem to think that is not a fair request. You seem to say that i should give you a key to my house, but i shouldn't request a key to your house in return.

Your solution is hardly reciprocal and is hardly fair. Yet you think that is the best course for the US and you still haven't told me why. Talk about dead balls.

I presume you espouse this based on some high standing moral ideals and i say pooh yi to that unless parity is brought to the exchange.

[Universe Prince]

Let's try this again. Hopefully you can keep up.

Hopefully.

You advocate open borders, much like the borders between states here in the US.

I state that that is an imperfect analogy because the states operate under the full faith clause which means the constitutional protections afforded a New Yorker also apply to a Montanan.

I'll grant you it's imperfect. (Most analogies are.) But it is still apt.

I did say that their laws should reflect parity with the constitution of the US.

And I note that I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why.

I did say that open borders should go both ways and you seem to think that is not a fair request.

No. I believe I suggested it was not an absolutely necessary request.

You seem to say that i should give you a key to my house, but i shouldn't request a key to your house in return.

No. I'm saying opening the borders does not require reciprocal action from Mexico. That would certainly be better for both countries, but not a necessity. You can give me a key to your house whether or not you get a key from me.

Your solution is hardly reciprocal and is hardly fair. Yet you think that is the best course for the US and you still haven't told me why.

Fair according to whose standard? I didn't say open borders without reciprocal action from Mexico was the best course. I referred merely to open borders as the best course. How many times have I discussed why I support open borders and still you don't know why I support them?

I presume you espouse this based on some high standing moral ideals and i say pooh yi to that unless parity is brought to the exchange.

Yes, you seem to constantly have the impression that anything I post must be based on some lofty, impractical ideals. And apparently, you get to apply your ideals, like insisting on Mexico laws reflecting parity with the U.S. Constitution, but I'm somehow the impractical one for suggesting we don't really need that. I think you've got it backwards. Trying to hammer out some deal whereby Mexico agrees to become more like the U.S. and then having open borders is a completely impractical approach. Open the borders to labor and trade, and the change in Mexico policy will follow. Not overnight, no. But eventually, yes. The problem with your plan is you're still trying to control every aspect of the situation. We don't need to try to control it all, and trying to control it is definitely not the practical solution.

[BT]

If it is a one way transaction, there is no impetus for Mexicans to have the opportunity to work closer to home. No reason for massive investment, no reason for job creation as a result of that investment simply because the current system in Mexico is corrupt and a riskier investment than many other countries that have less corruption and greater protections in place.

Why should Del Monte build a cannery in Mexico if they have to fear that their managers will be kidnapped or their property nationalized.

Mexican risk life and limb to come here because of opportunities that are not available at home. Fix that problem and you alleviate the need to migrate. And by fixing those problems perhaps more Anglos will migrate to Mexico bringing the need for more locally produced goods and services. It's a in win for both countries.

[Universe Prince]

Mexican risk life and limb to come here because of opportunities that are not available at home. Fix that problem and you alleviate the need to migrate.

I have said that many times. That is, in point of fact, one of the reasons I advocate open trade. And it's one of the reasons I think your plan of fix Mexico now, open border later is backwards.

If it is a one way transaction,

If what is a one way transaction?

If it is a one way transaction, there is no impetus for Mexicans to have the opportunity to work closer to home. No reason for massive investment, no reason for job creation as a result of that investment simply because the current system in Mexico is corrupt and a riskier investment than many other countries that have less corruption and greater protections in place.

Yet some businesses have already moved some operations to Mexico. I believe I heard not long ago that the Hershey Company (the one that makes the chocolate) had moved or was going to be moving a part of their operation to Mexico.

Why should Del Monte build a cannery in Mexico if they have to fear that their managers will be kidnapped or their property nationalized.

I don't know about building in Mexico, but I believe Del Monte has acquired businesses that already operated in Mexico.

[BT]

If what is a one way transaction?

Opening the borders one way, northward.

[Universe Prince]

Opening the borders one way, northward.

So what evidence do we have that Mexico's borders are closed or at least as strictly controlled as the American border supposedly should be? Are there people waiting for 10 years to get legal entrance to Mexico? Are there U.S. citizens who have to leave their families behind because of Mexico's immigration laws? Make the case that it would be "a one way transaction".

[BT]

As stated earlier Mexican immigration laws require an in demand skill or visible means of support. Much like our laws.

You are advocating that the US do away with even that limited requirement, yet i see no clarion call from you for Mexico to do the same.

What's up with that?

[Universe Prince]

As stated earlier Mexican immigration laws require an in demand skill or visible means of support. Much like our laws.

Okay. So, as I was saying: Are there people waiting for 10 years to get legal entrance to Mexico? Are there U.S. citizens who have to leave their families behind because of Mexico's immigration laws? I want to see some evidence that immigrating to Mexico is so hard open U.S. borders would be "a one way transaction". You made the assertion, now back it up.

You are advocating that the US do away with even that limited requirement, yet i see no clarion call from you for Mexico to do the same.

What's up with that?

One, I don't live in Mexico. Two, Mexico's immigration laws are not something that really come up as topic much here or anywhere else I go. I'm sure if I knew more about Mexico's immigration situation (Are there people waiting for 10 years to get legal entrance to Mexico? Are there U.S. citizens who have to leave their families behind because of Mexico's immigration laws? Are there Mexicans insisting on a tightening of border control to stop a flood of Americans ruining Mexico sovereignty and culture, stealing jobs from Mexicans, refusing to conform to Mexican society?) I might decide to form a more concerned opinion about Mexico's immigration laws. In the mean time, I tend to stick to the notion that we ought to clean up our own damn mess rather than make demands on other countries.

[gipper]

Somehow lost in this discussion between the game debaters Prince and BT is the notion of boundary and its range of purposes. Indeed, carried to a logical conclusion, Prince's "open border" tendencies might be misconstrued as the first steps to a much more communally-oriented society.

[Universe Prince]

Yeah, that would be misconstruing my position, but not by much. Think less communally-oriented and more community-minded.