I know about the corruption going on but why is the gap widening? I thought the free trade agreement was to help the mexican people in having more industry there. If we are so good at getting mixed up in human affairs all over the world, why aren't we just taking over Mexico and force the government to do something about the plight of their people. We do it everywhere else in the world. Is it because the have no oil? That can't be it because I heard they do. Or, is it because they have no nuclear program? If that's the case, it just goes to show that the government has other motives when saying it is doing it for the good of human interest.
2006-07-04 21:25:39 · 5 answers · asked by SonoranAngel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sorry- accidently got posted twice when adding something to question after it was posted
2006-07-04 21:41:36 · update #1
Wait, Mexico has a middle class?
To rebut your points, in order...
Nafta opened companys across the border, not labour or laws pertaining to labour. So rich American countries can get away with making large profits using mexicans and offering them no healthcare or safety at the workplace. So all the help is not going to the Mexican People
We aren't taking over Mexico because they aren't a physical threat to the United States, like Iraq was.
Mexico DOES have oil. Lots of it.
The Mexican government is one of the most corrupt in the world, from top to bottom. The average person begins to bribe people starting around age 13, to their teachers. Presidents have constantly stolen money from the tresury in the past. And most politicians are only out there for their own interests.
2006-07-04 21:57:22 · answer #1 · answered by chris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they have plenty of oil, which is why they should be rich but they are just BEYOND corrupt in Mexico.
As for middle class disappearing in Mexico... I wasn't aware there was a middle class? They are dirt poor, and the drug dealers and corrupt government folks are rich, which is why at least 50% say they want to come to the United States, while already about 10% live here.
I'm just really confused about the question because I don't think Mexico is "going down hill", I think they've been sitting at the bottom of it for a long time.
As for "taking over"... what? What other country have we "taken over"? We've gone to war over threats, whether you agree with that or not... we didn't envelope these countries to make them part of the US... That's just dumb. We're already handling Mexico's poor problem by spending billions in social programs on illegal immigrants... do we really want to take 100 million + more of them?
2006-07-04 21:32:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
(not positive why you requested this two times, yet i will answer two times) certain they have an excellent style of oil, that is why they should be prosperous yet they're only previous corrupt in Mexico. As for center classification disappearing in Mexico... I wasn't conscious there turned right into a center classification? they're airborne dirt and mud adverse, and the drug sellers and corrupt authorities people are prosperous, that is why a minimal of 50% say they need to come back to the united states, even as already about 10% stay the following. i'm in simple terms truly puzzled about the question because i do not imagine Mexico is "taking position hill", i imagine they have been sitting on the bottom of it for a lengthy time period. As for "taking up"... what? What different united states have we "taken over"? we've gone to warfare over threats, even if you compromise with that or not... we did not envelope those international locations to cause them to area of the U. S.... that is in simple terms dumb. we are already dealing with Mexico's adverse situation by using spending billions in social classes on unlawful immigrants... can we truly want to take 100 million + extra of them?
2016-10-14 03:31:21 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Middle class is disappearing all over the world, soon it will be a handfull of rich people and the rest will be poor.
2006-07-08 20:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"We've gone to war over threats, whether you agree with that or not... we didn't envelope these countries to make them part of the US"
Actually...
Manifest Destiny+President Polk= Taking land to make it part of the US under the pretense of threats.
2006-07-04 21:36:11 · answer #5 · answered by Walter 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋