It would be very cheap to pick them up and put them on greyhound back across the border, build the wall and pay guards to keep them there. Even cheaper to cut off all their benefits they get, if they have to really work to pay for their food, rent, medical, dental, vision, wic and everything else, that would make a big dent in them, they would go back them self. Think they are going to leave if they get this all for free, heck no. that is why they keep sneaking back across. If law enforcement was actually allowed to pick them up and deport them, without being brought up on charges, most of them would probably be gone already. To heck with building Mexico up, let them go home and do it them self, not our problem.
2007-07-07 19:15:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Great, great question.
We've been building up Mexico, whether we've wanted to do so or not, for many years.
We are not the problem. What is the problem? Why is Mexico so poor and America so rich? We have oil, they have oil. We have mineral resources, they have mineral resources. Arable land. Abundant coastlines. Favorable climate.
What's Mexico's problem? It's the same problem that almost every other country in the world has. Their government. Fix the government, and the poverty will go away.
Which is why the cheapest solution is to shut down the border. No more immigration. All those people looking for a better life will force change in their government.
If we give amnesty, we're collaborating with Mexico's corrupt government to keep them in power. The Mexican government does everything it can to encourage and facilitate illegal immigration. We should not help them.
2007-07-07 20:17:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Mexico is a awfully corrupt society, if we send the money down there to fix it how do you know some corrupt people in our government won't get together with some corrupt Mexicans and just steal the money. We could create a growth zone along the border 20 miles in on each side and factories could locate there and work migrants and if they want to come farther north they would need a visa to come up and work as a migrant worker and if they want citizenship they could apply and wait in line like any immigrant.
2007-07-07 19:12:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Berlin Wall was built and used as a symbol to keep the East Berliners from seeing the West. The difference is this: The Soviets did not allow under any circumstances for East Berliners to immigrate west. The US allows people to immigrate here, but you can't break the law doing it! There's a big difference.
2016-05-21 02:28:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're right, we have no obligation to them. After all, we wouldn't want to get into 'nation building' again, and piss off the French. Know what would be cheaper than either of those solutions? A wall. A wall guarded by men with guns. A wall with a big sign that reads 'All Welcome - But You Must Have A Reservation'.
2007-07-07 19:04:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dekardkain 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Just for your information, not all illegals are from Mexico. This country was started by immigrants from EUROPE. You need to read up on your history, or maybe you were out ditching that day, while all the other Mexicans were in there studying. You might also learn that all of the southwestern states were originally part of Mexico. If you are so worried about your job, try and convince all the big corporations to stop outsourcing to other countries like the Phillipines and Thailand. Just another crazy thought!!!!!!! If they do succeed in closing the borders, who is going to pick the fruit, take care of your children, clean your house and do your gardening? If you're not happy with the Melting Pot, go back to the old country.
2007-07-07 19:15:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Avatar 5
·
0⤊
4⤋
It's not that crazy a thought, since foreign aid will be the result if we ever succeed in forcing all the illegals back across the border. Unfortunately, since all the money we sent would be controlled by the corrupt officials who maintain the poverty there already, I doubt that much of it would filter down to the level it needed to get to.
2007-07-07 19:04:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by mommanuke 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Already done. Mexicali is nicer than Calexico and has more jobs. A good Condo in Puerto Penasco will run you $300,000 and you need 40% down, San Felipe isn't far behind. They can't afford to live there but either can a lot of Americans.
So why do you want to take money from Americans and give it to Mexico. That would be like sending Billions a year to Israel...OOps
2007-07-07 19:11:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
It's not America's duty to repair Mexico. If that's the case, Mexico should be a territory of the United States. But, if your idea was realistic I would agree with you.
2007-07-07 19:04:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Liberal City 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The problem with trying to "build them up" is their corrupt government that doesn't care one lick about their citizens.
Mexico is the 3rd richest country in the American continent.
2007-07-07 19:06:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋