Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
In this week's Friday Funnies, Chip Bok portrays a heated argument about immigration.
|6.22.07 @ 9:26AM|#
I agree with thoreau, when he agrees with carrick, who intends to agree with MikeP.
|6.22.07 @ 9:54AM|#
HAGGIS FRITTERS ARE THE SNACK FOOD OF CHAMPIONS.
I just had some for breakfast. I thank Urkobold for enlightening me
on such a tasty product. I'll try not to leave crumbs.
biologist|6.22.07 @ 9:54AM|#
I've never liked Bok's stuff before, and this one didn't make me change my mind.
|6.22.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Haggis fritters are best with Scotch, but, if you find Scotch as
unpalatable as I do, bourbon and Tennessee whiskey are acceptable
substitutes.
Here's a
lovely haggis recipe for those who have a hankerin'. As for the
haggis fritters, why just take the haggis, cut it up, roll the
pieces in flour and/or breadcrumbs, and deep fry! Volià!
ed|6.22.07 @ 10:26AM|#
I disagree with anyone who feels the need to type in caps.
Except the retarded.
They don't know any better.
URKOBOLD&TRADE|6.22.07 @ 10:38AM|#
URKOBOLD DISAGREES WITH ANYONE WHO DOESN'T TYPE IN CAPS. THEY REMIND URKOBOLD OF PHYSICISTS. URKOBOLD DISLIKES PHYSICISTS.
Mike Laursen|6.22.07 @ 11:48AM|#
I can't tell whether I agree or disagree with Dan T., 'cause I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
|6.22.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible,
reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a
whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass
the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including
Mexico.
But from where I sit, that benighted country looks to me like an
even far bigger basket case than it was just fifteen years ago. A
small handful of super-wealthy oligarchs controls virtually
everything, while the vast majority still live like peasants. Much
of the northern part of Mexico near the border is all but
ungoverned, and has metastasized into a virtual war zone where drug
and people smugglers battle it out for supremacy on the streets
with military-grade automatic weaponry. It has literally become one
of the most dangerous places in the world outside of the Sunni
Triangle. And the violence is even beginning to spill over onto our
side, with violent physical attacks on American law enforcement
increasing by the week. It's only a matter of time before one of
these guys shoots and kills one of our Border Agents.
And in the meantime, the poor peasants can't get out of that
hellhole to the North fast enough. By this time tomorrow, another
three to four thousand will have crossed over. It is estimated that
10% of the population of Mexico now resides in the
United States, and that number looks to continue to go up.
So, I'm not sure exactly what it is that NAFTA has achieved after
more than thirteen years, because it didn't prevent Mexico from
turning into what it is today: an utterly failed state.
|6.22.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible,
reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a
whole?
Accepting everything you say about Mexico for the sake of argument,
how would things have been different without NAFTA?
Unilaterally dropping trade barriers is good for the US
regardless of whether Mexico does as well. The same is
true from Mexico's side.
If your argument is that the NAFTA agreement was n-½ pages too long
and that hidden in the fine print were mechanisms for specific
government and corporate meddling that actively made things worse,
I'd be interested in hearing details.
If your argument is that Mexico's troubles are proof that NAFTA
should not have been passed, that's quite a bit less plausible.
|6.22.07 @ 2:05PM|#
NAFTA [...] didn't prevent Mexico from turning into what it
is today: an utterly failed state.
If there were libertarians saying fifteen years ago that NAFTA
would prevent Mexico's corrupt government from further screwing
things up for Mexicans, I apologize on their behalf. Of course, I
don't remember this claim actually being made.
And the violence is even beginning to spill over onto our side,
with violent physical attacks on American law enforcement
increasing by the week. It's only a matter of time before one of
these guys shoots and kills one of our Border Agents.
So none of them have been shot and killed yet? What sort
of violence is spilling over, exactly? Slap-fights? Noogies? It
doesn't sound as dangerous as you let on.
It is estimated that 10% of the population of Mexico now
resides in the United States, and that number looks to continue to
go up.
10%? Really? I don't know how many Mexican immigrants we get per
year, or how much of Mexico's population that represents, but that
seems pretty high to me. Who, exactly, is doing this estimating you
speak of? Have you a link, perchance?
|6.22.07 @ 2:24PM|#
10%? Really?
Mexico - Population: 108,700,891 (July 2007 est.)
I keep hearing 10 to 12 million illegals already in the US
so this doesn't sound that far off to me.
It's worth keeping in mind though that the same sorts of estimates
could apply to several European countries at earlier times.
eg Sweden. Of course Sweden stopped hemmorhaging emmigrants as
living conditions for the masses improved in the late 19th C.
Sweden even got wealthy enough that they could adopt a massive and
generous welfare state.
undp|6.22.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible,
reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a
whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass
the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including
Mexico.
I'm not a libertarian, but
here is some data. Mexico is relatively highly developed for a
Latin American country, which makes it relatively highly developed
globally. Of the ~1.2 billion people living on less that $1/day
(PPP adjusted), very few are in Mexico. The reason people leave
Mexico for the US isn't so much their abject poverty at home, but
because their wages will triple (or better) after just a short trip
north. Also, as you can see, Mexico's HDI has grown fairly steadily
since 1990, faster than it did in the 80's (but not as fast as the
late 70's).
As for being a failed state, there are
these rankings by Foreign policy. Unfortunately, Mexico doesn't
make the top 60, so you can't see how their numbers break down. But
you can see where the real failed states are in the Western
Hemisphere, like Haiti (and to a much lesser extent Bolivia and
Guatemala).
10%? Really? I don't know how many Mexican immigrants we get
per year, or how much of Mexico's population that represents, but
that seems pretty high to me. Who, exactly, is doing this
estimating you speak of? Have you a link, perchance?
Mexico's population is about 110 million, which is consistent with
the oft cited statistic that the US has 10-12 million resident
illegal aliens (presumably mostly Mexican).
Or maybe not|6.22.07 @ 10:11PM|#
NAFTA flooded Mexico with cheap corn from Iowa, forcing millions
of Mexican farmers to seek (and find) a better life in the USA.
Which increases the net productivity of Mexican labor, and makes
the whole world richer.
Michael P.Miale | June 22, 2007, 11:59am | #
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable
case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole?
Or maybe not|6.22.07 @ 10:19PM|#
...makes the whole world (incuding Mexico and USA) richer. Rising tides..All boats. There are more winners than losers.
|6.23.07 @ 12:47AM|#
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible,
reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a
whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass
the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including
Mexico.
Many libertarians think that NAFTA was a mockery of free trade, and
I agree with them--you don't need an agreement between governments
for free trade. All you need to do is lower the barriers: NAFTA set
up a whole host of new regulations. Here's one criticism by James
Sheehan, who's an expert on NAFTA:
http://tinyurl.com/ythm23
Plus, the drug wars and the restrictions on immigration might have
something to do with the problem: the "War on Drugs" makes it so
that only the most violent people can make money off of drugs, and
immigration restrictions provide another avenue for them to make
money by smuggling people. Also, the Mexican gov't is pretty dumb
too, ya know.
|6.24.07 @ 12:02AM|#
NAFTA does export jobs.
http://www.imfmetal.org/main/index.cfm?n=103&l=2&c=9694&mwId=9692
|6.26.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible,
reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a
whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass
the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including
Mexico."
I'm not a libertarian, but I think it's been great for Mexico. It
has enabled them to ship us duty-free goods, while we pay duty
through the nose for the goods we ship them.
It's also helped clear out millions of uneducated citizens with no
skills other than running in gangs and being "macho".
Nafta's good for Mexico.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245