Mexico to U.S.: "We Love You." U.S. to Mexico: "Um...Thanks."

Mexicans don't feel too good about their country these days: More than two-thirds think the country's crime, drugs, economics, and corruption are "a big problem." But most agree that things look greener on the other side of the border fence

Most believe life is better in the United States. Close to six-in-ten (57%) say that people who move from Mexico enjoy a better life in the U.S., up from 51% in 2007. And the vast majority of those who are in regular contact with friends and relatives living in the U.S. say those friends and relatives have largely achieved their goals.

A substantial minority of Mexicans say that if they had the means and opportunity to go live in the U.S. they would do so, and more than half of those who would migrate if they had the chance say they would do so without authorization.

Not only do they want to be with us, Mexicans love our president:

In a pattern found throughout much of the world, President Barack Obama receives considerably more favorable reviews than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Interestingly, however, Mexico is one of the few countries included in the survey where the U.S. as a country receives higher marks than President Obama or the American people.

Sadly, Obama is following in his predecessor's footstep, with continued crackdowns on illegals

For more, read Reason on why we need guest workers, and why an open border is a great humanitarian act.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Joshua Holmes||

    Shut the preemptive fuck up, LoneWacko.

  • ||

    A preemptive STFU, LoneWacko.

    Really. I mean it. Nobody wants to hear your drivel or visit the concentrated insanity you call a website.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Not only do they want to be with us, Mexicans love our president:

    Then why don't they take him? Might want to teach him another language first.

  • Sandi||

    I took a shit in Mexico once. Surprisingly compact.

  • ||

    Obama's "predeceasor"? Ah, if only...

  • ||

    Well actually, as long as he's still alive, everyone who ever has died is his "predeceasor."

    What you long for is his survivors - i.e., all of the rest of us who remain after he's gone.

  • Person of Color (beige)||

    Mexicans love our president

    Brown people identify with other brown people? Moreso than with white people?
    Isn't that, you know, the "r" word?

  • Xeones||

    Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.

  • ||

    Shut the fuck up, all you preemptive LoneReject shut-the-fuck-uppers. I want to hear what His Retardedness feels about the love.

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    ¿Por qué una persona nacida en un lado de un río, tienen más derechos que alguien nacido en el otro lado?

  • Naga Sadow||

    LoneEpi is it now? Are you on his 24 hour news team?

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    Obama es un tirano. La mayoría de los mexicanos no saben que sin embargo. Dales tiempo.

  • Alas, Poor Mexico!||

    So far from God, so close to the United States.

  • Jeff Scott||

    I have no problem with a lawful guest worker program; open borders, I do have a problem with, for two reasons:

    1) Our massive welfare state. We can't sustain it financially with the American citizens we have now, much less with an influx of the world's poor.
    2) Flooding the labor market with cheap labor that will send the money out of the United States while deflating wages for American citizens.

    Of course, if you remove the welfare state and minimum wage laws both points are moot, and there probably wouldn't be a need for a guest worker program. We still need to have border security for the purposes of national security anyway.

    This is my first post and I don't know who LoneWacko is, so I'll refrain from telling him to STFU.

  • ||

    More than two-thirds think the country's crime, drugs, economics, and corruption are "a big problem."

    Apparently we're not the only ones who think home sucks. At least we have Sunday Ticket.

  • ll blow j||

    "¿Por qué una persona nacida en un lado de un río, tienen más derechos que alguien nacido en el otro lado?"

    Stupid mucho?

  • ||

    Naga, are you ready for the road trip to Mexico? But we need to go to the Italian Market for some chairs. You like haggling, right? What do you mean you've never eaten a pear?

  • ll blow j||

    "Obama es un tirano. La mayoría de los mexicanos no saben que sin embargo. Dales tiempo."

    RACISTA!

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "We still need to have border security for the purposes of national security anyway."

    Funny, before people even knew what a passport was and before the United States started to meddle in the afairs of other countries this was not an issue. It was not that many years ago when I would travel across Lake Erie to Pelle Island just to buy wine (that have great wine) and I did not need a passport.

  • Richard||

    Btw, the story at the link clarifies that the "substantial minority" of Mexicans that would move here if they could is one third. That's 35 million people, the majority of whom have little education and speak little-to-no English. I foresee no problem with that at all.

  • fortyouncer||

    We knew this when they put him on their stamps.

  • ll blow j||

    "Funny, before people even knew what a passport was and before the United States started to meddle in the afairs of other countries this was not an issue. It was not that many years ago when I would travel across Lake Erie to Pelle Island just to buy wine (that have great wine) and I did not need a passport."

    Los tiempos cambian.

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    "Stupid mucho?"

    Si todo lo que tenemos son insultos que no tienen ningún argumento.

  • ||

    We still need to have border security for the purposes of national security anyway.

    Pssst: The 9/11 attackers came here legally.

  • PLant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "Los tiempos cambian."

    It was not "times that changed" but U.S. policies that changed. How often is Swizerland a victim of terror bombings?

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pear? Never had one. Or a blueberry. Or strawberry. You know what? I'm gonna have to pass on the gypsy market. What's it like out there? I've never been outta Philly.

  • ||

    1) Our massive welfare state. We can't sustain it financially with the American citizens we have now, much less with an influx of the world's poor.

    Simple. Don't give them welfare, just like illegal immigrants today.

    Frankly, even legal immigrants shouldn't get any welfare. There should be no incentive to migrate save the free market. But migration should be free.

  • ||

    Sadly, Obama is following in his predeceasor's footstep[s]

    Rather, Obama seems to follow on the footsteps of the Mexican president Luis Echeverria - same economic arguments, same profligacy; Obama just needs to wear a guayabera and glasses and he can look the part.

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    "RACISTA!"

    Yo estaría dispuesto a votar por Walter E. Williams.

  • ll blow j||

    "Si todo lo que tenemos son insultos que no tienen ningún argumento."

    Nos guste o no, hay cosas que se llaman estas fronteras nacionales. Pero supongo que lo sabías. Para repetir, estúpido mucho?

  • ||

    ¿Por qué una persona nacida en un lado de un río, tienen más derechos que alguien nacido en el otro lado?

    No jodas, pendejo. Los merecimientos ("entitlements") NO son derechos. Las personas tienen los mismos derechos en un lado de la linea que del otro - lo que cambia es el tipo de tirania. La de los EE.UU. es una tirania de leyes y legisladores; la de Mexico, de trogloditas estatistas.

  • ll blow j||

    "It was not "times that changed" but U.S. policies that changed."

    Boo fucking hoo.

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "Boo fucking hoo."

    Tell that to the families of 9/11. They are the victims of U.S. meddling in other countries.

  • ||

    Frankly, even legal immigrants shouldn't get any welfare. There should be no incentive to migrate save the free market. But migration should be free.

    That is the most reasonable argument I have heard. For instance, I do not receive nor would I want to receive any entitlement, since I am not some thief (the money came from someone's pocket, taken by force and coercion at gunpoint, from a working American.)

  • ||

    I could really use some hot dogs, Naga. What do you say we smash up these wicker chairs and burn them, and cook the hot dogs that way?

  • Jeff Scott||

    Simple. Don't give them welfare, just like illegal immigrants today.

    Easier said than done (we are talking about government operations here). President Obama's illegal alien aunt lives in government housing in Boston, and how many thousands or even millions of illegal aliens are receiving some sort of welfare now, even if it's just "free" medical care from them popping into a hospital and skipping out on the bill? Hospitals in the Southwest are experiencing billions of dollars in losses because they are caring for illegal aliens.

    Frankly, even legal immigrants shouldn't get any welfare. There should be no incentive to migrate save the free market. But migration should be free.

    Frankly, even American citizens shouldn't get any welfare.

  • ll blow j||

    Thank you, FTG.

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    "Nos guste o no, hay cosas que se llaman estas fronteras nacionales."

    La nacionalidad es un contruct legal. No es una cuestión moral. No reconozco la legitimidad de la provincia no gubernamentales.

  • ll blow j||

    "They are the victims of U.S. meddling in other countries."

    Stupid mucho, mucho, mucho, puta!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Sounds good. Good thing you duct taped the U-Haul door open. Could get dangerous.

  • ||

    Most believe life is better in the United States.

    The problem is that Mexicans do not realize WHY life is better in the US than in Mexico (at least, for now). Mexicans have been indoctrinated by our public school system (just slightly worse than the American system) into thinking Capitalism is exploitative and unjust; so it is difficult for Mexicans to ponder on the fact that America is richer because of the protection to property rights, at least, nominally better than in Mexico, where community-organized bums can homestead someone's property with the complacency of the authorities. The government can seize land at leisure, without even bothering with procedures like Eminent Domain - the executive simply orders it! With such disregard for property rights, no wonder investment is low in Mexico, plus crime WILL be rampant.

    Indeed, Mexicans are lead to believe America is richer because they exploit poor countries (talk about a non sequitur, but that is the main tool of the leftists: the non sequitur!)

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    "Los merecimientos ("entitlements") NO son derechos. Las personas tienen los mismos derechos en un lado de la linea que del otro - lo que cambia es el tipo de tirania. La de los EE.UU. es una tirania de leyes y legisladores; la de Mexico, de trogloditas estatistas."

    Entonces estamos de acuerdo. ¿Por qué eres hostil?

  • Rich||

    Mexicans love our president:

    Then why don't they take him?


    How about a new reality show: "President Swap"?

  • ll blow j||

    "La nacionalidad es un contruct legal. No es una cuestión moral. No reconozco la legitimidad de la provincia no gubernamentales."

    Buena suerte con eso.

  • ||

    Btw, the story at the link clarifies that the "substantial minority" of Mexicans that would move here if they could is one third. That's 35 million people, the majority of whom have little education and speak little-to-no English. I foresee no problem with that at all.

    Except for a period of insanity during the 1950's, there was virtually free migration between the US and Mexico from 1848 all the way through the Clinton Administration -- not to mention the three centuries before.

    People migrate because there are better opportunities somewhere else. The first 10 million in a decade will find opportunities. The second and third 10 million? Not so much.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    "Stupid mucho, mucho, mucho, puta!"

    Obviously all you have is very emotional insults. I recommend you do some research on the reasons the United States was actually attacked on September 11, 2001.

  • ||

    Man, Naga, there must have been something in the glaze...knocked us right out.

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    "Buena suerte con eso."

    No necesito suerte. Tengo la verdad.

  • wacklono||

    Why doesn't the US just make Mexico a state? We could collect taxes ont hem, and they wouldn't have to illegally enter the US, they'd be here already. They have oil, right? Done!

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    "Why doesn't the US just make Mexico a state?"

    I have a much better idea. Abolish both governments altogether.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    They couls all be DC bus drivers.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Damn gypsy's sold us glazed wicker chairs!

  • Naga Sadow||

    I gotta get ready for work, Epi. Later.

  • ||

    Entonces estamos de acuerdo. ¿Por qué eres hostil?

    I gathered from the question that you assumed people have less rights than others depending on which side of the border they lived. If what I assumed from the question is incorrect, I apologize for calling you a dimwit.

  • ||

    Why doesn't the US just make Mexico a state? We could collect taxes ont hem, and they wouldn't have to illegally enter the US, they'd be here already. They have oil, right? Done!


    Mexico has belonged to the US, always.

    Also, "we" do not collect taxes, Kimo Sabay. It is the State and its cohorts of impersonal bureaucrats that extort the money from people at gunpoint, not "We".

  • ll blow j||

    "Obviously all you have is very emotional insults. I recommend you do some research on the reasons the United States was actually attacked on September 11, 2001."

    Hey nice person. I never mentioned 9/11 or national security. My point is simple kitten sweet person, there is this thing called national soverienty. That's just the way it is. Maybe it wasn't always like that, but it is now.

    And sweety, gumdrop person, your whole "¿Por qué una persona nacida en un lado de un río, tienen más derechos que alguien nacido en el otro lado?" is sugar sweet unicorn pee as pointed out by FTG at 2:53.

  • ||

    For all the hero worship and adulation Obama gets from the American left and center, it's eleventy-billion times more prevalent abroad, pretty much everywhere.

    From afar, the idea of Obama still prevails in the minds of foreigners. They have yet to actually experience him in any tangible way.

  • Mike M.||

    Our massive welfare state. We can't sustain it financially with the American citizens we have now, much less with an influx of the world's poor.

    I agree, and in my opinion, this is a major problem that libertarians don't spend nearly enough time trying to address in a serious and substantive manner.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    From afar, the idea of Obama still prevails in the minds of foreigners. They have yet to actually experience him in any tangible way.

    You could make pretty much the same statement about advocates of open borders and mass immigration. Practical consequences just don't figure into their calculations.

    John Derbyshire had some interesting things to say on the matter today. Unlike some people, he actually considers the consequences of the policy positions he advocates.

  • ||

    Mi lapiz es muy grande.

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "Mi lapiz es muy grande."

    You have a very large writing implement. Congratulations.

  • cangrejos fantasmas||

    "Mi lapiz es muy grande."

    Mi erasor es más grande.

  • cangrejos fantasmas||

    "You have a very large writing implement. Congratulations."

    At least he's saying something that makes sense.

  • ||

    Practical consequences just don't figure into their calculations.

    Perhaps they do. But when the consistently overstated practical consequences are so overwhelmed by the moral consequences of abrogating the inalienable rights of tens of millions of individuals, their calculations simply show free migration winning out over restrictive immigration law.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    "there is this thing called national sovereignty."

    I never signed this mythical social contract. It is not valid as far as I am concerned. I see no moral difference between the United States Congress and MS13.

  • cangrejos fantasmas||

    "I never signed this mythical social contract."

    And I never signed the mytical social contract prohibiting ass rape. Or the one about paying taxes to the federal government.

    As someone asked you up thread -- stupid much?

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "And I never signed the mythical social contract prohibiting ass rape."

    Rape is a violation of one's natural rights. It is the initiation of physical force and violence against an innocent, unwilling participant. This is very different from the mythical social contract that governments use to lord over their innocent victims.

    "Or the one about paying taxes to the federal government."

    I also oppose paying taxes to the federal government. This is a thing called theft.

  • ||

    La puta esta en su casa.

  • Scott66||

    "free migration winning out over restrictive immigration law."

    Free migration will create restrictive laws for the rest of us. Seriously you think letting in millions of Obama supporters is a net gain in the freedom department?

    "why an open border is a great humanitarian act."

    This is liberal logic along the lines of giving all your money to the poor is a great humanitarian act. It is an emotional argument not an objective one.

    The best thing the US can do for the poor of the world is to try and prrserve a free market economy. The reason billions of people are moving out of poverty across the globe is because staple goods have become cheap. The US moving towards socialism will only hurt people everywhere.

  • 24AheadDotCom||

    1. This article about the Kochtopus and NAFTA was written in 1993, but it could have been written yesterday. In fact, you can see bits of it at this site most every day, such as when KMW refers to enforcing our laws as something "sad".

    2. Two and a half years ago, I called Bush a Quisling for making a pledge to the Mexican government and their people. No matter how much he sold out the U.S. and pandered, he would always be considered a bad guy. There's a lesson there even for hacks like those at this site, but they aren't smart enough to learn it.

  • ||

    The best thing the US can do for the poor of the world is to try and prrserve a free market economy.

    "Sorry, Jose. We're trying to preserve a free market economy. There's no place here for your freedom to labor, freedom to reside, and freedom to travel."

    The reason billions of people are moving out of poverty across the globe is because staple goods have become cheap.

    No it's not. The reason people are moving out of poverty across the globe is because of the liberalization of markets.

    Restricting the freedom of markets in the US by restricting the freedom of migration of individuals is harming the liberalization of markets.

  • seguidor de los derechos de la||

    "La puta esta en su casa."

    Así que tienes que ir ahora? Hasta luego.

  • TallDave||

    Do you know why Mexico always does so lousy in the Olympics?

    Because every Mexican who can run, jump or swim is already here in the U.S.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    But when the consistently overstated practical consequences are so overwhelmed by the moral consequences of abrogating the inalienable rights of tens of millions of individuals, their calculations simply show free migration winning out over restrictive immigration law.

    A statement you have repeatedly made - and a "right" you have yet to demonstrate exists.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    I was a naïve teenager when NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton. My hope, at the time, was that it would enable Mexico to quickly develop and become a kind of Latin American version of Japan. What I didn't know at the time was about all of the exceptions and exemptions in the law. It was a phonebook sized treaty. A true free trade treaty does not need to be longer than a single paragraph. I can write it in two sentences:

    "No signatory to this treaty shall not impose any tariff or other tax on any product imported from any other signatory if that product is legal in both the importing and exporting nation and meets all quality and safety standards for such products in both the importing and exporting nation. No signatory to this treaty shall impose any quota or other limits upon the importation of any product that is legal in both the importing and exporting nation and meets all quality and safety standards in both the importing and exporting nation."

    How did I do?

  • ||

    A statement you have repeatedly made - and a "right" you have yet to demonstrate exists.

    The rights I note here are the right to labor, the right of residence, and the the right to travel.

    All of those preexist government. None of those require any force be imposed on anyone else. All of those are the very self-evident unalienable rights endowned by the Creator that Thomas Jefferson wrote of.

    So I gather you think you don't have those rights. Why not?

  • qwerty||

    Sadly, Obama is following in his predecessor's footstep, with continued crackdowns on illegals.

    hehehehehehehehe

    Oh yeah, Bush and Obama are really tough on illegal immigration. Excuse me...

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Marcus Tullius Cicero||

    A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

  • ||

    Wow, shitty quality of life in Mexico. What a suprise,next you will tell me that the demographics in Los Angeles have changed significantly and that the quality of life has coincidentally gone down too. (Just a coincidence of course, of course)

  • jester||

    "For all the hero worship and adulation Obama gets from the American left and center, it's eleventy-billion times more prevalent abroad, pretty much everywhere."

    Mexicans worship the darky version of the Virgin: La Guadalupe. So it's a natural tendency. Humans have an innate tendency to value those that look like them over those that don't. It takes experience and determined study to realize that those that look like you are more likely to fuck you over.

  • jester||

    Q: Why don't Mexicans want to emigrate to Guatemala? There are plenty of beans and corn tortillas there and they speak Spanish.

    A: The border is closed and heavily guarded. Illegal entry involves scaling dangerous erupting volcanoes and risking attack by quetzal birds and jaguars.

  • jester||

    I think if we replaced one of the fifty stars on our flag with a bald eagle eating a snake and hang doily balls on the lower edge, they'd love us more.

  • jester||

    "Oh yeah, Bush and Obama are really tough on illegal immigration. Excuse me..."

    They have raised the cost of an illegal border crossing. Low cost: Mexican worker comes to America for work, builds nest egg, returns to Mexico and starts business. High cost: Mexican worker sends for wife, gets her pregnant and child is born in US insuring his permanent stay. Furthermore, US-born child insures welfare payments to bring family (including and based on Mom, Dad and siblings born in Mexico) to above poverty-level.

    Tough borders increase cost to social welfare programs. It is counter-intuitive, so at least for now I'll refrain from calling you a jackass.

  • jester||

    Tall Dave,

    Q: What about Mexican pole vaulters? Mexican pole dancers? Mexican speedskaters?

    A: No padding on US side; Donkey Shows illegal in US; no hielo.

  • jester||

    "A true free trade treaty does not need to be longer than a single paragraph."

    Amen, brother. But I can do it in one sentence.

    'There shall be free trade (i. e. no duties)between the United States of America and Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.'

    BTW What's a phonebook?

  • jester||

    Y DosCuatroMamadaPutoJaquetero, por favor, te dijeron al inicio. Callate, pinche puto maricon.

  • </a>||

    Oh yeah, Bush and Obama are really tough on illegal immigration. Excuse me...

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    That surprises you? Here's a tip: anything that prevents the US from sliding into 3rd world status will be an object of derision at Reason.

  • MJ||

    "Not only do they want to be with us, Mexicans love our president..."

    Somehow that does not reassure me as to the good effects of importing Mexicans into this country. Sound like we'd be bringing in more the political attitudes that make Mexico a hellhole it;s population is looking to escape.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement