Where to in Mexico can Americans move? 300 skulls found in drug-war graves in Veracruz state

Your suggestion is that the United States should only accept immigrants from countries that offer the ability for U.S. citizens to migrate there? If that is correct, then clearly explain your point, because right now you are simply describing a Bannon-driven view that America doesn't have an illegal immigration problem, but a legal immigration problem.

 

No, you haven't been clear.

Bannon HAS been clear:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.ce37aaf1cad4
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/steve-bannon-legal-immigration-problem
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/donald-trump-legal-immigration

 

So you didn't answer either one of my questions. I'd really like to know what you think.

How exactly do we not have the "ability to reciprocate"?

If you absolutely had to chose, would you rather move to Cancun or Ireland during the potato famine? How about 1938 Germany? Please answer the question.

 

Better start the Committee on Finding Opportunity in Every Country except the United States! Gonna need a big staff. . . .

Personally I think that we should demand surplus opportunity from other countries. But, if you are satisfied with just breaking even, to each his own, I guess. I mean, unless the Committee on Finding Opportunity in Every Country except the United States says otherwise. . . .

 

Even within this one post, you sound like you're contradicting yourself, so I don't think it's clear. You say you are not making an argument about legal immigration, and then espouse a change to our approach to immigration policy. You also say you don't espouse isolationism, but complain that there is a unidirectional flow of people because the foreign opportunities are not attractive. The implication is that, in order to stop the non-reciprocal nature of this relationship, we need to slow the inflow because there isn't any ready solution for increasing the outflow. Not trying to argue the points, but maybe you can be more clear because it looks contradictory.

Now to argue the point. I think there is an underlying assumption, perhaps, in your position that sees opportunity in a mercantilist worldview -- that is, there is a finite amount of wealth in the world and people work to get their share of the pie. Specifically here in America, there's a basket of jobs (which grows over time, granted) and Americans and immigrants compete with one another to get them. But the mercantilist view isn't right. People create wealth with their labor and innovation. So adding more people doesn't disenfranchise wholesale the people that are already here. More people means more customers, more opportunity, more innovation, more entrepreneurs, more companies, and more jobs. I'm okay with Americans going to Mexico to find opportunity if they want, but I'm not advocating for it. We're better off if we're a net importer of people. It's healthy for our economy and our society. The one thing I'm cautious of is volatility. We don't want to accept people too quickly or in an ebb and flow because we'll have trouble digesting them. If its at an appropriate rate and predictable, it helps us.

 

Good post. As with many of the Republican ideas they are based on fear and scarcity thinking. If the poor kid gets free school lunch it takes money our of my pocket. As the changes that make the middle class less secure such as the rich paying less taxes, lower minimum wage in terms of buying power, more expensive student tuition and loans etc. it exacerbates this problem.

 

There are a number of areas in Mexico that Americans can move. I would suggest the Yucatan area. There is a lot of minor crime, but very little violent crime. I believe the violent crime rate is lower than many nice areas in America. Move into a gated community and the crime rate falls to close to zero.

They will gladly welcome you and your money. I don't think that I would move there, but I do have some family friends that have moved into that area and are quite happy.

 

I'm going to latch on to this bit in particular because I think there are 2 critical things in this sentence, and one is right and the other wrong. The wrong thing is this: wealth is not constrained. There isn't a basket of jobs. There are jobs out there people can compete for and get, but they can also make jobs themselves. They can create value themselves. It's hard and people do try and fail and some people are constrained by lack of capital or lack of talent or by misfortune. But, there is no cap on wealth creation. A person can literally make a billion dollar business out of a good idea and hard work.

The right thing is that wealth is not uniformly distributed. And I see what you mean about the unidirectional flow in this regard. People in Pakistan would rather be underpaid to do an IT job is the US for $50k than be the best paid programmer in Pakistan getting paid $1k. So Pakistanis come here, and no programmer really wants to take $1k in Pakistan and say "but the cost of living is so cheap!" That won't pay your student loan. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the system, which strikes me as unjust. But, it's weird to hear you complain about it like we're getting the short end of the stick. This is a system the US (and our imperial forebears) has perpetuated and protected for decades in order to maximize our wealth at the expense of the Third World. The controlled unidirectional flow of migration perpetuates this advantage. We take their best people with H1B visas. Then we send them our lowest-value work so they can sell goods to us more cheaply than we can sell to ourselves. This is not beneficence on the part of the United States. It's economic imperialism. It won't last forever. Developing countries like Mexico will develop; they'll keep more of their best people and do more high value work and create more wealth. I think we'll have a healthier relationship with them as a result, but it won't be one of more financial advantage for the US.

 

Economics isn't a zero sum game.

 

If you absolutely had to chose, would you rather move to Cancun or Ireland during the potato famine? How about 1938 Germany? Please answer the question.

 

Or places on the Pacific coast, or the central highlands.

The last thing Mexican authorities want is gringos getting caught up in the violence, that's bad for business and will bring down the hammer from North of the Border.