<<Mexico will not trade with the US until the borders are opened and Mexican "immigrants" are not dying in the backhills in San Diego, Argentina will not trade with the UK until the word Falkland disappears from the world map.....>>
Sorry Ramsey, not everyone's national peeves have the same moral stature. By any reasonable measure.
You've got a good point re: Japan in WWII. Not the worst behavior by the standards of war in world history, but something to be ashamed of in many respects.
Mexico re: our immigration policies, and their enforcement (or lack thereof)???? Give us a hugh break. We have some of the most generous immigration policies in the world, with some of the least attention to issues of national benefit from the immigration in question. (Yes there IS Canada.) I mean most of our legal immigration is bringing in the dependants of those already here, many of whom got here illegally and then were pardoned in one wave or another of that process. Then the parents are generally placed on SSI disability after a short period, despite written promises to the contrary for five years.
And our enforcement is laughable. It's really that in many quarters there is real definace for any immigration policy and hense effective enforcement is vigorously lobbied against. (e.g. proof of identity prior to employment.)
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of a good measure of immigration. Do feel we should enforce our laws, however. And do feel we should pay a bit more attention to immigration which is helpful to the country. I.e., more educated or skilled immigration. With perhaps some limited requirements for anyone, such as native language literacy. (Maybe excepting aged parents who really will be supported by their legal children, rather than a SSI system they made no contributions to.) We are no longer a vast empty continent stretched for unskilled labor. Things change.
Argentina pissed about the Fauklands? Why, do you just assume the British are always wrong? There are virtually no people of Argentine descent, and no native peoples whatsoever on the Faulkands. And never were. What, because it is closer to Argentina, never mind still over a hundred miles off, and never mind history, it should go to them? Despite overwhelming popular Fauklands votes to the contrary? What pray tell are you talking about? The Argentines were WHOLLY wrong on that one period.
Doug |
