• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-Mexico president: Country won't pay 'cent' for Trump wall

distraff said:
I strongly suspect that you don't have any idea what the Mexicans feel. They hate Donald Trump and are going to hand this election to Hillary.
Click to expand...

Wow, now that's a message you should trumpet loudly and long during the election cycle. It will virtually guarantee a Trump win.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well you're kinda missing the point that this was devised by the US government.
"The roots of the current crackdown lie in the political furore unleashed last year by the arrival in the US of a wave of unaccompanied Central American children and undocumented families.

The Mexican crackdown has clearly been devised in tandem with the US government. Thomas Shannon, counselor to US secretary of state John Kerry, told the Senate appropriations committee in July what the US government planned to do to prevent a repeat of the surge. One of the main planks of the strategy was “improving the ability of Mexico to interdict migrants before they cross into Mexico”

President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the crackdown in July 2014, within a broader policy package called the Southern Frontier Programme. Hundreds of migration agents were redeployed to the country’s southern states.

Such efforts may have driven down the number of migrants reaching the US border, but, human rights activists charge, it has done nothing to address the desperate poverty and rampant violence in countries like Honduras and El Salvador, and risks creating a new humanitarian crisis in Mexico as well."
Mexico's migration crackdown escalates dangers for Central Americans | World news | The Guardian

So I guess your point is keep doing what we are doing in partnership with Mexico and just ignore the humanitarian issues?
Click to expand...

What a total pantsload! Mexico has always been tough on illegals coming into Mexico - to stay in Mexico (tougher than the US). Rampant graft has been the only thing protecting illegals on their journey through Mexico. That graft is spottier from time to time and much more expensive now.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I need clarification first.
Click to expand...

There is and have been humanitarian issues in Latin America that can be related to immigration. As the article points out: Human smuggling, sex crimes, corrupt officials, poverty, violence, etc.
 
clownboy said:
What a total pantsload! Mexico has always been tough on illegals coming into Mexico - to stay in Mexico (tougher than the US).
Click to expand...
No one said that Mexico doesnt have tougher immigration laws than the US... The article is about migration through Mexico...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There is and have been humanitarian issues in Latin America that can be related to immigration. As the article points out: Human smuggling, sex crimes, corrupt officials, poverty, violence, etc.
Click to expand...

And none of that is solved by turning a blind eye and just letting them pass through.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There is and have been humanitarian issues in Latin America that can be related to immigration. As the article points out: Human smuggling, sex crimes, corrupt officials, poverty, violence, etc.
Click to expand...


and by stopping or making illegal immigration much much harder to do, somehow any bad things would be our fault?

I'm not following.
 
clownboy said:
They certainly did and still do.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/GONZALEZ %26 KOSLOWSKI.pdf
Click to expand...
Well thats nice and dandy. Doesnt change the fact that the Guardian article was about migration through Mexico.

And migration through Mexico is not controlled by Mexican law but by graft.
Click to expand...
Whats the Southern Forntier Programme then?

clownboy said:
And none of that is solved by turning a blind eye and just letting them pass through.
Click to expand...
No-one said to do that.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
and by stopping or making illegal immigration much much harder to do, somehow any bad things would be our fault?

I'm not following.
Click to expand...

Its really not that hard to understand. New Program initiated in Mexico which deports migrants going through Mexico on the way to the US, thus causing traditional routes to be closed down and harder to use. Migrants then are "forced to take alternative routes north as they face armed robbers, corrupt officials and sexual violence".

More from the article: "Across southern Mexico, Central American migrants fleeing violence, poverty and institutional collapse have over recent months found that well-trodden – if risky – routes north have been blocked by a government crackdown. This has forced travelers to divert their journey through more remote and more perilous regions, where they face a heightened risk of robbery, rape, abduction and death."

What was the goal of this new program? From the article: "Mexican officials said the programme was designed to protect migrants and promised to go after people-smugglers and the criminal gangs that regularly preyed on travellers. They also promised justice for any migrants abused by officials."

Now what does the government say about success of the program? "“The government believes that all these actions have had important, though insufficient, results,” the office of the president said in a written statement to the Guardian. "
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its really not that hard to understand. New Program initiated in Mexico which deports migrants going through Mexico on the way to the US, thus causing traditional routes to be closed down and harder to use. Migrants then are "forced to take alternative routes north as they face armed robbers, corrupt officials and sexual violence".
Click to expand...

Or the illegal aliens can stay home and not "come north". If they want to emmigrate to the US they should apply at the embassy.


More from the article: "Across southern Mexico, Central American migrants fleeing violence, poverty and institutional collapse have over recent months found that well-trodden – if risky – routes north have been blocked by a government crackdown. This has forced travelers to divert their journey through more remote and more perilous regions, where they face a heightened risk of robbery, rape, abduction and death."
Click to expand...

So are they "migrants" or "refugees"?

What was the goal of this new program? From the article: "Mexican officials said the programme was designed to protect migrants and promised to go after people-smugglers and the criminal gangs that regularly preyed on travellers. They also promised justice for any migrants abused by officials."

Now what does the government say about success of the program? "“The government believes that all these actions have had important, though insufficient, results,” the office of the president said in a written statement to the Guardian. "
Click to expand...


And?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Or the illegal aliens can stay home and not "come north". If they want to emmigrate to the US they should apply at the embassy.
Click to expand...
This doesnt mean to ignore the reality of the situation.


So are they "migrants" or "refugees"?
Click to expand...
Depends on the background..




And?
Click to expand...
And are you going to answer my question from several posts ago? "So I guess your point is keep doing what we are doing in partnership with Mexico and just ignore the humanitarian issues?"
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This doesnt mean to ignore the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

which is?

Depends on the background..
Click to expand...

Non-answer


And are you going to answer my question from several posts ago? "So I guess your point is keep doing what we are doing in partnership with Mexico and just ignore the humanitarian issues?"
Click to expand...


Loaded question.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
which is?
Click to expand...
Migrants will still come......


Non-answer
Click to expand...
Actually it is an answer. Being labeled a refugee or migrant has certain preconditions that must be met.




Loaded question.
Click to expand...
So after clarifying the question, which you said you needed me to do before you answered, you are now just going to ignore the question entirely.. Gotcha!
:thumbs:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Migrants will still come......
Click to expand...

So it's our job to make it easier for them?

Actually it is an answer. Being labeled a refugee or migrant has certain preconditions that must be met.
Click to expand...

Your description sounded as if they were refugees, your not answering the actual question.


So after clarifying the question, which you said you needed me to do before you answered, you are now just going to ignore the question entirely.. Gotcha!
:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Not really, I don't accept the premise of the basis of the loaded question.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Migrants will still come......



Actually it is an answer. Being labeled a refugee or migrant has certain preconditions that must be met.





So after clarifying the question, which you said you needed me to do before you answered, you are now just going to ignore the question entirely.. Gotcha!
:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think it's important to consider the realities of the situation and apply those to policies regarding this flow of people seeking to come to the United States.

First, and perhaps controversially, it's appropriate to recognize these people represent those who have failed in a failed culture. The circumstances from which they are trying to escape from are of their own making. By failing to recognize this reality, an opportunity exists for the export of a failed culture which evidence shows will be repeated in the United States.

The US is certainly magnanimous enough to consider those who from a humanitarian standpoint, are in need and are desperate. On the other hand, the US should not be expected to provide a living to those who simply fail, in countries and regions where failure is hard to accomplish.

The US has invested untold billions in trying to assist Latin American countries to bringing about changes that will improve the life and well being of citizens there. These efforts have not played out well, and in fact have resulted in the US being accused of medaling where they shouldn't. In return, the citizens there have rejected US efforts, and continue to support governments and regimes who continue the path of repression and harm to their citizens. This is most certainly evidence of a failure of culture, and an acceptance of what such a failure will continue to bring.

Should the US then be expected to further bail out these failed countries by unilaterally accepting illegal aliens who have little to offer, and have proven incapable of improving their own circumstances?

A label such as "refugee" is an important one that should not be subject to the cheapening that is occurring in this issue.

As these peoples assimilate under invitation from a minority of people in the US, should the economic impact of their presence be so totally ignored?

Complex issues like that don't deserve the level of dismissal and vitriol from the politically motivated proponents of the plan.
 
I think Trump is serious. My guess is that he plans to present Mexico with a tariff on Mexican manufactured goods or, as an alternative, they can build a wall and pay for it. I don't doubt for a minute that he would do such a thing.
 
fmw said:
I think Trump is serious. My guess is that he plans to present Mexico with a tariff on Mexican manufactured goods or, as an alternative, they can build a wall and pay for it. I don't doubt for a minute that he would do such a thing.
Click to expand...

I think he'll do much more than the tariff...in fact, he's said he'll do more than that.

He'll cut off the millions in aid we give them...he'll remove the ability for illegal aliens to send money to Mexico from the US. Those two things, alone, will deny Mexico more billions of dollars than they would spend by paying for the wall.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So it's our job to make it easier for them?
Click to expand...
I never said what are job was or should be. Simply pointing out something way back in post #22.



Your description sounded as if they were refugees, your not answering the actual question.
Click to expand...
I already have answered the question several times. Being labeled a refugee or migrant has certain preconditions that must be met, so it would depend on a case-to-case basis...



Not really, I don't accept the premise of the basis of the loaded question.
Click to expand...
You did in post #25 where you said before you answered the question if you need clarification or not. And its not a "loaded question". Im asking if you think we should continue to promote the status quo in regards to migration policy in partnership with Mexico, and should we ignore the humanitarian consequences which are related to the migration policy?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I never said what are job was or should be. Simply pointing out something way back in post #22.
Click to expand...


Good glad we got that cleared up. our efforts to stop illegal aliens is in no way relevant to the plight of peoples in other countires. Not our problem or fault.


I already have answered the question several times. Being labeled a refugee or migrant has certain preconditions that must be met, so it would depend on a case-to-case basis...
Click to expand...

So, then no, you were not of the opinion of the people you described as being refugees, I only asked because it sounded like they were or something.


You did in post #25 where you said before you answered the question if you need clarification or not. And its not a "loaded question". Im asking if you think we should continue to promote the status quo in regards to migration policy in partnership with Mexico, and should we ignore the humanitarian consequences which are related to the migration policy?
Click to expand...



yes, we should proactive a policy that prevents illegal aliens from entering our country. The claimed humanitarian crisis is a separate issue that local countries should help with if they so desire.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Not our problem or fault.
Click to expand...
Its a consequence of a policy we are promoting in partnership with Mexico......




So, then no, you were not of the opinion of the people you described as being refugees, I only asked because it sounded like they were or something.
Click to expand...
But many are refugees, see NACARA, and Temporary protected status.






yes, we should proactive a policy that prevents illegal aliens from entering our country. The claimed humanitarian crisis is a separate issue that local countries should help with if they so desire.
Click to expand...
See that wasnt so hard.
 
Mycroft said:
In any case, I think it is entirely possible for Trump to make them pay if he becomes President and I think the Mexicans feel the same.
Click to expand...

Based on what?

You recently trolled me with a "provide a link" line. If you don't want to provide a link, can you at least say why you "think" this?

The fact that Entity A takes issue with something Entity B said does not make Entity B right. (Otherwise, your having taken issue with the OP would make the OP right). So that can't be the reason.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

I don't know what the current Mexican administration thinks of Trump's intentions and I certainly don't care what the past Mexican President thinks about it all, but Mexico seems to be a bit worried if they are going on about all this when Trump isn't even the Republican's candidate yet.

In any case, I think it is entirely possible for Trump to make them pay if he becomes President and I think the Mexicans feel the same.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can give us some details on How Trump could Force Mexico to pay for the wall of shame? Maybe kidnap their citizens hold them hostage, maybe a few forced labor camps to build that wall, Maybe sign above that says Work Makes You Free? Would put that past The Donald?
 
Mr Person said:
Based on what?

You recently trolled me with a "provide a link" line. If you don't want to provide a link, can you at least say why you "think" this?

The fact that Entity A takes issue with something Entity B said does not make Entity B right. (Otherwise, your having taken issue with the OP would make the OP right). So that can't be the reason.
Click to expand...

Casper said:
Maybe you can give us some details on How Trump could Force Mexico to pay for the wall of shame? Maybe kidnap their citizens hold them hostage, maybe a few forced labor camps to build that wall, Maybe sign above that says Work Makes You Free? Would put that past The Donald?
Click to expand...

One thing you'll find out about me is that I almost always have a link to back up my statements and opinions, and this opinion is no different.

These are Trump's words on the matter:

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
Click to expand...

In effect, Trump knows that Mexico gets a lot of money from the US and that cutting off that money...and making them pay more to do business in the US...will make them agree to spend some of it to build the wall.

But you may ask...just how much money are we talking about here? Here is an article from the NYT...back in 2013:

The total remittance transfers sent across the globe from the United States in recent years are almost $50 billion annually, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, or roughly the equivalent of the government’s foreign aid budget. (Estimates by the World Bank suggest that the figure is significantly higher, close to $100 billion per year, according to Dilip Ratha, an economist who leads the World Bank’s remittances program.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/u...-to-send-money-home.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Click to expand...

Of course, not all of that $50-$120B is going to Mexico, but a significant portion of it is. I think it is entirely likely that Mexico would be willing to spend less than $10B to build the wall in order to keep getting $50B or more every year.
 
Last edited:
I would like to think that Felipe Calderón has no worries, that sanity will prevail in the American presidential election and that Ronald McDolald Trump would not become the President. But the Americans chose George W Bush twice so, you never can tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom