Mexico and Canada Tussle Over Immigration

[totodeinhere]

Source: New York Times

Too many Mexicans, the Canadian government complained, were fraudulently claiming political asylum in Canada, overwhelming the system. So Canada announced last month that it would begin requiring Mexican nationals to secure visas before entering the country, a decision that sparked outrage in Mexico.

The Mexicans struck back with an announcement that Canadian diplomats and government officials would now require visas to enter Mexico.

Although some angry Mexican lawmakers urged President Felipe Calderon to go further and require visas for all Canadian visitors, Mr. Calderon held off, not wanting to further damage Mexico’s tourism industry, which relies heavily on North American visitors.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/world/americas/10prexy.html?hp

---

It looks like it's not just immigration from Mexico to the USA that has sparked controversy. It seems to me that Canada should have the right to require visas from Mexicans entering it's country since the system is being overwhelmed. I don't understand why Mexican lawmakers are angry over this.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duckhunter935]

2. Easy, look at how much money gets sent back

The money sent home by Mexicans working abroad — known as remittances — is the country’s second-greatest source of foreign income, after oil exports. But the flow has been leveling off after years of growth. According to figures released on Wednesday by Mexico’s central bank, remittances grew just 1 percent in 2007, to $23.9 billion.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/money-sent-home-by-mexicans-almost-stagnant-in-2007/

[totodeinhere]

3. So Canada should be obliged to let Mexican nationals in because Mexico needs the money?

Canada should be allowed to pursue it's own national interests. And if too much immigration from Mexico is mucking up the system, then Canada has the right to do something about it.

[1handclapn]

5. the largest growth industry in Mexico is exporting their poor and have'n them send money home..

this industry is State sponsored and Subsidized by the Mexican Government. it is technically a state sponsored invasion, they advertise on tv to go north and bus them out.

[conspirator]

37. China and India also do that nt

[mamaleah]

14. "Canada should be allowed to pursue it's own national interests."

Yes they should.

But in the US we get called racists when we suggest immigration might be a little...out of control.

Why is that the case? Why is it so bad to say "Stop....no we aren't going to let this keep going this way"?

[iverglas]

29. if you want to talk about your domestic issues

you really ought to leave other people's domestic policies out of it.

Twice as large a proportion of the Canadian population was born outside Canada as the proportion of the US population, as of 2001. One in 10 Canadians were born outside Canada.

Whether immigration is "out of control" in the US has nothing to do with Canada or Canadian immigration policy, or the current Canadian visa requirement for Mexican nationals, and Canada's policies have nothing to do with your situation. Kindly do not use our domestic situation and policies to grind your own axe on.

[MellowDem]

32. Wrong...

According to the 2000 census, 11.1 percent of the US population is foreign born. Pretty impressive considering we have about 10 times the population of Canada.

Of course all Canadians against even too much legal immigration that strains the system are racist because of this story, it's just the logical way to think about immigration to many on here!

Classic quotes:
"They hate brown people"
"Canadian officials are hiding their white hoods"

etc. etc.

[iverglas]

35. man, that isn't even arithmetic (edited!)

According to the 2000 census, 11.1 percent of the US population is foreign born. Pretty impressive considering we have about 10 times the population of Canada.

What the fuck? eh.

I said in another post that I was not proposing comparability.

The point I WAS making is that it is ludicrous to level accusations of anti-immigration sentiment against a society in which one in 10 residents was born abroad, and in which there are multicultural, multi-ethnic cities like Toronto.


Of course all Canadians against even too much legal immigration that strains the system are racist because of this story, it's just the logical way to think about immigration to many on here!

I just don't have a clue about that one either, sorry. If you have something to say, you might try saying it.

>>> edit - excuse me, I've comprehended and see that I've misunderstood. You are suggesting projection on the part of posters here, and we are not in disagreement.


Classic quotes:
"They hate brown people"
"Canadian officials are hiding their white hoods"

Classic "quotes" from ... ?

>>> I'm getting it, I think. ;)


http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/docs/cerd/rpprts_17_18/2-eng.cfm

Part II – Demographic Characteristics of the Canadian Population
Demographic Data

* Canada is a multicultural and multiethnic country where immigration plays a dominant role in demographic growth. Canadians reported more than 200 ethnic origins in response to the 2001 Census question on the ethnic or cultural groups to which their ancestors belonged. This is an increase of 25% over the 1996 Census. Moreover, the proportion of Canada's population that was born outside the country reached a 70-year high of 18.4%.

* Nearly four million people in Canada identified themselves as members of visible minority groups, accounting for 13.4% of the population overall. The three largest visible minority groups are: Chinese, South Asians and Blacks. They comprise two thirds of the visible minority population. These groups were followed by Filipinos, Arabs and West Asians, Latin Americans, South East Asians, Koreans, and Japanese.

* According to 2001 census data, Ontario and British Columbia were the two provinces with the highest proportion of people born outside the country. In Ontario, more than three million people were born outside the country, representing 27% of the total population in 2001; in British Columbia, 1 million people were born abroad, representing 26% of the total population.

* Approximately 15% of Alberta's population was born abroad in 2001, making it the third highest proportion, followed by Manitoba (12%), Yukon (11%) and Quebec (10%). Less than 7% of the population of the other provinces and territories was born outside the country.

* In both 1996 and 2001, approximately the same number of people (18.3 million) reported only one ethnic origin. They represented 64% of the total population in 1996 and 62% in 2001. However, the number of people who reported more than one ethnic origin has changed. In 2001, 11.3 million people, or 38% of the population, reported multiple ethnic origins, an increase over the 10.2 million or 36% of the people who did so in 1996.

Things will have continued to evolve in the 8 years since that census.

[iverglas]

43. I was the wrong one

Sorry.

I took 18+% and made it nearly 1 in 10.

Actually, it's nearly 1 in 5.

I had an ongoing brain problem, it seems.

In the US, just over 1 in 10 people in the last census were born outside the US.
In Canada, not quite 1 in 5 people in the last census were born outside Canada.

So it is nearly double the rate (and Canada's rate has likely grown proportionately more than the US's), and so actually I was right. ;)

[MellowDem]

74. No problem...

:)

[mamaleah]

39. I was pointing out that people view immigration/visa policies

as racist. Which is funny because the progressive Europeans have some very strict immigration policies..... Not everyone wants to invite everyone in. And there is not a damn thing wrong with that.

[pampango]

41. "Progressive europeans" do not have stricter immigration policies than the US.

In fact the percentage of the population that is foreign born is about the same in Europe as it is in the US, even though they don't have a long land border with a Third World country.

About 12% of the people in the US are foreign-born. The percentages for European countries are: Switzerland (23), Austria (15), Ireland (14), Germany, Sweden and Italy (all at 12% like the US), Spain (11), France (10), the Netherlands (10).

The European political parties that oppose immigration are right wing, i.e. British National Party, the National Front (France),the National Democratic Party (Germany), and the Swiss Peoples Party.

[Romulox]

46. Those stats are misleading. The vast majority of those "foreign born"

people were likely born in one of the various EU states, which form a supra-national entity not dissimilar to our own Federal Government.

This is like counting a guy born in Idaho as "foreign born" when he moves to NYC.

[iverglas]

50. they also do not have right of residence

An enormous proportion of the foreign-born residents of Switzerland are "guest workers". That doesn't make them part of the population of Switzerland.

Australia and Canada rank 1 and 2 in the world, respectively, for actual foreign-born residents as a proportion of population. (Neither has significant numbers of non-permanent residents.) In the 2001 census, the figure was just over 18% for Canada, and would be higher now.

Switzerland very definitely does not have a population in which 23% of residents are foreign-born, and as you say, most of the guest workers are from EU countries.

[pampango]

56. Is it your opinion that "guest workers" are more popular with Swiss citizens than

they are in the US? Our labor unions, which have come together to support immigration reform, do not support a guest worker program as a part of that reform.

You seem to be making the case that Switzerland is not really that open to foreign born residents since most of them are temporary guest workers. I would contend that guest workers contribute less to a nation's economy than immigrants, since they take their pay and go home when their work is completed. Immigrants may send some money home, but they also stay and create wealth in the domestic economy. If anything, Switzerland is more tolerant of foreign born residents than the US. One can only imagine the reaction here if 23% of our residents were temporary guest workers. There might just be some resistance to their presence in the country (from the right) and as a competition with American workers (from the left).

[iverglas]

57. to whom are you speaking?

Is it your opinion that "guest workers" are more popular with Swiss citizens than they are in the US?

What the fuck does this have to do with my post?

This thread is about CANADIAN IMMIGRATION POLICY. Not about the U.S. Not everything is.

There were allegations made in this thread that Canadian immigration policy is racist. I have pointed out that a country where about 1 in 5 residents is foreign-born is hardly the best target on that score.

The two countries that stand apart at the top of the list, in rankings of proportion of foreign-born population, are Australia and Canada.

There are sources on the net showing Switzerland as having nearly 1 in 4 residents foreign-born.

Populations that DO NOT HAVE STATUS as permanent residents of a country are not comparable to populations of permanent, citizenship-eligible people.

That was what my post was about. A continuing response to the allegation that CANADIAN immigration policy is racist.


You seem to be making the case that Switzerland is not really that open to foreign born residents since most of them are temporary guest workers.

You seem to catch on.

I would contend that guest workers contribute less to a nation's economy than immigrants, since they take their pay and go home when their work is completed.

Great case. Such policies are also exploitive of the workers in question, since their entire existence is precarious and dependent on economic circumstances and employer whims.

This is a really big reason why Canada does NOT have a major temporary-worker program, and why the programs of that nature it does have are under constant criticism. The foreign caregiver program went from being exploitation of temporarily employed nannies and domestics from developing countries to being a pathway to permanent residence, although not without its significant problems still. The seasonal farmworker programs is coming under increasing attack because of the absence of benefits and protections for the workers.

This would be precisely why I maintained it was not appropriate to compare populations of temporary workers in Switzerland with populations of citizenship-eligible residents in Canada.


If anything, Switzerland is more tolerant of foreign born residents than the US.

If only this thread were about the US.

Sorry. One just gets a bit fed to the back teeth with everything being about the US and the impossibility of discussing *anything* here without it being about the US.

[amandabeech]

62. Historically, many U.S. immigrants have returned to their country of origin,

making them de facto guest workers.

Depending on how you configure the Great Wave centered around 1900, you can find historians using figure of 25-40 of the immigrants returning to their home countries.

Some immigrants came here with the idea that they would make some money and go home. Others came here and found that they didn't like it (as my own great-grandmother nearly did). Still others have trouble finding employment, particularly during slack economic times, and go home. Also, retirees sometimes return to their native lands, particularly if they can get their social security payments sent there.

Right now, it is difficult to say how many of our current immigrants will follow the old patterns. Add to any documented immigrants who return home to the numbers of undocumented workers and temporary work visa holders, like H-1B, L-1 and NAFTA visas, and it is unclear what percentage of our foreign born residents really are de facto guest workers.

[pampango]

55. A German living in France is still a "foreign born" person, just as a Mexican living in the US

is "foreign born". I agree that is quite easy for a German to live in France due to very permissive immigration policies in the EU. France and Germany are still separate countries, unlike Montana and NYC, which have voluntarily chosen to allow immigration across their mutual borders.

My guess is that, if we made immigration from Mexico quick, easy, and unlimited, we wouldn't stop referring to them as "foreign born" once they moved here. If your point is that my "stats are misleading" because immigration is so easy in the EU, I'll accept that. However, you still have the right wing political parties in EU countries, like the BNP in Great Britain ("British jobs for British people") that resist the immigration of Poles and other less wealthy EU citizens. There is still resistance to immigration, if predominantly on the right wing of the political spectrum, even when it is legal and easy.

[Romulox]

59. No, a German residing in France has not "immigrated" to the EU...

"I agree that is quite easy for a German to live in France due to very permissive immigration policies in the EU."

You're way off base. Germany and France are both founding members of the EU. That means that the German living in France has not "immigrated" to the EU. :eyes:

"My guess is that, if we made immigration from Mexico quick, easy, and unlimited, we wouldn't stop referring to them as "foreign born" once they moved here."

As I mentioned, Germany and France are both members of the same federal government; the US and Mexico are not. Perhaps you wish the US and Mexico were both states of an over-arching federal government, but we are simply not. Your analogy falls on its face therefore.

[pampango]

60. Didn't say that a German moving to France was immigrating to the EU.

Such a German citizen would have immigrated to France (not to the EU) and while living in France as a German citizen would be a "foreign born" resident of France (hence, as you say, the large number of "foreign-born residents in most EU countries).

We agree that it is easy for citizens of EU member countries to move from one country to another. You seem to be saying that movement from one sovereign country to another ceases to be "immigration" when the countries agree to unrestricted movement. I would contend that a citizen of Poland (a sovereign country with its own language and culture) who moved to Great Britain (another sovereign country with its own language and culture) in 2003 (prior to Poland joining the EU) was an "immigrant" and that a Pole making the same journey today, albeit with much less legal restrictions on his/her movement, is also an "immigrant".

Immigrate: "To move into another country to stay there permanently."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immigrate

(Nothing about the presence or absence of legal or other restrictions on the movement from one country to another, though you may argue that EU countries are no longer sovereign countries because they have agreed to allow freedom of movement among the member countries.)

[Romulox]

61. Your #55: "(it) is quite easy for a German to live in France due to very permissive immigration..."

"I agree that is quite easy for a German to live in France due to very permissive immigration policies in the EU."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4007816&mesg_id=4010163

You mispoke, and you haven't the courtesy to be honest and simply correct yourself.

"You seem to be saying that movement from one sovereign country to another ceases to be "immigration" when the countries agree to unrestricted movement."

EU states are no more "sovereign countries" than are US states; both are constituent members of a overarching Federal Government. The presence or absence of "legal restrictions" is not the point--shared citizenship is...

Try a different tack--this one is a dead end.

[pampango]

64. When I mispeak, and I have many times, I acknowledge it, as I am sure you do.

I consider freedom of movement between countries to be a "very lax immigration policy". If you disagree that this freedom of movement does not represent "immigration policy" because the members of the EU "are no more "sovereign countries" than are US states", you are entitled to your opinion.

Each EU member maintains its own foreign policy, decides which wars to join and support and which to avoid, which is something that US states do not do. Every list of "sovereign countries" that I have been able to find lists each EU member as such a country. Again, you are welcome to your own opinion.

[Romulox]

65. Listen. You misrepresented the data, and you continue to paint

even with your back to the corner.

Your entire posting career here is based on half-truths and quibbles with the plain meanings of words. You keep arguing that free movement between EU states is more analogous to free movement between Mexico and the US than it is to free movement between the US states.

The problem being, the EU states, like the US states, have formed a political union with sovereignty over its member states, and have provided (through this self-same democratic process) for the free movement in the constituent states as a founding principle of their supra-national entity.

The US and the Mexico have not. And that's what your real problem is. So this arguing around the margins is silly. :silly:

[pampango]

66. Every source I can find states that EU members are still sovereign countries.

If these countries are indeed sovereign, then moving from one to the other is "immigrating". If they are just states (as you, and no one else that I can find, claim), then moving from one to the other is like moving from one state another and is not "immigrating".

I realize that you have declared EU members to not be "sovereign countries". I disagree with you. (I realize that I am a quibbler" when I claim they are countries and you are a "stater of facts (?)" when you claim they are just states.) I would ask that you find any other source (other than the one in the mirror) that supports your contention that they gave up their sovereignty when they joined the EU. I have found many sources list the EU members as sovereign countries, but I don't want to quibble over the meaning of words. ;)

[Romulox]

70. You're arguing semantics when what all you REALLY want is

a) open borders
b) complete business deregulation

You couldn't care less about (and obviously do not understand) the structure of the EU, the benefits of EU citizenship, or civics in general.

You only goal is to promote a cheap labor agenda, and, quite frankly, you're foundering at the moment.

:hi:

[pampango]

71. Your ability to read minds and assess motives amazes me. I'm only arguing semantics because you are.

I was hoping that you would be the first to start with the labels and name calling, i.e. "cheap labor", "open borders", etc. (you forgot a few) labels. You will note that I did not impugn your motives or beliefs (or make any attempt to read your mind ;) ) nor did I use any of the epithets or labels (I'm sure you know what they are) that occasionally get tossed your way during immigration discussions.

I realize that you get frustrated when your vast knowledge and wisdom (such as that the EU members are states not countries) is not completely persuasive. I realize that you accept as fact that European countries have no sovereignty (in spite of the fact that no authoritative source agrees with you) and that my not agreeing with you means that I am just being argumentative, know nothing about the structure of the EU and must have some hidden agenda. :)

[Romulox]

76. I've been around the mulberry bush more than once with you. This is nothing new.

I am actually one of the posters who shows you the most respect here. Despite your fundamentally dishonest style of debate, I am always civil to you until you begin pushing your bizarre games too far. Notice that no one else is engaging you or your (rather transparent) shilling?

At any rate, my open hostility and plainly stated agenda is not something of which I am ashamed; I consider my forthrightness a courtesy to you. Conversely, I take your obfuscation and passive-aggression as a particularly craven form of negativity. :hi:

[pampango]

82. Indeed. We have been through this before.

You do have an interesting debating style. In this instance, you claim that EU countries are not sovereign countries but states in the EU and, as such, cannot have an immigration policy whether strict or liberal. When I point out that the core of your argument is false (they are indeed sovereign and, if they didn't want open immigration they could change it), you accuse me of being the one that is obfuscating and quibbling over the meaning of words. You make no effort to prove your point.

Interesting style. Make a bold statement (EU countries are not really countries, just states); don't back it up; when the counterargument comes, be ready with the "obfuscation" and "quibbling" distractions, then throw in some mind reading and ulterior motive blasts for good measure. A very well thought out and executed style. Congratulations.

From post 77 by Iverglas:

"EU countries are sovereign states.

They have DELEGATED certain functions of their governments to EU bodies.

They can revoke the delegation. While it exists, they are bound by decisions made under it, and have no effective sovereignty in those regards."

"The fact remains that nationals of one EU country are not nationals of another." (And are rightly considered to be "foreign born" when a national of one EU country lives in another.)

Your post #61:

"EU states are no more "sovereign countries" than are US states; both are constituent members of a overarching Federal Government.

To quote your comment to me in the same post: "You mispoke, and you haven't the courtesy to be honest and simply correct yourself." Now who's obfuscating.

You're hardly "one of the posters who shows (me) the most respect here", but I would rather pat you on the back for that self-perception than for your pride in your " open hostility " to people with whom you do not agree. ;)

[iverglas]

77. oh lordy

EU countries are sovereign states.

They have DELEGATED certain functions of their governments to EU bodies.

They can revoke the delegation. While it exists, they are bound by decisions made under it, and have no effective sovereignty in those regards.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/2/9/1/p252919_index.html
"The Dynamics of Delegated Authority: The European Commission, Member States and European Union State Aid Policy"
for example.

The fact remains that nationals of one EU country are not nationals of another.

I have completely lost the plot as to what the issue that may have been joined here actually is, but this might be of assistance.

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=2951_0_4_0

Switzerland was the first European country to recruit guest workers
after World War II, largely because it had a functioning economy that
had escaped destruction during the war. Most of the first guest
workers were from Italy- Italians were 60 percent of the foreigners
in Switzerland in 1960- and they were recruited privately by
employers. The Swiss government introduced employer-specific quotas
on foreign workers in 1963, and a countrywide quota in 1970. When
the oil-price-induced recession came in 1973, guest workers could not
get UI insurance benefits, many left, and the Swiss unemployment rate
stayed low.

In 1991, the Swiss government adopted the three-circles model,
allowing easy entry to first-circle nationals of the European
Economic Area (about 60 percent of the foreigners in Switzerland are
EEA nationals, and they will have freedom of movement after 2007),
giving second-priority to second-circle nationals of Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and the US, and putting all other countries in
the third circle. The effect of the policy was to limit the entry of
more Yugoslavs, who were about 15 percent of foreigners.

In July 2002, the Swiss government allowed border commuters to easily
obtain one-year renewable work permits, introduced a short-term work
and residence permit for foreigners intending to be in the country
less than 12 months (but who can stay 24 months), and annual work and
residence permits for persons who intend to be in Switzerland more
than one year. The Swiss government is working on a new immigration
law that will draw sharper distinctions between temporary and
permanent permits, and make it harder to adjust from temporary to
permanent status.

Switzerland had an ongoing adjustment program that allowed foreigners
who worked at least 36 months in four consecutive years with
nine-month seasonal permits to work in construction, agriculture, and
hotels to "earn" an annual or permanent permit; it allowed 40 percent
of seasonal workers to settle. The seasonal program ended in June
2003, and it appears that asylum seekers are playing a larger role in
providing seasonal workers. Swiss employers tend to oppose
additional bilateral worker agreements, fearing they might impose new
obstacles to recruitment.

In December 2001, there were 739,000 foreigners in the Swiss work
force, about 25 percent of Swiss workers. About 60 percent were
settled with permanent status, 20 percent had renewable one-year work
permits, 18 percent were border commuters, and two percent were
seasonal workers- their number peaks at about 30,000 in the summer
months.

I highlight the portion that suggests that the statement that 23% of the Swiss population is foreign-born may just not be quite accurate.

I believe this was where it started.

Canada, with 1 in 5 residents foreign-born and a minuscule number of "guest workers", is not a good target for allegations of racist immigration policy.

[pampango]

81. Thank for clarifying that "EU countries are sovereign".

My friend on this thread contends that using the percentage of foreign born residents in EU countries (comparable to that of the US, much less than in Canada)to make the point that immigration policy in Europe is not "strict" is not fair. He/she contends that EU members are not sovereign countries, but rather states within the EU and, as such, cannot have a liberal immigration policy (indeed any immigration policy at all); only the EU itself has an immigration policy which indeed may be strict.

To me, the fact that a German can immigrate to France freely and legally (and vice versa) is quite amazing in a historical perspective. 60 to 70 years ago one would have thought it much more likely that by today there would be free immigration between Canada and the US than between France and Germany. Europeans have accomplished amazing things in terms of uniting their continent, so much peace, prosperity, and good health care :) .

Canada's immigration system is comparatively quite open and is one of the best in the world, IMHO.

[1handclapn]

4. its because the standard of living for the upper class there is dependant on Exporting their Poverty

Mexico has a standard of living for the "Have it Alls" is second to that of France, 7th in the world.

[bkkyosemite]

6. I have to have a Visa to enter Canada and I can't live there unless I can really contribute to the

Country's productivity.....I'm on disability so guess moving to Canada is out. Wonder how others do it.

[totodeinhere]

7. I think this only applies to Mexican nationals.

If I were you I would contact an immigration attorney to see what options you might have if you are considering moving to Canada.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

9. It is really quite easy for to immigrate to Canada thanks to NAFTA

Under NAFTA there is a special class of visa for citizens of US, Canada and Mexico who are defined as professionals to work in the member states.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. This is the result of US pressure

Supposedly Mexican peasants are flying to Canada where they could enter without a visa and then doubling back into the US, seems a little unlikely but whatever. Although the real stupidity lies in the Harper "government" and their decision to impose a visa requirement on the Czech Republic, a member of the European Union. That could result in Canadians requiring visas to enter the European Union if they play their cards wrong, which is pretty much a certainty.

I have to deal with Canadian State Department known as DFAIT all the time for work, and you would be hard pressed to find another government agency anywhere on earth more over-run with incompetence and indifference. These are the stupidest fucking people walking the earth. I had been in Ottawa for about a month and a half and I found myself explaining the rock bottom basics of Canadian trade finance to a fairly senior Canadian civil servant, the shrine to a former high profile cabinet member left no doubt as to how this rural Ontario primate landed the job.

And woe to the Canadian who gets in trouble overseas, the Canadian diplomats will do their best to make sure you are never coming home. If you find yourself in trouble... seek assistance from another commonwealth embassy the Canadian one will probably confiscate your passport.

[iverglas]

11. just a bit OTT

I've known and worked with quite a few overseas officers, and found none as incompetent and indifferent as you describe. If the person you were dealing with was a political appointee, this might well be the case. Within the public service, no.


And woe to the Canadian who gets in trouble overseas, the Canadian diplomats will do their best to make sure you are never coming home. If you find yourself in trouble... seek assistance from another commonwealth embassy the Canadian one will probably confiscate your passport.

You are alluding to a couple of well-publicized cases that speak very badly of the current government, and the Canadian public's tolerance of its antics, there is no doubt about that. You will also be aware that the courts have been frowning severely on those antics.

There simply is no basis for the kind of generalization you make.

There's nothing like a foreigner coming to town and pitching a fit. One can sometimes see what stereotypes are made of.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. Abdelrazik was abandoned in Sudan under the Liberals

he was interrogated by CSIS in Sudan under the Liberals, the Canadian child soldier Kadhr has been chilling in Cuba since the Liberals were in power and accused of much less than other western citizens repatriated from Guantanamo Bay.

Then you have the woman, also a Canadian citizen with a well established and documented life in Toronto abandoned in Kenya.

Seems like a Canadian passport isn't worth much if your a muslim, no matter who has the most seats in the mob known as parliament. If the above isn't deeply rooted indifference - or something perhaps more sinister, I don't know what is.

[iverglas]

21. yes, I wasn't counting Khadr

because the situation is quite different. As bad if not much worse, but not what you described.

So there you are. Exactly the two cases to which I referred.

Google my username and Khadr.

I'll help you out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x7567#7623


Seems like a Canadian passport isn't worth much if your a muslim, no matter who has the most seats in the mob known as parliament.

Seems like you need to calm down, take a breath and engage in some sober second thought. At this point, you are actually beneath dignifying with comment.

[iverglas]

10. this is reasonable domestic policy and nothing to do with the US

I am in a position to observe trends in refugee claims, and it is quite true that specious claims made by Mexican nationals are burdening the refugee determination system.

The numerous claims that I have read are not made by people who appear to be in economic straits. The claims are mainly that they are in danger from drug cartels, and the Mexican state is unwilling or unable to protect them. They allege that they accidentally saw someone in their workplace transporting drugs, and reported it, and then started getting death threats ... but they can't identify the people they're talking about, or provide credible details of their reports to police, etc. The claims are plainly fabricated.

Fabricated refugee claims are not uncommon. Often, they do involve people trying to escape from serious economic hardship or civil unrest, or migrating to join family. This just isn't the case with specious refugee claims made by Mexican nationals in Canada.

The standard response from the Refuegee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board is that the individuals had an "internal flight alternative" -- they simply are not important enough to be followed around the country and targeted by the low-level drug traffickers they (implausibly) allege are after them. If they lived in Mexico City, they could move to Acapulco and be perfectly safe. They don't need to move to Montreal.

According to their own stories as told to the RDD, they are not impoverished unskilled rural people. They are urban and employed.

All countries require that visitors obtain visas before arriving, and exempt only certain countries' nationals from that requirement. Nationals of many countries require visas to visit Canada -- and to visit the US. A visa requirement is usually imposed when it becomes apparent that a significant proportion of people seeking entrance as visitors are not visitors, and are planning to remain in Canada, one way or another.

Experiences involving state corruption can be a basis for a refugee claim, if an individual is persecuted based on fabricated attributions of political opinons or the like, or a family's property is expropriated because of their ethnicity or religion. Since there is state corruption in Mexico, this is conceivable. But I have seen no credible allegations of it.

Canada has long been seen as an attractive place to go and make a refugee claim, even if it is totally specious and has no hope of success. In the meantime, the individual can look forward to months or years of residence here, with a work permit and certain benefits, and maybe the possibility of marrying or having children, and hope for an amnesty, which is what tends to happen when the determination system gets hopelessly backlogged. Our constitution and laws demand that everyone who makes a claim be given a full and fair hearing, and have appeal rights.

So it is not unreasonable that when a source of a significant number of unfounded refugee claims is identified, a visa requirement be imposed.

Obviously, between nations that have a free trade agreement, such a requirement could be seen by the other as an interference in trade, since a visa requirement will foreseeably hinder business travel. But current free trade agreements are for free circulation of goods and some services only, not people. And if Canada is experiencing internal problems because visitors from Mexico try to remain here by fabricating refugee claims, we are entitled to impose entry controls.


typo fixed

[Blue_Tires]

25. wow...never knew it was that easy to get in

all this time i'd been planning to do it the hard way...:crazy:

[MellowDem]

33. Why do you hate brown people?

Just kidding, just kidding. No one is trying to directly compare the situation, everyone just likes to show the idiotic nature of the "cry racist" posters when it comes to ANY opinion about regulating ANY sort of immigration NO MATTER the reason.

If this was happening in the US, they'd be crying racist again.

[iverglas]

36. I'm getting the joke now. ;)

I do think that much anti-immigration sentiment is racist, regardless of how it is cloaked. (And I would note that I am no more appreciative of support for this Canadian policy from such quarters than I am of criticism of it based on uninformed kneejerk allegations of racism.)

My real point, though, is that the immigration situations in Canada and the US are not comparable. I make a point of staying out of arguments about US immigration policy, in general, except when it's way ludicrous, like the opposition to requiring driver's licences regardless of immigration status.

A big reason for this particular Canadian policy is the propensity of would-be immigrants to use Canada's refugee determination system (as compared to just crossing the border and staying) and how this undermines the system for genuine claimants. That isn't an issue in the US. Just as large numbers of undocumented migrants entering and living under the radar is not an issue in Canada.

[LeftistGorilla]

12. oh yeah?

The Mexicans struck back with an announcement that Canadian diplomats and government officials would now require visas to enter Mexico.


:eyes:

[mamaleah]

13. I know. Ouch, right?

I am sure government officials aren't going to be that hurt.

[JonQ]

19. That will stop those millions of canadians

just poised on the border from rushing south and stealing all those low paying jobs in mexico.

Take that canada!

[canucksawbones]

15. I think it was the whole 2 day notice thing

that really flared tempers. There were people that had trips to Canada planned and the Visa requirement came into play 2 days after it was announced. Lines at the Canadian Embassy in Mexico city were crazy.

I also can't blame Mexico (or the Czech Republic) if they decide to require Visas of us Canadians.

G

[LeftistGorilla]

17. I think it's more than those two day notice...

They don't want to be treated like second class in NAFTA....


If Mexico does impose Visa restrictions Canadians will either get them or go somewhere else for vacations...

and I don't think they'd want to risk that...

Check out the all-inclusive Mexico trips... prices are dipping quick..

[provis99]

44. no, I would blame Mexico and Czech Republic if they require Visas for Canadians

There aren't a lot of Canadians sneaking into Mexico and Czech Republic making phony refugee claims; the Mexicans and Czechs are responsible for the bad behavior of their own citizens, and punishing innocent Canadians who don't abuse their systems shows how idiotic Mexico and Czech Republic are behaving.

[Xicano]

18. What's your name? Christopher Columbus?

And you folks over there. Who are you? Pilgrims from the ship Mayflower? I am sorry but no visa, no entry for any of you. What, you're sick, starving and exhausted from your trip? Sorry, no visa no entry.

[mamaleah]

20. Well using that logic.....no one would require visas or passports anywhere.

Of course, it's ok for Mexico to have tight security on their southern border though, right?

[Xicano]

24. Sigh

I just think its ironic to see decedents from illegal immigrants referring to the decedents of people who've been on this continent for thousands upon thousands of years as illegal immigrants.

I bet if this was some kind of invasion of white folks from somewhere else there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, probably the contrary. There probably would be a movement to help out these people in need if they were white.

[mamaleah]

27. So Canadians

should allow Mexicans freely over their border?

[iverglas]

28. real familiar with Canadian immigration policy, are you?

Per the 2001 census, nearly 1 in 10 residents of Canada were born outside Canada.

That's about double the proportion of the US population born outside the US. (I am not suggesting the situations in the two countries are comparable, because they are not.) Feel free to consult 2001 census data on line to inform yourself about the ethnic makeup of the country, and especially the large cities.

Until you inform yourself, you might want to consider keeping still.


There probably would be a movement to help out these people in need if they were white.

I guess you didn't even bother to read what's in this thread.

I am familiar with specious refugee claims by Mexican nationals. In none that I have read has there been any indication that they are "in need". They don't travel to Canada by running through the desert. They travel here by airplane.

Canada receives specious refugee claims from the nationals of countries all over the world (of every racial and ethnic background). Including the United States.

[iverglas]

42. aargh - one in FIVE Canadians

I've been busily converting 18+% of the population into fractions and doing it wrong. Brain glitch.

Nearly 1 in 5 residents of Canada in 2001 was born outside Canada.

That's what's nearly double the rate in the US (11+%, or just over 1 in 10).

Maybe my posts make sense now ...


I'm also finding the figures showing Switzerland as having the proportionately highest foreign-born population fishy.

The accepted ranking is Australia 1, Canada 2.

Switzerland has significant numbers of asylum seekers and "guest workers", i.e. temporary residents.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Switzerland.html

The very slow population growth and the sizeable surplus of jobs in the economy (particularly in the services sector) have brought in many foreign guest workers from Italy, Spain, Portugal, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. Guest workers are now estimated, with their families, to constitute nearly one-fifth of the entire population.

Switzerland has been the destination for many economic immigrants and asylum seekers, which has led to growing internal tensions. The fear of being overrun by foreigners has been a persistent Swiss topic in domestic political debate for decades. There have been many attempts to limit the number of foreigners by legislative means. In 2000, the Swiss electorate voted on a referendum to impose an 18 percent quota on the number of foreign workers in the country.

These are entirely different phenomena. Australia and Canada do not have significant numbers of "guest workers"; the foreign-born population here consists largely of permanent residents and citizens.



typo fixed

[provis99]

45. on what basis do you say the early European immigrants were illegal immigrants?

It seems that a lot of the early immigrants were welcomed by the indigenous Indians; early writings of European settlers speak of the good relations they had with many of the indian tribes they came into contact with.

[totodeinhere]

67. Furthermore the Native Americans of the time as far as I know did not have immigration laws.

So since there was no law to break, how could it be illegal?

[amandabeech]

63. Yeah, like we in the U.S. just bent over backward to help bring people

from the former Yugoslavia here.

There were a few, just like there are a few from Somalia, but there was no mass airlift, and Yugoslavians are very, very white and most of them are Christian.

That was the last humanitarian crisis in Europe or its diaspora.

It would help your argument if you could get your facts straight.

[AlphaCentauri]

26. It's all about US corporations interest

Mexico could well just give free pass to any central american to go north but the US interest is that those countries should be poor and corporation have poor people available when needed, other wise just shut the border if China is doing a good job.

[iverglas]

22. yeah; that was really insightful and worthwhile commentary

[Zookeeper]

23. How original.

Haven't we gotten past that simplistic talking point yet? (I doubt that the natives of what is now Mexico, were the same people who greeted the Mayflower.)

[EFerrari]

48. Mayflower didn't sail to Mexico.

[MellowDem]

34. If only the native peoples back then had immigration policies...

or a modern government with the capability to even control its own borders, much less been united in any way, shape, or form. But since they weren't, it doesn't exactly make a lot of sense.

[WriteDown]

38. Or had the wheel or metal in some cases...

From a bonefied Native American :). That wheel thing stumped us for a long while, haha.

[Xicano]

40. I am sorry but your post is full of ignorance.

Many aspects of what you refer to as "a modern government" is borrowed from native peoples. I suggest you study more than what you got from public education.

"...much less been united in any way, shape, or form."

Any way shape or form? There's goes the last of your credibility in regards to native peoples. For starters you might want to research united states of tribes in and around the great lakes area. Our own form of sovereign states but also united under a centralized governing power is a copy from native peoples in this area who already already had it after the peace maker set it up.

There are plenty of other examples of united forms of governments and cooperation. Its just either your lack of education or racism (one or the other) which prevents you from being ignorant about native history.

[Romulox]

47. I think you are correct. Our founders drew a great deal of inspiration from native peoples

with regard to the form of their government.

[Xicano]

53. Thanks Romulox

And sorry for the typing errors. When I typed this I was in a rush out the door and just typed it out at full speed and didn't check it before posting.

There's a lot not taught in ordinary lessons in our schools about the achievements of ancient cultures and native americans. Some of the stone work in Meso and South America is phenomenal. I've seen drilled holes and cuts in stone so precise and intricate that there's no way it could be done with hand tools which then makes it a mystery as to how did they do it.

In Egypt I've seen some stone art work done that is just so perfect, and, the stone used is harder than a file. Harder than a file. Figure that one out. But some of the stuff I've seen in Meso and South America is even more remarkable than that.

Somebody below mentioned about the wheel. Well, some native people did indeed have the wheel. Its just not a prominent feature as it was in other places throughout the world. Necessity IS the mother of invention. In Native America there just wasn't the necessity to develop weapons of mass death and destruction because there just wasn't that level of greed. So of course we don't see things like artillery, rifles, handguns, large ships, etc., and all the metal knowledge which comes from that arms race. So I guess its kinda ironic that Native Americans were referred to as savages.

Speaking about the wheel again. I just happen to have a page setup of some pictures I took at a nearby museum.

http://members.cox.net/xiupohualli/MesoAmerica.htm



Just a small example showing knowledge about the wheel here in precolonial america.

[WriteDown]

58. You make the elementary mistake....

of conflating all Native Americans though. There were vast differences among the nations ranging anywhere from the stone age to the bronze age. :)

[MellowDem]

72. Uhhh....

I was talking about the US as a whole. Obviously natives formed into groups and even had confederations. But there was no one nation to confront the colonizers that were landing all along the eastern seaboard...

But hey, if you want to seriously equate the pilgrims landing with illegal immigration in this day and age, go ahead. You can't stop stupid.

[MellowDem]

Oh, and another thing...

Since you accuse me of a lack of education and racism...

My post never said that native peoples did not have elements of today's modern government. That was all you buddy. But I think you were just trying to attack me because your own argument has no merit.

And of course my post never said that the natives did not somehow form groups, just that there was no one government that represented every single native, which is obviously in contrast to today's situation with immigration. They were at conflict with each other and the colonials often played rival tribes off each other. That was the point, but I'm sure you got it. Once again, you just wanted to attack me personally because your own argument is exceedingly stupid.

And third, the colonizers were just that... COLONIZERS. They were invaders, bascially, not immigrants. They weren't looking to live under the native's own system of government and abide by their laws and become part of their society, they were setting up their very own society. Do you get it yet? This is just one insanely obvious difference.

And fourth, you're a douche for your "implied" racism remark. I'm so damn sick of people crying racism because their pride has been hurt and they have no argument.

[EFerrari]

49. You'd really do yourself a favor by staying off these threads

and by refraining from commenting on brown people or native peoples.

[mamaleah]

51. Thread nanny much?

You'd really do yourself a favor by not being a condescending little twit who thinks she knows it all.

[EFerrari]

52. I wasn't responding to you.

[Xicano]

54. Condescending?

Oh the irony.... And BTW, she's correct.

Have a nice day..

[mamaleah]

68. You as well.

The reality is that Canada wants to have some sort of control on who is coming in and how long they will be staying.

[MellowDem]

73. A favor?

I guess I'd be doing you a favor by making you think less. Is your brain hurting too much?

If you think that the pilgrims landing has much in common with issues of immigration today, then you are ignorant. It has nothing to do with brown people, but I think your "concern" just belies the incredibly bigoted and black and white way you see the world

[iverglas]

79. just fyi: Columbus did not visit Canada, and this thread is not about the US

And no Pilgrims came to Canada on no Mayflower, and there are no green cards in Canada ...

[Flagg]

30. Wow. Things are really bad in Mexico, aren't they ?

[melm00se]

31. news flash

Canada is it's own country and thus can set immigration and customs regulations as they see fit.

If they want to require a visa to enter their country, then that is their prerogative. One of the central roles of government is to define, maintain and protect their sovereign borders.

[Zorra]

69. Mexican officials need to get off their corrupt asses and start doing

what needs to be done to provide the Mexican people with good jobs, fair wages, and a relatively crime free environment.

It costs a significant amount of the average Mexican's income just to send their children to school.

The corrupt officials in Mexico, which appear to be the large majority of Mexican authorities, steal what little money is earmarked for social, economic progress, and crime prevention, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

But they prefer to let other countries provide for their citizens. Because they can.

Maybe if the US and Canada stopped enabling them, they'd be forced to do something constructive and progressive for their people.

Well, maybe mañana.

[iverglas]

80. whatever became of intelligent analysis?

Didn't people on the left once talk about the maquiladoras, and the exploitation of people and resources in Mexico by transnational corporations, and stuff like that?

[Zorra]

83. I believe it is the corrupt government officals that allow this type of exploitation

to continue, and these same corrupt government officials are taking lots of cash from transnational corporations to allow it to continue.

I lived in Mexico for 5 years and still have a house down there. I've been visiting different parts of Mexico frequently over the past 23 years. I have a lot of Mexican friends that I discuss Mexican politics with. Official corruption through bribery is the unspoken standard in Mexico. Almost every Mexican citizen knows this. It's called the "mordida", or translated in English, the "bite".

An intelligent analysis usually results from the analyst using diverse sources of information and a background of relatively broad experiences related to the subject that is being analyzed.

Here's a little background "analysis" from an essay written by an extremely knowledgeable and experienced Mexican citizen, Subcomandante Marcos:

The globalization of exploitation
The second piece is constructed by drawing a triangle.
One of the fallacies of neoliberalism is that economic growth of the companies brings with it a better distribution of wealth and a growth I employment. But this is not so. In the same way as the growth of political power of a king does not bring as a consequence a growth of political power of the subjects (to the contrary), the absolute power of financial capital does not better the distribution of wealth nor does it create major employment for society. Poverty, unemployment and instability of labor are its structural consequences.
During the years of the decades of 1960 and 70's, the population considered poor (with less than a dollar a day of income for their basic necessities, according to the World Bank) was about 200 million people. By the beginning of the decade of the 90's this number was about 2 billion. In addition to this the "mainstay of the 200 most important companies of the planet represent more than a quarter of the world's economic activity; and yet these 200 companies employ only 18.8 million employees, or less than 0.75% of the world's labor force." Ignacio Ramonet in LMD. January 1997, #15).
More poor human beings and an increase in the level of impoverishment, less rich and an increase in the level of wealth, these are the lessons of the outline of the First Piece of the neoliberal jigsaw puzzle. To achieve this absurdity, the world's capitalist system "modernizes" production, circulation and the consumption of merchandise. The new technological revolution (the information revolution) and the new political revolution (the emerging megalopolis on the ruins of the National States). This social "revolution is no more than a readjustment, a reorganization of the social forces, principally the labor force.
The Economically Active Population on a global level went from 1,376 million in 1960 to 2,374 million workers in 1990. More human beings with the capacity to work, in other words, to generate wealth.
But the "new world order" not only rearranges this new labor force in geographic and productive spaces, it also re-orders its place (or lack of a place, as in the case of the unemployed and subemployed) in the globalizing plan of the economy.
The World Population employed by sector was substantially changed in the last 20 years. In fishing and agriculture it went from 22% in 1970 to 12% I 1990; in manufacturing from 25% in 1970 to 22% in 1990; while in the tertiary sector (commerce, transport, banking and services) it grew from 42% in 1970 to 57% in 1990; while the population employed in the agricultural and fishing sector fell from 30% in 1970 to 15% in 1990. (Statistics from "The Labor Force in the World Market in Contemporary Capitalism". Ochoa Chi, Juanita del Pilar. UNAM. Economy. Mexico, 1997).
This means that each time more workers are channeled towards the necessary activities to increase production or to accelerate the elaboration of merchandise. The neoliberal system operates in this way like a mega-boss, conceiving the world market as a single company, administered with "modernizing" criteria.
But neoliberal modernity appears more like the beastly birth of capitalism as a world system, than like utopic "rationality". "Modern" capitalist production continues to base itself in the labor of children, women and migrant workers. Of the 1 billion, 148 million children in the world, at least 100 million of them live in the streets and almost 200 million of them work. It is expected that 400 million of them will be working by the year 2000. It is said as well that 146 million Asian children labor in the production of auto parts, toys, clothing, food, tools and chemicals. But this exploitation of child labor does not only exist in underdeveloped countries, 40% of English children and 20% of French children also work in order to complete the family income or to survive. In the "pleas ure" industry there is also a place for children. The UN estimates that each year a million children enter sexual trafficking (Statistics in Ochoa Chi, J. Op. Cit.).
The neoliberal beast invades all the social world homogenizing even the lines of food production "IN global terms if we observe particularities in the food consumption of each region (and its interior), the process of homogenization which is being imposed is evident, including over those physiological-cultural differences of the different zones." ("World Market of means of Subsistence. 1960-1990. Ocampo Figueroa, Nashelly, and Flores Mondragon, Gonzalo. UNAM. Economy.1994).
This beast imposes upon humanity a heavy burden. The unemployment and the instability of millions of workers all over the world is a cutting reality which has no horizons and no signs of lessening. Unemployment in the countries which make up the Organization for Cooperation and economic Development went from 3.8% in 1966 to 6.3% in 1990. In Europe alone it went from 2.2% in 1966 to 6.4% in 1990.
The imposition of the laws of the market all over the world, the global market, have done nothing but destroy small and medium-size businesses. Upon the disappearance of local and regional markets, the small and medium-size producers see themselves without protection and without any possibility of competing against gigantic transnationals.
The results: massive bankruptcy of companies.
The consequence; millions of unemployed workers.
The absurdity of neoliberalism repeats itself: growth in production does not generate employment, on the contrary, it destroys it. The UN calls this stage "Growth without employment."
But the nightmare does not end there. In addition to the threat of unemployment workers must confront precarious working conditions. Major on-the-job instability, longer working days and poor salaries, are consequences of globalization in general and the "tertiary" tendency of the economy (the growth of the "service" sector) in particular. "In the countries under domination, the labor force suffers a precarious reality: extreme mobility, jobs without contracts, irregular salaries and generally inferior to the vital minimum and regimes with emaciated retirement benefits, independent activities which are not declared and have hit-and-miss salaries, in other words, servitude or forced labor within populations which are supposedly protected such as children" (Alain Morice. "Foreign workers, advance sector of instability." LMD. January 1997).
The consequences of all this translates itself into a bottoming out of global reality. The reorganization of productive processes and the circulation of merchandise and readjustment of productive forces, produce a peculiar excess: left-over human beings, not necessary for the "new world order", who do not produce, or consume, who do not use credit, in sum, who are disposable.
Each day, the great financial centers impose their laws to nations and groups of nations in all the world They reorder and readjust their inhabitants. And, at the end of the operation, they find they have "left-over" people. "They fire upon the volume of the excess population, which is not only subjected to the brunt of the most cruel poverty, but which does not matter, which is loose and separate, and whose only end is to wander through the streets without a fixed direction, without housing or work, without family or social relations-with a minimal stability--, whose only company are its cardboard and plastic bags (Fernandez Duran, Ramon. "Against the Europe of capital and economic globalization". Talasa. Madrid, 1996).
Economic globalization "made necessary a decline in real salaries at the international level, which together with the reduction of social costs (health, education, housing and food) and an anti-union climate, came to constitute the fundamental part of the new neoliberal politics of capitalist reactivation_ (Ocampo F. and Flores M. Op. Cit.).
Here is the illustration of the pyramid of global exploitation:
/\
/ \
/_______ \

THE THIRD PIECE MIGRATION, THE ERRANT NIGHTMARE.
The third figure is constructed by drawing a circle.
We spoke beforehand of the existence of new territories, at the end of the Third World War, which awaited conquest (the old socialist countries), and of others which should have been re-conquered by the "new world order". In order to achieve it, the financial centers carried out a criminal and brutal third strategy; the proliferation of "regional wars" and "internal conflicts", which mobilized great masses of workers and allowed capital to follow routes of atypical accumulation.
The results of this world war of conquest was a great ring of millions of migrants in all the world "Foreigners" in the world "without borders" which the victors of the Third World War promised. Millions of people suffered xenophobic persecution, precarious labor conditions, loss of cultural identity, police repression, hunger, prison, death.
"From the American Rio Grande to the "European" Schengen space, a double contradictory tendency is confirmed. On one side the borders are closed officially to the migration of labor, on the other side entire branches of the economy oscillate between instability and flexibility, which are the most secure means of attracting a foreign labor force" (Alain Morice, Op. Cit.).
With different names, under a judicial differentiation, sharing an equality of misery, the migrants or refugees or displaced of all the world are "foreigners" who are tolerated or rejected. The nightmare of migration, whatever its causes, continues to roll and grow over the planet's surface. The number of people who are accounted for in the statistics of the UN High Commission on Refugees has grown disproportionately from some 2 million in 1975 to 27 million in 1995.
With national borders destroyed ( for merchandise) the globalized market organizes the global economy: research and design of goods and services, as well as their circulation and consumption are thought of in intercontinental terms. For each part of the capitalist process the "new world order" organizes the flow of the labor force, specialized or not, up to where it is necessary. Far from subject ing itself to the "free flow" so clucked-over by neoliberalism, the employment markets are each day determined more by migratory flows. Where skilled workers are concerned, whose numbers are not significance in the context of global migration, the "crossing of brains" represents a great deal in terms of economic power and knowledge. Nevertheless, whether skilled labor, or unskilled labor, the migratory politics of neoliberalism is oriented more towards destabilizing the global labor market than towards stopping immigration.
The Fourth World War, with its process of destruction/depopulation and reconstruction/reorganization provokes the displacement of millions of people. Their destiny is to continue to wander, with the nightmare at their side, and to offer to employed workers in different nations a threat to their employment stability, an enemy to hide the image of the boss, and a pretext for giving meaning to the racist nonsense promoted by neoliberalism.
This is the symbol of the errant nightmare of global migration, a ring of terror which roams all over the world.

Peace

[iverglas]

85. do you

I tend to think that corruption is a common companion of underdevelopment, and underdevelopment is a common companion of imperialism (economic or otherwise).

Chickens and eggs? Yes indeed.

But it isn't really as if there aren't identificable contributors to the problem of corruption, which a sensible analysis takes into account and addresses.

The formatting of what you reproduced makes it extremely difficult to read. On a skim, I'm not finding much objectionable.

It certainly bears no resemblance to what you said in the post I replied to, however, and I don't know how adopting the analysis in that text would lead to the recommendations you made in that post.

[CHIMO]

75. Harper blames Canada for visa furor

Stephen Harper is trying to repair frayed relations with Mexico despite his refusal to roll back new entry restrictions for its citizens, emerging from a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last night to say it's Canada's dysfunctional refugee system that made him do it.

Blaming Canada for the move is Mr. Harper's attempt to soothe the feelings of an insulted NAFTA partner just before three-way talks start on a raft of other pressing issues, from the economy to trade.

"This is not the fault of the government of Mexico - let me be very clear about this," Mr. Harper told reporters, explaining his decision last month to clamp down on bogus refugee claims from Mexico by requiring Mexicans to get visas before entering Canada. "This is a problem in Canadian refugee law which encourages bogus claims."

He and Mr. Calderon met for 40 minutes yesterday evening just before they joined U.S. President Barack Obama for the start of the two-day North American Leaders' Summit in Guadalajara, Mexico.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-blames-canada-for-visa-furor/article1246411/

Don't take this as something that Harper takes as his doing. He wants to limit immigration to those that he deems acceptable. It requires a change in the present status.

End result will be closing the door to many deserving people because some are using the rules to their advantage. Harper has contributed to the issue by not having sufficient resources applied to the issue.

So perhaps the UN has to change things a bit.

Note: Your link does not match the headline.

[iverglas]

78. gee, two birds, one stone

The idea that refugee claimants must be afforded the protections provided by the principles of fundamental justice as guaranteed in our Constitution has been anathema to the right wing for decades.

Blame our "dysfunctional refugee system" - which has long needed fixing but which no government has paid serious attention to - and you mollify the target of the visa requirement and reinforce a right-wing meme, all at the same time.


(I don't know what you mean about the UN changing things.)

[LanternWaste]

84. God bless the corporations...

God bless the corporations.

They've suckered the world's working class into fighting and pointing fingers each other for the past 35 years based on nothing more than which side of an imaginary red and black line drawn on a map one is born on.

And a whole lot of people have bought it, love it, defend it, and call themselves 'patriots'.

[iverglas]

86. 'patriots'?

And a whole lot of people have bought it, love it, defend it, and call themselves 'patriots'.

I've actually never heard a single Canadian, in my fairly long life to date, call him/herself a "patriot". And most of us would look askance and/or laugh at someone who did.

The problems of the unequal distribution of wealth across borders really will not be solved by eliminating the borders tomorrow, and doing so really will cause other problems.

Yes, the problems arose, to a large extent, from exploitation. But the borders didn't cause the problems.

[LanternWaste]

87. Ok-- there are no Canadian patriots...

Ok-- there are no Canadian patriots-- though I specifically referred to the world's working classes rather than simply one country. And problems won't be solved tomorrow-- though I never mentioned a time frame. And if someone thinks borders are not a part and parcel of today's struggles, I would imagine that person to be either naive or obtuse.

[iverglas]

88. okay, you're not worth the minute it took me to compose that post

Gotcha.

[LanternWaste]

89. If you feel validated by thing as such...

If you feel better validated by thing as such, full speed ahead.