How about southern california and texas?
There was a war that took that for the states. And even still, what do you think are the big differences between what we call mexicans today and the native americans that we slaughtered that were in the nevada-westcoast to the south are?
I am talking true native americans that crossed the land bridge. Nationalism for me is somewhat silly. I should not get any more pissed about someone coming from another country to be my neighbor than I should about someone coming from another state. They are both my competition, and they both can benefit me.
The whole idea of a global fence is rediculous. We should appreciate getting the people from other countries that want to work hard and build a better life for themsleves. Because it is that work ethic that has made us a great and thriving country, not alienation and fear.
I don't know detailed history of who took what from whom regarding our border states. but, I will say that every square inch of land on Earth was taken from someone else by force at one point or another.
And if we think drawing borders is ridiculous, don't we also have to call the notion of collective ownership based on ethnicity ridiculous. How was California stolen from some Mexican when said Mexican is only 20? Half the people here don't believe people should inherit significant wealth and yet they think people naturally inherit countries - how does that make sense?
The only way to deal with boarder questions in a practical manner is to consider who has what established on said land along with history.
Suppose a given wooded lot was purchased by two brothers in 1810 for $3 and the two had a falling out. One brother wound up losing his share in an illegal poker game (or what ever) and his great, great, great grandson builds a two million dollar house on the land. Now the other guy's great, great, great grandson sues to get "his" half of the land back. Clearly, the trial isn't going to focus only on the legitimacy of the poker game and who is the rightful owner of the $3 parcel that is now worth over 2 million based on one man's improvements.
Can you see why the court would have to consider how the land has been improved and who has possession of the land?
The same is true for countries. The fact that Arizona was part of Mexico many years ago has little bearing on to whom it belongs now. It is silly and impractical to ignore who is currently in possession and what has been built on the land.
Now, more specifically to Mexico. Mexico has vast resources. The problem is that they have an oppressive and corrupt government. If we were to give California and Arizona back to Mexico, their poverty would simply cover more land. I have no intention on trying to figure out solutions for Mexico, but us stealing their land or denying them natural resources isn't their problem.
I do not blame the illegals for trying to make a living. And as a guy who owns a business in Detroit where unemployment is in the stratosphere, I can tell you that a great many people in the inner city do not want jobs at all. In fact, even when things are good here, many don't want jobs and will not do work of any kind. If a business owner was foolish enough to let these guys in the door they would be lucky not to be shot dead or at least cleaned out. Often they come in wanting a job and are really just looking to see if the place is worth breaking into. But that is Detroit.
Anyway, while I don't blame the illegals. We do have to be cognizant of the fact that we live in different economies and unless we want to lower our standard of living to match theirs, we will never be able to compete for jobs.
In the end, there is no way around the fact that employing illegals for $5 per hour for a $15 per hour job is exploitative and it does deny Americans who want to compete for that job and equal opportunity when his bills are 10 times that of the Mexican.
While I am a Capitalist, I do believe that every man should be paid a fair wage - one that a person can survive on. So, I do support some form of minimum wage. The trick is to make sure the minimum wage does not have unforeseen negative ramifications on the market. But, unlike important things like the housing market, I think we can tinker and experiment with minimum wage laws without getting ourselves into too much trouble. maybe one wage for teens who flip burgers and another for anyone over 21. but then again, I rarely see anyone working for minimum wage so...
