Mexican man kills himself after being deported from US - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tudd;51859859]I feel bad for the guy and do agree that some parts of Mexico under Cartel control can warrant real refugee status in some cases. Just because someone will ask; I still support stronger borders, I just understand this a unfortunate case, that a humanitarian approach/safe zone policy would be more appropriate to solve the problem than just more immigration though.[/QUOTE] So the guy who lives in a country which has one of the strongest borders in any developed nation without being a despotic dictatorship wants stronger borders.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51860246]We used to have laws that said that women and black people couldn't vote. We realised that was fucking terrible and changed them. Same should go for immigration laws.[/QUOTE] The constitution of the United States does not protect the civil liberties of parties entering the country illegally. Not only do these laws protect [I]actual[/I] citizens from having their civil liberties eroded (including those that became citizens legally), they apply to ALL immigrants, regardless of race, gender, creed, religion, etc. A Swede could just as easily be denied entry to the US at the Canada border for the same reason a Mexican or Chilean could be denied entry at the Mexican border. I don't understand why the United States is obligated to accept "refugees" because "life is hard" down in Mexico. The Mexican government allows these fucking cartels or whatever to operate with impunity and that is NOT the problem of the United States. If there is war, perhaps an exception can be made for human rights reasons, but in that same token we shouldn't be taking in refugees from thousands of miles away overseas even for those reasons. It should be up to the geographical neighbors to help each-other. The United States has operated as the world police for decades, and it seems that we are at a breaking point where we need to focus on ourselves versus others. Yes, we are already a great county and there are worse places out there. But I would argue that there are organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières reaching out to other countries for aid and assistance [I]without[/I] bringing those issues back to the home country. Meh, not trying to get heated here, just my two cents. Cheers.

[QUOTE=OvB;51860257]We need to put extreme pressure on Mexico to end their cartel wars. (legalizing some drugs might help this through supply/demand). We should help them do it where we can. Even if that means a flat out military coalition in the Cartel controlled areas. If people are fleeing to the States as refugees, it's as much of our problem as it is Mexico's. It's a continental crisis.[/QUOTE] As you say, simply "putting extreme pressure" on Mexico to end the cartels isn't enough. It's going to take a pretty large scale cooperative effort between both our governments at this point, given just how deeply embedded the cartels are within low level government. At a minimum, I think three goals would have to be accomplished before we could "destroy" the cartels, else new groups would simply take their place: 1) Root out government and police corruption. Easier said than done, obviously, but it's critical to any long-term change. This might be accomplished by funding investigative task forces cooperatively led by US and Mexican intelligence agencies. Simultaneously, the Mexican government and law enforcement branches need to be empowered with funding, resources, and training to combat cartels and cartel influence. 2) Sweep the financial legs of the cartels through the federal legalization of certain high-value, low-risk controlled substances, such as marijuana. More dangerous drugs could be regulated as controlled substances and distributed through centers dedicated to monitoring safe usage and rehabilitation of addicts. Large scale immigration reforms would also be necessary, including an efficient and easy path to citizenship, or work permits to effectively open the borders to non-criminal immigrants who wish to travel between nations or semi-permanently settle in either nation for business or employment purposes. This would gut the income of the cartel drug and people-smuggling businesses, crippling them financially. 3) Large-scale investment into the Mexican economy will help improve the baseline conditions for the average family, thus reducing the demand for immigration and illegal services. When the average family can realistically live in relative comfort and modernity by finding gainful employment and/or entrepreneurial opportunities, Mexico will truly start to thrive. This now only weakens the cartels, but strengthens our own economy, as Mexico is a critical US trade partner. That's my take on it, anyway.

[QUOTE=Stolons;51859829]Bad decisions all around. The US shouldn't have deported him and he shouldn't have killed himself.[/QUOTE] I'm willing to bet a pretty penny that he was thinking of suicide long before he got deported even the first time.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;51859742]There was a reddit user from Sweden that actually gave a quite good explanation why Sweden is NOT a good refugee/ME immigrant haven. The tl,dr was that due to government and unions requirements to exercise a profession, many of those immigrants end up having no job at all or directly go into mini-jobs or low wage jobs. Funnily, as most republican and democrats opposed to Bernie said: "This is not Scandinavia", the fact is that the analysis (Quite sound if you ask me) made by the Swedish guy doesn't apply to US. The US can actually incorporate latino refugees quite easily because there is a large population now adding to the US economy, communities are large enough to incorporate those who don't arrive speaking English and there is a support net for them to progress from jobs to gov programs. Plus, they send money back to their families so it benefits both countries. It's a shame. Trump policies will be undoing of southern US and northern Mexico....[/QUOTE] Increasing population would drive up unemployment and thus bring down the wages because supply of potential workers would outnumber demand would it not? Adding more to a population would not necessarily add to a economy. There's no point to a larger population if it brings down wages and people are unable to buy consumer goods.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51860420]As you say, simply "putting extreme pressure" on Mexico to end the cartels isn't enough. It's going to take a pretty large scale cooperative effort between both our governments at this point, given just how deeply embedded the cartels are within low level government. At a minimum, I think three goals would have to be accomplished before we could "destroy" the cartels, else new groups would simply take their place: 1) Root out government and police corruption. Easier said than done, obviously, but it's critical to any long-term change. This might be accomplished by funding investigative task forces cooperatively led by US and Mexican intelligence agencies. Simultaneously, the Mexican government and law enforcement branches need to be empowered with funding, resources, and training to combat cartels and cartel influence. 2) Sweep the financial legs of the cartels through the federal legalization of certain high-value, low-risk controlled substances, such as marijuana. More dangerous drugs could be regulated as controlled substances and distributed through centers dedicated to monitoring safe usage and rehabilitation of addicts. Large scale immigration reforms would also be necessary, including an efficient and easy path to citizenship, or work permits to effectively open the borders to non-criminal immigrants who wish to travel between nations or semi-permanently settle in either nation for business or employment purposes. This would gut the income of the cartel drug and people-smuggling businesses, crippling them financially. 3) Large-scale investment into the Mexican economy will help improve the baseline conditions for the average family, thus reducing the demand for immigration and illegal services. When the average family can realistically live in relative comfort and modernity by finding gainful employment and/or entrepreneurial opportunities, Mexico will truly start to thrive. This now only weakens the cartels, but strengthens our own economy, as Mexico is a critical US trade partner. That's my take on it, anyway.[/QUOTE] That's basically what I was getting at, just didn't feel like writing it all out.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51860595]Increasing population would drive up unemployment and thus bring down the wages because supply of potential workers would outnumber demand would it not? Adding more to a population would not necessarily add to a economy. There's no point to a larger population if it brings down wages and people are unable to buy consumer goods.[/QUOTE] When they say it adds to the economy they mean it makes big corporations richer. Bigger population is almost always worse for the workers and does drive wages down.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51859859]I feel bad for the guy and do agree that some parts of Mexico under Cartel control can warrant real refugee status in some cases. Just because someone will ask; I still support stronger borders, I just understand this a unfortunate case, that a humanitarian approach/safe zone policy would be more appropriate to solve the problem than just more immigration though.[/QUOTE] damn it's almost as if trying reduce the appeal of cartels by stabilizing the mexican economy with job creation through lateral trade is the long term solution to illegal immigration and not building a stupid fucking wall around the problem and demanding that they pay for it oops i mean the mexicants are taking our jobs

In before "Trump killed him". People commit suicide for a variety of reasons. The liberal media is simply using this one poor man's tragic death to attack trump's enforcement of border laws. Globalism is an extreme and dangerous ideology. Those that don't understand why need their head examined. Nationalism is not xenophobia. It is for the prevention of the centralization of political power into the hands of the very few. [b]With a single world society, no migration away from your country is possible because there [i]are[/i] no other countries any more. Lick the boot of your owner and smile. You can't leave.[/b] If I were Mexican and Trump really [i]did[/i] start causing trouble, I'd thank my lucky stars I can go home to relative freedom. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Inb4 meme shit" - Novangel))[/highlight]

Who gets to decide what's "backwards" and what's "forwards"? I'd argue that it's the subtle conditioning in the media that society is becoming one organism. I agree that Globalization can't be stopped, and there's no need to have unnecessary restrictions on international trade - but the whole "single hierarchy" thing needs to be delayed indefinitely because it [b]will[/b] be abused. It's human nature that national consolidation will happen eventually, I accept that. But let's jam the brakes on this single agreed world society while we still can. [video] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoXGV4Vw-VA[/url] [/video]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51859710]At this point, why can they not simply be considered refugees?[/QUOTE] Well being a refugee is worse than being illegal immigrant. For example, Syrian refugees haven't been allowed to come to the US since 2012, so I don't think being a refugee is going to benefit them anything, it will only make it worse.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51860997][B]Society has always been one organism. [/B]You think you can jump ship to any country in the world if the usa is hot on your ass for an international crime without being shipped back here?[/QUOTE] No it hasn't. Modern society isn't even one organism yet.

Honestly globalization sounds pretty cushy. Being able to just go and see my friend in a different country, easy trade deals, it all sounds great to be honest. And of course it won't really mess up cultures, I mean look how different texas is to new york or something. That won't change anytime soon.

[QUOTE=windows098;51861277]Honestly globalization sounds pretty cushy. Being able to just go and see my friend in a different country, easy trade deals, it all sounds great to be honest. And of course it won't really mess up cultures, I mean look how different texas is to new york or something. That won't change anytime soon.[/QUOTE] A global community is nice but the concept of one government is horrifying due to how quickly governments tend to fuck up historically.

What the hell does "globalism" have to do with the topic at hand?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51859710]At this point, why can they not simply be considered refugees?[/QUOTE] Because countries like Mexico, and countries in South America are still functioning democracies and not engaged in war. No country has any obligation to take on economic refugees. [QUOTE=_Axel;51861330]What the hell does "globalism" have to do with the topic at hand?[/QUOTE] Globalism can be see as the reason of people fleeing to the United States. Loss of manufacturing to cheaper countries etc.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;51861393]Globalism can be see as the reason of people fleeing to the United States. Loss of manufacturing to cheaper countries etc.[/QUOTE] You're thinking of globalization I think. And that doesn't make sense, globalization hasn't siphoned jobs from Mexico to the US. The US aren't a "cheaper" country.

If this guy killed himself over this, he probably had other shit going on. The US can't be the go-to solution for other countries problems. Mexico isn't Syria. They aren't refugees.

It's a real shame that most people only care about suicide stories like this when it can be used for their own personal gain. People commit suicide all the time throughout the world and many people don't bat an eye nor do they care about the victim or their family, yet this thread has a lot of people in it pretending they care so they can use it as ammo in internet fights with those they disagree with.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;51860929]Who gets to decide what's "backwards" and what's "forwards"? I'd argue that it's the subtle conditioning in the media that society is becoming one organism. I agree that Globalization can't be stopped, and there's no need to have unnecessary restrictions on international trade - but the whole "single hierarchy" thing needs to be delayed indefinitely because it [b]will[/b] be abused. It's human nature that national consolidation will happen eventually, I accept that. But let's jam the brakes on this single agreed world society while we still can. [video] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoXGV4Vw-VA[/url] [/video][/QUOTE] Backwards are the policies which result in more inequality, discrimination, lack of healthcare and weaker economies. Aka Trump.

[QUOTE=Weirdo009;51861569]It's a real shame that most people only care about suicide stories like this when it can be used for their own personal gain. People commit suicide all the time throughout the world and many people don't bat an eye nor do they care about the victim or their family, yet this thread has a lot of people in it pretending they care so they can use it as ammo in internet fights with those they disagree with.[/QUOTE] While I partly agree with you it's a bit of an unfair generalization. There genuinely are people who care for even the worst off, people whose hearts haven't been closed off by all the bullshit there is to experience in our world. It's true when they say those who've suffered themselves can often be the most empathetic and caring about the sufferings of others, because they tend to try and help others get through their own griefs and problems. Call me a bit of an idealist but I've found genuine purpose in helping those who've attempted suicide or have threatened to do the same, as part of my vocation. I can empathize with them too because I was there in the same dark place they're in, so long ago.