Mexico Doesn’t Want Illegal Immigrants in Mexico!

by Juan Gringo

MEXICO CITY — Mexicans are deeply frustrated with immigrants after a year of heightened migration from Central America through the country, according to a survey conducted by The Washington Post and Mexico’s Reforma newspaper.

More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States.

Those findings defy the perception that Mexico — a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances — is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.  END

I would like to point out a small matter of bias:   “…expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump.”  The bias is that only Trump supporters hold this opinion.  Not true… over 60% of Americans feel illegal immigration is bad for America.  Ironically, this pretty much mirrors what Mexico is saying about illegals in their country.  Do you think Mexico is worried about the browning of Mexico?  Do you think Mexicans are racists because they oppose illegal immigration into their country?

America is a generous nation that opens it’s door to millions of immigrants…legal immigrants…every year.  Over 12% of our population are 1st generation Americans.  Rather than call us names, some day the liberals will be forced to deal the legitimate issues surrounding illegal immigration, right?  Nah…brainwashed  liberals will always be focused on chasing unicorns.  It’s what they do best.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Mexico Doesn’t Want Illegal Immigrants in Mexico!

  1. Libby says:

    “Not true… over 60% of Americans feel illegal immigration is bad for America.”

    Bull. Why do you persist in making these totally unsupported assertions, aka, lies.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

    I’ll poach from Politico:

    Here we suffer the “Jack” Outrage Cycle: Indignation, Rinse, Repeat … for another one year, six months and two days.

    • Chris says:

      Libby, I read through most of those results but didn’t quite find anything contradicting Jack’s statement that 60% of Americans feel illegal immigration is bad for America–can you quote that particular question and the results?

      I think that’s actually a very vague question, which may be why Gallup didn’t ask it. I mean, I think illegal immigration is bad for America–but that’s because I think we make far too much immigration illegal, and this is hurting the illegal immigrants themselves most of all. It’s also hurting our national character and increasing division because so many are arguing we should “enforce the law” without ever thinking about whether the law is just, or if it’s punishing lots of good people who are getting caught up in a heartless bureaucratic system.

      The results you posted are a mixed bag, but I was heartened to see that most Americans support paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants. As I’ve said, we need to find a more reasonable way to deal with these people who are parts of our communities rather than deporting them.

      • Libby says:

        I only count the rabid, i.e., “critical”, “great importance”, and like that. Nearly everybody is concerned, but only the rabid (never more than 50%) want to pitch the founding values out with the bathwater.

        And these people are not rational. There is no reason to argue about enforcing the law, because the law IS enforced. All through the OA we did a banner business in deportation, but facts do not interest these people. Any argument about enforcement is a fig leaf for their bigotry, which they cannot rationally justify.

    • Harold says:

      So Libby likes the use of Pouch, which with Illegal Immigrants describes the following:

      “the illegal practice of trespassing on another’s property without the landowner’s permission. any encroachment on another’s property”

      purely freudian I am sure, but excellent in defining Illegal migration into this Country

    • Peggy says:

      Libs, Jack said “illegal immigration.” You posted about “immigration.” There’s a difference. Learn it. Most everyone agrees with immigrants who come to America legally, but don’t support those who break our laws and claim they have a right to be here. They don’t.

  2. Libby says:

    Well, if we had a working Department of State, maybe we could be working with these Central American countries to stem the flow, but, you know, this Pompeo guy … he doesn’t seem to think it’s worth doing. Our President positively doesn’t.

    But maybe we shouldn’t blame Pompeo … the geopolitical mess Trump made by pulling out of that nuclear agreement with Iran has seemingly got him entirely occupied … not effective, but occupied.

    • Chris says:

      Well, if we had a working Department of State, maybe we could be working with these Central American countries to stem the flow, but, you know, this Pompeo guy … he doesn’t seem to think it’s worth doing. Our President positively doesn’t.

      Exactly.

    • Chris says:

      CNN was wrong to run that segment without disclosing that all eight of those women are part of the same pro-Trump women’s group called “Trumpettes for Trump” (No, really). The segment misrepresented them as just average Republican women rather than far-right political ideologues. And it’s not even the first time CNN has done this and received criticism for it!

      https://twitter.com/cjane87/status/1151510948500443137?s=20

      Other conservative women, like Nancy French, have blasted Trump’s comments. French has adopted children that are non-white, and in 2016 Trump supporters sent her pictures of her children’s faces photoshopped onto Jews in concentration camps because of her opposition to Trump. She knows of which she speaks.

      https://twitter.com/NancyAFrench/status/1151237374455767040

      I seriously cannot believe we are debating whether “Go back to your own country” is racist in 2019. All anyone has to do to clear this up is listen to people of color who have been told this and know that it is a racist attack.

      • Peggy says:

        Not surprised CNN lied by omission AGAIN. It’s why they’ve earned their Fake News news names.

        • Chris says:

          Ok, but this was a lie by omission that helped your guy, so maybe your constant accusations of bias are a little overblown.

          • Peggy says:

            Chris, a lie and a lie by omission are wrong no matter who it helps. A wife of a man who is cheating doesn’t benefit because her husband didn’t tell her. Lying only benefits those who tell it. Sad you didn’t learn this growing up. Sad you believe the ends justify the means. Sad in your world truth and honor don’t mean more than lying and being deceitful as a way to live.

          • Chris says:

            My first three words were literally “CNN was wrong,” Peggy. Your reading comprehension remains terrible.

    • Chris says:

      Jonah Goldberg today:

      “I know I’m a broken record. But there is nothing in American patriotism that could create an argument for “send her back.” There is plenty in nationalism that would demand it. Oh, FWIW I think Omar’s views run the gamut from silly to reprehensible. But she’s an American. Period.”

      https://twitter.com/jonahnro/status/1151668828444733440?s=21

      Goldberg is on the right side of history with this tweet. When your great-grandchildren see videos of tonight’s hate rally in their history classes, what will they think of the people who, unlike Jonah, refused to speak out against it?

    • Chris says:

      Ben Shapiro, too, though he’s also pretty harsh on Omar:

      “Vile. Omar is awful. She is a radical anti-Semite with terrible views. She is also an American citizen and chanting for her deportation based on her exercise of the First Amendment is disgusting.”

      https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1151658560494850048?s=21

  3. Chris says:

    I don’t think this is a good indication of what America’s policy should be. Not only are we a much wealthier, stable nation than Mexico, we have a history of being a nation of immigrants and that is a part of our culture many take pride in. Shouldn’t America hold ourselves to a higher standard?

    It’s also totally possible that a lot of the opposition to immigrants in Mexico is based on ethnic strife and prejudice–that’s not a uniquely American thing, and there is often hostility between different groups from south of our border.

    I don’t know if Central American immigrants take jobs from native Mexicans, but I do know that immigrants are not taking jobs from Americans. So again, this doesn’t tell us much about what our policies should be.

  4. Peggy says:

    Another great article by VDH.

    The Selfish Actors of Illegal Immigration:

    “The Democratic Party
    Democrats once were exclusionists — largely because they feared that illegal immigration eroded unionization and overtaxed the social-service resources of their poor citizen constituents. Cesar Chavez, for example, sent his thugs to the border to club illegal aliens and drive them back into Mexico, as if they were future strike breakers. Until recently, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton called for strict border enforcement, worried that the wages of illegal workers were driving down those of inner-city or barrio American youth. What changed?

    Numbers. Once the pool of illegal aliens reached a likely 20 million, and once their second-generation citizen offspring won anchor-baby legality and registered to vote, a huge new progressive constituency rose in the American Southwest — one that was targeted by Democrats, who alternately promised permanent government subsidies and sowed fears with constant charges that right-wing Republicans were abject racists, nativists, and xenophobes.

    Due to massive influxes of immigrants, and the flight of middle-class citizens, the California of Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson long ago ceased to exist. Indeed, there are currently no statewide Republican office-holders in California, which has liberal supermajorities in both state legislatures and a mere seven Republicans out of 53 congressional representatives.

    Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado are becoming Californized. Soon open borders will do the same to Arizona and Texas. No wonder that the Democratic party has been willing to do almost anything to become the enabler of open borders, whether that is setting up over 500 sanctuary-city jurisdictions, suing to block border enforcement in the courts, or extending in-state tuition, free medical care, and driver’s licenses to those who entered and reside in America illegally.

    If most immigrants were right-wing, middle-class, Latino anti-Communists fleeing Venezuela or Cuba, or Eastern European rightists sick of the EU, or angry French and Germans who were tired of their failed socialist governments, the Democratic party would be the party of closed borders and the enemy of legal, meritocratic, diverse, and measured immigration.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/illegal-immigration-many-selfish-actors-benefit/

    • Chris says:

      Cesar Chavez, for example, sent his thugs to the border to club illegal aliens and drive them back into Mexico, as if they were future strike breakers.

      Does…does Hansen think this is a good thing? Or at least, preferable to what Democrats do now? Because that’s pretty messed up.

      • Peggy says:

        Chris, as you know I lived just north of Chavez’s hometown during his days of fighting to preserve the jobs and a fair salary for American farmworks with the ‘Grape Boycott’ and the forming of the UFW union. It wasn’t just Hansen who thought it was a good thing, most of the nation did too. We all supported Chavez and boycotted buying produce not picked by farmers who hired Americans.

        Do you think JFK, Bobby, Ethel and most democrats during that time supporting him was a good thing? After Chavez had been on a hunger strike for so long his family was so concerned they called Ethel to talk to him. She offered to fly out and feed him his first spoonful of food if he’d break his hunger strike. He agreed.

        Do you think Chavez’s fight for farm workers was worth it? How about all of the country’s population that supported him? Or do you think he was just a fool and his supporters were just a bunch of racist who hated brown skinned people? It’s sad to see democrats today undo all he worked so hard for. The UFW is all but gone because of the illegal farm workers crossing our border and taking the jobs at a lower salary.

        Equally sad for my generation is seeing our history being rewritten and your generation having no idea what the truth is. What’s worse, burning books or rewriting them? Both results are the same.

        • Chris says:

          That’s a lot of words to say “Yes, sending thugs (your word) to the border to beat people up is good.” Why not just say that?

          You’re going to pretend that conservatives are pro-union now?

          I’ve always been pro-union, but I can also acknowledge that unions have at times been very racist and xenophobic. When unions make other workers the enemy instead of the ruling class, they are only sabotaging themselves. This is a complex issue that you want to reduce down to “illegals bad,” and I’m not here for it.

          • Post Scripts says:

            “We don’t need anymore (illegals) coming in.” Said by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (10 years ago) in a speech on immigration reform.

          • Peggy says:

            I never said that. I pointed out Chavez’s fight to protect farm workers, the Kennedy’s and many others from all over the US who supported him by honoring the boycotts. The question isn’t what Chavez did to protect the jobs of farmworkers it’s why did everyone, including democrats support him then, but now act as if what he did never happened and do a 180 on the same issues he gave his life for?

            I also pointed out the history I and many of my generation have direct knowledge of. The same history you never learned apparently in all of your years of education.

            I too, as a chapter union president for six years and a member of the negotiation team for 20 years for 350 members, believe unions are necessary to guarantee employees are treated fairly and legally by employers. In other words Chris, I’ve supported unions since you were in diapers. I also owned my own business, so I understand issues from both sides.

            You should be asking yourself Chris why your party changed from supporting American workers to supporting illegals coming into our country?

          • Chris says:

            Ok? And what did you say about Nancy Pelosi’s immigration policies 10 years ago? You were calling them amnesty. This effort to pretend that Donald Trump’s extremely harsh immigration policies are no different from the policies of modern Democrats is one of the most transparently cynical and ridiculous ploys I’ve ever seen. Trump ran on being harsher on illegal immigration than any modern president, and he’s done that. That’s why his base loves him. For the same people to then turn around and say the Dems were no different is ludicrous, because if they were really no different, you would have voted for Dems back then. Instead you’ve been complaining about “amnesty” for longer than I’ve been alive. A few out of context quotes do not change the fact that Trump’s policies are far harsher on immigrants than any modern president, and Democrats as a whole never supported anything like them. When Dems have been overly tough on immigration I’ve criticized them for it. The solution to illegal immigration, again, is to make less immigration illegal; stop detaining families and children and free up resources to go after the truly dangerous.

          • Chris says:

            I never said that.

            You implied it. You quote VDH bringing up that Chavez hired “thugs” to beat up illegal immigrants at the border. Since VDH was writing about Chavez and his opposition to illegal immigration favorably, I asked whether VDH was suggesting this was a good thing. Instead of answering the question directly, you just joined in the praise of Chavez’s anti-immigration positions.

            If you aren’t saying Chavez hiring thugs to beat up people at the border was a good thing, you could easily say so. You’ve had multiple opportunities. That you keep turning them down while offering nothing but praise for Chavez indicates that you do think this is a good thing.

            The question isn’t what Chavez did to protect the jobs of farmworkers it’s why did everyone, including democrats support him then, but now act as if what he did never happened and do a 180 on the same issues he gave his life for?

            It is just not true to say that “everyone” supported Chavez, nor is it true that everyone supported his tactics against illegal immigrants. And I don’t think it’s accurate to say he gave his life to stop immigrants from coming in to this country.

            I also pointed out the history I and many of my generation have direct knowledge of. The same history you never learned apparently in all of your years of education.

            Stop. I’ve pointed out every time that you’ve brought it up that I was already aware of Chavez’s anti-immigrant stance. That does not mean I have to agree with it.

            I too, as a chapter union president for six years and a member of the negotiation team for 20 years for 350 members, believe unions are necessary to guarantee employees are treated fairly and legally by employers. In other words Chris, I’ve supported unions since you were in diapers. I also owned my own business, so I understand issues from both sides.

            You support a party that demonizes unions and continues to attempt to weaken their power. Your invocation of Chavez in this conversation about immigration is disingenuous given that I have never once seen you utter his name in any article about unions ever posted on Post Scripts. If I’m wrong, search and find just one comment from the past decade in which you cited Chavez to defend unions on this website, in any conversation that was unrelated to the topic of immigration. I don’t think you can, because you are engaging in bad faith whataboutism.

            You should be asking yourself Chris why your party changed from supporting American workers to supporting illegals coming into our country?

            I should not be asking myself this question, because this is a false dichotomy that does nothing but pit working class people against each other using immigrants as a convenient scapegoat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *