New at Reason
In this week's Friday Funnies, Chip Bok portrays a heated argument about immigration.
Comments to "New at Reason":
jimmydageek | June 22, 2007, 9:18am | #
I agree with whatever Urkobold&trade says.Jake Boone | June 22, 2007, 9:26am | #
I agree with thoreau, when he agrees with carrick, who intends to agree with MikeP.jimmydageek | June 22, 2007, 9:54am | #
HAGGIS FRITTERS ARE THE SNACK FOOD OF CHAMPIONS.I just had some for breakfast. I thank Urkobold for enlightening me on such a tasty product. I'll try not to leave crumbs.
biologist | June 22, 2007, 9:54am | #
I've never liked Bok's stuff before, and this one didn't make me change my mind.I just want to know if the guy on the left is supposed to be Lou Dobbs.
Pro Libertate | June 22, 2007, 10:23am | #
Haggis fritters are best with Scotch, but, if you find Scotch as unpalatable as I do, bourbon and Tennessee whiskey are acceptable substitutes.Here's a lovely haggis recipe for those who have a hankerin'. As for the haggis fritters, why just take the haggis, cut it up, roll the pieces in flour and/or breadcrumbs, and deep fry! Volià!
ed | June 22, 2007, 10:26am | #
I disagree with anyone who feels the need to type in caps. Except the retarded.They don't know any better.
URKOBOLD&TRADE | June 22, 2007, 10:38am | #
URKOBOLD DISAGREES WITH ANYONE WHO DOESN'T TYPE IN CAPS. THEY REMIND URKOBOLD OF PHYSICISTS. URKOBOLD DISLIKES PHYSICISTS.URKOBOLD&trade | June 22, 2007, 10:39am | #
APPARENTLY, "&TRADE" DOES NOT WORK IN CAPS :/Mike Laursen | June 22, 2007, 11:48am | #
I can't tell whether I agree or disagree with Dan T., 'cause I don't know what the hell he's talking about.Michael P.Miale | June 22, 2007, 11:59am | #
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including Mexico.But from where I sit, that benighted country looks to me like an even far bigger basket case than it was just fifteen years ago. A small handful of super-wealthy oligarchs controls virtually everything, while the vast majority still live like peasants. Much of the northern part of Mexico near the border is all but ungoverned, and has metastasized into a virtual war zone where drug and people smugglers battle it out for supremacy on the streets with military-grade automatic weaponry. It has literally become one of the most dangerous places in the world outside of the Sunni Triangle. And the violence is even beginning to spill over onto our side, with violent physical attacks on American law enforcement increasing by the week. It's only a matter of time before one of these guys shoots and kills one of our Border Agents.
And in the meantime, the poor peasants can't get out of that hellhole to the North fast enough. By this time tomorrow, another three to four thousand will have crossed over. It is estimated that 10% of the population of Mexico now resides in the United States, and that number looks to continue to go up.
So, I'm not sure exactly what it is that NAFTA has achieved after more than thirteen years, because it didn't prevent Mexico from turning into what it is today: an utterly failed state.
MikeP | June 22, 2007, 1:55pm | #
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole?Accepting everything you say about Mexico for the sake of argument, how would things have been different without NAFTA?
Unilaterally dropping trade barriers is good for the US regardless of whether Mexico does as well. The same is true from Mexico's side.
If your argument is that the NAFTA agreement was n-½ pages too long and that hidden in the fine print were mechanisms for specific government and corporate meddling that actively made things worse, I'd be interested in hearing details.
If your argument is that Mexico's troubles are proof that NAFTA should not have been passed, that's quite a bit less plausible.
Jake Boone | June 22, 2007, 2:05pm | #
NAFTA [...] didn't prevent Mexico from turning into what it is today: an utterly failed state.If there were libertarians saying fifteen years ago that NAFTA would prevent Mexico's corrupt government from further screwing things up for Mexicans, I apologize on their behalf. Of course, I don't remember this claim actually being made.
And the violence is even beginning to spill over onto our side, with violent physical attacks on American law enforcement increasing by the week. It's only a matter of time before one of these guys shoots and kills one of our Border Agents.
So none of them have been shot and killed yet? What sort of violence is spilling over, exactly? Slap-fights? Noogies? It doesn't sound as dangerous as you let on.
It is estimated that 10% of the population of Mexico now resides in the United States, and that number looks to continue to go up.
10%? Really? I don't know how many Mexican immigrants we get per year, or how much of Mexico's population that represents, but that seems pretty high to me. Who, exactly, is doing this estimating you speak of? Have you a link, perchance?
Isaac Bartram | June 22, 2007, 2:24pm | #
10%? Really?Mexico — Population: 108,700,891 (July 2007 est.)
I keep hearing 10 to 12 million illegals already in the US so this doesn't sound that far off to me.
It's worth keeping in mind though that the same sorts of estimates could apply to several European countries at earlier times.
eg Sweden. Of course Sweden stopped hemmorhaging emmigrants as living conditions for the masses improved in the late 19th C. Sweden even got wealthy enough that they could adopt a massive and generous welfare state.
undp | June 22, 2007, 2:30pm | #
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including Mexico.I'm not a libertarian, but here is some data. Mexico is relatively highly developed for a Latin American country, which makes it relatively highly developed globally. Of the ~1.2 billion people living on less that $1/day (PPP adjusted), very few are in Mexico. The reason people leave Mexico for the US isn't so much their abject poverty at home, but because their wages will triple (or better) after just a short trip north. Also, as you can see, Mexico's HDI has grown fairly steadily since 1990, faster than it did in the 80's (but not as fast as the late 70's).
As for being a failed state, there are these rankings by Foreign policy. Unfortunately, Mexico doesn't make the top 60, so you can't see how their numbers break down. But you can see where the real failed states are in the Western Hemisphere, like Haiti (and to a much lesser extent Bolivia and Guatemala).
10%? Really? I don't know how many Mexican immigrants we get per year, or how much of Mexico's population that represents, but that seems pretty high to me. Who, exactly, is doing this estimating you speak of? Have you a link, perchance?
Mexico's population is about 110 million, which is consistent with the oft cited statistic that the US has 10-12 million resident illegal aliens (presumably mostly Mexican).
Pro Libertate | June 22, 2007, 2:42pm | #
I agree with MikeP, but I vehemently disagree with thoreau.l. ron hoover | June 22, 2007, 3:00pm | #
I disagree with MikeP and thoreau. But I do not agree with myself.Pious Candy-Assed Sidewinder | June 22, 2007, 3:47pm | #
Howard Johnson is right about thoreau's being right about Urkubold. Reverend!Mr. F. Le Mur | June 22, 2007, 5:34pm | #
More here: http://blogs.ohio.com/chip_bok/Or maybe not | June 22, 2007, 10:11pm | #
NAFTA flooded Mexico with cheap corn from Iowa, forcing millions of Mexican farmers to seek (and find) a better life in the USA. Which increases the net productivity of Mexican labor, and makes the whole world richer.Michael P.Miale | June 22, 2007, 11:59am | #
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole?
Or maybe not | June 22, 2007, 10:19pm | #
...makes the whole world (incuding Mexico and USA) richer. Rising tides..All boats. There are more winners than losers.Nasikabatrachus | June 23, 2007, 12:47am | #
Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including Mexico.Many libertarians think that NAFTA was a mockery of free trade, and I agree with them--you don't need an agreement between governments for free trade. All you need to do is lower the barriers: NAFTA set up a whole host of new regulations. Here's one criticism by James Sheehan, who's an expert on NAFTA:
http://tinyurl.com/ythm23
Plus, the drug wars and the restrictions on immigration might have something to do with the problem: the "War on Drugs" makes it so that only the most violent people can make money off of drugs, and immigration restrictions provide another avenue for them to make money by smuggling people. Also, the Mexican gov't is pretty dumb too, ya know.
Jennifer | June 24, 2007, 12:02am | #
NAFTA does export jobs.http://www.imfmetal.org/main/index.cfm?n=103&l=2&c=9694&mwId=9692
Mr. Steven Crane | June 24, 2007, 12:40am | #
i sure do like mexican groceries, at any rate.Catmoves | June 26, 2007, 2:59pm | #
"Can any libertarians out there really make a plausible, reasonable case that NAFTA has actually been good for Mexico as a whole? This was one of the arguments that was used in order to pass the agreement: that it would be beneficial for all sides, including Mexico."I'm not a libertarian, but I think it's been great for Mexico. It has enabled them to ship us duty-free goods, while we pay duty through the nose for the goods we ship them.
It's also helped clear out millions of uneducated citizens with no skills other than running in gangs and being "macho".
Nafta's good for Mexico.
Unemployed In Michigan | June 27, 2007, 12:00am | #
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14572913