True, it [Wikipedia] is not always reliable but it is pretty accurate overall.
I have heard that too, Koios, what you said about some of the science entries in Wiki being comparable to Britannica.
Generally it is regarded as insufficient in debate as a conclusive way to substantiate a statement, though it is often used in a supplementary way.
That is not to discredit it; the problem is more or less the state of flux which characterizes it. I'm paraphrasing there what my teenaged son was told in school.
...If you prevent businesses from employing the "illegals" then most will not come here. Again, this will not happen anytime soon (until we have some machines to replace them) because we need their labor to maintain our economy--it happens elsewhere in the world not just here.
It is very rare that a person can work illegally in the socialist democracies of Europe; there is so much red tape in those countries (countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and the like).
And it is part of a disinformation campaign when we are told that our US economy depends on the labor of illegal immigrants.
True,
Their labor is very profitable for business owners and corporate entities.
But they are doing work which would be done gladly by US citizens if decent pay and benefits were offered ...
Last week I gave the example to saggyjones of the Swift plant in Colorado:
Raids were conducted there last December 12th. A great number of illegal immigrants were arrested who had used stolen IDs to get the work.
The very next day US citizens were queued out into the streets waiting to apply for those jobs, even with the miserable wage the plant was providing.
That was the case at the Smithfield plant in North Carolina also; the groups of US citizens who want these jobs are often black Americans, rural Americans, minimally-educated Americans, and so forth.
However,
the employers would rather hire illegal immigrants because they have no recourse to benefits in cases of injury, unsafe conditions, etc.
Lilly, I am very aware that many problems prevail in Mexico itself and that many immigrants from bordering states struggle a great deal to get into Mexico, yet alone the USA. They often try to pass off as Mexicans and go through much hardship. I never said Mexico was not at fault—in fact just look at the Zapatista movement. I think the fact that there is so much wrong with Mexico itself strengthens my point.
Here would be the way in which it doesn't:
The status quo is functioning as a safety valve for that corrupt situation in Mexico to which you just referred.
That's why the Mexican government provides actual safety kits and directions for their people to trespass across our borders -
they
WANT to get rid of a whole lot of their poorer people !
Many wealthy persons live in Mexico but they don't wish to share with the poor. It's a very racist country: the lighter one's complexion, the more options one has. We see their television shows all the time in my border state ...tall, fair complected actors and actresses. Those are the monied classes in Mexico, and the short dark people are mere chattel to them. They encourage those poorer people to come to the US because then they'll send money home to Mexico to their families, and that money will circulate in the Mexican economy.
If the US were not providing that outlet, the people would be far more likely to rise up and have a revolution, much as we did here in the US over 200 years ago.
But if one has the choice to risk one's life in a revolution vs. leave the country and make better money, which will anyone choose ?
Incidentally, it is not the very poorest class which usually breeches the border. Those people do not have the money to make the trip or pay a coyote.
The class which usually comes here corresponds to our lower middle class (ironically enough since that is the class most harmed by their presence).
The people who come here from Mexico usually had a job in Mexico ...but the lure was irresistible to make $5 instead of 50 cents an hour.
It wouldn't have been such an issue except for NAFTA by the way.
15 Million? I have yet to meet someone who wasn't an American that honestly thinks that was a fair “trade” (even when adjusting the value of the currency).
It wasn't a trade.
We won the war with them and
THEN still paid them that. Plus we paid them additional millions for the Gadsden Purchase which comprises an area of Arizona.
Koios,
1. How many countries have won land in a war and then still paid the other country for it ?
2. What do you think today's equivalent is of $15 Million dollars back in the early 1800s ?
In spite of what any non-US citizen might or might not say ... it is enormous.
The fact must be accepted that people win land in wars. I can't think of many places on the planet that are not occupied by the descendants of people who won it from some other people.
Also,
Mexico only had that land because it had been given to them by Spain. They had not won it or bought it themselves.
One misc. point I would like to make is that I don't see a problem with providing translations for as many languages as we possibly can--besides I believe this will soon be a reality since AI technology will make this feasible quite soon.
Well, that may be. The *English as an official language* issue is not one of the ones that preoccupies me as much as some others. You may be right.
I am looking forward to checking out that website you have mentioned Lilly.
Okay, let me go get that for you now...
Here it is:
http://www.latinoamericans.org/