Is the Ventura County Star a Mexican newspaper?
After reading the report "Mexican nationals learn how to transfer funds electronically" I'm left wondering. It describes how local banks (presumably chartered in the U.S.) set up booths in front of the Mexican consulate in Ventura to teach "immigrants" how to send money back home.
Like other such reports, it reads like an advertisement, describing what a wonderful way to send money this is. But, I slightly expected to find, somewhere down in the 14th paragraph or so, something like "but some people worry about illegal immigration" or similar. Yet, nothing like that is to be found.
In fact, the only conflict in the article concerns the disputed amount of Mexico's income from remittances. And, it includes this:
Other than households, the money sent from the United States to Mexico could be money used to pay for guides who bring Mexicans across the border, which costs about $2,000 dollars per person, or money transferred for business through personal accounts.
"Guides"? You mean, like for people who climb mountains or something? No, Ventura County Star reporter Audrey Reed, those are what we Americans call "smugglers". They aren't "bring[ing] Mexicans across the border", they're smuggling illegal aliens into this country.
Returning to reverso-world, it also includes:
The Oxnard Mexican Consulate also issues a matricula consular card, an alternative form of identification for Mexican nationals. Some immigrants enter the United States with no identification, making opening a bank account impossible. With this card, a bank account may be set up and transfers easily made.
Well, Audrey, that "alternative" is what we in right-side-up land refer to as "IDs for illegals." Mexican consulates pass them out to illegal aliens specifically so they can function here illegally. And, while I thought the NYT's Nina Bernstein had the market cornered on euphemisms for illegal aliens, the Ventura County Star has outdone even her with "immigrants enter the United States with no identification".
The article does have one redeeming feature, as it informs us of this:
Partnership for Prosperity is a program between the Mexican and U.S. governments that also aims to promote development, through these effort, in parts of Mexico where economic growth has slowed, causing migration.
There appears to be little information on this organization, but their website is at p4pworks.org
You can send feedback to their publisher, Tim Gallagher, here. Other staff contacts are here.
Comments
Ralph (not verified)
Tue, 07/12/2005 - 09:27
Permalink
Once is enough.
eh (not verified)
Fri, 07/08/2005 - 10:29
Permalink
"FAIR on CAFTA"
Actually, what's "remarkable" is how smugly self-righteous and even condescending some people can be -- implying that those who reject CAFTA have done so out of ignorance or 'narrow-mindedness'. People who are prone to inject religion into a discussion, as you have done in the past, often come off looking shallow, as you do here.
"all the issues"
Speaking about people in general, maybe they have considered "all the issues", and decided they don't want CAFTA; did this possibility occur to you? Maybe this is because they are more concerned with what they see happening around them, i.e. to their communities, where they and their children have to live. You know, all the problems caused by (what is in many areas) overwhelming Hispanic immigration, which they have experienced and are experiencing, and which has undeniably brought with it many problems, including increasing poverty/neighborhood degradation, crime (including horrible, in some areas nearly out of control gang-related crime), and "bad schools". All of which is plenty well documented on this site, as well as many others.
So maybe they're intelligent enough to recognize the tradeoffs, have made some analysis, reviewed their experience, and made a decision.
You see, money and potential economic benefits are not everything to everybody. People can see the tradeoffs, and have decided these "other areas" are just not important enough.
Apparently, it's really difficult for you to understand that.
Which does not surprise me, as you appear to be an ideologue, and largely impervious to argument yourself. Which makes you a huge hypocrite for accusing others of the same. Not to mention a condescending jerk.
And failing to see this makes me think you are not too bright either; have you looked up the definition of ignoramus yet?
eh (not verified)
Fri, 07/08/2005 - 10:26
Permalink
"FAIR on CAFTA"
Actually, what's "remarkable" is how smugly self-righteous and even condescending some people can be -- implying that those who reject CAFTA have done so out of ignorance or 'narrow-mindedness'. People who are prone to inject religion into a discussion, as you have done in the past, often come off looking shallow, as you do here.
"all the issues"
Speaking about people in general, maybe they have considered "all the issues", and decided they don't want CAFTA; did this possibility occur to you? Maybe this is because they are more concerned with what they see happening around them, i.e. to their communities, where they and their children have to live. You know, all the problems caused by (what is in many areas) overwhelming Hispanic immigration, which they have experienced and are experiencing, and which has undeniably brought with it many problems, including increasing poverty/neighborhood degradation, crime (including horrible, in some areas nearly out of control gang-related crime), and "bad schools". All of which is plenty well documented on this site, as well as many others.
So maybe they're intelligent enough to recognize the tradeoffs, have made some analysis, reviewed their experience, and made a decision.
You see, money and potential economic benefits are not everything to everybody. People can see the tradeoffs, and have decided these "other areas" are just not important enough.
Apparently it's really difficult for you to understand that.
Which does not surprise me, as you appear to be an ideologue, and largely impervious to argument yourself. Which makes you a huge hypocrite for accusing others of the same. Not to mention a condescending jerk.
And failing to see this makes me think you are not too bright either; have you looked up the definition of ignoramus yet?
eh (not verified)
Fri, 07/08/2005 - 10:08
Permalink
"an evil act"
No one suggested people sending money to their families was an "evil act", in and of itself. The post was about how the fact that many of these people are, most likely, here illegally was completely ignored in the writing and publishing of this report -- you know, selective omission of facts, 'coloring the news', etc. (Kind of the same thing you do.)
You see, some people have a concern about what will happen to the country if we continue to, more or less, leave a decision about living and working here up to individual aliens. Based on what they see happening around them, there is a definite downside to not enforcing immigration law, and articles like this give the impression that it is somehow uimportant to worry about all of that.
Pretty simple, really; even you should get it now.
Ralph (not verified)
Fri, 07/08/2005 - 03:33
Permalink
Only in America can someone sending money to his family be twisted into an evil act.