Yes it's ridiculous. And you know very well why I said ridiculous. Now you're trying to distort the debate. What you've just said in the last post, isn't what you said in the first post. You said "South Africa is the wealthiest nation in Africa but yet their GDP is half of that of Mexico", and by that, you tried to say that Mexico is wealthier than South Africa, forgetting or deliberately omitting that the population of Mexico, is also about 3 times times greater than that of S.A, that's why I gave you ironically the example of China and Canada. The wealth is indicated by the GDP per Capita, not by the GDP. And between, the welthiest country in Africa isn't South Africa, but Mauritius. And as I said before, the official GDP per capita is just GDP/Total population, it doesn't provide
any indication as to how prosperity is distributed within a country. Here is a link, go to II-A, to have a better idea about the definition of the GDP per capita
www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-064.pdfA better indice of poverty, could be given by the percentage of the population living below poverty line. 40% of mexicans are included in this category----------------->
www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ec&v=69 here is the definition of the poverty line(from encyclopedia.com)
The poverty line is the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live. People who have an income below the poverty line have no discretionary disposable income, by definition. What does that mean?
40% of mexicans, cannot purchase all they require to live. You will tell me, how come China has a lower percentage of population living below poverty line? because China isn't a third world country like Mexico (capitalist countries with low HDI), but a second world country (a communist country). What does that mean? People in China have an average income a lot lower than that of mexicans, but yet they have enough to purchase the basic and the indispensable resources to live. (If you don't have any idea about the economic model in communist countries, go read some texts about it)
Because though they have the same GDP/capita, they haven't the same level of prosperity as I explained above. There is even a debate about wether S.A should be considered as a first world country, or a third world one. But because of the disparity between Whites/asians, and Blacks, the second denomination is more correct.
First of all, let's be clear about the definition of the third world (Economically*), as seemingly, the average american (or maybe just you), has a different one.
*THIRD WORLD, the economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America, considered as an entity with common characteristics, such as poverty, high birthrates, and economic dependence on the advanced countries.
webclass.lakeland.cc.il.us/his153/new_page_13.htm*The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia
*"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China
*"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.
www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm*There are two definitions of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world. Politically/historically, it meant
1st world----> The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".
2nd world---->The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World".
3rd world---->The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."
Nowdays, when we use these terms (1st, 2nd and 3rd world), we often talk about the state of developement of countries.
Personally, I prefer to use the following terms, to better describe the developement of the 3rd world countries
*(LDC's) Least developed countries------>
Africa Angola Benin Burkina Faso Burundi Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Guinea Guinea-Bissau Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mozambique Niger Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia Sudan Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia
Asia Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia Lao PDR Maldives Myanmar Nepal Timor-Leste Yemen
Australia and the Pacific Kiribati Samoa Solomon Islands Tuvalu Vanuatu
Caribbean Haiti
*Developing or, socially and economically growing countries----> the rest of the third world.
*Developed countries (Western Europe, United States, Canada, Japan, and Australia) Sometimes, we can also include South Korea, Taiwan, and others countries with the same characteristics.
--------------------------------------
No let's talk about the purchasing power. The GDP/capita (PPP) of Mexico is 9000$ (est 2004 according to http://www.photius.com), that of Saudi Arabia is 11800$. It's not a great difference. So, do you think people in Mexico live like people in Saudi Arabia? Or maybe just a little worse? Tell me, do you think the GDP/capita or PPP, are an indication of the real average income/capita?
? I gave my explanation in the first answer, I am waiting for yours now.
Amerindians, Mestizos, whites, or blacks, they're all citizens of Mexico. I don't see where you're trying to go.
As for the
real unemplyment rate of Mexico, go read this link
www.mexico-child-link.org/mexico-factfile-statistics.htm (it's from a humanitarian organization in Mexico, and as they know better than anyone, the reality of the country, it's a more reliable source, for the poverty and unemploment rate in Mexico).
Those who died make a tiny percentage of the whole illegal immigrants who cross the border, but yet there is always, the risk of
DEATH (as well as the risk of being robbed, raped, beaten, etc...). What is the number of US troops in Iraq? 160 000 How many US soldiers died last year in Iraq? 845 . As you see, not many, compared to the whole number of troops. Does it mean being a soldier in Iraq is not risky? No. Does it mean, a soldier before going to Iraq, doesn't take in account that never going back home (alive) is a possibility? Of course, no. Do you think young american men(most of them, blacks, hispanics and rural whites) enlist in the army because they love this profession? I don't think so. Do you think if they had better opportunities in Life, they would join the army as soldiers? Obviously no. I hope you are able to make the comparison.
What is the point of giving me the link toward an article that talks about the money immigrants send to their families? It's good to debate with links, sources, and third opinions/articles/texts. But sometimes, it's better to give rational arguments instead of distributing randomly links and articles from internet.
Why do immigrants make Western Union transfers to their countries? Because they have
dependant families there.10.5 billion $, humm....
About 5.3 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico are living in the United States, according to estimates based on the March 2002
Of the 32.5 million foreign born covered in the March 2002 CPS, 9.8 million or 30 percent were from Mexico.
There are 30 million americans who identify themselves as hispanics, let's suppose that 60% of the american hispanics are of mexican descents. Then you have, 33,1 million of Mexicans(both immigrants and naturalized mexicans) in your country, let's suppose, 40% of these mexicans are under the age of 18, then you have 19.86 million of adult mexicans, let's suppose, that just 60% of them, send money to their country, then you have 11.916 million of mexicans who make Western Union transfers to their country. then 10.5 billion/11.916 M= 881 $ per year. Therefore each mexican send in average, 881$/year or 73 $ /month, to his relatives in mexico.
That's not a BIG DEAL, it doesn't prove they're NOT POOR.
Yes, they're slaves. It's the modern form of slavery, in our capitalist countries, and you can't deny it. Businessmen need cheap labor that will pick up fruits, wash dishes in restaurants and clean the houses of their masters. Humans unlike animals have dignity, don't forget that, if Maria had better opportunities in her nativeland, she wouldn't cross the border to work as a domestic or cleaner in the house of Señora Ann, and Señor George. So don't tell me fables about mexican immigrants who're interested in america, just because the wages are higher. If they had the slightest hope in their country, they wouldn't risk their lives to live in the shame.
60% percent of romanians in France, have some college education, and what? All of them come from the poorest families, and most of them, end up in brothels, sex clubs, or living by petty crime. Public universities in both Mexico and Romania are
FREE, the middle and upper class in Mexico, enroll in private universities.
www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/lat-m26.shtmlWTF? the poorest states in Mexico are the southern states especially Oaxaca, Guerrero, Tabasco, Chiapas, and Michoacan. The richest ones, are the border states (chihuanhua, Nuevo Leon, Baja California etc...) and D.F. Do you know at least what you're talking about? Most mexican immigrants come from Southern States.
Poverty in mexican southern states-------->
wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/0/541D538865DA825A85256DC5007A7BC8?OpendocumentGo to page 31, there is a map there, of the poorest and richest tates in Mexico.---->
www.ruf.rice.edu/~econ/placement/AGUAYO/AGUAYO%20ABSTRACT.pdfAlso most mexican immigrants come from the south, So what are you talking about? Who told you there is a lot of work in Southern Mexico?
You call that Welfare? You must be joking. Well, I won't blame you, because in United States there isn't a real Welfare system like in Europe, so what you understand by welfare is obviously, near to zero.
-------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Mexico is obviously not as poor as the LDC's (least developed countries), but yet, it's still a third world country, with the typical problems of this category of countries. Entering illegally in a country is against the law, and protecting the borders from the human invasion, is the duty of every government, but claiming that third world immigration isn't caused by hopelessness, is simply not true. I hope the government of your country, takes a more firm and severe measures against illegal immigration, they should also urge the mexican government to put an end to its corruptness, and better share the wealth among the mexican citizens.