Oliver Stone's 'South of the Border' -- On Probation

[Vicotnik]

http://southoftheborderdoc.com/

Just saw a few clips from this documentary on Democracy Now! and would like to hear how the US public reacts to this kind of film. I haven't seen it myself yet so I can't comment on the film but I'm aware of the way Chavez & Co is portrayed in mainstream US media.

Your thoughts guys?

[andyb]

I am looking forward to this, it could be enlightening, not least because the US media is notoriously defensive of US politics, and US politics is notoriously biased towards nations that threaten it in any way (military, trade, financial or anything else).

Looking from the outside in is one thing that I already do with the US, but I look from the direction of England, it will be a different perspective from the direction of South American countries.


Andy

[m0002a]

Oliver Stone is a paranoid schizophrenic. You may recall his film JFK, in which he claimed that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, so South of the Border is going to be fairly predictable. I don't think anyone will care much (other than Amy Goodman), just as very few in the US care much about Chavez (except when he acts like a 13 year-old and throwing temper tantrums and hurling insults at people).

Too bad for Chavez that Obama is now the US President. Chavez has to dig a little deeper to manufacture enemies and justify the suspension of civil and political rights in his country.

[m0002a]

US politics is notoriously biased towards nations that threaten it in any way (military, trade, financial or anything else).

So who do you think is threatening the US? Chavez? He is nothing more than a mosquito to the US.

[frenchie]

I'm sure it can be entertainning !!
Like any kind of media, never use only one source of info !

So who do you think is threatening the US? Chavez? He is nothing more than a mosquito to the US.

I think this is not quite right : the US imports about 10% of their oil from there if I remember correctly. It's not a negligeable amount ! (imagine a mosquito sucking 10% of your blood !! )

[EDIT : Venezuela is the 4th US profider of oil ! US gov Source : http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html]

[m0002a]

I think this is not quite right : the US imports about 10% of their oil from there if I remember correctly. It's not a negligeable amount ! (imagine a mosquito sucking 10% of your blood.

So if Venezuela refuses to sell oil to the US, they will sell it to someone else, say Japan, for example. Then an equal amount of oil that Japan previously bought from someone else, would now be sold to the US instead. The US might be concerned if Venezuela stopped producing oil altogether, but if that happened Chavez would be overthrown by his own military in a matter of hours, because oil is how Chavez funds everything (the rest of the economy is not doing so well under a socialist government).

Besides, most oil from Venezuela is heavy crude, and the US has the special refining facilities needed to handle that kind of oil, which not all countries have (at not least in the quantity necessary). Chavez needs the US a lot more than we need him.

[colm]

I am at the other end of the continent for a reason long before me.

I would ask the viking that found america first, his opinion, but hes dead, I am sure.



For something so opposite, like a toilets water spinning the other direction north and south of the equator..

I still focus on sidewalks, buildings, fences, streets and cars.

there is a man above all of them.

he got prduct, it needs selling. These angry outbursts must be pretentious.

I like what that one guy said of bush. I doubt Bush said it out loud to a mexican.. but his attempt at reading bush was good, declaring it truth.

[Vicotnik]

Oliver Stone is a paranoid schizophrenic. You may recall his film JFK, in which he claimed that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, so South of the Border is going to be fairly predictable. I don't think anyone will care much (other than Amy Goodman), just as very few in the US care much about Chavez (except when he acts like a 13 year-old and throwing temper tantrums and hurling insults at people).

I like some of his movies, but I agree with you that JFK is not that great. He seems to have bought the whole "JFK was going to save the world"-myth.

However, South of the Border is a documentary while JFK is almost pure fiction. I think digging in the JFK shooting is a waste of time, but the independence movement of South America is very interesting. It will be very interesting to see how the US reacts. Can Colombia break free? Sadly, I think not.

Is this the general consensus in the US, that Chavez is irrelevant?

[andyb]

Oliver Stone is a paranoid schizophrenic.

I feel sorry for him.

You may recall his film JFK, in which he claimed that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated

Never seen it.

so South of the Border is going to be fairly predictable.

Really.

I don't think anyone will care much

I wont judge it until I have seen it.

other than Amy Goodman

Who.?

just as very few in the US care much about Chavez (except when he acts like a 13 year-old and throwing temper tantrums and hurling insults at people).

I know almost nothing about him, so as I said before, this will be enlightening.

Too bad for Chavez that Obama is now the US President.

Why.?

Chavez has to dig a little deeper to manufacture enemies and justify the suspension of civil and political rights in his country.

Does he.!!!

So who do you think is threatening the US?

Various groups of fanatics from around the world, and various nations who consider themselves as being bullied by the US.

Chavez? He is nothing more than a mosquito to the US.

Really, thats good to know.


Andy

[frenchie]

The US might be concerned if Venezuela stopped producing oil altogether, but if that happened Chavez would be overthrown by his own military in a matter of hours, because oil is how Chavez funds everything.

True

(the rest of the economy is not doing so well under a socialist government).

May be true for Venezuela, irrelevant for some others.

Besides, most oil from Venezuela is heavy crude, and the US has the special refining facilities needed to handle that kind of oil, which not all countries have (at not least in the quantity necessary).

Good point.

I still think this movie is worth seeing. And I certainly won't judge it until I've seen it !

[psyopper]

To the best of my knowledge, the US and Venezuela were BFF all the way up to the point where Chaves nationalized all of the oil production facilities in Venezuela.

Those facilities were paid for (in full) by foreign oil companies, primarly US companies. A certian percentage of their production was returned to Venezuela as part of the development and production agreement between their government and our companies. When Chavez realized he could have 100% of the proceeds from those facilities he nationalized them.

We didn't make a big stink about it because he kept the oil flowing from those facilities to our ports. Since then he has held them over our head (10% is a large number) and is what has kept us from doing much about him. This is where he draws his strength against the US from.

3 or 4 winters ago when he was being very prickly to the US (when he literally called Bush "Satan") we were going through a significant oil price increase $120+ per barrel. People in New England, who primarily use oil for heat (rather than natural gas or electric) were fearing for the prices they would be paying to heat their homes - many were expecting their heat bill to be upwards of $3000 for the winter. Chaves stepped in and said - "Venezuela is willing to subsidize the price of heating oil for the Americans so that they don't freeze to death." Sounds nice, but considering the source I think his intentions were elsewhere.

About Oliver Stone - He's got just as much of a point to prove as any other power-player in Hollywood. Clooney and Pitt can get face time anywhere for a 5 minute sound bite, Stone gets 2 hours of your undivided attention. Stone is not a documentarian, he is ultimately profit driven and will make a movie that will draw as many people as possible so that he may reap as large a profit as he can.

If Oliver Stone were truly a patron of humanity he would release his "documentary" free to the people on PBS and via Bit Torrent so that we all could know the truth.

[Vicotnik]

Those facilities were paid for (in full) by foreign oil companies, primarly US companies. A certian percentage of their production was returned to Venezuela as part of the development and production agreement between their government and our companies. When Chavez realized he could have 100% of the proceeds from those facilities he nationalized them.

If he puts the money to good use then he's a moral person in my opinion, if he does not (like keeps it to himself and a small elite) then he's not a moral person.

If the choice stands between screwing over a few huge corporations or screwing over the majority of your population, screwing the corporations it the right choice.

The national resources of a country should primarily benefit the population of that country, and I see no other way to achieve that than to nationalize production. I think we have plenty of evidence that shows that for a poor country to privatize these kinds of things is not a good deal for the population. It is good for oil prices in New England though.

[m0002a]

It is not a major concern of the US government if a foreign country cancels a contract and seizes the assets of private US company. The US government may protest a little, but private companies know that doing business overseas always has that risk, and it is their responsibility to plan for those when they make a risk/reward calculation. The US government is not going intervene militarily for something like that. It has nothing to do with whether the oil gets produced and sold on the world market to the highest bidder (I can assure you Chavez will sell to highest bidder).

Concerning Chavez himself, Frontline (A Public Broadcasting System show in the US that is probably the most respected documentary show around, even though they have a somewhat liberal bias) did a show on Chavez. It was not exactly flattering toward Chavez, although it was fair. Here is a link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/

[psyopper]

Speaking of Chavez and nationalizing US owned oil production facilities - he did it again today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_ ... a_oil_rigs

[m0002a]

The national resources of a country should primarily benefit the population of that country, and I see no other way to achieve that than to nationalize production. I think we have plenty of evidence that shows that for a poor country to privatize these kinds of things is not a good deal for the population. It is good for oil prices in New England though.

The mineral right of the oil in question always belonged to Venezuela, even when the foreign oil companies were producing the oil. The way it usually works is the oil companies will put up all the money to do the exploration, drilling, etc, and then the royalty owner (Venezuela in this case) get a percentage of the sales without any deduction of the expenses. The investors (usually mutitple oil companies to spread the risk) share whatever remaining net profit that may exist.

If they wanted to, Venezuela could have taken a larger cut of the proceeds and put up some of the drilling money themselves, and take a net-profit percentage of the producing well in addition to a sales royalty. This could make them more money but entail much higher risk and require a big investment upfront.

Being a government, I am sure that Venezuela imposed all kinds of mineral extraction taxes in addition to getting royalty payments. .The same is true in the US for federal lands and for state owned land (states like Alaska, Texas, and California make billions from oil without putting any money up front). As we saw in the Deep Water Horizon well in the Gulf, drilling for oil is financially very risky and requires huge capital outlays.

The thing that is not fair in this case, is to let the oil companies spend all the money drilling the wells and then take them over after the big money is spent, so the oil companies get no return on their investment. What Valenzuela will find in the future (so long as Chavez is in power) is that they will have to put up all the drilling and expense money themselves, and it won't be so profitable down the road.

If nationalizing the oil wells on government owned property was such a good idea, then all the North Sea oil wells would be nationalized, as would a very large percentage of those in the US. I am not sure Obama wants to be in the oil business, considering how much the population hates those companies.

[m0002a]

Speaking of Chavez and nationalizing US owned oil production facilities - he did it again today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_ ... a_oil_rigs

Chavez nationalized the oil companies, and became the owner-operator of the oil wells himself. He hired contractors to do the drilling work, and but did not pay them for over a year. He then took them over when they refused to work for free.

Nice short term gain for Chavez, but it seems it would be difficult to hire another contractor in the future, and it is doubtful that Chavez can do a good job of drilling the wells himself, even if he took all their drilling equipment. But I don't have a lot sympathy for the drilling contractors, since they should have know Chavez would probably do that.

[Vicotnik]

The mineral right of the oil in question always belonged to Venezuela, even when the foreign oil companies were producing the oil. The way it usually works is the oil companies will put up all the money to do the exploration, drilling, etc, and then the royalty owner (Venezuela in this case) get a percentage of the sales without any deduction of the expenses. The investors (usually mutitple oil companies to spread the risk) share whatever remaining net profit that may exist.

The oil companies naturally want a nice return on their investment. It's usually much easier to work with a corrupt regime (democratically elected if possible, if not then that's fine as well) to get a good deal. That's the main problem.

The thing that is not fair in this case, is to let the oil companies spend all the money drilling the wells and then take them over after the big money is spent, so the oil companies get no return on their investment. What Valenzuela will find in the future (so long as Chavez is in power) is that they will have to put up all the drilling and expense money themselves, and it won't be so profitable down the road.

Of course it's not fair. But among the reasons for Venezuela to nationalize its oil production is that the deal wasn't fair to begin with. Or so I assume, I'm not familiar with Venezuela specifically. I suspect they will do fine without US support, if the US lets them be.

If nationalizing the oil wells on government owned property was such a good idea, then all the North Sea oil wells would be nationalized, as would a very large percentage of those in the US. I am not sure Obama wants to be in the oil business, considering how much the population hates those companies.

The population would not hate the companies if they owned and controlled them. Of course nationalizing stuff does not automatically make it so, no matter if the country is Venezuela or the United States.

[m0002a]

The oil companies naturally want a nice return on their investment. It's usually much easier to work with a corrupt regime (democratically elected if possible, if not then that's fine as well) to get a good deal. That's the main problem.

I am not sure why the previous regime in Venezuela would not want the best deal they could get, regardless of any corruption (which I not seen any real evidence of anyway). It is a lot easier to get the best deal one can from the oil companies, and then steal from one's own government, then it is to get bribes from oil companies (in the US anyway) because of very strict laws against bribing foreign governments in the US. Everyone else in the world seems to be able to negotiate good deals with the oil companies.

Of course it's not fair. But among the reasons for Venezuela to nationalize its oil production is that the deal wasn't fair to begin with. Or so I assume, I'm not familiar with Venezuela specifically. I suspect they will do fine without US support, if the US lets them be.

I don't know what you mean by "US support". Those were private international oil companies, not the US government, that were investing in Venezuela. And it was not "support" it was a private investment. Because of the huge amounts of money required to explore and drill for oil, and the risks involved, that is how many governments and individual land owners do it, including the US federal and state governments on government land they own (sign agreements with oil companies). There is nothing inherently bad about that for the citizens since they get royalties on the oil sold, and don't have to risk any money up front.

So you just "assume" the deal was not fair to begin with, without any evidence. According to a post above (with link) Chavez refused to pay the bills to the drilling contractor for the last year, and Chavez is the one who hired them to do the drilling after kicking the oil companies out of Venezuela. And not only is Chavez refusing to pay the $100 million he owes them (or whatever amount), he has taken over their assets and company in Venezuela. Chavez has been in power for a lot longer than one year, so he is responsible for negotiating the contract.

The population would not hate the companies if they owned and controlled them. Of course nationalizing stuff does not automatically make it so, no matter if the country is Venezuela or the United States.

Most people in Mexico hate PMEX (national oil company of Mexico). PMEX is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. One has to pay a big bribe just to get a job with them, because once you are in, the corruption is easy.

[Vicotnik]

Look, I don't want to get into a discussion regarding specific cases, since I don't know enough about it. I'm sure that everything is great in theory. There's nothing wrong with privately owned oil production per se but the way that it's implemented in poor countries leaves much to be desired. Examples of this is everywhere, in Nigeria for example. Natural resources are often a curse in many ways for the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

I'm sure Chavez is an idiot in many ways, as is Oliver Stone, Barack Obama and most people. That's beside the point. What is interesting to me is global trends, like the increased independence of South America and the way media works, both in Venezuela and in the US. I think nationalizing oil production is a good thing for Venezuela or most countries. There are more clear cases, like the Bolivian water struggles.

I feel that the US media often spins these kinds of things out of control. Everything is a grave threat, that must be overcome usually by military means if other means fails. And with the pretext that it's not about control over resources.

Most people in Mexico hate PMEX (national oil company of Mexico). PMEX is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. One has to pay a big bribe just to get a job with them, because once you are in, the corruption is easy.

Mexico is another example of what kind of policies that's possible with a "weak" country. Corruption and violence doesn't matter, as long as the country is US friendly.

[m0002a]

I feel that the US media often spins these kinds of things out of control. Everything is a grave threat, that must be overcome usually by military means if other means fails. And with the pretext that it's not about control over resources.

I think you are wrong about the US media with regard to Venezuela and Chavez. There is very little mention of either in the US except when Chavez starts hurling obscenities at US leaders, especially at the UN in New York.

There is always some hyperbole in any free market press, because the press is a business, and they need to drum up excitement and controversy whenever they can to attract readers. But this affects everything and Venezuela/Chavez has not gotten more hyperbole than anyone else. Lady Gaga has gotten 1000 times more press than Chavez, even on the front page of papers and websites of well-known and respected news organizations.

From a personal point of view, even though I disagree with what Chavez has done with regard to the oil companies (and more importantly, how it did it), that is not a US problem, it is a problem for the specific companies involved. It is also a long-term problem for the people of Venezuela, but that is just my opinion. If Chavez wanted to kick out the oil companies, he should have at least partly compensated them for breaking their originally agreement. But the companies should have known something like this could have happened in a country like Venezuela, so I have no sympathy for them.

Mexico is another example of what kind of policies that's possible with a "weak" country. Corruption and violence doesn't matter, as long as the country is US friendly.

That is a totally ridiculous statement to make. What do you want the US to do, invade Mexico because they have government corruption? It is not our problem, it is a problem for the people of Mexico to deal with how they see fit. Probably the US should invade Louisiana or Detroit first if it is such a concern.

The US has very strict laws against US companies bribing foreign governments (by far the strictest laws in the world) and CEO's can go to jail if anyone in their companies tries to bribe a foreign government even for just business reasons.

[aristide1]

I wrote a brief paper on this drug addict a while back. Since drug addicts are pretty much just a parasite sucking off society I didn't say much positive about him.

Though I suspect there will be many who see whatever his next film is and think, "I'll smoke what he's smoking."

[psyopper]

Since drug addicts are pretty much just a parasite sucking off society ...

Addiction is a little more complicated than that. Some addicts behave this way, but many many more do not.

[Vicotnik]

That is a totally ridiculous statement to make. What do you want the US to do, invade Mexico because they have government corruption? It is not our problem, it is a problem for the people of Mexico to deal with how they see fit.

I was mostly referring to NAFTA. No need to invade, you already have half of Mexico.

Mexico and Colombia plays nice with the US and its policies (like the "war on drugs"). With a strong leadership loyal to the population that would not happen. Or not happen as easily at least.

That's not your problem, but I think it should be.

[m0002a]

I was mostly referring to NAFTA. No need to invade, you already have half of Mexico. ;)

Mexico and Colombia plays nice with the US and its policies (like the "war on drugs"). With a strong leadership loyal to the population that would not happen. Or not happen as easily at least.

That's not your problem, but I think it should be.

The Texas revolutionary war against Mexico had nothing to do with the US. That is like saying the US owns half of the UK since the US declared independence from Britain.

The vast majority of people of Mexican ethic decent who lived in Texas at the time supported the independence of Texas from Mexico. Mexico "claimed" Texas, but had little control of it.

Regarding the war against drugs, obviously the US pays the Mexican government a lot of money to fight the war on drugs. Probably some of that money ends up in the hands of drug dealers. If the Mexican government had strong leadership, the drug cartels would not be controlling their country as it appears is now the case. I don't know what concern it is of yours, unless you use illegal drugs and want them cheaper.

If Sweeden shared an uncontrolled border with Mexico, I don't think you or your countrymen would feel the same way.

[Vicotnik]

Regarding the war against drugs, obviously the US pays the Mexican government a lot of money to fight the war on drugs. Probably some of that money ends up in the hands of drug dealers. If the Mexican government had strong leadership, the drug cartels would not be controlling their country as it appears is now the case. I don't know what concern it is of yours, unless you use illegal drugs and want them cheaper.

Legalization is the only way imho. Treat the drug problem like a health problem and not a criminal problem. But there are a lot of money to be made so I see the reasons for keeping the status quo.
Didn't Mexico plan to legalize (or to that effect) some drugs, until the US put its foot down? Anyway, that's the way to go. With no black markets there will be little need for violence.

The prices would stay pretty much the same or even rise a little bit if drugs would be legal. Quality would be better though.

If Sweeden shared an uncontrolled border with Mexico, I don't think you or your countrymen would feel the same way.

I would, but my countrymen probably wouldn't since the Swedish media is almost as unreasonable when it comes to drugs as the US media. Sweden is much worse than the rest of Europe actually.
And racism is a global phenomena. It's easier to blame the immigrant than it is to understand the policies that lead to the whole situation. Not implying that you are a racist, you seem very reasonable and I enjoy talking to you.

[m0002a]

Legalization is the only way imho. Treat the drug problem like a health problem and not a criminal problem. But there are a lot of money to be made so I see the reasons for keeping the status quo.
Didn't Mexico plan to legalize (or to that effect) some drugs, until the US put its foot down? Anyway, that's the way to go. With no black markets there will be little need for violence.

The prices would stay pretty much the same or even rise a little bit if drugs would be legal. Quality would be better though.

I would, but my countrymen probably wouldn't since the Swedish media is almost as unreasonable when it comes to drugs as the US media. Sweden is much worse than the rest of Europe actually.
And racism is a global phenomena. It's easier to blame the immigrant than it is to understand the policies that lead to the whole situation. Not implying that you are a racist, you seem very reasonable and I enjoy talking to you. :)

I don't know what you mean by "the US put its foot down". What exactly did the US do? Mexico can do what it wants, but if they US is giving them money to fight drugs or for whatever reason, the US has a right to stop such support if it wishes. I am sure that you don't donate money to political causes you disagree with. Maybe the US should demand that Sweden or Mexico send us some money (let me know what conditions are attached). I will also accept personal donations from you or your government.

I have no problem with Latinos in the US if they are here legally (citizens or those with visas). I don't know of any nation in the world that allows illegal aliens to enter their country. Having traveled to many countries around the world, I can tell you categorically that the US has the most lax immigration laws in the world. The US is one of only a few countries (maybe the only country, not sure) where an illegal alien can give birth to a child in the US and the child automatically becomes a full US citizen. What a deal!!

The issue of illegal drug smuggling from Mexico is a different subject, since although it is a big problem, only a small number of Mexicans are involved, and I don't think it is related to illegal immigration.

[flapane]

I don't know of any nation in the world that allows illegal aliens to enter their country. Having traveled to many countries around the world, I can tell you categorically that the US has the most lax immigration laws in the world. The US is one of only a few countries (maybe the only country, not sure) where an illegal alien can give birth to a child in the US and the child automatically becomes a full US citizen. What a deal!!

How curious.
US immigration laws seem pretty strict from the outside.
A regular EU citizen who wants to work in the US must pass trough a real hell:
-immigration lawyers ($$$)
-sponsorship
-4 or 5 years before you get a green card

Pretty strict to me.
As a tourist even (I'll be on the East Coast the next month) you CAN'T even wonder how many things I had to do, starting from ESTA, going trough a new July 2010 TSA law and a special stamp to put on my passport, and ending with giving my data to the airline company so that the immigration can't confuse my name with the name of some terrorist.

You even have fences and patrols on the US-Mex border.
However the problem is always the same: would anybody but an underpayed mexican/puertorican/whatever (in the same way north-africans and romanians here) pick tomatoes under the sun or do some kind of dirty work for a few bucks only?
If the answer is "NO", then we have illegal immigration.
It's all a matter of hypocricy, no law could avoid this. Fences are useless, there will ever be somebody (a rich somebody, in most cases) who will need underpayed manwork.
Let's talk about the restaurants. How many illegals work in NYC restaurants 24/7? Why don't US patrols kick their a****? Why do US let them use a different fake IDs a month without doing anything? (if I can recall, in the US the employer cannot investigate on the worker and check if his documents are fake. If the worker says: "Hi, I'm Manuel Gonzales, here are my documents" and the next month after his fake IDs are discovered, he can go in the same restaurant and say "Hi, I'm Miguel Cardozo, here are my documents"). The answer is simple: underpayed illegals are useful, are functional to the western model of economy, otherwise how in the world could you pay a fraction of what you would pay a legal citizen and receive the same amount of work?
No law could do anything (after all, the whole US is a country made by immigrants, isn't it? People from Ireland and from Italy were allowed to enter because nobody but them wanted do some kind of work)

As for the children question, I know that it's pretty common. Here you may expel the father, but not the newborn baby (it's just a newborn after all), who can be given to a family in fosterage, and he gathers the citizenship. After all, if he grows up in a "normal" family, he'll be a fully integrated citizen, will speak our language, will do anything other people do.

I agree with you, the drug problem isn't related to immigration. Most of them are just searching for a better future (in most cases with wrong expectations. See how the Lybian leader Gheddafi brings the immigrants expelled from Italy in the lybian desert and let them die after unpredictable pains. The electric chair would be a better torture for them, seriously).
Drug involves money laundring, powerful men who negotiate with the south american cartels and let the drug directly arrive in Spain and Florida.
See the EU case: once the drug has arrived in Spain from Colombia, Mexico or Venezuela, all the local mafias handle it. In most cases they use fishermen boats to transport the drug trough the Mediterranean sea, or garbage trucks to transport it on the streets. Immigrants are, at the best, used as drug pushers in the worst areas (because in most cases the drug pushers are local ppl who belong to some criminal organization). In the worst case, they are used as beta testers so they can test new mixtures of crack or other drugs.

[judge56988]

I don't know of any nation in the world that allows illegal aliens to enter their country. Having traveled to many countries around the world, I can tell you categorically that the US has the most lax immigration laws in the world.

Are you sure?

Let me see if I've got this right...

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOUR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE BRITISH BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:

· A JOB

· A DRIVER’S LICENCE

· SOCIAL SECURITY CARD

· WELFARE PAYMENTS

· FOOD STAMPS

· CREDIT CARDS

· SUBSIDISED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE

· FREE EDUCATION

· FREE HEALTH CARE

· A LOBBYIST IN WESTMINSTER

· BILLIONS OF POUNDS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE

· MONEY TO GO HOME IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT IN UK

· THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT

· AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

I just wanted to make sure that I had a firm grasp on the situation.

Although hopefully that will change soon, with the new government policies.

[m0002a]

Are you sure?

Illegals get almost all of those things in the US (including free health care and the requirement that public schools teach their kids in bilingual education of their native language). Your children also become citizens if they are born on US soil (for any reason whatsoever--but not 100% sure about children of foreign diplomats born in the US).

Of course, the main difference is the location of the UK relative to the US. It is a lot easier to cross over from Mexico or Canada into the US than it is to get to the UK from the a foreign country. Also, there are no third world countries within short boating distance as is the case of the US (millions from Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc have come to the US illegally in very small boats).

[m0002a]

I don't know of any nation in the world that allows illegal aliens to enter their country. Having traveled to many countries around the world, I can tell you categorically that the US has the most lax immigration laws in the world. The US is one of only a few countries (maybe the only country, not sure) where an illegal alien can give birth to a child in the US and the child automatically becomes a full US citizen. What a deal!!

How curious.
US immigration laws seem pretty strict from the outside.
A regular EU citizen who wants to work in the US must pass trough a real hell:
-immigration lawyers ($$$)
-sponsorship
-4 or 5 years before you get a green card

Pretty strict to me.
As a tourist even (I'll be on the East Coast the next month) you CAN'T even wonder how many things I had to do, starting from ESTA, going trough a new July 2010 TSA law and a special stamp to put on my passport, and ending with giving my data to the airline company so that the immigration can't confuse my name with the name of some terrorist. :oops:

You even have fences and patrols on the US-Mex border.
However the problem is always the same: would anybody but an underpayed mexican/puertorican/whatever (in the same way north-africans and romanians here) pick tomatoes under the sun or do some kind of dirty work for a few bucks only?
If the answer is "NO", then we have illegal immigration.
It's all a matter of hypocricy, no law could avoid this. Fences are useless, there will ever be somebody (a rich somebody, in most cases) who will need underpayed manwork.
Let's talk about the restaurants. How many illegals work in NYC restaurants 24/7? Why don't US patrols kick their a****? Why do US let them use a different fake IDs a month without doing anything? (if I can recall, in the US the employer cannot investigate on the worker and check if his documents are fake. If the worker says: "Hi, I'm Manuel Gonzales, here are my documents" and the next month after his fake IDs are discovered, he can go in the same restaurant and say "Hi, I'm Miguel Cardozo, here are my documents"). The answer is simple: underpayed illegals are useful, are functional to the western model of economy, otherwise how in the world could you pay a fraction of what you would pay a legal citizen and receive the same amount of work?
No law could do anything (after all, the whole US is a country made by immigrants, isn't it? :) People from Ireland and from Italy were allowed to enter because nobody but them wanted do some kind of work) :)

As for the children question, I know that it's pretty common. Here you may expel the father, but not the newborn baby (it's just a newborn after all), who can be given to a family in fosterage, and he gathers the citizenship. After all, if he grows up in a "normal" family, he'll be a fully integrated citizen, will speak our language, will do anything other people do.

I agree with you, the drug problem isn't related to immigration. Most of them are just searching for a better future (in most cases with wrong expectations. See how the Lybian leader Gheddafi brings the immigrants expelled from Italy in the lybian desert and let them die after unpredictable pains. The electric chair would be a better torture for them, seriously).
Drug involves money laundring, powerful men who negotiate with the south american cartels and let the drug directly arrive in Spain and Florida.
See the EU case: once the drug has arrived in Spain from Colombia, Mexico or Venezuela, all the local mafias handle it. In most cases they use fishermen boats to transport the drug trough the Mediterranean sea, or garbage trucks to transport it on the streets. Immigrants are, at the best, used as drug pushers in the worst areas (because in most cases the drug pushers are local ppl who belong to some criminal organization). In the worst case, they are used as beta testers so they can test new mixtures of crack or other drugs.

In the US, there is a big difference between legal immigration (which is now controlled fairly tightly, especially after 9/11 terrorist attacks) and illegal immigration which is not controlled or enforced.

It is true that some businesses benefit from illegal immigration, but I don't think you see very much of the kind of abuse you claim in the US. They are still subject to the same worker rights laws concerning minimum wage, hours, etc as US citizens or those with legal work permits. Illegal aliens can raise these employment issues with labor authorities without fear of being deported or arrested because they are illegals. Also, most Americans are not against legal immigration (or for people legally entering the US with work permits) from Mexico or most other places, it is illegal immigration that is the problem.

The state of Arizona recently passed a law that says:

1) All non-citizens must carry their immigration documents with them (visa, work permits, passports, etc).

2) A police officer who has reason to believe that someone is an illegal alien has the right to ask them for identification and turn them over to immigration authorities if necessary. Previously, Arizona police were prohibited from asking anyone about their legal status and were prohibited from enforcing immigration laws (or even calling immigration officials) for anyone they came into contact with.

It is still the case in all other US states that the only officials allowed to ask about or enforce immigration laws are US federal immigration officials. No other state or federal agency or police is allowed to raise the issue when in contact with an illegal alien.

After the state of Arizona passed the above laws, the US Federal government (Obama) has threatened a lawsuit against Arizona, many on the left up in arms, and many have called for a boycott of Arizona for business or tourism.

Regarding the fence between Mexico and the US, it is new, and only covers small sections of the border. Not likely to be expanded under Obama.

So in summary, I would still say that the US "probably" has the most lax illegal immigration laws because everywhere but Arizona, the police and other authorities are prohibited from enforcing immigration laws unless they are specifically US federal immigration authorities (which you normally only see at airports). No foreigners are required carry with them their immigration papers (passport, visa, work permit, etc).

And to repeat, the vast majority of Americans are not against people coming to the US to work legally, nor are they against legal immigration from Mexico or most other places.