Again, your link showed gross migration from Mexico to the US falling dramatically. I'm sorry you can't grasp this.

That quote doesn't even come from that link. It's from this townhall.com column and has nothing specifically to do with Mexico.

Yes, it's from that column. That was a simple copy and paste oversight that didn't copy as I thought, and instead took the previous paste.

And regardless of whether or not it mentions Mexico, it's relevant to counter the lame argument Gambool is trying to make, especially considering some 60% of illegals come from that country.

Anyhow, just to be clear, I'm for amnesty for illegals. I'm merely pointing out the causation of why they're leaving that country. No one seems to have another explanation as to why Mexico can't provide for their people. I'll I've heard are those squawking "net immigration" a lot of times in a row, while they ignore and lie about what those numbers entail.

So Mexico produces less oil, fewer people leave Mexico, and you come, in here shouting that it's all because peak oil and lower oil production are driving people out of Mexico even though fewer people are leaving. Looking good Jiggsy, cool logic.

FYP

Similar Gambool in 2008 probably went like this: Fewer people are dying in Iraq. Clearly that means the surge worked. Nevermind those that did die already.

You're very welcome.

Now grow some and explain how conditions there are not because of lower oil revenue. Or stfu.

Illegal Immigrant Dumping in Arizona

Thesis:
Prediction (from your 2006 article):
Reality:


Conclusion:
???

In other words, before you can argue that there's a causal relationship between (a) lower oil production, (b) reduced government spending, and (c) increased emigration pressure, don't you first have to establish that these things are in fact happening?

Not when you are a religious fanatic that just happens to call your god peak oil you don't.

Before you can argue that there isn't, don't you have to go back a little further than 2009, to say, perhaps, before their oil production actually peaked?

In any event, holding steady at more than 1/3 of respondents admitting they would leave doesn't do very much for your rather baseless position. A and B most certainly are happening, as I've shown. So in my court, I have A, B getting worse, and C holding steady despite horrible push back from red neck America.

I do find it interesting that Gambool was challenged to show how deportations don't count in the figures, and refused to do so.

I did Jiggs. Multiple times. Using your posted link. Dumbing it down one more time...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/thene...-less-20120423

Net immigration ten years ago...over 2 million (2.94-0.67)
Net immigration is approximately zero 2005 to 2010 (1.39 vs. 1.37) that includes deportations.
US to Mexico number. That includes deportations. (that went from 0.67 to 1.39MM)
Mexico to US number. 2.94 million ten years ago. 1.37 million today. Has nothing to do with deportations from the US to Mexico. Falling dramatically.

Oil production peaked between '00 and '05, way fewer people leaving Mexico from '05-'10 then ten years ago, you are here claiming that peak oil is driving Mexican migration soo....yeah, that's why everyone is saying you are wrong. Pretty simple. If you cant understand this, there's nothing much else to say. A smart fifth grader could follow along.

Your reaction to being wrong here is a perfect example of why you got banned from politics.

K, a couple things: ... first, you're a fairly horrible writer, and it takes a while to decipher what you're ever trying to convey. Especially when you keep the goalposts moving to support your logical fallacies.

next, I've already explained (with multiple linked corroborations) why migrations numbers are down. Fatalities, increased push back from border patrol and no work to be found here tends to thwart the green light for leaving. So again, it's not that they don't want to leave. It's that the increased danger of doing so keeps all but the most desperate home.

You're not making much of a case, besides pointing to some numbers and refusing to acknowledge what they actually mean. Meanwhile, they're still coming here in droves, and you're still ignoring the reasons why.

In classic fashion, you lie and pretend I ever said anything about the numbers needing to be inversely proportionate to lower oil production over some time line.

It's true that U.S. efforts on the state level to hinder border crossings have had some affect. Deportations (at enormous cost) have also made the net numbers better. But Mexico is still a failing state, they're still crossing the border for some apparent reason, and you can't explain why. All you hope to be true is that it somehow has nothing to do with oil depletion. And even though I've shown that it absolutely does, all you are able to return to is that migration is down without understanding what that entails.

Like I said: Your troll-like effort is akin to pretending the U.S. "won" Iraq because the death squads ran their course and the killing fell off. I'm claiming the U.S. enabled the death squads to happen in the first place. You're pointing at lower casualties than 2005. Cool argument.

You're so desperate to maintain your "no problem, that's not happening, lolJiggs" platform that you completely lose sight of what the debate was originally about. So here, I'll help you out one last time:

- Mexico is past peak
- Mexico's biggest revenue stream is oil production
- Mexico is descending into a narco-state because it can't fund police response
- A huge reason why Mexicans come here is because their economy is failing precisely due to dwindling oil production

Squawking about how the U.S. is making it harder for them to effectively get and stay here so does absolutely NOTHING for your hollow claim that it all somehow has nothing to do with lower oil revenue.

Again, wrong, d***. I got banned for calling trolls like you a troll. I have the emails in my inbox to prove it. They're quite specific, regardless of what your only two friends (mods) here claim years later.

Seems a little unfair to say I don't have enough data to make an argument, since you apparently didn't need any data at all to make yours.
If you think "holding steady" counts as a win for your argument, I'm not sure what else to say. If you want to argue that C is actually going up but is being constrained by other factors so it just looks like it's holding steady I'm not sure how you could possibly demonstrate that. #unfalsifiable

Where did I argue that it's going up? You appear to prefer arguing with straw men. Have fun with it. I'll be over here waiting for one of you to offer a counter narrative for why they want to leave in the first place.

TLDR lol Jiggs. Did he at least acknowledge fewer Mexicans were coming to the US or not so much?

Yeah, apparently you guys spent 50 posts bickering about immigration numbers because any actual increase or decrease in immigration has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

LOL... standard Gambool... when his argument is stripped bare and he's out of semantics and spin, he pretends he didn't read.

Run along then.

Meanwhile, their oil decline is the major reason their country is failing, and the major reason their poor try to get out, regardless of the rate at which they're deported... Awwww...

Holy **** Jiggs really can't understand those migration numbers. Lol.

Which merchants do you use that accept silver? Are we able to pay our rent/electric/water bill in silver now?

If Mexico had the ability to refine some of their own oil there would not be a problem.

How exactly can they make money off of Oil when they pull it out of the ground sell it to the U.S. for whatever the going rate is. Ship it to the
USA #1 so it can be refined and then use all the money they made selling crude to the US so they can have gas for their cars or whatever they use the refined product for. They would be better off in the long run spending a few Billion on a bunch of refineries. Then they can sell all the crude they want to the U.S. and refine what they need to run their country. Money saved...zillions

1) Pump Crude
2) Sell crude
3) Refine their own
4) ??? (profit)

Repeating this assertion over and over is not the same as defending it.

This thread wasn't about Mexico, it was about immigrants from Central America, primarily El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Are those countries also experiencing "dwindling oil production"? If not, why shouldn't we assume that the drivers of Mexican emigration are similar to those of nearby countries?

Your thesis is a direct correlation between declining oil production and increasing emigration pressure (it has to be if it's "the major reason"). The fact that the desire to emigrate is holding steady works against you. You can explain it away however you want ("rednecks"), but the simplest explanation is that your thesis is wrong.

It is when you don't appear to understand what is being conveyed.

Really? Not to nitpick, but where in the OP does it specifically mention those countries? The thread didn't begin when you chimed in 10 posts later with your Fox News link.

- Honduras net petroleum exports? Down 47K bpd
- Guatemala net petroleum exports? Down 65K bpd
- El Salvadors' net petroleum exports? Down 45K bpd

(mostly a result of rising consumption, but the equation is the same)

No. You trolls are the ones insisting that if my thesis were true, more people would be (successfully) migrating north. That is a straw man argument which conveniently ignores fatality rates, deportations and increasingly deplorable employment conditions here.

My thesis is that peak oil is both a supply AND demand problem, and that governments increasingly can not provide for their citizens, who demand more energy consumption each passing year. There are other factors at play, but the root problem is that oil shortages are strangling growth and seizing up government functions.

They're in decline, and hoping foreign companies can harness their unconventional reserves. You have to prove you can extract the unconventional junk in the first place before you invest in refineries that can handle the unconventional junk.

The OP links to a infowars page that reprints the first 5 paragraphs of a FoxNews article. I didn't know it at the time, but if you click "read more" on that page, you get to the exact same FoxNews article I linked later.

First off, you're giving 2011 numbers - the 2012 numbers are worse (i.e., better for you) in all cases, especially Honduras. Also, if you're going to say "Honduras = Down 47K bpd" you also have to say "Mexico = Up 846K bpd" which sounds pretty good. What's important is obviously the trend, and...

I'll concede that the trend in all 4 countries is moving in the wrong direction.

However, dwindling oil production is not the same as decreasing net petroleum exports. It looks like El Salvador and Honduras have never had any oil production, so like you said this trend is due to increased consumption rather than decreasing production. But the equation can't be the same. The story you're trying to tell in Mexico is that decreasing oil production -> decreasing govt. revenue -> decreasing services -> increased desperation and emigration pressure. This story can't apply to the other countries. There have to be other factors driving emigration pressure.

Eh, I specifically bypassed actual immigration and provided data on Mexicans' desire to emigrate to the US. Those numbers are not moving in a direction that supports your thesis. Obviously there are a lot of confounding factors in all of this. But that's sort of the point: if you have to bring in a bunch of complex factors to explain why observations don't match up with your simple theory, that should suggest that your theory is perhaps a bit too simple.
Ok, that's interesting I guess. But it seems sort of vague to the point where it can't really be disproved. What predictions follow from your thesis? I remain skeptical that oil shortages are really the "root problem" of the issues we've been discussing.

What does less Mexicans coming in now v.s. 5 or 10 years ago have anything to do with anything???

Like 25% less or whatever are coming in so it doesn't really matter now?

Only 150,000 are coming in now versus 450,000 before, so it is all good?

**** that, you know what I mean?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...bers-entering/ lol