No offense, but as a Mexican, I find this post short-sighted. Perhaps you could take a wider look at the issue, and I'll try to explain another side you might have not considered.
Donald Trump's remark wasn't exactly racist as such, I don't feel -- but rather, it was ignorant, misleading, generalizing and yes, even offensive.
First of all, no one is "sending" Mexicans across the border. If a girl from, say, San Marcos, Texas wants to go to Los Angeles to become an actress, then Texas isn't "sending" her away in any form; she's just going in pursuit of her dreams/a better life/a change in her life, or whatever. Of course, she does so legally, unlike these Mexicans who cross over and stay there illegally. And that's another problem with Trump's infamous statement, it simply generalizes the people "Mexico sends" as "having problems" and bringing them into the US, without regard for the many perfectly legal Mexican immigrants who contribute to the economy and society. An example? Luis Miguel lives in Miami. He's a famous singer from Mexico and you may have never heard of him but
look this up, especially the last paragraph, where it's stated (and sourced) that his tour grossed $950 million USD. Guess where that money goes? His account, in the good old US of A. See any Mexicans complaining?
That's one side of it. Let's see another, shall we?
"[Mexicans are bringing] those problems with us."
Who, really, is crossing the border illegally to pursue a future in the US? The answer is very simple. Some of the poorest people in the country, often from the Northern states, where for the most part, there isn't a lot of money, where most of the cartel violence occurs, and where they have it much easier to try it, as it doesn't imply crossing the entire country (not that people from the Southern or even Central states don't make the journey and illegally, cross, but less of them do in no small part because it takes resources they don't have to get there), but let's just agree that it's people in poverty.
What does poverty mean for society? Yes, many times it means crime. You have lots of examples in the US. Isn't Detroit considered a "dangerous" city, but also a poor one? Aren't "the projects" associated with poverty and crime?
Let's go further and talk about races, even. Didn't African-Americans first arrive in what is now the USA as slaves? Weren't they, after Abraham Lincoln's famous Emancipation, still mistreated for generations? Weren't they, as recent as 60s still struggling for equality? Do you think that's a factor in that, even today, there's a lot of black communities who have inherited a state of poverty, areas where there was open segregation, and now poverty and lack of opportunity remains?
Some black people have had the chance to do great things with their lives, many from their families working themselves into positions that allow to provide a better future from their children and said children seizing their opportunities in more recent times, and many from working hard and achieving great things and building huge things in this generation. A black president now forms part of American history for posterity, something that seemed unlikely even a few decades ago.
But there are still many places, as I suggested earlier, where there remains the legacy of the oppression they endured. And in many of those places there is crime. Los Angeles, several decades ago, for example, is a place where there was fierce oppression of black people, lack of opportunities, and where indeed gangs like the Bloods and Crips originated.
Indeed, there was also a very large influx of Latino (and especially Mexican) immigration in LA in the 40s and 50s, and they were mostly poor and remained poor and there were gangs springing up as a consequence.
Weren't Italian and Irish immigrants, who came into the US poor, also subjected to poverty and to a degree, oppression? Didn't they also spawn crime, such as the Italian Mafia families and the so-called Irish Mob?
Crime is not a race-related issue, but poverty plays a very big part in it, and in the USA there have been many instances in which a racial minority is oppressed or otherwise resisted by a sector of the local population and to ignore so is irresponsible. Obviously, poor people have often limited access to education which in turn does them no favors to better their economic standing or status, regardless of whether the minimum wage is higher wherever they emigrate, so they remain poor and often their succeeding generation also remains poor, but this isn't helped by meeting with factors (like said resistance by part of the population) negative to their growth, and being rejected only breeds resentment that later arises as racial tensions on both sides.
I don't mean to explain the various facets and aspects of poverty, immigration, crime and their relationships (or its history in the US), but it's exactly what's ignorant and in my opinion has no place in a country's head of state, to
deliberately point the finger at a group and demonize them.
Of course there may be crime among poor immigrants (and also among poor non-immigrant locals), but their origin or ethnicity has little to do with it. And said crime, is obviously something one wants to avoid, government or otherwise, and people get deported which is also why I find your claim "with no repercussions" dismissive and frankly ridiculous.
You also state "who cares what Mexico thinks of us?"
Well, I think countries and their inhabitants should care to some degree what everyone else thinks. I guess I care enough to state that indeed, not all of us in Mexico are rapists and drug criminals, or poor, ignorant and waiting our chance to sneak across the border.
Some Americans care enough to learn the language of the places they visit as tourists, they care enough to be respectful of those places. Some don't. And the same goes for any nationality. Heck, some Americans care enough to, in this forum, remark that what Donald Trump said wasn't good for how they would want a possible head of state to represent their views or the country's foreign relations. Some, apparently, might not care about that.
And last, you say "I dare you to try sneaking into Mexico!"
Well, I dare you to instead visit and see the place for yourself, talk to the locals yourself, learn about what they're like. See if they're really so bad. See if maybe, there's people both good and bad; if there's people both ignorant and educated.
You don't have to sneak anyway, our borders are open and most of us enjoy foreigners.
EDIT: By the way, it's not my intention to come across as combative or for things to get heated. I am merely stating the little-professed opinion of the Mexican side (and at that, myself as an individual representing none but myself) in the Trump issue and addressing a view I've encountered with more information for consideration. I like a good, healthy, friendly debate, no arguments or fights!
