Globalists Destroying America Diane Alden Saturday, Jan. 10, 2004 In the next century, nations as we know [them] will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all. – Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's deputy secretary of state, as quoted in Time, July 20, l992
The Washington Post reported on Dec. 19, 2003: "Lobbyists working with the White House said Bush is developing a plan that would allow immigrants to cross the border legally if jobs are waiting for them. The sources said the administration also wants to provide a way for some undocumented workers in the United States to move toward legal status.
Furthermore, Bush said at his year-end news conference last week that he was preparing to send Congress recommendations for an "immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee." He said he is "firmly against blanket amnesty" or a mass legalization.
An estimated 8 million undocumented people live in the United States. At least half of them are Mexican, authorities have said.
The blanket amnesty is based on the notion that this will "help" immigrants, the economy and our relations with Mexico. It will allow Mexican workers to come and go across the border so they will not feel they must either stay in the U.S. forever lest they be caught and sent back.
The Bush administration points to how "well" the bracero worker program operated in the '40s, '50s and early '60s. In fact, it did not work well at all.
That's just an exerpt from the article. It concerns the lunacy of cheap labor being so good for our economy.
Cheap labor hasn't hurt us yet. Growth, higher incomes, higher productivity.
What are the anti-globalist going to do when (not if) China dumps Communism and becomes a free market democracy? Whine?
Anti-globalist and leftist look at an intersection on an interstate and wonder how 5 gas stations and 6 fast food restaurants can possibly stay in business...especially when there's another similar intersection just 30 miles down the road.
But of course, simple economics is beyond their ability to rationally think.
Cheap labor hasn't hurt us yet. Growth, higher incomes, higher productivity.
Click on the URL and read how it IS not only hurting us, but we are suffering downswings because of it. I went to post it, forgot to hit exert, went back but apparently it was too late. Please read the whole article. This is just a small part of it. Thanks.
That's funny since my wife's company is growing like a weed and has to now hire 20 more people in the next three months to do all the work. And they only have 125 employees now so that's a 15% increase.
And they are a service company (payroll processing, benefits, HR, internet design, etc.).
In the next century, nations as we know [them] will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all. – Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's deputy secretary of state, as quoted in Time, July 20, l992
The Washington Post reported on Dec. 19, 2003: "Lobbyists working with the White House said Bush is developing a plan that would allow immigrants to cross the border legally if jobs are waiting for them. The sources said the administration also wants to provide a way for some undocumented workers in the United States to move toward legal status.
Furthermore, Bush said at his year-end news conference last week that he was preparing to send Congress recommendations for an "immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee." He said he is "firmly against blanket amnesty" or a mass legalization.
An estimated 8 million undocumented people live in the United States. At least half of them are Mexican, authorities have said.
The blanket amnesty is based on the notion that this will "help" immigrants, the economy and our relations with Mexico. It will allow Mexican workers to come and go across the border so they will not feel they must either stay in the U.S. forever lest they be caught and sent back.
The Bush administration points to how "well" the bracero worker program operated in the '40s, '50s and early '60s. In fact, it did not work well at all.
To burst that particular establishment bubble, one need only refer to the study that appeared in the November/December 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. A very complete summary of the "guest worker" programs of the past was compiled by Philip Martin, University California-Davis, and Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and was titled "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers." (80 Foreign Affairs No. 6 at 117) In that effort certain administration and ruling establishment myths are exploded.
Martin and Teitelbaum take a hard look at the last official U.S. guest-worker program for Mexicans, the bracero program of 1942-1964, which is being used as the basis for the current effort to legalize illegal resident "workers" in the U.S. In every way that matters the bracero worker program was a flop. It did nothing to curb illegal immigration, nor did it force the market to work better – and it did not force the society or economic situation of Mexico to improve. It also did not force productivity gains for U.S. agriculture, which would have been forced to mechanize and modernize as have the agriculture sectors of Australia and New Zealand.
In fact, when mechanization was attempted in tomato fields, California labor groups and activists such as Cesar Chavez fought it. For the most part those who came stayed, and they did not return to Mexico until the big roundup during the Eisenhower administration forced them to return.
Journalist Howard Sutherland, who keeps up on these pesky details that irk the cheap-labor lobby and the ruling establishment, writes: "Mechanical lettuce harvesters were under development in the 1960s. That work was stopped. Today, lettuce is still harvested by hand in the field."
The bracero program also skewed the "free" market. It did nothing to allow business interests to adjust to paying higher wages or becoming more productive through mechanization. Instead it encouraged unrestricted, massive, illegal immigration, which flooded the market with more people at the expense of American workers, productivity gains through innovation, and the advancement of the nation and economy in general.
According to Sutherland, the Sloane study also reveals: "In 1960 some 45,000 farm workers (mostly braceros) had harvested 2.2 million tons of processing tomatoes. By 1999, it took only 5,000 workers to operate machinery that harvested some 12 million tons. Thanks to the efficiency gains from mechanization, the real price of processing tomatoes declined 54 percent while per capita consumption rose 23 percent."
In fact, during the bracero program, which ran from 1942 to 1964, the number of illegals crossing the border expanded in the same proportion as the number of "legal" or authorized or permitted workers. Illegal immigration accelerated after the program and skewed the "free" market by tipping the balance in favor of cheap labor advocates and capital. Meanwhile, the outlet offered by the United States disallowed much-needed economic and social change and reform down Mexico way.
Defending Myths, Half-truths and Lies
The problem with skewing the "free" market in favor of our new unhappy sweatshop lords is that mass immigration – or, rather, migration – has acted to depress U.S. wages and benefits of the lower class, particularly minority groups on welfare, and previous influx of immigrants. (George Borjas,
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/gborjas) A Harvard labor economist and an immigrant himself, George Borjas writes in a recent paper:
"The relative entry wage of successive immigrant cohorts declined by 9 percent in the 1970s, and by an additional 6 percent in the 1980s. Although the relative wage of immigrants grows by 10 percent during the first two decades after arrival, the relative wage of post-1970 immigrants will remain 15 to 20 percent below those of natives throughout much of their working lives."
Don’t forget that the last time there was immigration “reform,” in 1986, illegals were granted amnesty, the floodgates did not close, and immigrant and lower-class wages did not rise in comparison with those of other groups of Americans.
If that is not manipulation of the "free" market, nothing is. Nonetheless, "free" market outfits and think tanks like Cato and Heritage promote amnesty and open borders, seemingly unconcerned for the impact that has on national stability, cohesion and maintenance of the Republic.
The wellbeing of poor Mexicans has zero to do with any of this. It has a lot to do with manipulating the working place in favor of one interest or another.
Blind to the fact that even after generations, immigrants or ethnic bloc voting continues in many areas of the country, establishment Republicans or Libertarians have never known a failed concept they haven't clung to. Do not confuse them with the facts. Invariably, ethnic voting blocs vote for Democrats, by a standard 70 percent to 30 percent margin, with a few points difference here and there. Funny thing: The Republican who received more Hispanic votes than any other Republican in history was Ronald Reagan.
Ethnic groups vote for Democrats because it is Democrats who promise the most. Democrats offer the most in the form of government programs, minority preferences and perks; thus they get into office in areas of high ethnicity. That has been the case in California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida. It is just as true in old ethnic areas such as northern Minnesota, Central Wisconsin, Buffalo, Chicago or any large urban area where ethnic voting blocs remain.
Oh well, there are none so blind as a Republican or Libertarian stuck in the past hanging onto failed mythology, like a 4-year-old clinging to his Teddy bear.
The BIG argument and myth, of course, is that the illegals take jobs Americans don't want. The current argument is that if 8 million to 14 million illegals are forced to go back to Mexico, the country will fall apart. Horse hockey.
The country will adjust, and so will Mexico. We will have to and so will they and so will our elites. We might even see a resurgence of job creation and higher wages for blue collar and lower class minorities because unrestricted cheap labor will not be available. We might see productivity gains if some industries are forced to mechanize and adapt.
However, this amnesty and jerking us around aren’t about truth, what works, law, national identity or cohesion or the "free market." This is about power brokers doing what they damn well please no matter what the rest of the U.S. wants. They will do what they please for short-term economic or political gain, which in fact acts to destroy us in the process.
After the Cold War, that elite decided "harmonization of economies" and rise of "trading states" was the U.S. policy. By God, whether or not it works or we, the people want it, we are stuck with it. Legalization of illegals, a dumbed-down populace, "resident" status over citizenship, bad court decisions, continued end runs around the Constitution are all part and parcel of "harmonization of economies." It is also part of deconstructing nation-states.
Free-market theory is used and abused by the ruling establishment, and in their hands it has become a load of fertilizer.
When the market is really free, it adjusts. When it is really free, transnational corporations and entrenched insider bureaucrats like Robert Zoellick cannot centrally plan benefit for transnational investment capital over U.S. labor or our economic or political self-interest.
When the market is really free, wages are allowed to rise as the supply of labor becomes scarce or otherwise employed. When the market is FREE, unproductive areas of the economy become productive through mechanization and technology, or they adapt or disappear.
Central Planning for Utopia
Since World War II, the ruling establishment, the power nexus in New York/D.C. and now Davos/London/Brussels have been allowed to centrally plan economies and call it the "free" market. Out of utopian notions held by the elites, and which evolved out of World War II, came Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks. Utopians all, they stuck us with the U.N., IMF, GATT, the World Bank, the WTO and NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA.
To add to our misery index, since the end of the Cold War and the demise of Soviet-style communism, that same ruling establishment discovered that corporate interests and U.S. political, spiritual, cultural and economic interests are no longer one and the same.
So it is the ruling elite, which manages to get around the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the states, screws with the free market to the disintegration of our society and nation-state.
If keeping wages depressed by changing the rules in favor of those who want cheap labor is the free market, then the ruling establishment, including some Republicans, are doing what the left is so good at: the manipulation and recalculation of the language.
In fact, according to the law of supply and demand, when the market is working freely, there will be no dearth of American workers to take jobs in hotels, restaurants or fields on U.S. farms or at meat-packing plants. At present there is no deficiency of American workers in places like Duluth, Minn., or Pierre, S.D., to staff the Holiday Inn or the Waffle House. The market adjusts when the ruling establishment and government keep their manipulative proboscises out of it.
American "free trade" zealots and George Bush might regard what happened when Australia was forced to deal with an agricultural labor shortage. They had to mechanize. Thus, Australian agriculture increased its productivity in healthy ways. That also allowed Australia to maintain the rule of law, its own borders, who would be allowed into the country and who would not.
That happenstance supports national sovereignty and identity. An entire nation did not have to pay the price of dislocation and deconstruction in order to provide votes or cheap labor for the ruling class.
The current situation may benefit the cheap-labor lobby, Democrats OR Republicans who only see a voting bloc, but it is a terrible way to run a country.
It is destructive of societal cohesion and growth; it is expanded government that has allowed another victim or dependent class to remain in poverty and at the mercy of employers, the criminal class, lawyers and the state.
Furthermore, contrary to propagandists of the left, right and libertarian, the nature of immigration is not the same as that of the era from 1885-1920. The current situation largely benefits immigration lawyers and judges, who make big bucks from it. It expands government welfare programs and special education programs and adds immensely to the tax burden. It gives power to large urban areas over rural areas. Rotten boroughs are the result and loss of power to the several states is a foregone conclusion.
Dozens of studies also indicate that illegal and legal immigration have added to the tax burden and pile on to the infrastructure nationally, particularly in border states like California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico – and, increasingly, Georgia, Illinois and the Carolinas.
In California, the burden of illegal immigration added at least $1,700 in taxes, fees or costs for each legal citizen.
If we really wanted to learn from history, we would acknowledge that the black market and the migration of Mexicans north would continue regardless of legalization of illegals in 2004. That was the case after the last great immigration "reform" in 1986 and it will be so now. The Bush administration can continue to live in its dream world, but the rest of America cannot afford that luxury. That is, if we want to remain an advanced economy and civilization.
Trouble is the powers that be, Democrats and establishment Republicans, don't like it when wages and benefits must rise to accommodate labor. Democrats prefer more government programs, adding bureaucracies and reasons to get elected.
Meanwhile, establishment Republicans prefer to mess with the "free" market and accommodate transnational or the cheap-labor lobby for jobs on the lower end of the economic scale. In the last few years, that cheap-labor lobby has expanded its control to high-tech jobs through misuse of the H-1B and L-1 visas. The visa system as a whole is a subsidy for transnational corporate interests, which further skew the “free” market.
Together, the new central plan from establishment Democrats and Republicans is a borderless world, the growth of the state, mass migration of people, cheap labor, and power in the hands of unelected elites and bureaucracies and an end to the nation-state. That is their tragedy and ours.
Great White Father Speaks With Forked Tongue
On Dec. 4, 2003, President George Bush decided to acquiesce to the World Trade Organization. His administration gave in to the subsidized mercantilists of the European Union and Japan, China and the WTO on steel tariffs. President Bush claims he just wanted to avoid a trade war and live up to our trade agreements. These agreements, of course, were cobbled together by central planners called globalists. As a great joke on all of us, some of them also incorrectly call themselves "free traders."
In 1992, former Citicorp chairman Walter Wriston published "The Twilight of Sovereignty." It was a foreshadowing of things to come for the United States. He claimed: "A truly global economy will require ... compromises of national sovereignty. ... There is no escaping the system."
On July 18, 1993, globalist Henry Kissinger said in the Los Angeles Times, concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system ... a first step toward a new world order."
Whatever they call themselves, in 1994 this particular branch of our feckless ruling establishment moved heaven and earth to get around the U.S. Constitution. It did so when it climbed over the dying body that is the power of Congress to make treaties, including treaties on issues of money and trade.
Nonetheless, the globalist duo of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, along with complicit Republicans and Democrats, rammed the World Trade Organization agreement through a lame duck Democratic Congress. Like NAFTA before it, the powers that be gave away the national store. They gave it away to an unaccountable, unelected supranational body, the World Trade Organization.
That same faithless establishment forgot to remember that only Congress has the power to make treaties, raise taxes, print money and more or less promote the best interests of the economic and monetary system of the United States. In effect, they rewrote the U.S. Constitution.
The current trading czar, Robert Zoellick, is part of that feckless establishment. Like a thousand guys before, he is the quintessential insider. As a member of the Bush I State Department, Zoellick along with his mentor James Baker III, are either dumb, stuck in dogma or know exactly what they are doing. I prefer the latter explanation; it makes more sense.
After the Cold War, they were part and parcel of the crew that sought to advance foreign policy and trade policy in the post-World War II world for benefit of the elites. On occasion, their benefit and that of the rest of us coincided.
Among the international geopolitical/economic wheelers and dealers, Zoellick was a top dog in NAFTA negotiations. He helped design and carry out United States policy on German reunification a decade ago. He also helped start NAFTA negotiations from his post in the State Department. ("Bush Seeking to Overhaul Policy Making," by Joseph Kahn and Frank Bruni, New York Times, 1/6/2001, p. B14)
He is also a board member of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Nice, considering that German interests now own half the publishing houses in the U.S. and increasing amounts of the electronic media. The fact is if our feckless elites continue down this road, at some point membership in the WTO, for instance, will coerce and censor what is and is not allowed in the media. Since the WTO, for instance, the FCC has established that WTO membership and "the public interest" are the primary criteria for evaluating purchases of American telecommunications
Thanks to this untrustworthy elite, we now have two screwy cadres and faceless bureaucracies to worry about: national and international. The entire cabal continues to centrally plan our economic, political, social and philosophical future. Trouble is, it is making us a less independent, less advanced, less innovative, less cohesive, less creative nation, which at some point will shut up dissident voices that point all this out.
Lucky for us, there was a time in the post-World War II era that the ruling establishment was forced to take into account the best interests of the entire nation.
After the Cold War, however, that same elite decided to re-create the United States and its people and the Western Hemisphere into a collective global player. The rise of "trading states" and regions was to be the wave of the future. In the name of "harmonizing" economies we get an economic central plan, along with NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO – in other words, an economic central plan with a smiley face. Therefore, it is easier to say we can’t control our borders and offer amnesty than to prevent "harmonization of economies" and loss of national sovereignty.
What should blow our minds and indicate where this feckless elite is coming from is that in December of 2003, two weeks after caving in to WTO demands on steel tariffs, free marketer George Bush sent the world another message. Very correctly, he informed the whining WTO and European Union that as far as their economic interests in Iraq go, they could take a flying leap. In his words, "I will talk to my lawyers about it."
In that instance, George Bush acted the way the president of an independent nation should act. Whenever he informs supranational busybodies like the WTO or the UN. that American blood, treasure and sweat will benefit the United States, he is a U.S. president. When he includes supportive allies, business and trade interests in any dealings or benefits that might come out of rebuilding Iraq, he acts responsibly. In those moments, George Bush becomes the leader of the United States, a sovereign nation dealing with other sovereign nations. He wisely puts aside the elitist notion, which is simply a pale re-creation of the role as a corporate head or CEO of a "trading state."
We need a president, a leader and a protector of the Constitution, of our security and, most of all, our interests as a sovereign state. We absolutely do not need another bank president, corporate head, lawyer and Third Way game player like Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich or Robert Zoellick.
We are suicidal if we continue to turn over our liberty, power and advancement to an elitist club of global political and financial powerbrokers as we have been doing, particularly since the early '90s.
One might also remind the faithless game players and globalists that Sept. 11, 2001, was a shot across the American bow. It was a reminder to the central planners that man proposes, God disposes, and the best-laid elitist plans of mice and men go oft astray.
Isn't it amazing how often history and human nature throw the ideas and agenda of central planners, utopians and globalists – our own Napoleons – into the ash heap of history where they belong. God is good.
As it is, our faithless establishment needs to be reminded that only Congress has the power to make treaties, raise taxes, print money and raise funds. It is not the job of the ruling elite to scam the system or the citizenry or find loopholes in the U.S. Constitution to achieve their ends. That is true in "trade agreements" or immigration policy or on a host of other issues.
That same establishment also needs to dispossess itself of the notion that it can create its own constitutional system, apart from the one we have. It is doing so through the judicial oligarchy and through rewriting the U.S. Constitution one court decision at a time.
Unless that ruling establishment wants a revolution on its hands, it needs to get its elitist head out of its own dark orifices. Otherwise do us a favor: Get the passports and plane tickets and climb aboard the next flights out to Davis or Brussels or the Bahamas. Run the world elsewhere and stop destroying ours.
Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor
Our nation was bought at the price of blood, sacrifice, sweat and tears and not for the benefit of unelected or ELECTED elites. It was formed by good men, using good ideas and fine instincts, in a hot room in Philadelphia in 1776.
Although they won't tell the truth about what they are doing, nonetheless our current ruling establishment is deconstructing us one immigration policy, one bad education idea, one court decision, one economic or trade agreement at a time.
They simply call it free trade, free market, the visa system, amnesty for illegals, multiculturalism, judicial review, diversity or "international cooperation." Meanwhile, they betray the philosophical, social, spiritual and cultural necessities of the nation-state called America. That is accurate whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats.
We could all be hopeful for the future if the Bushites got religion and actually absorbed the absolute necessity for the U.S. to remain a cohesive nation in the face of international barbarity, stupidity, ignorance, tyranny and economic double dealing.
We got close to finding our souls again after Sept. 11, 2001. Since then we are slipping faster and faster into adoption and acceptance of various worldwide unaccountable bureaucracies and faceless bureaucrats of the "New World Order."
The War on the U.S.
Economic warfare against the United States will continue as long as mercantilist, protectionist nations can still sell to us, hang onto markets, erode any edge we have in technology, steal what they can't buy, and suck U.S. investment money for their advancement. As long as the ruling establishment negotiates bad trade agreements and joins supranational collectives we will decline economically and politically.
Economic warfare will go on with no end in sight unless our ruling establishment gets a grip and soon. If we continue to operate through guys like Robert Zoellnik or the U.S. State and Commerce departments, we are doomed. If the FCC thinks nothing of allowing foreign ownership of media, just wait for a WTO decision to silence that media.
John Blair, former chief economist for the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Anti-Trust and Monopoly, stated the situation fairly well: "To ignore the pivotal role played by particular individuals who are in positions of power is to do violence to historical accuracy. A recognition that the course of economic events can be influenced by individuals who have the imagination and the power to take advantage of prevailing conditions does not constitute acceptance of a 'conspiracy' theory of history." The ruling establishment; left, right and libertarian, have forgotten the words of Teddy Roosevelt:
"Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with those institutions. (T. Roosevelt, 1901, first annual message to Congress)
It is also tragic that we no longer produce a great noble class of American elites. Their arrogance and globalist insanity goes back to the late 19th century and continues to impact all of us today.
They have become more venal and self-serving in recent years. Having given over our institutions to cultural Marxists in the '60s, almost as readily they hand over our economic and political future to supranational unelected bureaucracies today.
Don't look for another Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan or JFK to stem the tide. Forget the honesty of a Truman or Eisenhower to call a spade a spade. Our current crop of elite are a mediocre blend of the deaf, dumb and blind.
Christian poet G.K. Chesterton called them what they are: "The New Unhappy Lords."
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
Next time: Globalists then, globalists now. The utopian central planning of Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks, GATT, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA et al. Corporate and political betrayal of the Republic prior to, during and after the WTO, MFN. Redux in the post-Cold War: After the Wall fell: Remaking the U.S. into a "trading state."
I read these shrill type of chicken little "the sky is falling" screeds on FR from time to time. I am mostly a lurker here but felt compelled to write on this one.
1) I am disgusted beyond words at the xenophobic terror about "waves of undocumenteds." For DECADES this country had pretty much a policy of "COME ON IN." If you did not have a criminal background and were willing to work, you were welcome. We had wave after wave of Irish, Italian, Russian, Polish, and godknowswhoelse...... , not to mention huge waves of Africans. We IMPORTED up to 60 per cent of the population of some southern states. We did not blow up as a country, lose our sovereignty, become socialist or any of that crap. We had huge problems, but those were mostly of our own making, first by refusing to grant the inalienable rights to ALL members of society, and second by feeling bad about our history and establishing socialistic guilt remediation (mostly regarding blacks). These were NOT the fault of the immigrants. They were the fault of the previous residents.
2) I am REALLY sick of the bitching concerning wage levels and how Mexican Immigrants pose such a threat in that area. I have nothing but contempt for the whiners who post junk like "well, how would YOU feel if YOU lost your job at 50 years old.... blah blah blah." I *AM* almost 50 years old, and have had two non voluntary career changes. I now own a small company with 4 employees (about to hire another one) and we are doing ok. I have had to work my butt off, and yes, my (intact) family has suffered. Am I "secure?" Crap no. That is the nature of the MARKET. We are ALWAYS only as secure as our ability to provide goods and services at a price close to what others will produce it for. Listening to some of these folks here, I can't tell the difference between them and the socialist mewlers who would have us still producing buggy whips because of the economic grief caused when buggy whip manufacturers went out of business.
3)We have a good number of Mexican and Latin Clients (I own a small property/casualty insurance brokerage). I have brushed up on my Spanish and THOROUGHLY enjoy them as clients. Are there losers and grifters in that community? Sure. On the whole though, they are GOOD PEOPLE. They work harder than I do (that is a big statement), want to succeed, want their children to succeed, and are an asset to the general community. I walked out of the office one day and accidentally left over 500 dollars in cash on a table while there were 8 contractors (Mexican) in the room. They never touched it. They do things differently and many like to work "under the radar." My only response to that is "I wish I could do it too." -
My contention is that these "foreigners" are more truly American than some of the "conservatives" you find here. Alot of whining "conservatives" are looking for someone to protect them, while the "foreigners" are just looking for an honest opportunity.
I hear two objections to this frequently:
1) Insecure borders means terrorist threat. Michelle Mailkin wails about this frequently, and I guess there is some threat there. However, the terrorism and terrorist cells we have experienced have all been legal residents, or at least those who came thru the legal system. The reason wetbacks are wetbacks is the raw hypocrisy of wanting them here to cook our food, mow our lawns, wash our cars, pick our food and do any number of jobs we won't do, while denying them the ability to reside here legally in the first place. Just let Hector Sanchez from Puebla show up at the consulate and ask for a work visa. Wanna guess how long it takes to get one, if ever? We just want another class of "N!GGER," WITH NO WAY OUT OF THAT STATUS and it is disgusting and shameful. If we want SECURE BORDERS then we have to alter our immigration policies, because WE WANT THE CHEAP LABOR, FOLKS! So, I don't have much patience for the whiners about Bush's new policy here.
2)The fact that most hispanics work for cash only and are not a part of the tax base, while using schools, hospitals, roads, etc. My first response is "where do I sign up?" I am a libertarian and resent the oppressive tax structure myself. My second response is "what are they doing that my white, black, and asian contractors/restaurant workers/etc are not doing?" The answer is "nothing." All my clients who can dodge taxes. And they use the same services. Wanna deport them? We have a ton of problems re: healthcare and education in this country, but they are not caused by immigrants.
Folks, this is still the greatest country in the world, with the greatest opportunity in the world. Part of the reason for that has been our willingness to OPEN our borders to those wanting to succeed. Pat Buchanan is an idiot to think that foreigners threaten that heritage. He is right in thinking that it is under seige, but he has the wrong enemy. Our European Heritage (particularly our English Reformed Christian heritage...., sorry Pat, but you as a catholic faced the same arguments about a hundred years ago) is under seige from its own dandified, self indulgent weak and irrelevant character. Government immigration policy won't ever fix that.
You know as a retired person I am not in the work force but my children are so this interests me. I hit a c-span show talking about this and I was sort of half hearing it as I was reading and one man said some thing that I picked up on. "We would be a third world country in 20/30 years.' His name was Paul Craig Roberts. I had never heard of him but there is a lot on the PC on him. Very interesting read.The Sen. was a liberal but the others? I just did not get their name but I did look at this man and he does not seem to be just a liberal. He has worked for the GOP in office before.
