Posted on 07/02/2007 7:12:30 AM PDT by Mr. K
My view — based on snippets that I have read here and there — is that the Powers That Be want to construct an Über-State over the next twenty years that will consist of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
The Über-State must have, in order to really work, complete freedom of movement of its people across all of its internal borders; no internal trade barriers; a common currency; common commercial/civil laws and, eventually, in essence (at least) a common government.
Mexico will contribute an infinite supply of cheap labor and manufacturing; Canada will contribute Oil (from the enormous world-class oil shale deposits beginning to come online that rival Saudi Arabia); and the United States will contribute the Managerial Class, technology, and capital that will operate the whole thing.
Why?
To effectively compete against the Rising China and to keep the Americas the dominant military and economic power in the world through the 21st and well into the 22nd centuries.
This coming Über-State will have, within twenty years, half a billion people; an enormous and fast-growing internal market (a GDP of $20-trillion or about 1/3 or so of the entire world); and, of course, the world’s largest and most capable military.
I believe that *That* is what it is all about. It actually makes sense from a “geopolitical” point of view.
I am *not* saying that I agree with it - just that it makes sense from a certain point of view.
That, in short, is the answer to the original question. The bill contained provisions to allow lots of low wage immigrant labor to keep the PPI low and citizenship provisions to enlarge the voting rolls of the Democratic party.
Unfortunately for the proponents, there was another Left/Right coalition that defeated the bill. Labor did not like the wage-lowering effect of massive and unregulated immigration. The rank and file Right did not like the amnesty-like provisions of the bill. Neither the labor nor the rank and file Right trusted the Congress to actually implement the border control and labor enforcement provisions of the bill. The same kind of promises were made during the last Congressional amnesty in the mid 1980s. Those promises were abandoned so quickly that it was obvious the promises were only made to get the amnesty passed. We remain convinced the same would happen with the new bill.
Myself, I might be willing to accept the guest worker program and a citizenship track for some illegal aliens, provided they pay some sort of penalty for entering illegally in the first place. I WOULD NOT accept such a program until Congress first creates and funds an infrastructure for border security and workplace enforcement and the executive branch implements such a program effectively for several years. The Federal government has proven they cannot be trusted to implement both at the same time.
“The only thing is that those who have gone through the legal process are proud that they have and many feel that giving the illegals amnesty demeans their own efforts”
Bingo
I’m an immigrant...Yes this is part of how we feel...
Also the continual labeling the 25,000,000 illegal aliens as “immigrants” clouds the issue, makes them appear legal, and gives them a staus that does not belong to them...
By using so callously the REAL immigrants legal entry experience, the authors and supporters of the AMNESTY Bill offended millions of people who love America and are appalled and ashamed of the illegal aliens riotous behavior and unwarranted demands...
Well, that would explain why some otherwise conservative lawmakers are so inexplicably ga-ga over such a concept.
Different people and groups backed it for different reasons.
But ultimately it all comes down to one thing: MONEY
Cheap labor = Higher Profits = MONEY
More Votes = More Power = MONEY
More Victims & Victim Groups = Larger Poverty Programs = More Power = MONEY
Open Borders = Less Trade Restriction = Higher Profits = MONEY
Mais oui. Go to
www.spp.gov and read "Smart Secure Borders" on the fact sheet.
In fact, it would be wise to read the whole thing.
You know if they would have said so, I would have thought about it... that actually DOES make sense (from a geo-political standpoint)
I am ALL FOR great business decisions, and decisions of that magnitude must be considered... but the way they tried to ram this piece o’ crap down our throats just made me so mad...
They need to level with the American people, and use their time and energy on convincing us that this is a desirable thing. The unions and blue-collar people would be against it, and many American patriots and sovereignists, so that is presumably why they are trying to do it secretly. However, I believe that the secretive approach will cause them more grief in the long run
Well, you sometimes you gotta give that medicine nice and sloooooow, kiddo...
President Bush to Attend North American Leaders' Summit in Canada
President Bush will travel to Montebello, Quebec, Canada to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico at the North American Leaders' Summit on August 20-21, 2007. The leaders will review progress and continued cooperation under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, as well as discuss hemispheric and global issues.
The other aspect of the plan is the fact that the southern border of Mexico is much shorter than our border with Mexico, and is thus more easily policed (theoretically), However, the level of corruption in Mexico is so high that in practice it will be porous.
This silly and childish empire building ignores the breakup of empires in the 20th century and repeats the same thinking and some of the same mistakes. In the 19th century they insulated their governments and people (or thought they did -- but see the Muslim population in Britain, France, etc.). We are now opting for a sort of giveaway of our culture and nation. Essentially, "we'll trade you our sovereignty and traditions for your workers and resources." Silly, doomed and dangerous.
I confess that my naive assumption was that we went into Iraq partly because it was one of the states backing the terrorists, partly because all the Democrats were agreed that Saddam was the evil enemy, and partly in order to secure the second largest middle-eastern oil supply, in case we had to deal with the Saudis, who are fundamentally responsible for the rise of the Jihadists. The Saudis would pretty certainly blow up their oil facilities if attacked, and it could take a good long time to restore the infrastructure.
I also assumed that we would DEAL with the state-sponsored sources of terror, which certainly included Syria and Iran, using Iraq as our base in the area as you suggest.
If Bush can be faulted, it is because he started out exactly in the right way, and then seems to have decided not to follow through in the logical way. He has remained in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he has failed to follow up as he should have done.
The democracy thing was a true reason (though ambitious), based on the idea that democratic states don't often attack other states. The WMD thing was also real (look at the 1995-2002 comments of even Pelosi and both Clintons -- everyone felt he was a real danger, mostly to Israel and our Arab 'allies').
Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Toll free to the US Senate:
1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)
Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
phone: 202.863.8500 | fax: 202.863.8820 | e-mail: info@gop.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.