Here comes Amnesty Part II

[kidpokeher]

Pro-amnesty types start spanking it. Now we have the DREAM act. DREAM stands for Development, Relief, and Edu*cation for Alien Minors and it's being attached to a defense bill. UIGEA anyone?

So what is it? Anyone who's been here since they were a kid can apply. No proof needed so all you gotta do is walk in and say you've been breaking the law since you were at least 16. Then either get two years of college or serve in the military for two years and you're in.

Oh yeah, illegals get in-state tuition rates too. U.S. taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. Sounds fair.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2069.cfm

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, illegals get in-state tuition rates too. U.S. taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. Sounds fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because illegals don't pay taxes, right?

[kidpokeher]

Out of state U.S. residents pay less taxes than illegals, right?

[Ron Burgundy]

More like "here comes the North American Union." You realize that the ultimate goal is completely open borders don't you?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
More like "here comes the North American Union." You realize that the ultimate goal is completely open borders don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

The political/financial elitists' ultimate aim is to deconstruct America (and other countries' borders as well) and usher in a reign of global capitalistic Universalism.

This Utopian scheme, if it comes to pass, will end in tragedy just like every other Utopian scheme in history.

The most vivid example of the foolishness of asssuming the axiom "deep down everyone is alike and wishes for the same things" will become more clear as attempts to democratize the Middle East on a liberal basis, backfire strongly.

The Neocons are in many ways similar in vision with the political/financial elitists regarding borders and sovereignties.

A homogenized world without borders would eventually result in the collapse of regional and political particularisms. This may not sound so bad on its face but it would preclude the possibility having a region where you could live primarily according to the laws you prefer. Particularism and distinct borders are the only way to establish and maintain, for instance, a truly Constitutional Republic such as the Founders intended. Even if such a Republic be not your desire, in a world without borders and sovereignties you'll have to make do with an amalgamation of world laws, including those of cultures who do not share our values and seek to impose others (such as Shari'a Law). And you'll probably have to make do with a World Government or some such overarching bureaucratic and civil-liberty-stripping nightmare.

Money rules the world to a very large extent. The deconstruction of borders and sovereignties will be good for the super-rich and for the very poor, and bad for everyone else in between. And it will be a disaster for those who prize things like political autonomy on small scale.

Here's hoping people wake up in time to dash the dreams of New World Order promoters. Many already suspect the dangers and I don't think the elitists will find their goals as easy to accomplish as they had hoped and expected. Much of Europe is already turning against the EU (in sentiment) although the EU may still be continuing to grow in power. Whether the awakening of the European masses to their political peril (and their demographic peril) will be strong enough to reverse the pernicious tides, remains yet to be seen.

On this side of the pond, it is at least encouraging that Bush's Immigration Amnesty Bill, which was attempted to be rammed through Congress by any and all underhanded means possible, was at last soundly defeated by Congress which feared their constituencies' loud and broad dissatisfactions.

The people can yet resist elitist rule if awareness and vigilance are maintained.

Thanks for reading.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-amnesty types start spanking it. Now we have the DREAM act. DREAM stands for Development, Relief, and Edu*cation for Alien Minors and it's being attached to a defense bill. UIGEA anyone?

So what is it? Anyone who's been here since they were a kid can apply. No proof needed so all you gotta do is walk in and say you've been breaking the law since you were at least 16. Then either get two years of college or serve in the military for two years and you're in.

Oh yeah, illegals get in-state tuition rates too. U.S. taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. Sounds fair.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2069.cfm

[/ QUOTE ]

DREAM has the support of a fair number of Republicans including Orin Hatch. I think DREAM has a good chance making it through Congress.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
This Utopian scheme, if it comes to pass, will end in tragedy just like every other Utopian scheme in history.


[/ QUOTE ]Agenda-driven speculation.
[ QUOTE ]
The deconstruction of borders and sovereignties will be good for the super-rich and for the very poor, and bad for everyone else in between.

[/ QUOTE ] Do you have ANY sort of logic or evidence to support this?

Also, why does destruction of borders = destruction of soverignty?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why does destruction of borders = destruction of soverignty?

[/ QUOTE ]

to give an EU example, if you live in a free speech place like england, (at least historically it was), you can be prosecuted for "hate speech" based on laws say, in germany.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This Utopian scheme, if it comes to pass, will end in tragedy just like every other Utopian scheme in history.


[/ QUOTE ]Agenda-driven speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no agenda other than to analyze and prognosticate to the best of my limited powers. I admit my earlier post is speculation. Is there anything wrong with speculation? Some might say that speculation is a good thing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I cannot think of any large-scale Utopian scheme in history that has not ended in disaster, so that helps bolster my thesis, at least in my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The deconstruction of borders and sovereignties will be good for the super-rich and for the very poor, and bad for everyone else in between.

[/ QUOTE ] Do you have ANY sort of logic or evidence to support this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The elite will be able to cut costs far further yet but still manage to get their way in politics through buying influence. The average American will have less say in government.

There is at present an inherent economic value to merely being an American, for instance. Dissolution of borders and sovereignty would squeeze some of that value out of the picture. In that respect, at least, the economic agenda of the elitist "one-worlders" conflicts with the interests of the common citizen of prosperous Western countries. That doesn't mean there won't be some offsetting factors but it is one example of how the elitists' agenda and interests (also some large corporate interests) are not identical to the interests of the average Western citizen in a first-world country.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why does destruction of borders = destruction of soverignty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Borders define the area within which political sovereignty may be applied.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

There is at present an inherent economic value to merely being an American, for instance. Dissolution of borders and sovereignty would squeeze some of that value out of the picture. In that respect, at least, the economic agenda of the elitist "one-worlders" conflicts with the interests of the common citizen of prosperous Western countries. That doesn't mean there won't be some offsetting factors but it is one example of how the elitists' agenda and interests (also some large corporate interests) are not identical to the interests of the average Western citizen in a first-world country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused by the moral world-view you're espousing here. You talk negatively about "elitism," which seems to indicate that you don't think policies should favor one particular group over another. But then you want to preserve the economic advantage that comes with being born American, which seems to indicate the opposite. It's even worse than that, because being born American is purely a product of chance, while membership in the elite is correlated with intelligence, hard work, and ability. And it's worse yet because you admit that the policies you favor would also harm the very poor, those who need it most. In summary, you seem to want to take from the desperate and the deserving and give to those who were lucky enough to be born American.

That's fine if you're just advocating that policy out of self-interest. But my question is how do you sell that policy to someone who doesn't have the same self-interest? I personally am not especially concerned about the economic effects of immigration (either way), but I can't really see any reason to support immigration restrictions, because the people who win by immigration seem to deserve it more than those who lose.