Posted on 05/06/2005 10:52:33 AM PDT by churchillbuff
The question that won't go away is, why has a decision been made -- and it clearly has been made -- that the US will not restrict the entry of illegal immigrants?
Bush and the other political leaders - of both parties - pay no more than lip service to border control. Meanwhile, the borders remain uncontrolled - obviously by design, because specific strategies for control (such as more funding for border agents) are rejected. Als, Bush reportedly is moving to make illegals eligible to receive Social Security payments.
A decision to invite more illegal immigrants in has been made. Why? That's what the American people are being kept in the dark about.
My theory has to do with demographics. American natives - whites and blacks - are not reproducing in the numbers to sustain asset values (homes and stocks) when the Baby Boomers retire and try to sell these assets. Unless there are people to buy them (for instance, immigrants to crowd together in large numbers in homes now occupied by two or 2.5 baby boomers), asset values will plummet, the economy will sink, and baby boomers' retirements will be impoverished nightmares.
With all the resort and port construction going on in Mexico I believe that Mexico is destined to become the Northern Costa Rica. The only thing that is needed is to get rid of the wretched poor, just keep enough around to service the rich tourists.
Here is a paper that was presented today at the Summit of the Americas by a University of Georgetown traitor to the Republic:
Latin American Economic Integration: The Theater of Agriculture in the FTAA Negotiations and an Alternative to the FTAA
By Matthew Lieber
The George Washington University
lieber@gwu.edu
Introduction
As the January 1, 2005 deadline for the entry into force of the Free Trade Area of the Americas rapidly approaches, the Western Hemisphere is only twenty-two months away from possibly re-defining itself, and in the process reshaping the global economic, political, and social landscapes. The FTAA is debatably the boldest initiative ever undertaken in the hemisphere, and perhaps the world, seeking to integrate 34 heterogeneous nation-states comprising nearly 800 million people with a GDP of roughly $12 trillion. The goal of the FTAA is to unite the economies of the hemisphere by gradually liberalize trade within the hemisphere to the point where barriers to trade and investment are eliminated. The future of the proposed FTAA is uncertain, however, as there remains much to be negotiated, and a head-on collision between the two largest economies involved seems inevitable. If the FTAA negotiations are successful in corralling all 34 nations into one trading bloc, Latin America will become all the more intertwined with the United States, as the hemisphere becomes one and borders seemingly disappear in the context of the free flow of capital and goods....
http://www.gwu.edu/~lasp/Events/MLieber.pdf
***
So the summit is really a negotiation to end the United States of America.
The American people have not been asked if they wish to dissolve their country into a European-Union like system of socialist states. The crisis is rapidly approaching.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1056184/posts?page=13#13
Did you make that map? If you did, I want you to tell me how long I have to move before NM is turned into the "toxic dump?" LOL
It's the same strategy that Canada and, to a lesser extent, Europe are attempting. Open the gates to immigration to help stabilize the social spending programs. The only difference is that Canada is liberalizing legal immigration and isn't trying to hide it.
William Flax
It's the communist docturn laid down over 50 years ago to reduce our (and the rest of the industrialized world) to 3rd world statis so that one world socialist government can be instilled.
"....and yet the public has not been given an explanation or justification for this decision ..."
Oh yes we have Amigo!
Havn't you heard, it's called compassionate conservatism....and it's being rammed down our throats.
I can't afford any more of this compassionate conservatism.
My wallet is screaming!
Its not just the Communists. The one-worlder complex is broader than just the Communists. But it is definitely true that Montagu, Allport and Cousins were all one worlders. And Allport and Montagu were also Fellow Travellers.
From a previous post after the WEF
(I apologize for the length, but it is completely relevant to this discussion)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36b4bc000bc0.htm
Drudge ran this brief item on Thursday:
http://news.stocksmart.com/ss-news/CX1496705.html
Thursday January 28, 3:04 PM (EST)
'Globalization' theme of economic forum DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 28 (UPI S) _ World power brokers in government and business are gathering at a Swiss ski resort (Thursday) for four days of discussions on how to create a responsible global economy. The 29th annual World Economic Forum in Davos, while directed toward the 21st century, also is focusing on the economic upheaval in Brazil, Russia, Asia and Japan.
END OF NEWS ITEM
===============IMPORTANT===========
And BELOW is what Maurice Strong a few years ago mused can happen at these very Davos meetings. I encourage you to not only read this portion I put here but read the whole link about Maurice Strong. Scary stuff to see what rolls around in the mind of a major player. http://turnercom.com/jdk/canal25.html
"...from an interview entitled "The Wizard Of the Baca Grande," which Maurice Strong conducted with WEST magazine of Alberta, Canada May 1990. Strong concluded the interview with a thought- provoking, apocalyptic story from a novel he says he would like to write: "Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead."What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? "The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
"This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists - they're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can't close. The rich countries...? and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window.
I sat there spellbound. This is not *any* story-teller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to *do it*" And he's shaping up fast to become next Secretary-General of the United Nations and, IMHO, World Chief Wackyhead. Oh, and El Supremo Grand Commander, Strategist and Director of the New World Army! But, hey, he was just *joking* about all that stuff, right? "
"Migration is about 'mobility on a global scale,' asserted Gervais Appave, Director, International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva."
". . .immigration should mean something other than assimilation, and that immigration into Germany, for example, should mean something other than 'becoming a good German.' Indeed, as Martin Varsavsky soberly suggested, 'National culture is an asset; nationalism is a disease.'"
World Economic Forum summits in Davos, Switzerland bring decision-makers together to address the world's most crucial issues such as the "free movement of peoples." These events enable members and constituents to discuss global and regional issues by sharing first-hand information and insights.
Who are the decision-makers? Just the advanced nations and developing nations movers and shakers that's who. New Democrat Third Way progressives and corporate leaders from the U.S. work with the world's elite to set the internationalist agenda for the year each January.
This is way beyond "cheap" labor. IMO, our progressives and corporations partner with the world's elite to fight the "disease of nationalism."
With our Clinton New Democrat Third Way progressives active in this IMO it's a Marxist revolution from the top down and our corporations' rush to give technology, wealth, and jobs to developing nations make our corporations, useful idiots.
I like your map, it's sad but very likely.
BUMP
I disagree somewhat. With the housing boom the way it is now there will be plenty of houses paid for in 10 -20 years. Unless, of course, the remortgage industry kicks in again.
I have been pondering this situation myself. I think it has to do more with arrogance. Bush, Clinton, McCain, the WSJ, and the myraid other open borders/free trade crowd simnply just can't envision the destruction of our culture and the erosion of our society. They believe the power and strength of the U.S. is immutable. It's just not possible for them to believe that their actions and decisions will be ever be detrimental to the U.S.
The republicans see themselves as both benevolent to immigrants and providing a source of labor for industry (such as it is these days). The left, of course, is only advocating illegal immigration to create a class of people who feel beholden to them so they can return to power.
In any case, neither side can look into the future far enough to imagine a U.S. that has been ruined. Both have evolved into political parties that believe that they are not bound by the history of human societal evolution: They each believe their way will be the first in the histoyr of man to triumph.
Our "leaders", both political and corporate, today are so insulated from the world of the common man that they think their insulation extends to the rest of us. They have enough wealth and power to protect themselves from any societal destruction that they simply cannot imagine it happening at any level of U.S. society.
There is historical precedent to show that when the top of society becomes to heavy it becomes unbalanced and is that much easier to topple. The U.S. is becoming more and more top heavy every year. Soon, external and internal forces will cause it to topple. Unless something is done to change the direction our "leaders" are taking us.
Here is IMO a good description of how we got here and where we are headed. It began with Clinton. The article names names and organizations.
It's where we're headed that concerns me the most; to wit, a kind of organization worldwide that controls migrant labor as the WTO controls "free trade."
http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2004/0411corpimm.html
Following the history of how we got to where we are in the U.S. (minus the most recent event of the exploding opposition to ILLEGAL immigration and the problems it's going to cause proponents of managed migration) here's where we are headed vis-a-vis globalization, etc.
[Begin excerpt]
"The same idea of managed migration -- stopping spontaneous migration, and channeling migrants into temporary worker programs -- is a growing part of policies of countries throughout the European Union towards those who come from outside its borders. They all reflect an increasing effort to include migration within the world economic order managed by industrial nations.
"While this is a convenient arrangement for wealthy nations, it has severe disadvantages for poorer ones. The cost of maintaining and reproducing this international migrant labor force falls on countries least able to afford it. And increasingly, the remittances of migrant workers have become the main source of income for the communities from which they come. In fact, remittances from abroad are now the first or second largest source of national income for countries like Mexico, Guatemala, the Philippines and others. The system of managed migration simply institutionalizes this arrangement. Large corporations and industries of wealthy countries get the benefit of this labor force, and workers themselves pay the cost of maintaining it.
"Developing countries do, however, have an alternative framework for protecting the rights and status of this migrant population. The UN’s International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families proposes an alternative framework for dealing with migration. It supports the right of family reunification, establishes equality of treatment with citizens of the host country, and prohibits collective deportation. Both sending and receiving countries are responsible for protecting migrants, and retain the right to determine who is admitted to their territories, and who has the right to work. The Convention recognizes the global scale and permanence of migration, and starts by protecting the rights of migrants themselves.
"Predictably, the countries that have ratified it are the sending countries. Those countries most interested in guest worker schemes, like the U.S. and Britain, have not." [End excerpt]
The original post voices my own conclusions. I do not have an answer. The premise that wealth will result from adding these often impoverished, often criminal, and often unskilled immigrants to the population seems flawed - how can such additions generate wealth, whether for boomer retirement or otherwise?
The only thing I can imagine is that the economic elites want lower labor costs, and national policy is subordinated to the needs of Tyson's Chicken and other such enterprises.
Thank NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367654/posts#2
My compliments! You write a most insightful post, sir!
bttt
not wrong at all.
but it's too little too late.
with rising interest rates, we are going to get a 'prefinalplummet' in the next 3-6 years, unless we can drum up a war, larger than the ones we just finished off.
maybe china?
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.