brilliant...and correct.
I vote for new world order conspiracy.
Secondly, I think there is a tremendous amount of white guilt. You notice when Walmart got busted for illegals, it was for using white (Ukrainian and Polish) illegals. Most of the liberal elite if for a darkening of the United States to pay for white "crimes" of the past.
I would guess several factors:
Get more workers into the Social Security Ponzi scheme
Cheap labor
More future voters, and both the Dems and the GOP feel they can win the battle for those voters.
And, like you said, to keep the real estate market propped up as well.
If that is the decision (I've thought the same thing myself) then it could be accomplished by increasing *legal* immigration.
Maybe that would be too hard to accomplish politically.
The one big "benefit" of illegal immigration is that illegals work for less than legals.
IMO, in order to find out "why" we must ask "what"?
"What" will happen is the slow decline into 2nd and 3rd world status for the US. The pols who had souls have sold them for temporal reasons and that is the "why".
Ping
ping
ping
Will these immigrants be able to afford the homes or will they use more resources than they put in? Hard to tell I guess.
Or, far more likely, both parties perceieve no political benefits to promoting immigration reform, and would rather play it safe so as to not piss off the largest minority in the US.
Truth bump to the top!
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
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
"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 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]