Posted on 06/29/2006 6:06:13 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Mexican trucks to enter U.S. freely? Bush admin. refuses to answer WND's questions WorldNet Daily ^ | June 27, 2006 | Jerome Corsi
Next we will be paying Mexico to send their troops to protect THEIR southern border, while leaving ours wide open.
It's up to the people to decide whether or not we want open borders.
Not the executive branch, legislative branch or the judicial branch. To erase our borders would require a national referendum and nothing less.
The very primary reason for the federal government to even exist is to protect and enforce our borders. If they have decided they no longer wish to do that then they should step aside and let us put folks back into those positions that will.
Regarding “open skies,” three working groups are working on aviation issues, groups designated as “Aviation Safety,” “Airspace Capacity,” and “Harmonized Air Navigation Systems.” I am told that a tri-lateral agreement to create a North American Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) was signed in 2005, and that five WAAS stations were planned to be put in place in Canada and Mexico in 2005. Implementing WAAS in Mexico and Canada involved sharing the U.S. Global Positioning System with Mexico and Canada. I am told that the three countries executed a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) agreement in January 2005 to allow for Mexican and Canadian aircraft to confirm to U.S. air spacing requirements. I found that the three countries released a North American Aviation on a Joint Strategy for the implementation of performance-based navigation in North America. This initiative included Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) in North America.
If Corsi is offering this as an example of the merging of Canada/US/Mexico then frankly he's full of crap. None of the issues mentioned in this para are threatening in the least. In fact they serve to improve aviation safety and efficiency.
Demands full disclosure of White House work with Mexico, Canada
Beware of the stonecutters..
Okaaay? Where in the para I cited does it mention anything about illegal immigration? Corsi is using every cooperative agreement, such as these aviation agreements meant to enhance safety, to make his point. In doing so, he dilutes his argument. It seems like he's throwing in everything he can into this column including, figuratively, the kitchen sink. Frankly it makes him look like a kook.
If a country does not have borders, then it is not a country.
Thank you for posting.
You've been a Mexicanamerican for 50 years!
If they have decided they no longer wish to do that then they should step aside and let us put folks back into those positions that will.
The question is, what will the people do when they refuse to step aside?
Dobbs: President and Senate allied with 'corporate supremacists'
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are set to take action on legislation that could determine the financial and social fate of nearly every American for the next 20 years.
That is the question.
Good news isn't hard to find:
Immigration Bills: House vs. Senate
On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only twenty-six percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to sixty-seven percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.
While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, two percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology thought immigration was too low.
When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: sixty-nine percent said it was a good or very good idea when told it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement while not increasing legal immigration; twenty-seven percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
Support for the House approach was widespread, with eighty-one percent of Republicans, seventy-two percent of independents, fifty-seven percent of Democrats, and fifty-three percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.
When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, thought not as much as for the House bill: forty-two percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; fifty percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself, exceptions included Hispanics sixty-two percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea and the most liberal voters (progressives) fifty-four percent of whom approved of it.
When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and a policy of mass deportations in favor of the House bill; twenty-eight percent want the Senate plan, twelve percent want mass deportations; while fifty-six percent want the House approach.
But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach sixty-four percent version to thirty percent.
One reason the public does not like legalizations is that they are skeptical of need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of seventy-seven percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just fifteen percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.
Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that seventy-three percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.
Public also does not buy the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: seventy-one percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only nineteen percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws.
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.