Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NAFTA Gives Mexicans New Reasons to Leave Home
San Francisco Chronicls ^ | 10.15.98 | Robert Collier

Posted on 07/03/2005 6:00:20 PM PDT by Coleus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221 next last
To: henderson field
It's common courtesy to ping someone when you post insults about them.
61 posted on 07/03/2005 9:23:59 PM PDT by bayourod (Unless we get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
What's that large sucking sound I'm hearing?

Oh, just those jobs disappearing in Mexico . . .

Well, Ross was half right.

62 posted on 07/03/2005 9:30:04 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man
It's common courtesy to ping someone when you post insults about them.

"There are times when you have to "think outside the box" especially what has worked before doesn't anymore. "

What isn't working? Things have never been better. Except perhaps in California where, despite a robust economy, their screwed up socialism and liberalism is causing problems unique to them.

63 posted on 07/03/2005 9:32:29 PM PDT by bayourod (Unless we get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
"Bayourod has posted that picture of the fence so many times"

Not nearly as many times as people have posted that picture of an old barbed wire fence and claimed it was the border fence.

Does anyone doubt that my picture is a legitimate photo of the fences (plural) in the San Diego sector and that it has failed to prevent people from crossing illegally?

64 posted on 07/03/2005 9:40:21 PM PDT by bayourod (Unless we get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man
"We can do it if we had the vision and desire to. "

When I was a child I believed Peter Pan when he said that, but when grew up I discovered reality.

65 posted on 07/03/2005 9:43:20 PM PDT by bayourod (Unless we get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: John Filson

19th century America was largely agrarian, and we were NOT, I repeat NOT the richest nation on the planet. We didn't emerge as an economic superpower until well into the 20th century.


66 posted on 07/03/2005 9:43:21 PM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Melas

How can you say America wasn't the richest nation on the planet? Wealth is in intellectual potential. It's in mineral deposits. It's in the ability to obtain what one seeks. America had that. We were agrarian and we were a frontier nation. We ended that artificially by halting homesteading in 1968. It was the belief that our expansion would continue that brought on the children. It was leadership that helped us to realize that belief that gave them wealth to acquire and reinvest.


67 posted on 07/03/2005 9:57:26 PM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Melas; John Filson
When America was a mere infant, the French were already trying to copy us. Many Polish and Hungarians fought in the American Revolution and gave their lives to the cause of liberty.

America is simply the richest nation because our country is predicated on the things that all men want-- life, liberty and property. No other nation has ever been founded on those principles. If we are to remain a wealthy nation, we cannot allow the global socialists to steal it from us by erasing our borders and our culture of liberty through trade "agreements" and illegal immigration, or using international law or tribunals to make unconstitutional decisions about American life, liberty or property.
68 posted on 07/03/2005 10:28:09 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Great speech! It's as if we were at a sleepy pub in colonial America, and you stood up and gave a toast to what America was to be all about. I think you made my 4th of July weekend with that reply.


69 posted on 07/03/2005 10:35:36 PM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: bayourod; A. Pole
It became effective after the crash but was passed before. Economics is influenced by what people believe is going to happen in the future.

You're mistaken. The stock market crashed on October 29, 1929 and Smoot-Hawley gained final passage in the Senate on June 13, 1930 by a slim 44 to 42 margin. Following is an excerpt from http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=obrien.hawley-smoot.tariff/A>:

The Republicans did well in the 1928 election, picking up 30 seats in the House -- giving them a 267 to 167 majority -- and seven seats in the Senate -- giving them a 56 to 39 majority. Hoover easily defeated the Democratic presidential candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, capturing 58 percent of the popular vote and 444 of 531 votes in the Electoral College. Hoover took office on March 4, 1929 and immediately called a special session of Congress to convene on April 15 for the purpose of raising duties on agricultural products. Once the session began it became clear, however, that the Republican Congressional leadership had in mind much more sweeping tariff increases.

The House concluded its work relatively quickly and passed a bill on May 28 by a vote of 264 to 147. The bill faced a considerably more difficult time in the Senate. A block of Progressive Republicans, representing midwestern and western states, held the balance of power in the Senate. Some of these Senators had supported the third-party candidacy of Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette during the 1924 presidential election and they were much less protectionist than the Republican Party as a whole. It proved impossible to put together a majority in the Senate to pass the bill and the special session ended in November 1929 without a bill being passed.

By the time Congress reconvened the following spring the Great Depression was well underway. Economists date the onset of the Great Depression to the cyclical peak of August 1929, although the stock market crash of October 1929 is the more traditional beginning. By the spring of 1930 it was already clear that the downturn would be severe. The impact of the Depression helped to secure the final few votes necessary to put together a slim majority in the Senate in favor of passage of the bill. Final passage in the Senate took place on June 13, 1930 by a vote of 44 to 42. Final passage took place in the House the following day by a vote of 245 to 177. The vote was largely on party lines. Republicans in the House voted 230 to 27 in favor of final passage. Ten of the 27 Republicans voting no were Progressives from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Democrats voted 150 to 15 against final passage. Ten of the 15 Democrats voting for final passage were from Louisiana or Florida and represented citrus or sugar interests that received significant new protection under the bill.

70 posted on 07/03/2005 10:53:27 PM PDT by remember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John Filson

At your celebration tomorrow, remember America and Americans to your family and guests. Independence day is the day to cheer, drink to, and praise those who cherish with all their heart the gifts granted to us by our creator, which are life and liberty, and our property, which each and every one of us must protect for ourselves and our fellow Americans. It is a time to renew our commitment to these principles, and to pledge to live them daily.


71 posted on 07/03/2005 11:02:00 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: remember
But it was evident before the crash that a major tariff bill was going to be enacted. Much the same way people are arguing today that illegals are flooding here today because they know a guest worker program will be enacted.

As I recall from many years ago the Europeans started raising tariffs in anticipation of the passage of Smoot Hawley and that hurt U.S. exports and caused the stock panic.

72 posted on 07/03/2005 11:28:17 PM PDT by bayourod (Unless we get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: bayourod; John Filson; A. Pole

Why should it be our problem to control Mexico's citizens?

Our problem is with the Mexican government.

THEY should control their citizens.

If your neighbor's kids trash your backyard, do you build a higher fence, or do you have a talk with their parents while presenting them with a bill for the damages?

Castro does a much better job of keeping his citizens inside his borders.

So did East Berlin.

So it can be done.

The United States should refuse to trade with Mexico until Mexico keeps its citizens in Mexico.


73 posted on 07/03/2005 11:30:23 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
"The United States should refuse to trade with Mexico until Mexico keeps its citizens in Mexico"

And how many millions of Americans would that put out of jobs?

Thank God we have a representative democracy instead of a direct one.

74 posted on 07/03/2005 11:37:31 PM PDT by bayourod (Unless we get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man; John Filson; A. Pole
I believe "free trade" or at least the free trade contingent fail to see that we are trading our souls, sovereingty and well being for the sake of quick profits.

England maneuvered to keep the American Colonies from manufacturing anything themselves.

So that the Colonies would always be dependent on England for manufactured goods.

And now the elites consider the nation state as obsolete and inefficient--an obstacle to greater profits.

And it will be if we let them bamboozle us out of it.

Whether America makes or loses money, is not as important as losing independence.

75 posted on 07/03/2005 11:43:39 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
And how many millions of Americans would that put out of jobs?

Show me the math, scare monger.

76 posted on 07/03/2005 11:44:42 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
IF they can get our guns away from us, then they'll be taking more from us to give to the poor. I think that's her highnass Hillary's plan.

You're one of the few people who can see the relationship between the rise of globalization/free trade and the necessity to abolish the Second Amendment and all vestiges of private firearm ownership.

And don't believe for a minute that that strategy is confined to Hitlery and the Commie-libs.

77 posted on 07/03/2005 11:52:24 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum (A poverty-stricken middle class must be a disarmed middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

Refusing to trade with Mexico would put millions of Americans out of work?

You should be glad,

All those people looking for work would solve the labor shortage you were complaining about: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435908/posts

And without having to import more immigrants.

Simple.


78 posted on 07/03/2005 11:54:31 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Melas

[[George Herbert Walker Bush was president at the time, so essentially you wasted all those allusions to Clinton.]]

You are partially right. My mistake. Bush was president but my assessment of Clinton was right on the money. Does that bother you?


79 posted on 07/04/2005 4:49:44 AM PDT by JarheadFromFlorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
Say hello to the Beav and June Cleaver in your reminisces..

Good thought, and I'll include Bishop Sheen while I'm at it!

80 posted on 07/04/2005 6:15:00 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson