'Transnationalists' Don't Take Immigration Reform Seriously

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 02, 2006 | John Leo

[kellynla]

In his 1995 book "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," the late Christopher Lasch argued that America's political and cultural elites had opened up a gap between themselves and ordinary Americans. "Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans in any important sense, implicated in America's destiny for better or worse," he wrote. They are increasingly detached from their fellow citizens and drawn to an international culture, Lasch said, or what we would today call a transnational culture.

Consider the current immigration debate in this light. In the transnational view, patriotism, assimilation and cultural cohesion are obsolete concerns. Borders and the nation-state are on the way out. Transnational flows of populations are inevitable. Workers will move in response to markets, not old-fashioned national policies on immigration. Norms set by internationalists will gradually replace national laws and standards. The world is becoming a single place. Trying to impede this unifying process is folly.

The term "transnationals" specifically refers to those working in and around international organizations and multinational corporations. More broadly, it indicates a cosmopolitan elite with a declining allegiance to the place where they live and work, and a feeling that nationalism and patriotism are part of the past.

To some extent, their worldview cuts across Democratic-Republican and liberal-conservative lines, and reinforces the other concerns that prevent immigration control: the desire for cheap labor and Hispanic votes. Old-line one-worlders and enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations hear the siren call. So do many academics, judges and journalists who attend international conferences and tend to adopt a common consciousness and world outlook.

[hedgetrimmer]

More on the WMO

Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "a man is of all sorts of luggage the most difficult to be transported." Retired UN official Bimal Ghosh agrees with Smith, but believes that a New International Regime for Orderly Movements of People, NIROMP, would help to manage increasing international migration.

Ghosh lays out the three pillars of the new regime (p227): shared objectives, harmonized goals and new institutions. There is no discussion of what the shared migration objectives and the harmonized migration goals should be, such as adding one percent a year to the population via immigration, as in Canada, but there is a discussion of the gains from adopting a new regime. Ghosh argues that a new migration regime would reduce the costs of immigration enforcement and asylum applicant processing and enhance economic efficiency and global output, since labor would be allocated more efficiently if it moves from low to higher wage places. Ghosh ends with a plea for "a joint endeavor to promote the optimal benefits for each participating state while protecting orderliness in movements as a valuable common global good." (p245).

Ghosh believes in yielding power to international organizations to solve international problems, and in this sense the call for NIROMP is analogous to pleas for new environmental regimes that, for instance, minimize cross-border pollution, save vanishing species or slow global warming.

***

The CFR being in-line with the unconstitutional and freedom stealing UN on this one.

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI. The Rand corporation says that sending money back to "homeland countries"( a function of illegal immigration in America) may actually be fomenting global revolution instead of creating global stability, as our "free trader" friends would have us believe... but then again they may have an interest in fomenting this since the Department of Homeland Security came out of the Rand Corp. and they have many well paying contracts to implement it.
***

States are neither the only nor necessarily the most important sponsors of insurgent movements. Diasporas—immigrant communities established in other countries—frequently support insurgencies in their homelands.1 Despite being separated by thousands of miles, homeland struggles are often keenly felt among immigrant communities.
Indeed, insurgents in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, India
(Punjab and Kashmir), Indonesia (Aceh), Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Northern Ireland, and Kosovo have all received various and important forms of support from their respective migrant communities.

Significant diaspora support has occurred in every region of the globe, except Latin America.Migrant communities have sent money, arms, and recruits back to their home countries, which have proven pivotal in sustaining insurgent campaigns. This support has at times significantly increased insurgents’ capabilities and enabled
them to withstand government counterinsurgency efforts.

Reliance on diasporas to wage an insurgency may become an
increasingly common phenomenon in years to come. Such
fundraising efforts are hardly new: Palestinian movements have done so for decades as have the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the PIRA, which have long relied on Kurds in Germany and Irish- Americans, respectively, to provide needed funds. But diasporas may be more important should state funding stop or become unobtainable, forcing insurgent groups to look elsewhere to sustain their
struggle. The withdrawal of superpower support in the early 1990s has already caused the collapse of several insurgencies that depended on Moscow to survive. In addition, the increasing number of ethnic or communal insurgencies relative to ideological conflicts increases the relative prevalence of diaspora support.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1405/MR1405.ch3.pdf#search='migrant%20diaspora'

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1372760/posts#1

[grey_whiskers]

Check out this vanity. BE SURE to click on the link within it, for a White House website which looks like a CFR / one-world globalist's wet dream.

[NewRomeTacitus]

That photograph of the Mexican snotrag over our upside down standard...must...control...self...

Ever get the name of the officer who corrected that blasphemy while still surrounded by the naive products of higher (higher?) education traitors? I believe he's a hero who cannot be lauded, as there's almost no one holding high office with enough semblance of honor to do so without insulting the intended honoree or eliciting humiliating responses from an audience.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You know Devvy Kidd don't you?

She's one of the Buchanan pitchforkers.

[little jeremiah]

This thread is amazing.

BTTT.

[stopem]

The plot thickens. Thank you for bringing my attention to this. This definitely puts a different spin on all that is happening.

While Countries and entire nations are distributing wealth the MAIN LOSERS in this game will be the Citizens of the USA.

[stopem]

"Another thing lurking out there is a World Migration Organization (WMO) to regulate migrant labor as the WTO regulates trade.'

The host country will get the benefit of "cheap" labor but must provide "human rights;" e.g., jobs, health care, education, housing, and on and on. The source country will get the taxes.

We know that the illegals are sending money back to mexico, how does this benefit THIS country other than cheap labor?

So it appears that while Countries are playing these games the biggest losers are us, the citizens (?)

[MarkL]

"Immigration Reform" my arse! This is NOT immigration reform! It's "let's change the laws so that people aren't breaking them any more." As a citizen, someone who's paid taxes in this country for nearly 30 years, I demand to know which laws I can break with impunity, where the government will change the laws, after the fact, to make the illegal acts I committed OK. For instance, I think that I want to be allowed to park in handicapped spaces from now on. Or in front of fire hydrants. And maybe rob a bank every now and then, just when I need some extra cash.

The immigration reform that we really need must take place in Mexico! I say that we need to say to Mexico, "your immigration laws will be put into effect on your citizens who have come here illegally. They will not be allowed to own property, and will be deported."

I keep hearing about how we need to put these people on the track for citizenship. Given the protest rallies I've been seeing, I'd have to say that these people don't want to become American citizens. What they want to do is return America to Mexican rule, at least the southern states. And that's NOT immigration. It's an alien invasion, a hostile act by a foreign country. And those invaders need to be treated as such.

Mark

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You know Devvy Kidd don't you?

No don't know who Devvy Kidd is and don't care.

A few years ago I wouldn't have given the CFR much thought either but the reality is it has members in positions of power who are carrying its water policy wise. They have a right to their opinion but all of us have a right to oppose them, especially when attempts are made to put their unsupported views into legislation.

[stopem]

Bin Laden is a Transnationalist, can this be good for America?

The American Citizen is losing more than first thought because of the illegal

http://www.isteve.com/2001_Arabs_and_Nationalism.htmvaders.

This may explain the Catholic Church involvement:

The struggles between the Catholic Church's political allies, such as the sprawling Holy Roman Empire, and the rising "nation-states" such as England helped mark the transition between the universalist medieval Europe and the nationalist modern Europe. (A nation-state is one government ruling one relatively sizable self-aware people. They might be united by genealogy, language, or simply by what Abraham Lincoln called "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave...")

The rise of local European languages to dominance, replacing Latin even among most Churchmen, doomed the Catholic Church's ambitions for continued control.

In contrast, Arabic plays an even more central role in Islam than Latin did in Catholicism. It is the original language of the Koran. The faithful believe Arabic is Allah's own sacred language, in which the divinity dictated the Koran to Mohammed. This tenet encouraged the spread of Arabic to newly Muslim lands.

Hence, Arabic is now spoken from Morocco to Iraq. Since all of these people can understand each other, the notion of permanently settled boundaries dividing them is less politically appealing than in other parts of the world where language diversity encourages local solidarity and broad-scale distrust.

National borders work to quarantine chaos. The lack of borders widely recognized by Middle Easterners to be fully legitimate contributes to the region's instability.

So for those that aren't concerned about 10-20 million illegal invaders better educate themselves about what the real purpose is to import poverty.

If Clinton advocates bringing in more illegals, do you really think its good for this nation?

Before the vast resurgence in American patriotism that followed the 9.11 atrocities, nationalism had largely fallen out of fashion among elites in the Western world. For example, with exquisitely bad timing, ex-President Bill Clinton told an Australian audience the day before the sneak attacks that he believed in "the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world."

Think this isn't a liberal idea? Guess again.

[hershey]

Globalization became Plan A. for the CFR and pals when the Soviet Union collapsed, as if communism was dead as a doornail. Capitalism would raise third world countries to decent living standards, big business would thrive as never before, markets would boom worldwide, life would be good. (Islamofascism hadn't even been thought of, but even now has been waved away as not important. Accede to mullahs' demands and everything will be fine.) Just don't get in the way of globalization and God forbid anyone secure US borders. The latter is like sunlight to Dracula.

Elitists never considered what would happen if capitalism didn't solve third world problems. If an endless stream of millions of illegals headed north and stayed in the US, never returning home? (No problemo...simply pander to Hispanic voters.) Overwhelmed hospitals closing, the burden of educating/providing welfare for millions of nontaxpayers, not to mention incarcerating felons...the human cost of victims, plus the cost of putting illegals in jail. Drugs, gangs, the debasement of American culture, mores, laws. People who don't intend to assimilate, won't learn English and worse...marching openly in the streets, shouting defiance, that they'll work night and day to split the US and bring about Aztlan.

And here's the kicker. Many illegals, if bin Laden blows up LA or San Francisco, will run back to Mexico and points south. They owe no loyalty to the US, won't serve in the army, wouldn't defend this country if you begged them. Why in the world would we give them amnesty? They're robbing us blind. (If I robbed the Quickie-Mart, I'd be jailed.) It must be a matter of degree.

[hershey]

Damn serious stuff, is right, McGee. Code words: 'neighbors', 'trusted travelers'. Just yesterday there was an article on FR about Hispanic/illegal advocate groups demanding the MSM and US govt. use non-judgmental terms when discussing illegals. Demanding!

[hershey]

I recall those tests.

[hershey]

Waco happened because Hillary was sick of seeing it played out on TV. She ordered Reno to move the tanks in and 85 people died...horribly.

[hershey]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CFR and what's happened in this hemisphere is a case in point.

[hershey]

Israel's fence has had a definite effect, to the degree that Spain is putting up a fence to keep out Muslims. We can't seal the US border completely, but we certainly can do better.

[hershey]

Exactly.

[hershey]

CFR's aims/ideas have certainly gained credence with GW. There's no other explanation for his climbing into bed with Fox, despite 9/11 and fears of terrorists coming over the border. As things stand, unfortunately, so many illegal Hispanics are here that even if San Francisco blows up, they'll control policy. Both parties are busy pandering to Hispanics and it'll get worse. And wasn't that the plan all along? Look the other way as the country is overrun with illegals, then say, "Oh, it's too late, too many to send back. Amnesty's the only answer." Meanwhile Mexico has integrated with the US. In fact, that's exactly what one of Fox's ministers announced to the press some months ago. (At least Mexico's been honest about what they're up to. Can't say the same for GW.)

[hershey]

You hit the nail on the head. 'Discussing ideas never hurt anyone.' So why in the world didn't GW discuss One Happy Hemisphere with US voters years ago? Why wasn't he honest? Why haven't we enforced US laws where illegals are concerned? Because elitists decided they knew better than the American voter, who might upset the apple cart. They would arrange the world to their liking. That's what's been going on. We haven't had a vote on this, not even one word of open discussion before now. (And all the bromides in the world won't change the facts.)