Posted on 06/25/2006 6:41:38 AM PDT by baseball_fan
WASHINGTON - Immigration issues are always ripe for demagoguery, particularly in an election year. But the solution to the very real problems along the U.S.-Mexican border can be found, ironically, in that other part of the world that demagogues love to ridicule: old Europe.
Two years ago, the European Union admitted 10 new members. Like Mexico, all of these nations were poor, some of them fairly backward and most recently ravaged by war and dictatorship.
The leaders of the European Union wisely created policies for fostering regional economic and political integration that make the North American Free Trade Agreement "look timid and halfhearted by comparison," according to Bernd Westphal, consul general of Germany.
Europe realized it had to prevent a "giant sucking sound" of businesses and jobs relocating from the 15 wealthier nations to the 10 poorer ones. It also had to foster prosperity and the spread of a middle class and prevent an influx of poor workers to the richer nations.
So for starters, it gave the new states billions in subsidies to help construct schools, roads, telecommunications and housing, thus making these nations more attractive for business investment. It was expensive, but the result has been a larger economic union in which a rising tide floats all boats.
In return, the 10 poorer nations had to agree to raise their standards on the environment, labor law, health and safety -- and more.
Worker migration is regulated. Immigrants will be carefully integrated so as to cause the least disruption to the developed economies, with the goal of having open borders down the road.
(Excerpt) Read more at dfw.com ...
The only ones left to defend it is their national soccer team and I am sure half their family is over here anyway.
Two years ago, the European Union admitted 10 new members.
Well Europe sure had a great idea, several independent nations coming together and forming a single country. I wonder why our country is called the United States?
-------------------
So for starters, it gave the new states billions in subsidies to help construct schools, roads, telecommunications and housing, thus making these nations more attractive for business investment. It was expensive, but the result has been a larger economic union in which a rising tide floats all boats.
It’s a religious article of faith for every good liberal, there is nothing that more taxes and a redistribution of wealth can’t fix.
-------------------
Old Europe is looking spry, while the United States is looking clumsy and stuck to the flypaper of old ideas.
Anyone else remember the EU ten year plan to overtake the US economically? They had their five year checkup meeting several months ago and found that they were further behind than when they started.
Steven Hill sounds like he’d be a lot happier bashing America while living in Europe. I think France would be good for Steven.
Right. How much would it cost just to, for instance, bring their schools up to the level of our worst public schools.
Nothing, if we abandoned our socialistic public school system, and replaced it with a capitalistic one.
Would English be the official language of this "larger USA"?
Yes.
Or would we be inviting a group of dirt poor Quebecs in America?
Are the people of Alaska 'dirt poor'? -- Ask yourself why not, toddster. Could it be because they are not bound up in a socialistic 'Quebec type' system?
My reference to Quebec concerned their language, not their socialism.
Neat way to avoid the "dirt poor" issue. You just deny you wrote it.
Let me repeat, this would be a very VERY expensive mistake.
Your mistake is in accepting that an expanded constitutional/capitalistic USA is not possible.
Tell you what, after Mexico frees up their economy, frees up their political system, adopts English as their official language and raises their per capita GDP to 80% of ours, I'll agree that they can petition for statehood. Of course, if they did that, they wouldn't need to petition for statehood.
You've made my argument for me toddster. In effect, you're admitting you have none of your own. - Thanks.
Huh? Inviting into the union dirt poor states which speak a different language is a recipe for an expensive separatist nightmare. I don't see what that has to do with Alaska, but please, explain your reasoning, if you have any.
Nothing, if we abandoned our socialistic public school system, and replaced it with a capitalistic one.
You've got a few good ideas. Let's get rid of our crummy school systems, teach all the Mexicans English, get their GDP up to 1st world levels and then talk about statehood. Ping me when those prerequisites happen. Thanks.
In effect, you're admitting you have none of your own
My idea is that your idea is expensive, unrealistic and doomed for failure. You're welcome.
You still believe in "Majority Rules?" hahahaha
pbrown
Read much brown? -- I don't advocate majority rule politics. -- Do you?
Not at all. If the Canadian provinces want to get rid of socialism and join the US, they'd be welcome (except for Quebec).
the USA would be exposed to unlimited liabilities in exchange for nothing.
Excellent idea! We will just use the lowest common denominator and adapt Mexico's constitution. That means no bill of rights for us and we can be unarmed peasants just like the chollo's coming across the border are. /sarc off.
Yeah, but the problem is that very shortly after the Mexes and Canucks are allowed to vote along with US Citizens, we will no longer HAVE a "constitutional republic".
Circular argument; - a 'majority' does not have the power to change our Constitutions principles, one of which is a 'non-democratic' republican form of government ruled by only constitutional laws.
And the authors of the original Constitution were only going to amend the "Articles of Confederation", too.
You prefer the 'Articles' over our Constitution? Strange remark..
It's also strange to be forced to argue that our liberties cannot be 'voted away'. -- Why do so many people on this forum argue otherwise? -- Why is the concept of majority rule supported?"
Because that's the reality.
Its "reality" because so many people support majority rule 'democracy'.. Round we go.
A big chunk of our "Constitutional liberties" have ALREADY been "voted away" by our own Congress. See "campaign finance reform" for the most recent example.
Exactly my point. -- We are long overdue to make sure that Congress conforms to our Constitution, not to democratic majority rule.
Can't you agree?
...with appologies to Sam Clements, of course.
"Amazing that today MOST are ignorant of the fact communism IS socialism."
Got that right Hosepipe
Vladimir Lenin "The goal of socialism IS communism
Are the people of Alaska 'dirt poor'? -- Ask yourself why not, toddster. Could it be because they are not bound up in a socialistic 'Quebec type' system?
My reference to Quebec concerned their language, not their socialism.
Neat way to avoid the "dirt poor" issue. You just deny you wrote it.
Huh? Inviting into the union dirt poor states which speak a different language is a recipe for an expensive separatist nightmare.
So you imagine. Language wouldn't be a problem imho.
Separatist nightmare ? --Are you defending protectionism? -- "Why are protectionists so bad at math?"
I don't see what that has to do with Alaska, but please, explain your reasoning, if you have any.
How can I explain anything to you, when you can't follow a 'dirt poor' argument in context?
Yes, I've been beyond the 'traps'.
They have a corrupt system, one that would would change with US Statehood.
Just as we hope to change Iraq, we could change Mexico.
"How do you figure we are outnumbered?"
We seem to be surrounded by idiots, that's for sure.
"I follow water desalination research pretty closely."
thanks for the info on the desalinatiion angle and its possible economic and political implications both for the US and Mexico. we could use more water here in west texas... Boone Pickens says he is planning on investing $2 billion of his own money to build a 109" pipeline to bring water to Dallas or San Antonio depending on signing of the contracts. a lot of people dreaming big dreams... if we can only maintain, promote and protect our traditional values.
Countries, which want to join EU have to change their law, accept all these regulations, human rights, no death penalty etc. but there is no rule, which says: you can't join If your GDP is smaller than X.
Most of the military would probably be Conservative. That about evens the odds (militarily speaking).
"Isn't Ireland's success due to their very low tax rates? Rates which the rest of the EU wants them to hike."
That's true, however membership in EU was also very helpful. On the other hand Greece is the best example that without a good internal economical policy the whole aid from EU is not very useful.
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.