Posted on 05/07/2008 5:44:43 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The net effect is the same, borders which are merely a formality. In such a scenario, whether it is formalized or not, there is, in effect, a North American Union.
When a trucker loses his brakes, his buddies say that he went into "Mexican Overdrive".
LOL—Doesn’t that “engine braking” (I don’t know what it’s called exactly) system have some Mexican slang attached to it as well?
But one of the proposals put forth in Congress was to allow Mexican truckers to access certain US highways. Those truckers would only have to abide by Mexican DOT-type standards, not US. I believe that proposal was struck down. But hey, if we know anything about our Congress, it is that that which appalls us today, tomorrow they pass.
I didn’t keep track of the proposals, but given the IQ of certain Congresscritters, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Are sanctuary cities legally possible? How about Roe vs. Wade? Was it a lawful ruling?
I think you are confusing ethnic pride with political commitment to the PAN or the PRI.
I think I have eyes and can see as far as California. BTW, isn't McCain planning to speak at the La Raza convention this summer?
Even if every illegal alien in America were handed full citizenship tomorrow, they would not have enough votes to force a merger.
That's why I said it will occur a few decades from now. That's after the next couple of amnesties (which will be inevitable after we amnesty 12 million or more illegals and allow them to import their relatives).
False on two counts: (1) The 1965 immigration law has almost nothing to do with demographic shifts in the USA;
Then try to repeal it. No one dares to even suggest that because they would immediately be accused of trying to suppress non-white immigration.
(2) plenty of reputable conservatives recognized it as bad law - like Bill Buckley who was rightly contemptuous of the JBS. Cranks like the JBS were mostly concerned over whether or not there were enough controls to ensure that the new immigrants were not communists.
Do you know how many GOP senators voted against the bill? Three. That's right, only three. So it didn't exactly have mainstream conservative opposition, did it?
Demographic shifts in America between 1965-1985 were due to two causes:
Which you list as abortion/BC and illegal immigration. You're correct that those have added to the problem. But recall that the reason a blind eye has been turned to illegal immigration is precisely because the illegals are non-white, and everyone's afraid to control it because that would involve keeping "people of color" out of America. Look how freely you accuse debate rivals here of not liking brown people. How many politicians have the courage to take a stand on an issue like this when that's the level of discourse they can expect? This attitude was inevitable once the 1965 act passed and its key "landmark" provision was its ability to admit lots and lots of people from the third world.
Demographic shifts occurred because white Americans chose not to reproduce.
Why would they reproduce when they have to carry a high tax burden to subsidize aliens, have to work for lower wages because of aliens, and especially when they know their offspring will grow to adulthood in a nation where they're increasingly outnumbered.
There was zero discussion in the 1965 debates over immigration about even the possibility of tens of millions of illegal immigrants. One of the signal failures of the 1965 bill was to not even bother to consider US demographic trends nor to project what long-term incentives the bill was creating. Both the bill's proponents and opponents, in retrospect, were absolutely clueless about the real issues involved.
You're naive if you believe the Dems who pushed that bill through didn't know exactly what they were doing. You think Ted Kennedy & Co. were just trying to do what was right, but tragically messed up? The Republicans who voted for it were clueless, but not the Dems.
No one at the time, not even cranks, predicted massive illegal immigration or massive failure of border enforcement. You are reading our current situation back into an historical period that did not anticipate it.
Well, I'll take your word for that, but I don't recall the bill being universally popular.
What's amusing about your argument is this: (1) You proceed on the (correct) assumption that the 1965 immigration bill was terrible law. So far so good. (2) You then make the (completely incorrect) assumption that our current immigration situation was contemplated and designed by the 1965 bill. It wasn't at all.
That's like saying the proponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't intend quotas and that the Planned Parenthood types who gave us Griswold didn't foresee Roe. Or that the people who wanted sodomy legalized weren't positioning themselves to demand same-sex "marriage" a few years down the road. They may not have seen everything in exact detail but they knew they were positioning us for something else. Liberals are always positioning us for something else, in case you haven't noticed.
(3) Your solution is, apparently, to solve our existing immigration crisis by . . . enforcing that terrible 1965 bill!
Now, that's amusing! I'd repeal that bill.
So, the correct policy is to treat the well-behaved, productive Mexicans in the US as a suspect class that can never be loyal and never have citizenship?
If they're illegally here, yeah.
There does not exist in this country the political will to deport 6 or more million people.
That's called a fait accompli.
What does exist is the political will to deport a million or so convicted criminal aliens and to erect a system of border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out.
Border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out, but not anybody else? Everyone else is just free to waltz in?
Murdering unborn children and sodomizing people are not morally equivalent to trespassing. Sorry.
??????
In the absence of federal laws requiring municipalities to cooperate with ICE investigations, many municipalities will refuse. One of the features of our federal system.
How about Roe vs. Wade? Was it a lawful ruling?
It is a clear violation of the XIVth Amendment.
Of course, neither of these tolerated illegalities contemplate the dissolution of the US Executive or the Senate - which the scenario of an "NAU" requires.
BTW, isn't McCain planning to speak at the La Raza convention this summer?
If he spoke to the NAACP would that mean McCain supported reparations?
There were only 31 GOP Senators in 1965, and most of them belonged to the liberal Northeastern Rockefeller wing of the party. Conservatism and the GOP were not as closely linked in 1965 as they were in 1985. Goldwater had negative coattails in 1964.
Look how freely you accuse debate rivals here of not liking brown people. How many politicians have the courage to take a stand on an issue like this when that's the level of discourse they can expect?
That will be the level of discourse they have earned when they complain about "Mexicans", calling people "illiterate peasants", "Turd Worlders" etc.
Why would they reproduce when they have to carry a high tax burden to subsidize aliens
Cart before the horse.
Widespread illegal immigration did not become a noticeable phenomenon culturally or fiscally until the early 80s. By that point, white Americans had been contracepting themselves out of existence for almost 20 years and aborting themselves out of existence in the Northeast for almost fifteen years and nationally for ten.
Their demographic attempted suicide was a precondition for illegal immigration, not the consequence.
You're naive if you believe the Dems who pushed that bill through didn't know exactly what they were doing. You think Ted Kennedy & Co. were just trying to do what was right, but tragically messed up?
Kennedy was pushing a bill that he imagined would enable his urban ethnic voter base to grow through family reunification policies.
He was not trying to do the right thing.
But he never imagined that the restrictive quotas in his bill coupled with an unprecedented demographic morbidity among white Americans would create conditions would create a perfect economic incentive for mass illegal immigration. If Kennedy's career illustrates anything, it illustrates his complete ignorance of basic economics.
I don't recall the bill being universally popular.
It wasn't universally popular at all. The people who complained about it did not anticipate that it would provide an incentive for massive illegal immigration. Previous immigration law provided generous encouragement for immigration from Europe and the 1965 bill provided tight quotas on European immigration.
That's what bothered people - and they saw family reunification as benefitting Irish, Italian and Central European Americans over Northern European Americans since the former were more recent immigrants with stronger family connections in the Old World than English, German, Scottish and Scandinavian Americans who had very few uncles, nephews, first cousins, etc. in Europe.
In other words, a bill that was good for northeastern liberals.
That's like saying the proponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't intend quotas
(1) Some did. Some did not.
(2) There is a difference between wanting to implement a specific future policy and being able to predict how a current law is going to interact with larger social forces - like the adoption of the pill.
Border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out, but not anybody else? Everyone else is just free to waltz in?
No, only people with clean records and a clean bill of health who are young and who have sponsored employment.
*Mexico is so screwed up their oil output is declining because they do very lousy exploration and will not allow any American company to explore there. PEMEX is Mexico’s government run oil monopoly*
Right there is one reason annexing Mexico [and Canada] would be a good idea—and that’s what the NAU would be in all but name, an annexation.
You're not thinking of the future. Each year America is confronted with some new liberal demand that would have been unthinkable just a few years before. And if you had predicted it twenty years earlier, everyone (including mainstream conservatives) would have called you a conspiracy nut or an extremist. What if you had predicted in 1956 that within twenty years we'd have wholesale abortion-on-demand, including for minors without parental notice? Or if you'd told people in 1988 that by 2008 we'd be close to having same-sex "marriage" foisted upon us. Or that nearly 100 U.S. cities would have declared themselves sanctuaries for the 12 or 20 million people illegally in our nation?
Liberalism isn't anything normal. It isn't like conservatism, which is wedded to tradition and has an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" worldview. Liberalism is utopian and messianic. There will never be a point where liberals say, "we've gone far enough, society is now liberal enough to satisfy us." Every change in their direction simply triggers a demand for another change in their direction. Sometimes they run up against things that slow them down (such as the Constitution) but they eventually chip away at it. Once the nation has changed enough demographically the constitutional barriers to trashing our sovereignty won't mean a thing.
If he spoke to the NAACP would that mean McCain supported reparations?
Well, McCain originally opposed the MLK holiday but now he favors it. He won't lift a finger against affirmative action, that's for sure. The reparations demand is still fairly young. We'll need some more demographic change for it to pass, but pass it eventually will unless things are turned around. As for La Raza, we know McCain supports amnesty and that his Hispanic outreach director is Juan Hernandez. Not very promising.
Cart before the horse.
Well, you have a point here. But let's look at Europe as an example. Back in the sixties & seventies, the sexual revolution and zero population growth movements spread through those nations. Birthrates plunged. Everyone was then told that to maintain the lavish socialist benefit plans, they'd need more workers. Since not enough Europeans had been born, they imported them from other lands.
This sort of dynamic is symbiotic. Few births lead to more immigrants. More immigrants make the white population discouraged so that they continue to not reproduce. So more immigrants are brought in. It's a cycle that repeats itself endlessly. Whether liberals discouraged whites from giving birth as an excuse to bring in liberal-voting immigrants, or whether the immigrants create such a burden on whites in terms of crime and finances that they can't afford kids, the end result is the same. More immigrants and a demographic transformation of the society into a non-Western jurisdiction.
BTW, immigrants have had a huge negative impact on black Americans, yet (surprise!) black political leaders want to flood the country with still more immigrants. What this should tell you is that the political class in our country truly wants to change America into something totally beyond recognition. Granted, it'll take them a good many years to pull it off, but they will pull it off as long as people pretend that liberals are just well-meaning people who love our country and our heritage but just have a few silly ideas.
But he never imagined that the restrictive quotas in his bill coupled with an unprecedented demographic morbidity among white Americans would create conditions would create a perfect economic incentive for mass illegal immigration. If Kennedy's career illustrates anything, it illustrates his complete ignorance of basic economics.
Well, if I recall correctly the main opposition to the 1965 act came from Southern Democrats who feared the bill would change our demographics, and the bill's proponents swore that it would not.
BTW, I enjoy debating you. You have an interesting mix of views on issues.
You're right, but they rarely challenge the actual structure of our Constitutional order - and when they do, they have trouble getting away with it. Videlicet Roosevelt's attempt to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, the attempt to replace the XIVth Amendment with the ERA, the attempt to abolish the electoral college, etc.
So far, there has only been one significant structural change: the direct election of the Senate.
Few births lead to more immigrants. More immigrants make the white population discouraged so that they continue to not reproduce. So more immigrants are brought in. It's a cycle that repeats itself endlessly.
It is completely counterintuitive to reproduce less when another group you are not overly excited about reproduces more. The presence of immigrants does not inspire natives to cease reproduction - the selfishness of the natives does.
Many native born Americans have done the cupiditous math and decided that a nicer home in a swanky neighborhood and a nicer car and nicer clothes are worth more than a second child, or even a first.
Well, if I recall correctly the main opposition to the 1965 act came from Southern Democrats who feared the bill would change our demographics, and the bill's proponents swore that it would not.
The Southerners argued, correctly, that family reunification would increase the percentage of ethnic minorities in the US because most white Americans - especially those in the Southern states - had zero immediate family members in the Old Country.
Billy Joe McCuttrick of Macon, Georgia's ancestors came to America from Belfast in 1819 - any relatives he had in the old country in 1965 were fourth cousins at the closest. Anthony Chin of San Francisco's father came from Hong Kong in 1910 and in 1965 he still had uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces etc. in Hong Kong.
The Dixiecrats were not arguing or even imagining that millions of illegal immigrants would come strolling over the border in the 1980s and 90s - they were arguing that non-white Americans of recent vintage would legally import large, extended families from abroad under the bill.
Right back atcha.
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.