Posted on 06/18/2002 9:22:03 AM PDT by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Between 1965 and 2000 at least 35 million new immigrants came here, of which 26 million were Hispanics and Asians, which meant, as minorities, they got benefits intended for unemployed poor, mostly inner-city Americans.
While the Bush administration's fervor for increased Mexican immigration and a massive amnesty for illegal aliens is well-known, the really poignant story is the betrayal of black Americans, in particular, and all poor Americans (including immigrants here legally) by their traditional political home, the Democratic Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
If you are the one against the lifting of trade-barriers between nations, then how can you call me marxist? And I am not Russian! I was simply trying to illustrate the
new order of some things. Immigration is a two-sided coin.
46 posted on 6/18/02 1:02 PM Pacific by CecilRhodesGhost
Are you saying we didn't have good trade relations with Mexico before NAFTA? We traded with Mexico before NAFTA, so there wasn't a need to lift anything. As for trade barriors, perhaps you can address the import fee other nations charge on our exports, you know the 40% fees. So let's be clear here, you didn't really give a damn about lifting any barriors against us did you. What you wanted desparately was for the US manufacturing worker to have to compete with 20 cent to $1.50 per hour labor in foreign nations. That's what you desparately wanted.
We've had trade with China for a decade. China still charges 40% tariffs on our imports. Am I touching on any hot button issues with you yet?
When we lift all barriors between nation, that includes borders. Right now 99% of the freight coming in from Mexico is not inspected. So we have compromised our national security in the interest of shipping in goods, who cares if there's a suitcase nuke in there? Right?
As we open the borders is this great big beautiful tomorrow, who controls if Iraqi nationals or more accurately middle-eastern terrorists enter our nation? Why nobody right?
Who controls our tax laws? When those tax laws only impact our own corporations, the internaitonal community can dictate to us what our tax policies will be, since lower taxes on our corporations may create an unfair advange by the EU standards. That's a relinquishing of our sovereignty. Tax laws aren't the only laws that will be impacted. Under the WTO the European nations are free to challenge anything they deem and unfair trade policy. If our businesses provide more benefits to our employees, the EU could claim that it's an unfair tactic to lure away their labor. If they file suit, this could eliminate our benefits one by one.
You don't care about lifting anything just so long as you can neuter the United States and screw over it's employees in the interest of larger and larger corporate profits. Yes Dorothy, there are some instances where international trade at all cost are extremely destructive to sovereign nations and their citizens. I'm here to tell you that you won't get a free pass implementing the crapola you'd like to.
More likely a TWO-EDGED SWORD, both for US and EU!
Exhibit B: Global liberalisation of trade and investments is a good thing for American companies, because people around the world want American culture and will pay nicely for it! Also, trade unions and other barriers to profit are harder to organize and easier for companies to manage when nation-states allow for international trade agreements (and laws)... as a free-trader and as someone who knows the business of America is business, you would agree that nation-states are the ones causing the problems as the world shrinks!? Why do you think corps like Stanley wish to move? Impunity from tax-crazed nation-states... that's why.
Exhibit C: when the WTO lifts textile quotas in 2005, China and other areas will be able to provide even more cheap affordable clothing and fabric to American consumers... that's a good thing. I think you and I agree, in a roundabout way... strict corporate tax laws, labor laws and border controls is bad for American companies... so it's bad for America. How we as a global community manage these barriers is crucial to world stability. Why turn your back on the future? Who can argue that once a pipeline runs through Afghanistan, it will not be a better place?
Nations rise or fall depending on the peoples, and, more specifically, cultures, within said nations. An absolutely integral component of a nation's culture is the predominant religion therein. And if you were to draw a chart comparing nations that are predominantly Christian with nations that are predominantly Muslim using whatever fulcrum of comparision you wish- human rights, political rights, entrepreneurial and/or technological accomplishments, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, treatment of women, high culture, etc, etc, you will see that Western Civilization is superior to Muslim culture (or, for that matter, any other culture on the face of the Planet Earth.
Now, having said that, you may speculate as to my point, insofar as immigration is concerned. It is simply this: even taking into account the exceptions, Third World and Muslim immigrants, do not, by and large, leave their failed, backwards cultures at home when they cross a national border. They don't leave their political views at home. They don't leave their bizarre religions and practices at home. They don't leave their ancient tribal wars at home, either.
And by allowing any type of numerically signifigant immigration into a nation, you guarantee that your homeland ultimately becomes less and less like the homeland of your people, your children, and what should be bequeathed to your descendants- and more and more like the homeland of the new arrivals. Even if, for example, 15 million Englishmen immgrated to Holland, Holland would be forever changed. But if 15 million Muslims from the Third World immigrated to Holland, Holland would be destroyed.
*- I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and accept your assertion that you are not a PC Democratic Underground disruptor.
To: DoughtyOne
Exhibit A: when Nike withdrew from Cambodia because pressure from radicals, it was a huge blow to that nation's garment industry, which is about 80% of that tiny nation-state's goods exports. Nike paid less for their goods to be made in that area than in America... and 180,000 young people were able to earn a living for their Cambodian families. It was a horrible blow to these people, because people like you protested the global marketplace.
This nation has no obligation for the well being of Cambodian citizens in any way shape or form. That's the beginning and end of that line of reasoning. This nation is responsible for it's own citizens, their standard of living and overly oppressive downward pressures on their standard of living. And that's the end of that line of reasoning.
Yes Nike did pay less for labor in Cambodia. But what Nike did with that cheap labor was wrong. After cutting the legs out from under it's US workforce, and maniulating the 90% savings in labor, it still sold it's shoes on US shelves for essentially the same price it did before it moved it's operations to Cambodia. Frankly, if Nike went out of business for having done that, it would have suited me fine. If lightening struck it's corporate executives for having done that, so much the better. Damn anyone who f's over their own fellow countrymen for a buck. Damn them to hell.
Nike can use the excuse it had to compete with other nations which had gone outside our borders. That's a legitimate beef. I don't think our corporations should have to compete in that environment. It's suicidal to our nations standard of living.
If Nike wants to open a plant in Cambodia and sell the product it manufactures there, to Cambodians, you've got an ally. I think that is an excellent idea. But if you want to savage our manufacturing jobs to employ people so poor that they can't even afford to buy the shoes they're making to sell back here, then I think you're an evil person.
Those jobs in Cambodia didn't have to disappear did they. Nike was free to open up plants there to manufacture for the Cambodian market any time they liked. But that wouldn't have reaped them windfall profits. Nah, they didn't need just average profits. Screw Nike.
Exhibit B: Global liberalisation of trade and investments is a good thing for American companies, because people around the world want American culture and will pay nicely for it! Also, trade unions and other barriers to profit are harder to organize and easier for companies to manage when nation-states allow for international trade agreements (and laws)... as a free-trader and as someone who knows the business of America is business, you would agree that nation-states are the ones causing the problems as the world shrinks!? Why do you think corps like Stanley wish to move? Impunity from tax-crazed nation-states... that's why.
You know what, I've never been in a union in my life. I detest them. I hate the people who run them and the politicians they support. I hate the way their dues are abused for liberal and other causes. I hate the way their retirement funds are abused. Don't get me started. But what is good for American companies is NOT always in the best interest of workers. I don't want to see workers abuse the system like the auto and steel unions did for decades. But I can't ask workers to take it up the rear and let the corporations run amuk, and I don't want the workers to screw the corporations either. One would think there could be a happy middle ground somewhere here. As for trade unions being harder to orgainize, I've always noticed that when employees are happy and treated right, trade unions are harder to form as well. Duh!
As for other nations wanting our products, you would think moving corporate entities over there to manufacture in the market where sales would be realized would create profits. I mean that served our nation for 215 years. Why the hell can't it serve our nation well now? We didn't become the greatest nation on the planet using preditory tactics that f'd our fellow countrymen over. Why start now? And while we're at it, are we saying that the same capitalist economy that saw our nation prosper to become second to none, would not work in other naitons? Now there's a resounding endorsement for our capitalistic heritage.
We became the greatest nation the world has ever seen purchasing raw materials from other nations and manufacturing here at home. Now that isn't good enough. Why?
Exhibit C: when the WTO lifts textile quotas in 2005, China and other areas will be able to provide even more cheap affordable clothing and fabric to American consumers... that's a good thing. I think you and I agree, in a roundabout way... strict corporate tax laws, labor laws and border controls is bad for American companies... so it's bad for America. How we as a global community manage these barriers is crucial to world stability. Why turn your back on the future? Who can argue that once a pipeline runs through Afghanistan, it will not be a better place?
You seem to be operating under a number of failed assumptions. I do not endorse globalist balls out free trade. I do support international trade, but after the model that saw our nation prosper up until 1990. There isn't a scintilla of proof that this new opportunistic (for corporations) and preditory trade is a good thing at all. Wages are flat. Combined with immigration, there is incredible downward pressure on jobs and compensation.
There's no indications whatsoever that this nation would sink into the primordial muck if it mantained our industrial and manufacturing base. I'm at a total loss to justify the outright panic you and others exhibit at the thought of conducting trade and labor relations as this nation always did prior to around 1990. Tell us. What boogie monster is driving you guys?
What is worth arming China and proliferating our technologies to them and their terrorist allies?
52 posted on 6/18/02 2:13 PM Pacific by CecilRhodesGhost
Is Patrick Buchanan the Le Pen of the USA? Some say yes. They profit from stirring up hate and fear.
54 posted on 6/18/02 2:30 PM Pacific by CecilRhodesGhost
Nope, the citizens of this nation shouldn't have any say how this nation is run or who can come here. This nation should not have immigration laws and shouldn't care if English is replaced within ten years.
Let's look at your ideal world. If we open our borders how do we prevent terrorists from entering the nation? If we don't inspect trucks how do you keep small arms, bombs or other contraband from entering the nation? If we don't ask newcomers to be able to sustain themselves when they come here, who will feed them? Who will clothe them, house them, educate them, give them medical care and provide a myriad of other goods and services to them?
There are at least 5.5 billion people in other nations on the planet. If only 25% of them came here, we would increase our population by 400%. We would need 4 times the housing, roads, food, hospitals, water, schools... get the picture? In Los Angeles we have tapped our water resource to the breaking point. How do you suggest we increase the Southern California population four fold?
Your pipe dream nightmare is so full of holes a first grader could start asking questions that would blow it to hell in ten minutes.
Since LA is landlocked, where do you propose we build four times the freeways to move civilians and commerce around? Where would we build enough housing in the LA region to house an increase of a little less than half the current population of the United States?
Yep Pat is a real bad guy for addressing this issue. Why am I not suprised a guy of your caliber didn't think of any of this on your own?
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.