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 ...
You posted in part, as a response: can any nation-state be truly free of corruption?
To this, I ask: 'What practical application can such a question have to my initial statement? Also, Why are you arbitrarily attempting to impose religious concepts of perfection on real world government, IAC? I mean, especially if you happen to be an atheist.
Part of the problem with socialism and Leftist attitudes in general is that they presume that their formulaic and simplistic attempts to translate utopian idealism into real world policies and legislation will necessarily result in optimal results, thus they are preemptively inclined to assume that other approaches are relatively flawed or corrupt. As a corollary of this, Leftists don't easily perceive, within the framework of their ideology, the necessity to adapt their 'perfect' policies to real world exigencies or to constructively debate other than their own pet whims.
I am not going to shoot hoops with your statistics because we will bore everyone here. I'm sure you'd prefer to continue using scare tactics about the "dangers of globalism" and why America should remove herself from the world economy. Americans could benefit from the natural resources of its neighbors... moreso with less border restrictions. Instead of hiding behind a wall of isolationism, imagine a NAFTA community of nation-states, like the EURO, where electricity could be produced in Mexico for all of the Southwest (cheaper than ever before) or Canadian timber and oil could be moved freely in the NAFTA border regions? These are advances that would put money in the pocket of everyone, with no losers. The new order of world economics is one of less restriction, not more. You can't run from the future. Ask Argentina.
Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree?
Some Blacks have problems with immigration because, though many immigrants take jobs most Blacks don't want to take, some still take away jobs that many Blacks would work at. At the same time, immigration will never be a big issue in the Black community IMO.
DoughtyOne: I think you are misguided in your amazing passion and isolationist rants! To actually ask another person here to solve the Los Angeles CA freeway problems is high comedy. The point is that we are a global community now, all of us. The fall of USSR has meant that America's government and corporate interests have won. Why are you so opposed to reaping the rewards?
Two people who couldn't be more diametricly opposed aren't going to label each other's comments rational, so I'll accept your comments for what they are. People can judge them for themselves. You know, you refer to my comments as rants and high comedy, but they were natural questions that would have to be addressed if you achieved your goals. I'm at a loss to understand why you object to them.
What rewards do we now reap that are related to trade? You irrational desire to claim bogus reasons to implement flawed policies are just plain wierd. What does the Soviet Union have to do with implementing insane trade policies? We gift China with missile and related technologies so now they can target us with nukes? Yep, that was an excellent idea since the Soviet Union is no longer a problem. Whew. Great one.
I am not going to shoot hoops with your statistics because we will bore everyone here. I'm sure you'd prefer to continue using scare tactics about the "dangers of globalism" and why America should remove herself from the world economy.
We did not remove ourselves from the global economy before 1990. So I'm at a loss to understand where the illogcial and unsupportable comment about withdrawel comes from. Yep, it's a scare tactic to remind people that prior to 1990, we did not buy most manufactured goods from foreign nations. Pardon me for noticing that you're the one using scare tactics. Quite humorous scare tactics at that...
Americans could benefit from the natural resources of its neighbors... moreso with less border restrictions.
No, the US could benefit just fine from the resources of it's neighbors without taking down the borders. You ignore everything that has to do with reasons not to take down the borders, then claim vast improvements that just are not there. You're living in a fantasy world.
Instead of hiding behind a wall of isolationism, imagine a NAFTA community of nation-states, like the EURO, where electricity could be produced in Mexico for all of the Southwest (cheaper than ever before) or Canadian timber and oil could be moved freely in the NAFTA border regions? These are advances that would put money in the pocket of everyone, with no losers. The new order of world economics is one of less restriction, not more. You can't run from the future. Ask Argentina.
This is downright hilarious. We have purchased oil and timber and power from Mexican for a long long time. These are not manufactured goods. I already stated that we should import materials and not finished products, so you're not even paying attention. And no, we're not going to turn into a nation state like the EU.
Do you understand the concept of self-determination? Do you realize that the EU is headed up by officials that do not answer directly to their constituants? Do you understand why this is bad? You're advocating a non-represntative dictatorship by committee. Citizens will have no say in the laws they are subject to.
Thanks for playing, next contestant.
Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree?
63 posted on 6/18/02 3:48 PM Pacific by CecilRhodesGhost
Sure, it would be foolish for me to protest today's sensible immigration policies. Like 'Family Reunification' immigration, just to take one subtopic.
Since you seem to be well versed in immigration as it affect our economy perhaps you can explain to me how people like my mother in law collecting 10 years of benefits - SSI, food stamps, subsidized housing - from a system she paid exactly zero into is good for our economy. There are many, many more just like her.
D'ya think that just maybe paying the taxes that go directly into her pocket and millions like her are why my wife & I can't afford a third child?
The punchline is Clinton made my mother in law a citizen, even though she speaks no English. She & her friends vote their interests, which is to say they vote Democratic, almost to a person. I suspect you think thats a good thing.
See, my perspective wasn't formed as theory within some insulated academic ivory tower, I've got a front row seat to our 'sensible' immigration system. Guys like you better hope Americans don't get wind of what I know about it. Things would change in a BIG hurry.
You must have gotten lost on the way back from "Anti-Capitalist convergence" or some trash.
Modern liberalism is almost hyper critical of any form of positive nation building or national identity. Because they both stem from the same source - the desire to dissolve or destroy the ideal of nationhood and by extension
- the lives of the peoples in the nations therein.
Market internationalism today is a place of refuge for many ex-left wing intellectuals who, disillusioned with the utter failures and repression in the Marxist countries, nevertheless continue to hold to the socialist principles of universalism, globalism and egalitarianism.
Just as Marxism claimed that economics was "all of human history" the Market internationalists claim the exact same thing, and attempt to ramrod the economic arena into all aspects of human life and all corners of the world, thereby attempting to erase the cultures, sense of community and ideals of nationhood which had formerly provided the nations and individuals within them with safety due to their unique laws and a basic sense of identity.
After the end of the Cold War, economic internationalism became increasingly accepted among many former left-wing intellectuals largely due to the fact that its socialist counterpart had utterly failed in practice. Leaving economics as the only uncontested alternative for promoting internationalism.
Whereas Socialism took the form of brutal programs designed to implement the destruction of the individual states, market internationalism - its flip side takes advantage of the current era of open trade to attack the individual nations and their soverignty.
Many of these are the exact same goals which the proponents of socialism argued during the Cold War and which they failed to acheive in the short run, so in the last ten years or so out of a sense of desperation, they have turned to its flip side in the economic model.
If you want to see what happens to the nations in which these people are allowed to gain the upper hand, one need look no further than the impoverished nations of Eastern Europe, the former USSR and China.
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.