Vandals cut Minutemen's border fence
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
Destructo6
Member
The Border Patrol issues the Danner Acadia, using a pretty standard Vibram sole.
longeyes
member
Vandals, Visigoths, and Huns... These aren't petty thugs. Fences are not our future, folks.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623
North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006
The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.
Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.
On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.
While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.
Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.
Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.
The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:
The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.
Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.
When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”
Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.
The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:
We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.
We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623
North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006
The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.
Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.
On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.
While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.
Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.
Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.
The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:
The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.
Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.
When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”
Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.
The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:
We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.
We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.
joab
Member
OOPS I guess I deviated from protocol
Longeyes - I never heard of that chapter 11 stuff before - very dangerous if true. No other country or organization (NAFTA &/OR UN) should be above US Supreme Court.
But, couldn't we as Americans start a grassroots campaign and sue the Mexican Gov't? They must have a lot of stuff that we could sue over? Lets give the job to the lawyers that sued American Tobacco that should keep them busy for awhile.
But, couldn't we as Americans start a grassroots campaign and sue the Mexican Gov't? They must have a lot of stuff that we could sue over? Lets give the job to the lawyers that sued American Tobacco that should keep them busy for awhile.
longeyes
member
Our real problem is the U.S. Government, not the Mexican Government. If we had people protecting our interests here, they'd know how to handle "there."
longeyes
member
borderbots strike again
Newsmax, Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:50 p.m. EDT
Border Chief: Walls Not the Answer
Two weeks on the job, the new head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday he does not favor building a huge wall along the Mexican border.
"I don't support, I don't believe the administration supports a wall," Commissioner W. Ralph Basham said in Tucson, where he met with patrol officials and agents before embarking on a tour across the Arizona desert.
Asked about proposals in Senate- and House-approved immigration measures to build security walls 380 or 700 miles long, respectively, Basham said, "It doesn't make sense, it's not practical."
As Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano put it, "You build a 50-foot wall, somebody will find a 51-foot ladder," he said.
Fencing, including so-called smart fencing with imbedded sensors, vehicle barriers and lighting will be part of the infrastructure improvements needed, Basham said. But a layered approach that mixes technology and air operations for observation and responding to illegal crossings will be necessary to control the border, he said.
"There is not a silver bullet out there, there's not one answer," he said.
Basham is touring the Southwest border region for a firsthand look at the challenges the Border Patrol is facing as National Guard troops arrive to begin assisting efforts to control the border.
"You can sit in Washington, D.C., and you can get briefings and you can look at maps and hear from people what the challenges are out here," Basham said. "But until you get up there and you look and you see what kind of terrain you're dealing with and the difficulties of it, you really don't have a true appreciation."
© 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Newsmax, Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:50 p.m. EDT
Border Chief: Walls Not the Answer
Two weeks on the job, the new head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday he does not favor building a huge wall along the Mexican border.
"I don't support, I don't believe the administration supports a wall," Commissioner W. Ralph Basham said in Tucson, where he met with patrol officials and agents before embarking on a tour across the Arizona desert.
Asked about proposals in Senate- and House-approved immigration measures to build security walls 380 or 700 miles long, respectively, Basham said, "It doesn't make sense, it's not practical."
As Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano put it, "You build a 50-foot wall, somebody will find a 51-foot ladder," he said.
Fencing, including so-called smart fencing with imbedded sensors, vehicle barriers and lighting will be part of the infrastructure improvements needed, Basham said. But a layered approach that mixes technology and air operations for observation and responding to illegal crossings will be necessary to control the border, he said.
"There is not a silver bullet out there, there's not one answer," he said.
Basham is touring the Southwest border region for a firsthand look at the challenges the Border Patrol is facing as National Guard troops arrive to begin assisting efforts to control the border.
"You can sit in Washington, D.C., and you can get briefings and you can look at maps and hear from people what the challenges are out here," Basham said. "But until you get up there and you look and you see what kind of terrain you're dealing with and the difficulties of it, you really don't have a true appreciation."
© 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Sgt Stevo
Member
Mines filled with OC? That might help. 
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Border Problem
The solution to the Invasion at the Southern Border is actually very simple, and would require a relatively small cash outlay and investment of manpower.
Introduce Yellow Jackets along the border. They multiply rapidly. They make African Killer Bees look like a cub scout troop, and their nests don't stick out like a sore thumb the way that Fire Ants' nests do.
Contrary to popular belief, they will attack at night...and they hit the air ready to rock and roll. Ask me how I know that...
Best of all, we can claim that nature has taken its course.
The solution to the Invasion at the Southern Border is actually very simple, and would require a relatively small cash outlay and investment of manpower.
Introduce Yellow Jackets along the border. They multiply rapidly. They make African Killer Bees look like a cub scout troop, and their nests don't stick out like a sore thumb the way that Fire Ants' nests do.
Contrary to popular belief, they will attack at night...and they hit the air ready to rock and roll. Ask me how I know that...
Best of all, we can claim that nature has taken its course.
Linux&Gun Guy
Member
It is compleatly impossible to keep out illegal people - the area is just too vast and the only real way would be to mine it - however mines would ruin us in front of the world. Watch tower guards would be killed and the towers firebombed by the illegals if it became needed. The best thing to do is change the economic conditions that make people want to come here.
However I am of the opinion that labor movement is a good thing and I have no problem with mexicans coming here to work. It's clear the world is changing - governments are becoming less important and companies are becoming more so.
And as soon as this becomes obvious the large companies CEOs will have Dynacorp type guys to provide security for them and inforce their interests.
Clearly if you want to be successful in this new(possible) future you should study economics(it shows how people really act) and start a company. The only alternative would be to become a warlord - but if you do this its harder to get funds.
However I am of the opinion that labor movement is a good thing and I have no problem with mexicans coming here to work. It's clear the world is changing - governments are becoming less important and companies are becoming more so.
And as soon as this becomes obvious the large companies CEOs will have Dynacorp type guys to provide security for them and inforce their interests.
Clearly if you want to be successful in this new(possible) future you should study economics(it shows how people really act) and start a company. The only alternative would be to become a warlord - but if you do this its harder to get funds.
Cosmoline
Member
Here's another "immigrant" doing a job no Americans are willing to do:
http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_4788632,00.html
http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_4788632,00.html
Ya gotta admit, that's a really good lookin' dog.
But seriously, when I was younger and lived in NM, one of my fellow 4H members used to do the nasty with his Dad's pigs. He was also a white supremist, pigs are the other white meat after all.
But seriously, when I was younger and lived in NM, one of my fellow 4H members used to do the nasty with his Dad's pigs. He was also a white supremist, pigs are the other white meat after all.
Gordon
Member
"Mines filled with OC"
This certainly would just flavor their tacos!
This certainly would just flavor their tacos!
Linux- it is NOT completely impossible to secure the border. Any one of a number of Eastern European countries have done it,Israel does it, MEXICO DOES IT AT THEIR SOUTHERN BORDER -enforced with lethal force.
Study economics? We are importing poverty. We- you, actually, are welcoming people who are illiterate in two languages, and we- you again, I guess- are leaving our borders unsecured.
Study economics? We are importing poverty. We- you, actually, are welcoming people who are illiterate in two languages, and we- you again, I guess- are leaving our borders unsecured.
Some people seem to make the fence an either-or- situation as in if it can't stop *everyone*, it isn't worth it. Why? If instead of having a million people a year successfully cross we slow it down to 200,000, is the fence worthless because we only stopped 80% of the invaders?
Biker
Biker
longeyes
member
Linux & GunGuy,
You are the New American. According to you we can't defend the political integrity of our nation because it would ruin us in the eyes of the world. That's the kind of view that passes for sophisticated in K-12 these days. As for changing the conditions of Mexico, that would require more than a Marshall plan, it would take draconian overhaul of the Mexican culture. Nothing prevents Mexico from succeeding except Mexicans--it's about values. You're right that corporations are becoming more important than governments, and that's Not A Good Thing, because corporations tend to be hierachical and un-representative. Substituting corporate by-laws and political correctness for the Bill of Rights doesn't work for me, sorry.
I suggest more Gun and less Linux.
You are the New American. According to you we can't defend the political integrity of our nation because it would ruin us in the eyes of the world. That's the kind of view that passes for sophisticated in K-12 these days. As for changing the conditions of Mexico, that would require more than a Marshall plan, it would take draconian overhaul of the Mexican culture. Nothing prevents Mexico from succeeding except Mexicans--it's about values. You're right that corporations are becoming more important than governments, and that's Not A Good Thing, because corporations tend to be hierachical and un-representative. Substituting corporate by-laws and political correctness for the Bill of Rights doesn't work for me, sorry.
I suggest more Gun and less Linux.
Sgt Stevo
Member
Cosmoline, you are killing me? thats the funnyist thing I have heard in long time.
I have been too seventeen countrys. I have given examples of places that have secured there boarders.
It can be done. they just dont want to. 1911 TUNER. WE SHOULD BREED YELLOW JACKETS WITH KILLER BEES. then release them. Or bats with pit bulls. that would slow them down.
I have been too seventeen countrys. I have given examples of places that have secured there boarders.
It can be done. they just dont want to. 1911 TUNER. WE SHOULD BREED YELLOW JACKETS WITH KILLER BEES. then release them. Or bats with pit bulls. that would slow them down.
Cosmoline
Member
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T?
Actually, I think the Mexican government has done a fine job looking after the interests of its citizens. Mexico imposes strict immigration limits and forbids Americans from buying good property down there. The USA to them is one big pig ready for slaughter and cooking at the fiesta.
longeyes
member
Five per cent? It's a long drop from there.
Linux&Gun Guy
Member
I never said it was impossible to stop the mexicans - just that it would look bad. We don't have the will to do it. Sure many of you do but not leaders.
Anyway this is going to shock some of you but I don't think 2A or any other right is really a "natural right" - in reality it all comes down to what you can do about it. So of course we should fight for our rights but I don't think that you have any rights except what you carve out of the biomass.
Luckily the Revolutionary guys did a lot of work for us and quickly put in a legal system to keep these rights unmolested for a good long time. But ever so often we will have to do some "rights grabbing" if we want any.
Force(be it political, physical or anything else) is all that *really* lets you have rights or anything else. An organism that doesn't try to dominate will be dominated.
The idea of a Republic with Natural Rights is a wonderful idea but is as based in reality as Communism.(well it really works better then communism) but its not perfect and it goes against human nature and so it will fail sooner or later.
Now dont go trying to say I am anti freedom and anti gun - I am pro both but I try to be realistic(even when its painful)
Anyway this is going to shock some of you but I don't think 2A or any other right is really a "natural right" - in reality it all comes down to what you can do about it. So of course we should fight for our rights but I don't think that you have any rights except what you carve out of the biomass.
Luckily the Revolutionary guys did a lot of work for us and quickly put in a legal system to keep these rights unmolested for a good long time. But ever so often we will have to do some "rights grabbing" if we want any.
Force(be it political, physical or anything else) is all that *really* lets you have rights or anything else. An organism that doesn't try to dominate will be dominated.
The idea of a Republic with Natural Rights is a wonderful idea but is as based in reality as Communism.(well it really works better then communism) but its not perfect and it goes against human nature and so it will fail sooner or later.
Now dont go trying to say I am anti freedom and anti gun - I am pro both but I try to be realistic(even when its painful)
longeyes
member
The notion that "we don't have the will" is unproven. It's been repeated way too many times. The American people have awakened, slowly but surely, to the realities of illegal immigration. The people know what they want; it's the politicos who are standing in the way. Whose will will prevail is the real issue here, not whether "we" have the will. You don't think most Americans want employer sanctions and suspension of public welfare benefits? I beg to differ.
We have, de facto, the political rights we are willing to fight forl, that's true. The good news is that there are still people willing to fight.
We have, de facto, the political rights we are willing to fight forl, that's true. The good news is that there are still people willing to fight.
Sheldon J
Member
I've said it before
And I'll say it again, the one sure way to end this is to suspend NFTA and close the boarders untill Mexico works to stop it's own from crossing over. Hit them in the $$$ cash box and it will stop.
And I'll say it again, the one sure way to end this is to suspend NFTA and close the boarders untill Mexico works to stop it's own from crossing over. Hit them in the $$$ cash box and it will stop.
longeyes
member
We're going to have to hit our own financially if we want to stop it.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
The only thing Bush has done that I respect, is that he has acted as if the rest of the world doesn't matter when it comes to U.S. security. His "you're either with us or against us" policy, I found enlightening. Not so much because of what he was saying it about as much as because I believe countries earn and lose trust, and attempting to gain the support of nations that hate the U.S. is bad foreign policy.
While I wouldn't care if the world liked our mining the Southern Border or not, I find it expenive and unnecessary. You put some employer sanctions out, and cut all social welfare to illegals, fences won't matter. (while I support barriers, I support them to defend against Al Quaida operatives, and military threats, economic ones cannot be stopped that easily).
Rights are natural. Just because they aren't acknowleged doesn't mean they are non-existent. It just means they are infringed. Where they come from is, admitedly a subject of debate, and matter of theory.
Oh, and if we closed our border, Mexico would experience a brutal civil war, guaranteed. As things currently stand, with a socialist who has ties to Hugo Chavez, things could get hairy. But we make this pressure cooker, and Mexico will explode. The U.S. governement wants to avoid what that civil war could cause and so does it's best to keep Mexico "stable" even if it destablizes us.
Frankly, I think it's alot like having a cavity. Yeah, it might hurt to get the cavity taken care of at the dentist's. But you are hurting right now. And it will only get worse, possibly causing your tooth to rot out. But if you fix it now, you'll probably not have this problem in the future.
While I wouldn't care if the world liked our mining the Southern Border or not, I find it expenive and unnecessary. You put some employer sanctions out, and cut all social welfare to illegals, fences won't matter. (while I support barriers, I support them to defend against Al Quaida operatives, and military threats, economic ones cannot be stopped that easily).
Rights are natural. Just because they aren't acknowleged doesn't mean they are non-existent. It just means they are infringed. Where they come from is, admitedly a subject of debate, and matter of theory.
Oh, and if we closed our border, Mexico would experience a brutal civil war, guaranteed. As things currently stand, with a socialist who has ties to Hugo Chavez, things could get hairy. But we make this pressure cooker, and Mexico will explode. The U.S. governement wants to avoid what that civil war could cause and so does it's best to keep Mexico "stable" even if it destablizes us.
Frankly, I think it's alot like having a cavity. Yeah, it might hurt to get the cavity taken care of at the dentist's. But you are hurting right now. And it will only get worse, possibly causing your tooth to rot out. But if you fix it now, you'll probably not have this problem in the future.
- Status