"Mexamerica, Here We Come"

[Capitalist Pig]

Have Americans, one wonders, fully reflected on what the Bush amnesty portends for the country their children will grow up in?

Consider what Bush is saying with this amnesty for 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens and his "guest workers" program to allow employers to go overseas and hire people anywhere in the world for jobs Americans will not, or cannot take at the wages offered.

He is saying: I cannot defend our border. I will not enforce the laws. I will not send illegal aliens back. And as I cannot stop this invasion of the United States, I intend to legalize it.

Bush is not only rewarding millions of law-breakers and gate-crashers, he is erasing the border with Mexico. Mexamerica is our future. The United States is going to become a giant Brazil. Bush is saying there is no way to stop it – therefore, we must embrace it.

Ethnically and racially, this means an America that is no longer a First World country. Third World people of color will be the majority in two decades. Americans whose forefathers came from Europe, 90 percent of the population in 1960, will be a shrinking minority by 2040. For not only are the birth rates of white Americans lower than those of immigrants, the new immigrants will be from the Third World.

Economically, Bush is throwing American workers – white, black, Asian, Hispanic – into a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest struggle for jobs with foreigners willing to do sweat-shop labor for wages that cannot sustain an American family.

Winners will be the economic elites who will benefit from low prices produced by cheap labor and from having a vast proletariat to do the chores at their homes, country clubs, ski lodges, restaurants, parking garages, vacation spas and yacht basins.

Losers will be American workers who have to compete for jobs with folks for whom $5.15 an hour is pay undreamed of back home in the Caribbean, Nigeria or Mexico.

Politically, our welfare state will explode. The Bush plan will convert America from the middle-class country we grew up in into a nation with a huge proletariat with a rising claim on our tax dollars for more schools, courts, cops, hospitals, parks, roads and prisons.

If you would know America's future, look at California. In the 1990s, for the first time since the Spanish arrived, California saw an out-migration of native-born Americans, white and black, along with a huge influx of immigrants, legal and illegal.

We are endlessly reminded how wonderful the new America will be as she becomes more diverse. Californians, who already live in that new America, apparently don't think so. Every chance they get, they vote to chop welfare and deny drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Now, they are deserting the new California beloved of our elites. If assimilation is working, why are Californians voting with their feet and fleeing to Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Idaho?

"Who cares where people come from?" comes the retort. "The Melting Pot will make them all Americans, as it did the 18 million who came from Eastern and Southern Europe from 1890 to 1920."

But those were European peoples coming to a country run by descendants of Europeans. They came to a land that enforced assimilation in its schools. They learned and were taught in the same language, read the same books and magazines, went to the same movies, listened to the same radio, went through the Great Depression together and served in the same Army in World War II.

And after the great wave ended in 1920, we had 45 years of low immigration to assimilate and Americanize the children of the immigrants who had come here.

But America's population has doubled since 1945. Instead of the 16 million people of color we had in 1960 – almost all of whom were black Americans immersed for centuries in American culture – there are 80 million people of color here now, from 100 nations.

Instead of assimilation, we live in an age of racial and ethnic resentments and entitlements, where "multiculturalism" is in vogue and it is "racist" to demand immigrants learn the English language.

But if we no longer worship the same God, honor the same heroes, speak the same language, study the same history, love the same literature or even agree about what is right and wrong, how do we remain one nation and one people?

What do we have in common anymore? If Bush's ally-ally-in-free immigration policy is embraced, the old America we knew will be nothing more than a global hiring hall and what Teddy Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world."

And if it doesn't work, there is no going back. It is the end of the America we all loved. Why is President Bush taking this risk with our country?

http://www.theamericancause.org/patmexamericaprint.htm

[G. Adams]

This is one issue I agree with Bush on, it may not go as far as I want but it is a step. If we are to have are to have free trade, it cannot be just to the benefit of the minority, it must be for everyone. Therefore we must have both free trade of goods and free trade of labour. So labour must be able to to move whereever it wishes, which means open borders. American's arn't special, neither are Europeans, why should we have falsely maintained wages while everyone else are driven down. Open borders will bring in new labour and will lower the quality of life for the majority of Americans and Europeans, and then they can ask themselves whether they still want capitalism.

[Sodfather]

I agree with CP, and have gained a lot of perspective from his post.

Adams, why would you support opening the border? What is there to gain for Americans? Absolutely nothing. The only people who will benefit from a move like this is the Mexicans themselves. Is the welfare of Mexicans more important than that of Americans? One wouldn't think so, so why open the border?

It's basically like this:

Mexicans will experience a higher quality of life due to American jobs.

Americans will be forced to learn a second or third, language, and they will struggle to find an employer ten times harder than they do now. Also, American culture will not withstand such an influx of Mexicans: their heritage is rich and proud--no way in hell will they conform to American culture after all these centuries of carrying on azteca and maya traditions.

And what the hell is with the, "Americans aren't special," comment? If the citizens aren't special to their own country, what the hell is? Buffalo? Raccoons?

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
Adams, why would you support opening the border? What is there to gain for Americans?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You have to understand, Communists realize that wide open borders for the United States and a high influx of illegal immigration tears a the fabric of our nation. In a few decades time, the United States -- if the status quo persists and Bush's plan is passed -- America could become another Latin country. All semblance of the great nation we once were will be wiped out eventually.

It is ironic that people on the other end of the spectrum support a blatant political move by President Bush, while disagreeing with him and accusing him of being political with pretty much everything else. However it is not surprising.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
I agree with CP, and have gained a lot of perspective from his post.

Adams, why would you support opening the border? What is there to gain for Americans? Absolutely nothing. The only people who will benefit from a move like this is the Mexicans themselves. Is the welfare of Mexicans more important than that of Americans? One wouldn't think so, so why open the border?

It's basically like this:

Mexicans will experience a higher quality of life due to American jobs.

Americans will be forced to learn a second or third, language, and they will struggle to find an employer ten times harder than they do now. Also, American culture will not withstand such an influx of Mexicans: their heritage is rich and proud--no way in hell will they conform to American culture after all these centuries of carrying on azteca and maya traditions.

And what the hell is with the, "Americans aren't special," comment? If the citizens aren't special to their own country, what the hell is? Buffalo? Raccoons?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I support the opening of all borders, because I want everyone in the world to try and cram into the cities of Europe, the US, Japan, Australia, NZ etc I want the people around me to see what capitalism is, where you have to fight for a job, where chances are you and your family will be on the breadline if your lucky. I want to burst the bubble that capitalism has built around the west, were you don't have to face the problems of this rotten system. Then perhaps, when people see, and feel, and watch their friends and family suffer around them, like 2/3's of people already do, they might get off their arses and try and make the whole world a better place.

It's harsh, but think of it like this. You've raised your kid shielded from all the things that people do in life. They've never cooked, cleaned or worked for themselves ever. But now's the time for them to grow up. They've got to become adults, and you can't shield them anymore. They've got to face the harsh reality, no more hiding under mommies dress, and you've got to, for the own sake, let them make some mistakes.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
Adams, why would you support opening the border? What is there to gain for Americans?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You have to understand, Communists realize that wide open borders for the United States and a high influx of illegal immigration tears a the fabric of our nation. In a few decades time, the United States -- if the status quo persists and Bush's plan is passed -- America could become another Latin country. All semblance of the great nation we once were will be wiped out eventually.

It is ironic that people on the other end of the spectrum support a blatant political move by President Bush, while disagreeing with him and accusing him of being political with pretty much everything else. However it is not surprising.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Huh, what'ya know, you got something right about me. I do want to see the fabric of your nation, and mine, and everyone's torn asunder. I don't want to see you or your family living in the conditions current Latino's do permanently, I just want you to see and feel how hard life is for most humans. Maybe then you'll give a shit about them.

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I don't want to see you or your family living in the conditions current Latino's do permanently, I just want you to see and feel how hard life is for most humans. Maybe then you'll give a shit about them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Ha, if that's what being a Commie is, I better get reading because I know nothing about Communism.

Adams, what's the reason that those people are poor? Is it the responsibility of others to build them some metropolises and open up a stock market and show them how to make cars and, well, basically industrialize every fucking third world country in order to modernize them and help them out of poverty?

No way, man. All modernized countries have made it themselves...America industrialized America, Russia industrialized Russia, China industrialized China--and don't think it was a damn cakewalk doing so, either. Why can't these countries? What unfair advantage did Russia, China, America, the U.K., Japan, etc. have which these countries do not? We had no help in becoming modern, so why should they receive any?

[white rice]

What an inflammatory piece of filth with half truths mixed in with bigoted feelings.

Accepting foreigners is a very hard thing for established Americans to do. After a generation or two getting here, they have no notion that other people from other countries want in on the greatest nation that comprises only 5% of the world's population.

Just because they're not White or if you want to sugarcoat it, European, doesn't mean they can't learn as well, think as fast, or be successful. The article made it sound like Americans took on Blacks as a burden. Working without freedom was such a blessing for them...

Mexamerica is coming. In the coming 25 years, Latinos will be the majority, and that's not counting the illegal numbers either (in fact, the article primarily attacks Bush's policy in order to stir up reaction to the inevitable outcome). Our workforce is declining through age and marginal reproduction growth. Immigration has consistently been the key to revitalizing our productivity. Especially in light of soon being surpassed by China as the world's manufacturer, we need all the people we can get. And when you retire, one of those two people who pay for your Social Security check will be Latino. So it's a matter of our choice whether "these people" we're getting is going to be skilled and trained for tomorrow's demands.

If you really want the American way of life preserved, you know that bullshit about the house and kids, let freedom ring, and being the greatest country in the world, you should embrace them and not treat them like Third World citizens.

EDIT: Joke's on me, it was written by Pat Buchanan.

[G. Adams]

It's not about being a communist, it's about advancing capitalism.

I see this as like the agrarian-urban move, people left the countryside for the cities because there were good jobs. Now people will be leaving one continent for another for the good jobs. It's all part of capitalism.

50 years of right wing dictators sponsered by the US has made it a little dificult for the South Americans to build good countries for themselves.

And as for Americans building the metropolises then others making use, it again is no different to the agrarian-urban move. The city dwellers built it, then the peasents moved in.

And besides, did you build the metropolis's? Yet you use them. So what does it matter if other's from outside a particular territory use them.

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
And besides, did you build the metropolis's? Yet you use them. So what does it matter if other's from outside a particular territory use them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, but our ancestors did. My point is that America didn't overflow London with immigrants to force London to help them become modernized. That's just plain stupid.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
If you really want the American way of life preserved, you know that bullshit about the house and kids, let freedom ring, and being the greatest country in the world, you should embrace them and not treat them like Third World citizens.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I embrace those that make their trek here legitimately, not those who violate our borders and reside here without going through the proper legal channels.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
And besides, did you build the metropolis's?  Yet you use them.  So what does it matter if other's from outside a particular territory use them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, but our ancestors did. My point is that America didn't overflow London with immigrants to force London to help them become modernized. That's just plain stupid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Your ancestors? First of all, what do they have to do with anything, secondly I doubt you know for sure whether YOUR ancestors built the cities, so why do you have any more right to make use of the cities the facilities.

No, Americans didn't flood london to force them to help. But the great poverty in European cities during industrialisation led to unions and the welfare state to help the masses. The rich thought of the poor as some underclass that didn't deserve THEIR help. Why should THEY help the poor? It's just the same now. Americans and Europeans are thinking why should THEY help them? Because they are humans for fuck sake.

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
No, Americans didn't flood london to force them to help. But the great poverty in European cities during industrialisation led to unions and the welfare state to help the masses. The rich thought of the poor as some underclass that didn't deserve THEIR help. Why should THEY help the poor? It's just the same now. Americans and Europeans are thinking why should THEY help them? Because they are humans for fuck sake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Okay, Mr. Humanitarian, let's pretend that your idea is a good one for a moment. How the fuck are foreign countries going to give these countries aid? How are we supposed to remotely modernize eight million countries? Have you seen Iraq lately? For all the Iraqis know, our main purpose for taking over was to liberate them, was to give them a better life: how did they return the favor for apparent generosity and concern of America and the U.K.? Bombs. Bombs, AK rounds, and all things associated with resistence. That's what we would get for being "humans for fuck sake."

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
I embrace those that make their trek here legitimately, not those who violate our borders and reside here without going through the proper legal channels.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Canadians do it all the time.

Anyways, I agree in principle. Buchanan's slant on this is different altogether.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
Canadians do it all the time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Canadians I would make an exception for, because their society reflects ours in many respects. A high inflow of illegal Canadians would pose no threat to America's integrity. They would integrate with little to no difficulty. However, Mexican culture is radically different from ours and Mexico is a seriously corrupt nation, and so comparing their immigration to a high rate of Canadian immigration is inherently flawed in this regard.

[nature of reality]

Holy shit! I disagree with everyone in this thread!

All sides agree that influx will be harmful to americans. Capitalistic Pig is a protectionist, and this upsets him. G. Adams is a masochist and this excites him. Both are based off a faulty premise. The conceptions of mercantilistic thought were exploded about 300 years ago by a fellow named Ricardo his law of comparitive cost.

Lets suppose there are two products of the 1st order p and q.

One american worker can create 3 p OR 5q.
One mexican worker in the same amount of time can make 4p OR 6q.

Now, as you can see, to have ANY mexicans working making p causing those employeeing them as such to take a loss. Niche markets emerge, and the net production increases.


And this is nature of capitalism... The cooperation of the weak and strong in this instance is mutually beneficial, as both parties grow wealthier from this division of labour. Dog eat dog does not occur in capitalism or in dogs.

This is just elemtary Division of Labour. What, do you think it works for factories, or nations, but when you have two different races of peoples it instantly stops working?


Seriously though guys, this stuff was destroyed 300 years ago. Its sad its still held onto.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
No, Americans didn't flood london to force them to help.  But the great poverty in European cities during industrialisation led to unions and the welfare state to help the masses.  The rich thought of the poor as some underclass that didn't deserve THEIR help.  Why should THEY help the poor?  It's just the same now.  Americans and Europeans are thinking why should THEY help them?  Because they are humans for fuck sake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Okay, Mr. Humanitarian, let's pretend that your idea is a good one for a moment. How the fuck are foreign countries going to give these countries aid? How are we supposed to remotely modernize eight million countries? Have you seen Iraq lately? For all the Iraqis know, our main purpose for taking over was to liberate them, was to give them a better life: how did they return the favor for apparent generosity and concern of America and the U.K.? Bombs. Bombs, AK rounds, and all things associated with resistence. That's what we would get for being "humans for fuck sake."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

They return the favour by attacking you? Well maybe they think that's how your culture thinks gratitude should be shown, as you did kill 10 000 in 'liberating' their country.

How are you and I meant to help them? I dunno, maybe end the military budget and spend it on beneficial things, like developing the infrastructure of the third world, supporting their education services till they run well on their own, end third world debt etc

But the over population of the West wouldn't affect the rich particularly, it would be again like the agrarian-urban move. All the poor moved to the cities where the rich were, so the rich bought up the land of the leaving poor, which gave them huge estates, and then they left the cities. So all you'd have is rich American's leaving for the beaches of Brazil or South Africa, which would now be a lot freer of poor people. The overcrowding of the cities, the unemployment, the death of the welfare state and so on would lead to a revolution, peaceful or violent depends on the situation.

[nature of reality]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How are you and I meant to help them? I dunno, maybe end the military budget and spend it on beneficial things, like developing the infrastructure of the third world, supporting their education services till they run well on their own, end third world debt etc<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

We can help them and ourselves by reducing protectionist bullshit. We both get richer that way.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The overcrowding of the cities, the unemployment, the death of the welfare state and so on would lead to a revolution, peaceful or violent depends on the situation. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Now the error in your reasoning is twofold: 1 is that your are holding onto the Iron Law of Wages, which was also discredited with the subjective value of labour, 2 is using historical evidence to try and create a economic theory, as though it was a posterii science. Its not. Its a priori, simply because you can't replicate situations and isolate variables, and a 1 time experient with multiple variables (such as in your case, britain in 1800s) cannot derive absolute principles of economic thought. You could claim the increase of the welfare of the citizenry was due to legislature, i could to technology, and someone else could enter teh Will of God, and none of us could prove each other wrong, as all we have are EVENTS.

So in order to gain knowledge on praexology, or the actions of humans (such as economic) one must use a constant logical line of reasoning from irrefutable premises. I just wanted to get that out, as a lot of stupid arguements between socialists and liberals (in the sense of the word that i am) are repetitive and dull as they center around historical events.

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
One american worker can create 3 p OR 5q.
One mexican worker in the same amount of time can make 4p OR 6q.

Now, as you can see, to have ANY mexicans working making p causing those employeeing them as such to take a loss. Niche markets emerge, and the net production increases.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I commend you for trying to make a point, but don't try so hard, man: couldn't you just have said, "Mexicans production rate is higher than Americans'?" Jesus...

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)


We can help them and ourselves by reducing protectionist bullshit. We both get richer that way.



Now the error in your reasoning is twofold: 1 is that your are holding onto the Iron Law of Wages, which was also discredited with the subjective value of labour, 2 is using historical evidence to try and create a economic theory, as though it was a posterii science. Its not. Its a priori, simply because you can't replicate situations and isolate variables, and a 1 time experient with multiple variables (such as in your case, britain in 1800s) cannot derive absolute principles of economic thought. You could claim the increase of the welfare of the citizenry was due to legislature, i could to technology, and someone else could enter teh Will of God, and none of us could prove each other wrong, as all we have are EVENTS.

So in order to gain knowledge on praexology, or the actions of humans (such as economic) one must use a constant logical line of reasoning from irrefutable premises. I just wanted to get that out, as a lot of stupid arguements between socialists and liberals (in the sense of the word that i am) are repetitive and dull as they center around historical events.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

My theory is based on only a few things.

That human's primary drive is survival.

That opening up all borders would lead to mass migration to the developed world.

There would not be enough jobs to cover a significant proportion, and that in turn would drive down wages.

The discontent caused by the about two would threaten the survival of a majority, who would then force, by peaceful or violent means, a system that would cater for all.

It has happened before, in different circumstances yes, and in ones that won't repeat in exactly the same way, but the crucial points will.

and if your in support of reducing trade barriers, then we're in the same boat for now.