wrote:
Graphic Queen wrote:
Those who want to come to the USA, in violation of our immigration
laws, will continue to come, until and unless, we the American people,
defeat their morale. As long as they hold out the hopes and dreams, of
reaching the "land of milk and honey" or the "pot of gold at the end
of the rainbow", then we will continue to face them. They come for
opportunity, but face the reality of market saturation, hunger and
suffering. There are not enough jobs, or resources to support them at
this rate.

We must also defeat the morale of the illegals already here, and
motivate them to self-deport. We must cut off their supplies of water
and food. We must deter their enablers who assist them, and the
transporters who move them. We must stop the employers who provide
them employment.

Our governments have proved, in the past and present, that they can
make immigration laws, as long as the lumberjacks can fell trees and
the paper mills can make paper, but all the immigration laws written,
on the by-products of all the dead trees, don't mean anything without
enforcement. Our governments, from federal to local, have proven
dysfunctional, in the enforcement of immigration laws.

We must rise up and defend our Constitution against all enemies both
foreign and domestic.
We must carry the torch, and scythe, and enforce our immigration laws,
so as to end this quagmire.
We shall remember in November, and beyond, those traitors and tyrants,
who have betrayed our trust, and our sovereignty.

It is in our hands to remove the illegals from our nation, and to
defeat the efforts of those who will try to violate our immigration
laws.

We must rise and repel the invaders, at the borders, and evict those
aliens in our towns.

You the people of the United States of America, have the power of
citizenship and the duty and honor, under the US Constitution, and
within the Bill of rights, to protect this nation, now, or forever
allow it to be surrendered to the invading forces.

What say you my fellow patriots? rise and fight--or-- surrender?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'It will always be like this'
As Bush tries to stop migrants, Mexicans vow to continue illegal trips
north

NOGALES, Mexico - Mexicans say it will take more than three layers of
fence and 6,000 National Guard troops to keep them out of the United
States.

As President Bush visited the stretch of Arizona desert Thursday that
serves as a cactus-studded freeway for thousands of undocumented
migrants, those preparing to make the perilous trip said they will
find a way around almost any obstacle.

"We'll go under it, we'll go over it, we'll go through the air, the
sea or the earth, but they're never going to stop us from crossing,"
said Jesus Santana, a Tijuana truck driver who was caught trying to
cross and deported.

Increased security will likely only serve to make smuggling fees more
expensive and drive immigrants deeper into debt, making them even more
desperate to make it north.

As a tired, bedraggled column of deportees filed across a Nogales
border bridge Thursday - just as Bush was giving a speech on border
security west of here - some migrants were already furiously dialing
cell phones to contact immigrant smugglers for their next attempt.

"Of course we'll cross again. We're just waiting for them to come and
pick us up," said Javier Torres, 22, of Cuiliacan, Sinaloa. Just 100
yards away, vans of the kind used by smugglers waited under an
underpass to pick up groups of deportees.

The deportees were greeted on the Mexican side by Martin Doriane, who
for the last four years has surveyed returning migrants for the
Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

Doraine says at least 95 percent of migrants caught and deported say
they'll try again, in part because they've sold everything they own in
Mexico to pay increasingly expensive and sophisticated smuggling
efforts to overcome tightened border security.

"They say, 'I had a roof and a frying pan in Mexico, but I sold both
to come north and went into debt, so what do I have to return to?"'
Doraine said.

Seeking 'a different life'
One of the deportees, Maria del Carmen Valadez, brought her
12-year-old son, Julio Cesar Castaneda, on the dangerous two-day trek
through the desert. The boy hungrily ate a taco Doriane gave him as
his mother acknowledged "it is a risk" to bring a child on such a
dangerous trip.

"I did it to give him a different life," said Valadez, of Fresnillo in
Zacatecas in northern Mexico. She said she'll probably try to cross
again, because in her hometown, "there's nothing but poverty."

That sense of desperation - and determination - is everywhere.

On Monday, a detained woman told agents she had left her 3-year-old
son dead in the desert.

The proposed 370 miles of triple-layer fencing, approved by the Senate
Wednesday, as well as Bush's plan to send National Guard troops to
play supporting roles in border enforcement, has raised tempers and
tensions here.

"Somebody is going to start shooting, and then there will be problems
between the two countries," predicted Santana, the Tijuana truck
driver.

Mexico airs concerns
Mexico's government has expressed concern about the wall and National
Guard proposals, saying they aren't the way to solve problems of
border security and illegal migration north.

"Most countries want to bring their people together and tear down
physical, commercial and cultural barriers," presidential spokesman
Ruben Aguilar said Thursday. "Anyone who proposes separating them is
out of line. Walls are a sign of distrust, and that will never be the
basis of a good friendship between two countries."

The Senate measure includes provisions that would give some
undocumented immigrants a path toward citizenship and allow more
people to work temporarily in the United States.

But Santana said he saw no advances in the sweeping reform package.

"There will always be more people wanting to come," he said. "It will
always be like this."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12860863/
--

Constitution of Mexico:

FOREIGNERS may NOT, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the COUNTRY!

The supreme kisser of hispanic butts, President Bush, and most of the
US Senate should be on trial for treason. They have failed to protect
our southern border and have pushed for legislation that would increase
the flooding of America by third-world aliens. A problem is that the
old "Silent Majority" is mostly a collection of lard-assed, feminized,
PC'd, White males. Worthless.

Arch

http://www.newnation.com/index2.html New Nation News

The basic failure is an economic one. Mobility of labor is a vital part
of the EU. Indeed my claim is that you cannot have a free economy
without freedom of all the ingedients - Capital, Labor, Goods and
Services. NAFTA should be rechistened NAFF TA as it it really only
giving the basic freedoms of the WTO.

EU experience shows that mass migrations cease when wage and salary
levels are within 50% of the level between the various countries. The
fact that vthis is not the case with the USA and Mexico is a grave
indictment of the way the Western Hemisphere is run. Bush is trying -
very inadaquately in my view, to run a proper hemisphere. You could say
Bush is very trying!

Calderon has promised to free up movement of Capital. This I believe is
a vital step, in fact if labor is cheap US firms should be investing in
Mexico and making vast profits. OK making vast profits some might
consider immoral, but this is the only way to even things up.
Eventaually there will be no point as Mexican real wages rise. Also if
you settle in Mexico you will find that property and services are very
much cheaper than they are in the US. Learn some Spanish and you will
find that services cost you less. This may, as I have said, be a
temporary state of affairs.

I always thought the US was a free country run on free enterprise
principles. I was wrong.

wrote:
...
The basic failure is an economic one. Mobility of labor is a vital part
of the EU. Indeed my claim is that you cannot have a free economy
without freedom of all the ingedients - Capital, Labor, Goods and

Tell that to the French -- their huge scare about "the threat of Polish
plumber" crippled the Services Directive, and still today a Polish
plumber cannot freely go practice his trade in France (or, I believe,
Italy or Germany) without serious hassles making this or that "illegal".

The only plus of the EU, here, is that having these immigration hassles
as a state-level decision enables sensible states (Ireland, the UK,
Sweden, ...) to have much saner immigration policies, while, in the US,
even states which might LOVE to let good workers in (I suspect
California, Texas or Florida might, for example) must still kowtow on
immigration issues to heartland rednecks (OTOH, the fragmentation hurts
the EU on currency issues, for example: having theoretically free
movement of capital is hampered by that capital needing to be all the
time converted -- at a price each time -- among euros, pounds, kroner,
.... having just 1 single currency, the dollar, helps the US!).


Alex

Alex Martelli wrote:
wrote:
...
The basic failure is an economic one. Mobility of labor is a vital part
of the EU. Indeed my claim is that you cannot have a free economy
without freedom of all the ingedients - Capital, Labor, Goods and

Tell that to the French -- their huge scare about "the threat of Polish
plumber" crippled the Services Directive, and still today a Polish
plumber cannot freely go practice his trade in France (or, I believe,
Italy or Germany) without serious hassles making this or that "illegal".

The only plus of the EU, here, is that having these immigration hassles
as a state-level decision enables sensible states (Ireland, the UK,
Sweden, ...) to have much saner immigration policies, while, in the US,
even states which might LOVE to let good workers in (I suspect
California, Texas or Florida might, for example) must still kowtow on
immigration issues to heartland rednecks (OTOH, the fragmentation hurts
the EU on currency issues, for example: having theoretically free
movement of capital is hampered by that capital needing to be all the
time converted -- at a price each time -- among euros, pounds, kroner,
... having just 1 single currency, the dollar, helps the US!).


Alex

You have highlighted one very impoertant point - the mutual recognition
of qualifications. There are "headline" tariff barriers. There are also
non tariff barriers. I fully support the work of the WTO although I
consider it work to be limited. When you get things as brazen as
agricultural policies (both EU and US), the support bive to BOTH Boeing
and Airbus, this fact is often forgotten. Airbus A local trade
orgainization NAFTA or the EU must also be looking at non tariff
barriers as well.

Could I say that my own country Great Nritain is admitttting Poles and
other Easterners on a non restrictive basis. The British economy is
benefiiting. The french evonomy isn't. Anyway the pot calling the
kettle black is not going to solver henispheric problems.

Since when did America take a lead from France?. France is no friend of
Britain's, or Mexico's.

wrote:
...
The only plus of the EU, here, is that having these immigration hassles
as a state-level decision enables sensible states (Ireland, the UK,
Sweden, ...) to have much saner immigration policies, while, in the US,
...
Could I say that my own country Great Nritain is admitttting Poles and
other Easterners on a non restrictive basis. The British economy is

You could say it, but it would duplicate what I just wrote (and you
quoted, and I'm re-quoting:-) by listing the UK (which presumably means
the same as "Great Nritain", although I must admit not being familiar
with any country which spells its name that way:-) among the "sensible
states" with "much saner immigration policies".

benefiiting. The french evonomy isn't. Anyway the pot calling the
kettle black is not going to solver henispheric problems.

Who said anything about _solving_? I'm just disputing the claim that
mobility of labor *IS* (as opposed to "should be") working in the EU: it
isn't (though it should be) due to the resistance of big continental
countries (Italy and Germany as well as France) -- the only plus is that
sensible countries get to follow more sensible policies... which, as I
said, unfortunately does not apply in the US: Federal power is too
strong here, so sensible states may still have to toe the line no matter
what _their_ voters think. E.g.,
http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2...pendent/news/9
..txt: "New Jerseyans by a two-to-one margin favor legalizing
undocumented immigrants who have worked in the United States for at
least two years ... 69 percent of Democrats surveyed supporting
legalization for immigrants already here, compared to 62 percent of
Republicans";
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15071773.htm: "53
percent of Californians and 50 percent of voters said they favor a path
to citizenship for illegal immigrants. About 34 percent of adults in the
state, and 35 percent of voters, oppose the plan" -- it's hardly a
partisan issue here, more of a generational one, "Among residents 18 to
34 years old, 68 percent said they support the idea, and 19 percent said
they oppose it. But among residents 55 and older, 41 percent said they
favor allowing illegal immigrants to gain legal status, with 46 percent
opposed".

But, of course, US reactionaries only CLAIM to support "states' rights"
when some states want to deviate from federal norms in a direction that
the right-wing LIKES -- they show their true colors when states want to
vary in a direction they hate, as already shown, e.g., in their reaction
against all states choosing to allow medical use of cannabis.


Since when did America take a lead from France?. France is no friend of
Britain's, or Mexico's.

I believe America "took a lead from France" a bit over 230 years ago,
when they rebelled against you guys and managed to secede with some
minor help from a French expeditionary force (Lafayette is still
remembered rather fondly around here because of that); after that, the
rapport between the USA and France has gone through a lot of ups and
downs (for example, the Statue of Liberty was a gift to the US from
France during one of the ups) -- just like the rapport between the USA
and the UK, after all, albeit the peaks and throughs came usually at
different times. I'm not sure what this (albeit fascinating) historical
discussion may have to do with the debate, mind you, but I always find
historical analysis fascinating as an end in itself, anyway.

As for friendship between countries, I'm not sure how to measure it; I
do know that France is the 11th largest supplier, 14th largest customer,
and 7th largest investor (FDI) in Mexico, for example
(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/cou...o_435/france-a
nd-mexico_3114/economic-relations_3683.html) while France's ties with
the UK are much closer (3rd biggest customer, 5th biggest supplier, 3rd
largest investor for FDI...). But do close economic ties mean
"friendship"...?


Alex

Alex Martelli wrote:

As for friendship between countries, I'm not sure how to measure it; I
do know that France is the 11th largest supplier, 14th largest customer,
and 7th largest investor (FDI) in Mexico, for example
(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/cou...o_435/france-a
nd-mexico_3114/economic-relations_3683.html) while France's ties with
the UK are much closer (3rd biggest customer, 5th biggest supplier, 3rd
largest investor for FDI...). But do close economic ties mean
"friendship"...?

What you say here is quite important. Does trade follow the flag, or
does it follow the cheapest and highest quality.

If trade "follows the flag" then this is indeed a great distortion. The
Great and the Good (the GGs) tend rather to speak with forked tongue on
this. They pay lip service to such organizations as the WTO, yet they
insist on the "flag".

The point you made about medicinal cannabis is a good one. To be fair
though cannabis is not a pure substance. There are a large number of
Cannaboids each with a somewhat different pharmacological action. You
need to be able to produce known compositions reproducibly before you
can really use cannabis medicinally. However you are right the Right
wing states rights lobby are NOT pharmacists.

On states rights I did mention a wall round Wisconsin rather jokingly.
However the point is an important one. What freedom should people be
given to roam? Why stop at a wall between Spanish speaking and English
speaking America?

There is of course an overall EU immigation policy. I would still
however claim that economic progress in places like Morocco is the long
term answer. In any case the restriction external to the EU do not
parallel those of Mexico.

1) There is NAFTS or rather NAFF TA as I call it. The purpose of that
should be to iron out differences.

2) The US is getting MORE restictive with time. Up to the 1960s there
were NO restrictions on the Western Hemishere.

Iraq is a long way away. However if the US loses it in the Western
Hemisphere its days as a global power are numbered. Sheer arithmetic is
against it.