It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should America do away with borders altogether?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


So you really arent in favor of America doing away with its borders as far as the whole world is concerned, you are in favor of America and Mexico merging into one nation and still having borders with other nations?

So are you in favor of immigration law, but only with nations who do not border us? Or do you think we should get rid of the laws for everyone, but only formally join with Mexico?




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


First of all. I specifically NOTED my refusal of a One World Government. I specifically stated that I feel no "small percentage of the population" has the right to so much power. Didn't I? I'm certain I did. Go back and check for me.



There is a DIFFERENCE between being FORCED into submission of One World Government, and willfully accepting world unity. The whole concept of remaining sovereign is ridiculous. Why? You wanna be apart from the rest simply because being apart is cool? It makes no sense.

There is nothing wrong with an entire planet of people that care for one another. Valuing knowledge and freedoms just as America is SUPPOSED to, because it is not right now.

And I HOPE you won't be claiming that it does, because as it stands, a lot of our freedoms have been trampled. You, ESPECIALLY, as someone that acknowledges the possibility of a gruesome NWO government can identify with this notion.


-----

A lot of Americans have been educated stupid. -- Most Americans only really hate socialism because they are taught to be materialistic. They are introduced to socialism via failed governments which were notorious for torture and abuse.

-----

Inevitably, I feel that the correct path is unity. What POSSIBLE negative is there in unity? Really. The only one you can note is, "NWO is bad" which is true. It is.

But you need to identify with the differences.

NWO = Bad (Why? Because it is a delusion meant to establish order and dominance over the lesser.)

Willfull embrace, NOT through lies and delusional, but through humanitarian prospects = Good (Why? Because uniting all our resources in order to achieve common goals and not squabble over petty things is a positive notion.)



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rtcctr
 


Well, at least you are honest. So you think the idea of nationhood itself is archaic and needs to be done away with.

Is it practical to assume we could have any sort of universal wage with a population so widespread and diverse? It seems to me we have problems getting our government to serve the people and their needs here in the US due in large part to our size. The bigger an organization becomes, the more difficult it can be to be in touch with the needs of its people.

I personally do not feel we are at the stage where we should give up the idea of nations and nationhood, but I agree it is the next logical step. Our human groupings have been getting bigger and bigger, and I suppose it is only a matter of time before we do go global.

I am just not sure we have really mastered even the management of very large countries as a species. The USSR fragmented rather quickly, the US is trembling on the verge of fragmenting, and China has an abysmal record in terms of managing its people and resources. I have to question whether it is wise to push for a one world government when we cant even get continental governments to serve their people well.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

With the border only those allowed are let in but even though they are allowed in they still have to respect others stuff and the law.

I'm sure this would still be the case if there were no borders.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by daskakik]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by daskakik]


Hmm, Lets try to think this one through. If the laws are currently broken and many individuals who break them have to regards for others such as the people who come across illegal or those who stay over on expired visas.

But if we magically erase the borders, everyone will sing kumbaya and follow the laws. YaY to a hippie induced coma.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca
Hmm, Lets try to think this one through. If the laws are currently broken and many individuals who break them have to regards for others such as the people who come across illegal or those who stay over on expired visas.

But if we magically erase the borders, everyone will sing kumbaya and follow the laws. YaY to a hippie induced coma.


No hippie talk here. There will be crime. There always has been and there always will be. I'm not saying eliminating the borders would change that just that the laws that exist against crime today would still exist even if the borders where eliminated.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


So you really arent in favor of America doing away with its borders as far as the whole world is concerned, you are in favor of America and Mexico merging into one nation and still having borders with other nations?

So are you in favor of immigration law, but only with nations who do not border us? Or do you think we should get rid of the laws for everyone, but only formally join with Mexico?



I am in favor of America doing away with its borders.

However, it seems better(to me) to do it systematically at first. I mean, if you can show me a scenario where dropping the borders completely could work, then I would embrace that.

But, as far as I can tell, the best notion would be to merge with countries in our immediate area and gradually expand.

------

If this CAN'T be done, then immigration needs a REVISION. In order to make it a less tedious ordeal for immigrants. No one wants to wait years to move to the country they wish to be a part of. It makes no sense.

Not to get all philosophical, but we only get a few years to live. Do we really care to waste them in places we don't want to be in? These people do get desperate. So yeah.

------

If we joined with Mexico and South America, I would expect us to join with Canada and gradually link across the ocean.

There really is no substantial argument against a unification of the world, except NWO. If you remove the NWO, refine the system of governance and have people willingly do their part to be humanitarian. What negatives are there?

The only argument against a unified world would only be stubbornness. Another point people like to talk about is, "the Constitution would be dismantled." And that might be true. But the Constitution didn't exist before a certain point. It was written at some point. It can be re-written again. In fact, it can be adopted by other nations, really.



Anyway. I'm pretty sure we can do better than the Constitution. I mean, seriously, lol. People seem to be walking all over the Constitution nowadays. The people pulling our country apart are STILL, AS OF NOW, ripping our country apart and crapping all over our rights. Seriously. Lol.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Please correct me if I am reasoning incorrectly.


The correction I would make is that I haven't seen a single person promote for an open border. I'm sure maybe a few people have but a large majority of those that disagree with the Arizona don't argue for this, and I've been fairly active in these threads. Most of them recognize illegal immigration is a problem. But the problem with illegal immigration is due in part with corporations, companies and the government which facilitates the hiring of these illegal immigrants. Yes, believe it or not, but a large majority of these illegals come to America to work. That's it. Most can't take advantage of the system because they lack the means to do so, and those that do get the means to do so typically get them through the help of their employers. And most aren't criminals outside of the sense that they have committed a crime by being here illegal. That's a far cry away from murder, rape or anything else.

The problem with the Arizona law, at least for me, actually has nothing to do with the written law itself. My problem is the application of these laws. As much as some may wish to believe, law enforcement across the country on all levels has all shown that they can and will abuse their power. It happens all the time. Especially racial profiling, whether or not the law explicitly condemns the act of racial profiling.

Essentially, the law itself is not racist. Doesn't mean law enforcement does not have a history of having a degree of racial prejudice within its application though. And that is my worry.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
We Can Barely Take care of ourselves As it is. If more illegal Immigrants come into this country it will be an economic Disaster. People dont Pay attention to how big this problem can get.

if we allowed everyone to come across our border the strain on our welfare and Unemployment would be un-managable.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


The idea of expanding the US to include mexico has been thrown around before I remember seeing somewhere (sorry can't remember the source) that the US would like to move the southern border down to Gutemala. This has a practical side because it would be a much smaller border to patrol.

I do know that central america has signed a free trade agreement (CAFTA) that opened their borders and now we central americans can go from country to country with just filling out a simple form at a border and showing our national ID.

Also about 8 or so years there was a huge push to make the US dollar become the oficial currency in these countries. I think only El Salvador adopteded it but the other countries did allow the dollar to circulate along with their national currency.

The way I see it we became a neat little pill that will be swallowed easily by the NAU once everything to the north has been united.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I think the NAU movement is inevitable.

I have a suspicion that this brewing "race-war" as they would have it, will only push the agenda through the polls even faster.

They'll reason the decision with economic hardships and racial tensions, sprinkle it with some super-imposed duty on our behalf and bam.

Deception, deception, deception.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Goverment should be for businesses only,and their only job should be to make sure of safety in the workplace of the people....ie.OHSA. Anything more and they would be overstepping their bounds.Each community or state would have laws for their territories.I am not saying NO law.but broken down to state level,Not a law for one is law for all on the planet.

This would be the only way we could come together as a whole on the planet as a Class 1 Civilization.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC

The correction I would make is that I haven't seen a single person promote for an open border. I'm sure maybe a few people have but a large majority of those that disagree with the Arizona don't argue for this, and I've been fairly active in these threads.


The problem is, as I see it, that they dont HAVE to promote an open border specifically. Simply by disallowing the enforcement of our immigration laws you end up with an open border.

I was hoping that some of those who call the enforcment of immigration laws would come into this thread and explain their plan, explain how it would be better for America if we just did away with the immigration laws, since they do now want enforcement of those laws.

What I was afraid of, and what seems to be the case, is that while arguing that we should not enforce our immigration laws, they actually havent looked past the emotional reaction to throwing sometimes very nice people out of the country, and considered what it means to have no immigration policy. (And like I said, if you do not enforce your immigration policy, in essence you have none.)

You arent seeing people argue for this, because they dont realize that they are. They are having a knee jerk reaction to the idea that more Mexicans will be affected by enforcement and so it is being called racist. We have ALL been trained that "racism=BAD" (myself included) and so this emotional appeal hits us where we live. But it doesnt seem to me that there is any reasoned consideration going on in the pro-illegal camp. No consideration of what it means to effectively have no borders as a nation.


Originally posted by SpectreDC

Most of them recognize illegal immigration is a problem.


Ok, and I dont deny that businesses and corporations wanting their labor is a large part of the problem. But if we cant ask people to prove they are here legally, how can we address the problem at the business end?

I guess a good question would be, what do those who DONT want us to be allowed to ask people to prove they are here legally want us to do? If they dont want open borders, but they dont want us to be able to ask people suspected of being illegal to show proof they arent illegal, what should we be doing?



Originally posted by SpectreDC
Especially racial profiling, whether or not the law explicitly condemns the act of racial profiling.


Here is the problem we share a border with Canada and Mexico. Only those two countries. Canadians generally dont WANT to break into our country, because in general, their society is as good or better than ours. So we have ONE country with which we share a border where citizens of that country are flowing over the border in large numbers. Thats Mexico. They also make up the largest group of illegals by far. No one disagrees with that. The estimate is 57% of all illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Another 24% are from South America, for a grand total of 81% from south of the US border.

All other regions make up the remaining 19%.

With numbers like that, it is inevitable that Mexicans are going to be affected more than Europeans, or Asians. Simply because they are the largest group of illegals.

The question is, can we figure out ways to target illegal aliens without resorting to "racial profiling?" I guess we would have to be really clear what that meant. If it meant pulling over anyone brown, I would agree that would be racial profiling. But we dont have to use skin color. We can use familiarity with English. If you are a natural born American, no matter what your parents speak, you will likely speak English. If you speak English with a foreign accent, you are an immigrant, and the question is, legal or illegal.


Originally posted by SpectreDC
Essentially, the law itself is not racist. Doesn't mean law enforcement does not have a history of having a degree of racial prejudice within its application though. And that is my worry.


Any law can be abused. Any officer in any state can decide to apply a law to people he dislikes and cut slack to people he likes. And if he or she is racist, he or she can write speeding tickets only to black people, or brown people and let white people speed all day long. If the cops in Arizona are racist, it is likely they are already abusing their power. Preventing them from enforcing this law does nothing to prevent them from abusing their power in other ways. It just prevents them from enforcing this law.

I do appreciate your taking the time to make an argument though. Even if you and I do not agree. At least you reasoned through WHY you feel the way you do instead of just calling people who disagree with you nasty names.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

There really is no substantial argument against a unification of the world, except NWO. If you remove the NWO, refine the system of governance and have people willingly do their part to be humanitarian. What negatives are there?



I dont disagree, but this issue of governance is not an insignificant issue. Its actually a rather HUGE issue. How would the world be governed in your opinion if not by a one world government?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
What amazes me is that there are people who think anyone has a RIGHT to come here.

Absofreakinglutely not. It is a privilege.

We need to cease all immigration for a period of at least 10 years in order to stem the overpopulation problem headed our way.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


I dont disagree here either. Its one of the reasons I wanted to test the water and see how people, (particularly those who seemed to argue against enforcing our borders) felt about the idea of losing America as an individual independent nation.

I think we are being pushed towards an NAU. And a currency like the Euro. I think we are slowly being acclimated to that idea, and I do think that continuing to frame "nationalism" as "racism" is a way of making it more and more unpopular to argue for America's continued existence as a free nation.


I also think that in addition to all this race baiting, there will also be a currency crisis to make it more desirable for Americans to willingly give up the Constitution.

The difference between you and I is that I do not like the idea.

While I may agree it is inevitable, in the long view of humanity, I think now is not the time. As a collective, we cannot manage things on a global scale. BOTH attempts at creating a global economy have ended in catastrophic failure, and governments in large nations have trouble representing the citizenry. I dont think going global will do anything but make that worse.

I could be wrong, but thats my honest and considered opinion.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

I dont disagree, but this issue of governance is not an insignificant issue. Its actually a rather HUGE issue. How would the world be governed in your opinion if not by a one world government?


I'm rather impractical in the sense that I believe in a somewhat Confucian government. That is to say, I believe people should have the decency and know-how to govern themselves. In Confucianism, there is no need for police and politicians if the people embrace all other things expected of them, as humans.

And I suppose the entire populace would merely have to act as a self-correcting system. Rather than relying on a single entity to make everything better. The people would do what is necessary, out of their own freewill, to ensure that troublesome situations don't permeate.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


So essentially anarchy?

Well, you are in good company. Noam Chomsky is one of my favorite intellectuals who consider global policy and politics and he agrees with you. I didnt know that about confucionism. I will have to look that up. But I do know that Lao Tzu proposes it as an in line with the Tao in the Tao te Ching.

I suppose it could work, but I wonder if in a sense what we would end up with isnt rather like what we started out with. A more tribal kind of life.

Which may not be bad at all. But the PTB would rather us all die in a cataclysm that allow something like self governance. That would mean politicians would have to do real work for a living.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Actually, endisnigh is correct, that it would be treasonous to dissolve the border. It would NOT be treasonous to have Mexico become a state. (Because our border is still a border, only what used to be a country now resides within it as a state.) I would just say it would be ill advised to make Mexico a state. Mostly because IMHO we are already failing our people as a nation, and if we cant take care of the 50 we have, we shouldnt add a 51st.

However America ceasing to be an independent nation, with borders, would be against our Constitution, and promoting that or working toward that end would be, in essence, treason. Particularly if a government official sworn to defend and uphold our sovereignty were to do so.

en.wikipedia.org...


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


It is hard to imagine any act more warlike against a sovereign nation than to promote the dissolution of said nation. And a nation without borders is not a nation.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


His exact words were:


The instant my government attempts to make this country part of any damn larger country,


I took this to mean annexing Mexico and/or Canada to form a larger country much like the expansion that the original 13 colonies went through to become what is today the US.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by daskakik]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Ah, its just a technicality then. You took it as America consuming another country, and I dont think he meant it that way. I think he meant that America cannot be consumed into a larger body without it being treasonous on the parts of those Americans orchestrating that.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join