Should America do away with borders altogether?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I guess only endisnigh could really say what he meant by it. That same sentiment that he expressed in his post is the reason that it would be handled as an expansion of the US and not so much a forming of a new country.

I mean you already have NAFTA which brings you closer. The war on drugs may very well be the reason that the US gives for taking mexico in as a state. The cartels would be cited as a clear threat to the US and in order to ensure national security you get a new star on the flag.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by daskakik]

reply to post by daskakik


Yeah. NAFTA was a bold move towards eroding our sovereignty. The drug cartels will probably not be used as a reason to merge with Mexico, however. The war on drugs is losing popularity here at home as we realize finally what an abysmal waste of money it was. I doubt they will be able to sell it to America while we have so many who are suffering economically.

I think popular opinion here is that there is nothing America could do to reform Mexico. I think many of us think America itself is in big danger, and we will be lucky if we can prevent ourselves from going under, so there is little chance the idea of "fixing" another countries issues will be a selling point here.

I personally think the next move towards a NAU will happen because of a crisis with the dollar. They will have to convince Americans that it is the only way to restore America to her economic glory. Which it wont be, of course. But every move they have tried to sell us towards the NAU has been pushed to us as beneficial to us, even though each move has hurt the working class immensely.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by daskakik

 

Yeah. NAFTA was a bold move towards eroding our sovereignty.

Interesting choice of words because the way it is seen from the other side of the border is that it is the US infringing on the sovereignty of Mexico in order to expand its empire.

Not saying that I see it this way but it is how I have seen it expressed.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by daskakik]

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.

Actually while it's my reasoning why I don't like the law, I've been on the fence lately about it. Right after the bill was passed, I wasn't for it because I have serious concerns on abuse. And I still do, but now I'm for it. I don't like the law, but I'm for it currently.

If I was to give forth any sort of plan, it would be to really crack down on the people facilitating the employment of illegals, heavily enforce the border through none hostile means (we don't need tons of guns and boots. there are sophisticated yet harmless means in enforcing the border), end the war on drugs which would heavily hamper down the violent activity of drug cartels, create some system that allows Mexicans an easier means of coming to America for employment opportunity and finally we do need to deport SOME of the illegals here. At least the ones that have committed real crimes here in America, not just coming here illegally, but violent crimes and crimes with actual victims.

The problem, of course, is that we don't have the money. Perhaps through ending the drug war, there might be some, especially with the industries related to these products that would be created, but money is an issue. And it's going to be an issue regardless of what we do. Deporting costs money. Jailing costs money. Amnesty costs money. There aren't easy solutions and there certainly aren't any cheap ones.

Originally posted by rtcctr
reply to post by stereovoyaged

 

I agree there should have never been borders.

Cool, no borders, I'm moving to Antigua. Will I get free healthcare, lodging & food? oh wait, we're all equal, I'll just move in to Eric Clapton's mansion.

reply to post by daskakik


I am not surprised Mexicans might feel that way.

NAFTA isnt about the best interests of nations. Canadians also tend to think NAFTA was all about America. NAFTA is about corporate interests. Not American national interests.

It isnt good for any of the countries, unless the people of those countries have convinced themselves the corporations are synonymous with the country, somehow. If thats the case I would say they need to think again. These big corporations have no loyalty to a nation or her people. They use us up and spit us out.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Actually while it's my reasoning why I don't like the law, I've been on the fence lately about it. Right after the bill was passed, I wasn't for it because I have serious concerns on abuse.

Well I really am glad you at least provided some reasoning, even if you are on the fence. Far too often I hear people attacking the people who want out immigration laws enforced, but I dont hear any good reason why they want porous borders.

It seems to me that they are just associating the whole thing with racism on an emotional level, and not reasoning the thing through beyond that.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

So, I would like to hear the arguments FOR allowing unchecked and unmonitored immigration into the US.

If the majority of Americans are Hispanic/Mexicans then there is no point in having a southern border. Ten percent of American counties now have a white minority.

We should still have a northern border of course to keep out those pesky Canadians.

reply to post by RRokkyy


So your assumption is that all Americans who are of "Hispanic" origin, which includes Puerto Rican, Portuguese, Cuban, etc., as well as those whose people originated in Mexico, are unanimously in favor of erasing our southern border.

And you assume this because they have similar skin tones? See, I would have assumed that since all the countries their people and ancestors came from have borders, that they are pretty savvy about what borders do for the legal population. After all, all the nations of "Hispanic" people have not formed into one borderless group. Therefore they do discriminate against each other.

Or is it only in the US that everyone with tan skin sort of mind melds and all has the same opinions?

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

How about making the border the Panama Canal? It would be like a giant moat. Yeah, thats the ticket.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by RRokkyy]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

So your assumption is that all Americans who are of "Hispanic" origin, which includes Puerto Rican, Portuguese, Cuban, etc., as well as those whose people originated in Mexico, are unanimously in favor of erasing our southern border.

And you assume this because they have similar skin tones? See, I would have assumed that since all the countries their people and ancestors came from have borders, that they are pretty savvy about what borders do for the legal population. After all, all the nations of "Hispanic" people have not formed into one borderless group. Therefore they do discriminate against each other.

Or is it only in the US that everyone with tan skin sort of mind melds and all has the same opinions?

When there are almost as many Mexicans in the US as Mexico than a border with Mexico makes little sense. Right now there may be 60 million Mexicans/Americans in the USA with 105 million in Mexico.
Lets not complicate things here. Portuguese are not really Hispanic unless they are born in an Hispanic country like Baja California. Portuguese are Iberian unless they are born in Brazil then they are Latino.
Everyone with Tan Shoes with Pink Shoe laces and a Big Panama is in Favor.





[edit on 24-5-2010 by RRokkyy]

reply to post by boondock-saint

If so why over 12M illegals???
We have open borders now,
just not in writing

How long did it take us to get to 12 million?

About 7 billion people in the world and you still think we have an open border?

The writing is on the wall. We are headed to open borders. But that hasn't happened yet.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Lets not complicate things here. Portuguese are not really Hispanic unless they are born in an Hispanic country like Baja California. Portuguese are Iberian unless they are born in Brazil then they are Latino

In America for the purposes of demographics, they dont have an "Iberia" box on the census. So for demographic purposes, the Portuguese either tic the "White" or "Hispanic" box. Many of my friends tic Hispanic.

Open and uncheck immigration into a country results in the host country being consumed once the balance of contribution and consumption weighs exclusively to the side of consumption.
This is what is being allowed to happen in the states.
Key word is allowed.
The resulting depletion of resources and revenue has now generated a very real response to the neglected issues and have caused an unfortunate misdirected search for reason which has transfered into a false blame.
The Federal governments lack of responsibility and action has become ANY illegals blame, the hype and steeing of the msm and the propaganda machine have focused on the largest population allowed to immigrate unchecked and that would be the targeted hispanic.
The real end result, (which if you remember the fight against it not too long ago) will be the acceptance of a national ID card and then not very long after you will see the lauch of the ID CHIP.
This was created, this was allowed, there is a goal.

Poster children and unknowing mouthpieces such as this professor are a welcome tool in the advancement of the agenda.
It simply keeps the burning hate wood on the fire for all of us participants to keep our positions warm.
The sky isnt falling, it's being lowered and we dont even know we're holding the ropes.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am trying to understand the position of those who think that we should do nothing about illegal immigration. Many of them seem to be arguing it is racist or xenophobic to enforce our borders, and to send illegal immigrants back home to their own countries.

In many threads on the topic, I hear arguments put forward by those opposed to illegal immigration. Rational argument as to why they feel people should go through the process and paperwork, but I dont really hear rational arguments as to why illegal immigration should be allowable. I usually just hear name calling and personal attacks from those who support illegal immigration. Lots of accusations of bigotry, racism, xenophobia, small mindedness, nazi-ism, you get the drift. Very emotionally charged and sincere posts, I am sure, but I have yet to hear reasoning for why we should allow people to freely flow into the country.

So, I would like to hear the arguments FOR allowing unchecked and unmonitored immigration into the US. Why do you feel this is something that would be good for America? Do you acknowledge any down side? Should we exclude any one from immigrating? Or should we just put out the welcome mat and ask no questions?

Sir! Have you seen the swimming beaches in China?

www.impactlab.com...

reply to post by RRokkyy

When there are almost as many Mexicans in the US as Mexico than a border with Mexico makes little sense. Right now there may be 60 million Mexicans/Americans in the USA with 105 million in Mexico.

In your opinion, could this be the reason the US administration

has been so lax about its border with Mexico -- has been reluctant to impede the flow of Mexicans into the US -- and has sweetened the pot for them via medical, education, housing, etc ?

I like the idea of a commie utopia, thanks endisnighe.

Why not adopt the policy of the EU? Where traveling to a different country is no different than travelling to a different state.

I see a lot of people arguing 'no open borders' while the OP is indicating no borders at all. There's a difference.

What's the fear of an NWO? What if we were the ruling order, would that change your mind? The dissolution of all sovereign nations as one planetary government with our laws on the books.

Ultimately the problems and prejudices of the world will continue to exist as long as there's an 'us' and a 'them'. I could go on and on about what I'd like to see in the world but it won't happen. There's too many people who advocate ignorance and seclusion.

reply to post by stereovoyaged


HEY is that a picture of your tattoo?

reply to post by wookiee


Heh I want George Harrison's Hawaiin (sp) Island estate.

The question for me is, if open borders, what's next? Open property lines? I recall how well that has worked out throughout humans' history.
Will it mean I must allow x number of ___________'s just move onto my little acre or into my house?

I seriously doubt anyone who expresses a desire for no borders, or restrictions upon other people's movements really desire people to take over their garage, bathroom, backyard or kitchen and bedroom.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Ultimately NAFTA was more beneficial to Canadians and Mexicans than it was to Americans, however, it was far better for American corporations than it was for Mexican or Canadian. The reason it was better for Canadians and Mexicans was more factory (and high tech) jobs moved north and south, manufacturing mostly south, but the US Corporations keep the profits. If you're a Mexican working at one of the new Ford or GM factories, or supplier, your making damn good money.