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.

 

Arizona and the Human Rights Movement

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
This information comes to me through the usual channels.


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM


The starting premise is that the illegal immigrant issue in the American southwest has escalated into a significant civil rights problem. Demonstrators argue on both sides of the dispute; to extend the rights of citizens to illegal aliens, or to continue denying them those rights. The issue has come to dominate American political discourse and in time may dwarf the struggle against Muslim extremists as the most popular crisis in the United States.

It should be known by all that the migrants living illegally in America do not live well; they are unprotected by citizenship and the attendant rights in this country. They are easily exploited and victimized by the citizenry in America and by criminal gangs, and cannot appeal to the police for aid. Nobody should allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that the lot of an illegal migrant is a lucky one. Yet, year after year, more strict and severe measures against illegal immigrants are sought after and won in state legislatures. What is to be done against this systemic and popular denial of civil rights?


THE SOLUTION


By considering the illegal alien issue as a problem of civil rights (rather, a lack thereof) we bring to mind the words of those great civil rights leaders of the past, and we turn to Malcolm X for guidance in this particular case. I wish to quote at length from his 1964 speech, "The Ballot or the Bullet," but I promise that it is vitally important.


"When we begin to get in this area, we need new friends, we need new allies. We need to expand the civil-rights struggle to a higher level--to the level of human rights. Whenever you are in a civil rights struggle, whether you know it or not, you are confining yourself to the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.

www.hartford-hwp.com...


This quote should demonstrate to the reader the necessity of making an appeal to human rights, guaranteed to all natural persons by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Civil rights for illegal aliens is a dead end, a goal that can be perpetually filibustered in conservative American legislatures. To grant legal protection to the millions of American residents that are completely and utterly disenfranchised, one must bypass congress and state legislatures altogether. It is to this end that President Obama has brought the Arizona border laws to the United Nations.


THE MOST PROBABLE OUTCOMES


The United Nations will rule that illegal aliens deserve rights equal to America citizens, by right of the Universal Declaration. Obama, who approved bringing this case to the UN, will almost certainly accept its decision. If his Democrat Congress holds together beyond the mid-term elections, then they will be able to pass legislature that will recognize the equal rights of non-citizens in America and will enforce the decision of the UN committee. If the Republicans manage to block this legislation, then Obama will be able to enact it by Executive Order. At this point in time, we can be almost certain that these events will come to pass, although we cannot give a timeline.

This will be the critical issue that brings America to the edge of civil disorder. It will divide the nation between Federalist-Democrats and Confederate-Republicans. This fundamental divide in American politics will stand naked once more, as the issue of states' rights comes to the fore. The Republicans of the present day promote 'freedom,' as in, 'freedom from the government,' an old sentiment shared by the Confederate States of America. The Democrats currently have an incumbent president and embrace the power of the federal government; they also respect an even higher government, the United Nations. When and if there is civil strife, it will be along these lines and sentiments will be divided between nationalists and internationalists. They will be largely identifiable by race; few ethnic minorities would side with the Republicans if they oppose extending rights to migrants, particularly because the government rhetoric will draw obvious links to the civil rights movement. The Internationalists will be comprised of black and white Americans as well as a plurality of ethnic minorities and immigrant communities.

When this sentimental divide is spelled out plainly for all to see, there will be a real risk of a civil war, of a long-dreaded race war. The more affluent and articulate defenders of the status quo may not see this as a racial divide, and even if they do they will be able to obfuscate this fact; the real danger is in the ignorant underclass of White Nationalists. They, more than any other group, are liable to escalate any conflict from a political one to a racial one. If there were a civil war in America along these lines, then we can be absolutely certain that it would trigger an abominable race war. If this were to occur, then the federal government would be justified in calling in UN military aid, and such a severe breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could serve as a casus belli for many nations to enter the war.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[Mod Note: External source citation added. Quote trimmed]


[edit on 2010/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
WHAT CAN, SHOULD, AND WILL BE DONE


I for one do not believe that such a dire situation will arise, and that if there is civil war or racial war in America it will be easily contained; American rebels cannot hold out against the combined might of the civilized world. Make no mistake, the entire world would rally behind the morally justified federal government as it attempts to enforce the UN decision on the States.

Whether by forcible or by peaceful means, that decision will be enforced. The border between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico will be ordered opened, and the state governments will be forced to recognize a type of UN or world citizenship. When this is fully implemented, perhaps many years from now, national borders will become meaningless and international accords like NAFTA will accelerate the process of dismantling borders.

If this occurs by peaceful means, then it is possible that the more radical of the changes to come will instigate resignations by many members of local and national legislatures, unwilling to give up their nationalist convictions. Any such resignations would strengthen the internationalist agenda by weakening their political opposition and so accelerate the process.


THE RESISTANCE


There is absolutely no doubt that incidences of domestic terrorism will continue to increase in the wake of these reforms, and that they would take on an increasingly constitutionalist-nationalist overtone. Disgruntled citizens and civilian militias will take up the cause of violent resistance, though their message will not translate well through the filter of the mainstream media. Perhaps they will organize increasingly aggressive marches, potentially violent ones as in 1932. I expect that any violent resistance will be so minor that it will be easily resolved by the government.

It is perhaps possible that 'secessionist' assemblies will be held by disgruntled citizens and that they will declare independence from the Union on behalf of their state. They may raise their own militias to fend off the federal government. In the worst case scenario, the national guard will be deployed to put down the revolt; the present federal government and its internationalist allies are far too powerful for any rebellion to get as far as it did in 1860. The resistance may drag on, becoming a long guerilla war, but the federal government can declare it an extension of the war on terror and deal with it easily.


THE WORLD TO COME


In any case, the result is inevitable. this chain of events will lead us naturally to the formation of a long-overdue North American Union, with a common military command structure, an elected legislature, and likely a rotating presidency. By the time this is achieved, the European Union will have completed its own process of unification, and an open borders policy between the two continental states will be easily enforced. This will be the prelude to the creation of a NATO super-state.

The events leading to the NAU and NATO state are unavoidable. Nativists and nationalists can only hope to delay this inevitable union. They have the entire force of history and the world against them; there is no hope for overcoming it. If they manage to prevent it from occurring in the near future, then they will only weaken America's standing in the world to come, as the African Union, Shanghai Co-Operation Organization, and Mercosur (to name a few) become stronger and more unified superstates that rival and soon dwarf the United States. The only path forward is to embrace internationalism; those luddites that oppose greater and more sophisticate technologies of state will die off. They are mostly older white males and their dependents that are strongly established in America, and as the mammoth [read: fat] baby boomer generation dies out, the new leaders of America will be from extremely diverse backgrounds. A generation from now, Nationalism will seem as inhuman as National Socialism; a generation from now, those who derided 'progressives' will be seen as the lumbering dinosaurs that they are.


SUM


All of this will come to pass, sooner or later, as a direct result of political processes that have been ongoing for some time already. All of this will come to pass because of one catalyzing issue; the Mexamerican border crisis and the United Nations' response. Though it will experience delays and setbacks, the dissolution of national borders is inevitable; you can't fight the future.

My sources indicate that these changes are for the best. They carry on the Great Work of the humanists, the alchemical transformation of mankind into a higher element. These changes are necessary to take us beyond the barbaric tribal psychology of nationalism, the sickening and degrading shame of patriotism. For mankind to survive, it must find its humanity, it must evolve into a more perfect form, and that is impossible when one is trapped within the tunnel-reality of the Nation. Universal brotherhood, the archaic revival, is in our foreseeable future. It is our destiny and we must greet it, or else perish.

~end transmission~



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
How could it be called a race war? When race has nothing to do with any of this. Some people WANT to make this a race issue, all because of the majority of people who are here illegally, happen to be from Mexico. It`s about all people, not a race of people, who are here illegally.

Also, what does the rest of the world have to do with this? Is the rest of the world helping to pay for them while they are here illegally? Are they helping by offering them jobs during this time? No, to both questions.

The rest of the world doesn`t like the U.S. to stick their nose into their affairs, so what gives them the right to do that to the U.S.?

Now, if this was all about race, one could see the point here. But when your very own legal citizens are fighting to survive, because of no jobs, high taxes and high interest loan payments, and no help from the government at all, don`t blame the legal people for being POed because of all the added stress this is putting on them.

As for this being a race issue. Has anyone who is calling this a race issue ever looked at the number of different races that are here, who are against illegals being here? This isn`t a one race being against another race, it`s about people being tired of their tax money being given to people who are in the country illegally and getting away with it.

No, what your talking about, is what some people WANT this to become. A race war. And I for one feel, that when the rest of the world has offered food, money and jobs to the illegal people, or to this country to help deal with this issue, then yes, I would say the rest of the world would have something to say in this. But, that is not happening now, is it? Besides, the rest of the world has their own problems to deal with when it comes to money, food and jobs.


EDIT to add:

When it comes to the future of this world, if and when you get rid of all the corrupt governments and banking systems, not just in the U.S., then, and maybe then, you could have utopia.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by FiatLux]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


When Government and corporations stop owning all the resources and hanging them over our heads, then truly there can be open borders. As long as these a wipes keep hourding our natural inherent resources that is every human beings right, there has to be laws and requirements to be met by these awipes, one of those is to protect those resources and to make sure only legal citizens have access to those resources, however this is not happening. So until things change, the law should be upheld. End of story!

And I don''t mean oil or electricity, those should both be strictly and I mean strictly a choice if one decides to use those resources... me I would choose not to, many people would, the government knows this that's why there are laws stating I must have these things, or else lose my home (Code enforcement) or my children(DYFS). This makes it not our choice, and why? Amish people look damn healthy to me and they use neither resource, and don't go telling me to live with the Amish either, their dress code is hideous, if not for that I might, but I also like the freedom to choose what th I wanna wear!

[edit on 3-9-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I agree!

I would also like to add that our Constitutional Rights do not extend out side of our borders to other nation's people. To do so would erode our sovereignty and the sovereignty of other nations. We have Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) with countries we have bases in for a reason.

I do believe that the very fact that the illegal immigration issue is a problem for many stands in the way of globalism and because of that the issue will be twisted and perverted to demonize those of us who reject globalism in any way possible. That is the reason our borders are not being secured and that is the reason there are attempts to prop this issue up as something that it isn't.

I think what the OP says is potentially possible and that we should all be wary.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by AdAbsurdum]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


Well, what bothers me, is the equal rights people in this. Instead of hammering the problem in this......the Mexican government, no, they want to hammer the legal citizens of the U.S. because the citizens are sick of what this is creating. I say, let the equal rights people go down to Mexico, and protest that government for not helping their own citizens. No, it`s just better to hammer the legal people in the U.S., because they think they will give in easily.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

We are all humans, brothers and sisters by divine Creation.

They may be illegal immigrants, but they are NOT animals. They are humans just like you and me, with similar aspirations just like anyone else.

Those that are here already must be taken care of. We can share what we have, for we have enough. Today, we may be poor, but there will always be some food tuck away, a buck here and there, or a movie to skip if that cost can be used to feed another mouth.

That had been the legacy of the founding fathers who gave their lives for our todays, a blessing we inherited and a promise to fulfill as they had fulfilled for millions of immigrants who fled from oppression and poverty in other lands to USA to build up this great nation.

If Arizonians feel this too much of a promise and a burden to fulfill, and do not want the presumed 'dirty hands' of the illegals to touch their state, then let the State build humane FEMA camps and place them inside, and be feed by fellow americans who do not think it is a burden while processing their cases, but a moral obligation to fellow humanity. I would contribute my fair share.

Just a reminder to the right wingers from Arizonians, do not presume that your citizenship will protect your extremists and selfish views. Today, being white and american by birth may be enough. But when the entire state becomes white and american, it will be only the blue eyed whom will be considered 'white americans', and the rest of you kicked into refugee status. And later on, only blonds allowed, etc, etc... Extremisim is infinite.

If you do not support Universal Human Rights, one day, you will only find yourself on the other end of the stick.

As for the borders, I would support the sealing up of it, BUT NOT THE SHOOTING AND KILLING OF ILLEGALS CAUGHT. This is outright murder of fellow humans and will not be condone by mankind at large.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I agree, but first you have to stop the elitists from hourding all our inherent rights, then maybe they can open borders, till then we are led to believe there is not enough(to keep us under their control), except theres always plenty for the illegals and the slugs on the system, which is BS!

[edit on 3-9-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

We are all humans, brothers and sisters by divine Creation.


Yes we are, nobody said any different.



They may be illegal immigrants, but they are NOT animals. They are humans just like you and me, with similar aspirations just like anyone else.


No one here called them animals did they? How about telling this to the Mexican government?



Those that are here already must be taken care of. We can share what we have, for we have enough. Today, we may be poor, but there will always be some food tuck away, a buck here and there, or a movie to skip if that cost can be used to feed another mouth.


That`s good, maybe then, we can feed the homeless that are here legally. Myself, i give to food collectors and charity groups every year, do you? Understand, there are a fair sized group of legal people who are out of a job, and don`t have much to give right now. And many that do have jobs, are just getting by with what little income they do have. As for those who make good money, sure, they can afford to give more than they are right now by a big percentage.



That had been the legacy of the founding fathers who gave their lives for our todays, a blessing we inherited and a promise to fulfill as they had fulfilled for millions of immigrants who fled from oppression and poverty in other lands to USA.


What you don`t understand is, when this country was founded, there was room for millions to come here. It`s much different in todays world. If there wasn`t any controls on the flood of immigrants coming here, we would be over run. Jobs would be nill, and if you think there`s a homeless problem now, what would happen if you just open the gates? That is why we have laws to handle the immigrant issue.



If Arizonians feel this too much of a promise and a burden to fulfill, and do not want the presumed 'dirty hands' of the illegals to touch their state, then let the State build humane FEMA camps and place them inside, and be feed by fellow americans who do not think it is a burden while processing their cases, but a moral obligation to fellow humanity. I would contribute my fair share.


You sound like someone who WANTS a problem. Saying Arizonians think in the terms of "dirty hands"? Who`s causing the problem here? How about doing like I said before? Go to the Mexican government, and deal with the real cause of this whole situation.


Just a reminder to the right wingers from Arizonians, do not presume that your citizenship will protect your extremists and selfish views. Today, being white and american by birth may be enough. But when the entire state becomes white and american, it will be only the blue eyed whom will be considered 'white americans', and the rest of you kicked into refugee status. And later on, only blonds allowed, etc, etc... Extremisim in infinite.


When did this become a political thing? There are extremists on both sides, so don`t start pointing fingers. And what`s with the rest of of this statement you just made here? Who`s the trouble maker? Baiting for a race fight? Like I said before, there are all kinds of races here, that are against the illegal people being here. So get off the race issue and your soapbox.


If you do not support Universal Human Rights, one day, you will only find yourself on the other end of the stick.


Universal human rights? What the H does that have to do with them being here illegally? Take your Universal rights talk, and tell that to the Mexican government like I said before. Get Universal rights for them in the country they came from. I`m all for UHRs, but how about going to the source of the problem to begin with?


As for the borders, I would support the sealing up of it, BUT NOT THE SHOOTING AND KILLING OF ILLEGALS CAUGHT. This is outright murder of fellow humans and will not be condone by mankind at large.


There may be a few idiots out there that think that way, but the majority don`t. Many don`t look at this as a race issue, but more of people breaking existing laws that WE ALL HAVE TO FOLLOW.










posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Obama, and the UN......hmmmm. Seems to me, our "elected" leader should handle this problem himself, and for the good of Ameica, and not hand it off to the UN. If he can't handle his responsibilities to the people of America, and for the betterment and protection of them, maybe he should have stayed in Chicago. The sooner this traitor is out of office and we are out of the UN ( not a higher form of Government for the U.S. BTW), the better.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


As you said, it will only become a race issue if somebody makes it a race issue. If you pay attention to the rhetoric of the supporters of nationalism, on this board and elsewhere in society, you will notice a distinct element of racial puritanism (to put it lightly). The leaders of the Tea Party movement may sanitize their rhetoric, but their supporters aren't under the same media scrutiny and are increasingly bold in declaring their white nationalist pride. This group, feeling oppressed by the 'affirmative action president' is most likely to act out against the government. I for one do not believe that this will turn into anything more than a handful of [well-publicized] incidents of hate crimes.

The UN has a right to intervene in the US, the same as it has a right to intervene in any other member state. People of the world have been sickened by America's unilateral interference in other countries and disallowal of UN intervention in their own country. If the US submits to UN review, then this hypocrisy will no longer stand in the way of America-global relations.


reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


Nobody is denying that the Constitution of the United States only applies within its borders. As Malcolm X says, human rights are applicable throughout the world and are outside of and above US jurisdiction.

I definitely agree with you about the issue being twisted to suit a globalist agenda; I didn't have a place to elaborate on that in the OP. It will be extremely easy for internationalists to promote this as a human rights crisis; they have Hollywood stars, the president, the global community, and vast international resources on their side to promote their cause to the people. As has been pointed out, the diversity of Americans will work in favour of this movement - how many Hispanic-Americans will side with a political party that is increasingly cast as racist, backwards, and oppressive by the media?

Fiatlux,
The problem here is not the Mexican government. Mexican citizens have equal rights under Mexican law, but they lose those rights when they enter a country that does not grant them citizenship. The United Nations may very well see this as a failure to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by both the USA and USM. Whether you like it or not, the UDHR is law, and the United States must obey it. That is reality.

I like your attitude, Seekeroftruth101. Everyone that I have seen criticize illegal immigration has justified it by saying that 'there isn't enough to feed the people already here,' but this has always seemed shortsighted to me, or else hiding some ulterior motive. America is one of the most materially wealthy nations in the world, rich in resources and with a well developed infrastructure. The current economic problems are not here to stay, they do not signal the end of times, and they will soon be better. We mustn't use this short term economic crisis as an excuse for systematically denying human rights. You mention FEMA camps, and it occurs to me that the government may well have seen this crisis coming and prepared in advance; perhaps the conspiracy theorists really are just paranoid lunatics, thinking that refugee camps are meant to be death camps.


Fiatlux,
The patriots that advocate shooting illegal immigrants may be a vocal minority, but they do exist. We are not discussing theory here. We are discussing reality, and the reality is that there are very many people willing to deny basic human rights based on citizen status and ethnicity, among other things. It is foolish to ignore this.

adifferentbreed,
I say to you that Obama had to take this to the UN, or else it would never have gone anywhere (please read the Malcolm X quote). I also say to you that the UN is a higher government for the US; though you are free to deny it, that doesn't change the facts.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap

Nobody is denying that the Constitution of the United States only applies within its borders. As Malcolm X says, human rights are applicable throughout the world and are outside of and above US jurisdiction.


Refusing to accept illegal immigrants isn't a human rights violation, IMO. These people would do better joining the cause in Chiapas, instead of running up here.


how many Hispanic-Americans will side with a political party that is increasingly cast as racist, backwards, and oppressive by the media?


I was taking it a step farther...

How many people will congregate with members of the country that are cast as racist, backwards, oppressive? I don't think it will stop at political parties. I think it will extend universally, first with those of us that want a sovereign state, and then onto other countries who think like we do. Serious separatist action will stem from any UN action and we will no longer be any different than the Taliban when we reject UN involvement in our nation.

The idea that we can exist on this planet as one species united is a beautiful one, indeed. I think it is on that platform that globalism will attempt to enslave us. Who would oppose that utopia? But, we know better... If the Great American Experiment leads to what we have so far, for better and for worse, how can a Global Government not based on the idealism and forethought of our Founding Fathers be a better society for all?

I don't want to live in France, China, etc. I want to live in the US of A. I believe that others who also want to be here, should be brought in and allowed a place in our union and for those who do not, they should be allowed to live in their country with all it's entitlements unmolested.

American ideology stands in the way of rising globalist powers, but so does the ideology of other nationalist groups, from the EZLN to the PRC. With out the ability to use the American Military Industrial complex to accomplish Globalist aims I don't see much happening. This nation must be compromised if Globalism is to be successful in any way in the next century, IMO.

The interesting thing to me, is that by standing against globalism we are united with other nationalist causes. If we can reach across to those groups and stand in solidarity with each other, not only can we repel this totalitarian agenda but, we could very well usher in that Utopian dream of a united planet.

United against globalism. Oh the irony.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


I don't think that nationalists will be able to unite against globalism. If they were able and willing to do so, then they would have done it decades ago. Instead, nationalists continue to do what they have always done - fight amongst themselves, fight other nationalist groups, and generally occupy themselves with very narrow perspectives. The world is becoming a global village, and the transition gets faster every day in this information age. People's perspectives are opening up and becoming ever wider, and less provincial. I have to ask; what reason is there to try and preserve the USA as it exists today? Why shouldn't it join with the international community?

I for one do not think that globalism is some trick to enslave us. I think that nation states are a means of dividing us against each other, so that we become 'patriotic' (a code word for stupid, easily angered and easily exploited). Globalism will free us from slavery to nationalism, it will do at least that much for us.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux
 


As you said, it will only become a race issue if somebody makes it a race issue. If you pay attention to the rhetoric of the supporters of nationalism, on this board and elsewhere in society, you will notice a distinct element of racial puritanism (to put it lightly). The leaders of the Tea Party movement may sanitize their rhetoric, but their supporters aren't under the same media scrutiny and are increasingly bold in declaring their white nationalist pride. This group, feeling oppressed by the 'affirmative action president' is most likely to act out against the government. I for one do not believe that this will turn into anything more than a handful of [well-publicized] incidents of hate crimes.


But, those who are declaring their white nationalist pride aren`t speaking for the majority. They are idiots, and they would turn against anyone, even their own families if they didn`t agree with them.



The UN has a right to intervene in the US, the same as it has a right to intervene in any other member state. People of the world have been sickened by America's unilateral interference in other countries and disallowal of UN intervention in their own country. If the US submits to UN review, then this hypocrisy will no longer stand in the way of America-global relations.


If the U.S. government is in the wrong, then yes, it should face up for what it has done.



Fiatlux,
The problem here is not the Mexican government. Mexican citizens have equal rights under Mexican law, but they lose those rights when they enter a country that does not grant them citizenship. The United Nations may very well see this as a failure to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by both the USA and USM. Whether you like it or not, the UDHR is law, and the United States must obey it. That is reality.


Oh, the Mexican government isn`t a problem? What`s causing them to come to this country? Let`s see, a corrupt government that is keeping a big majority of the people poor, around 60-70%. Nope, no universal human rights being violated there, right? Yep, they have the egual right to be poor. That`s a great law to show the world, isn`t it?



I like your attitude, Seekeroftruth101. Everyone that I have seen criticize illegal immigration has justified it by saying that 'there isn't enough to feed the people already here,' but this has always seemed shortsighted to me, or else hiding some ulterior motive. America is one of the most materially wealthy nations in the world, rich in resources and with a well developed infrastructure. The current economic problems are not here to stay, they do not signal the end of times, and they will soon be better. We mustn't use this short term economic crisis as an excuse for systematically denying human rights. You mention FEMA camps, and it occurs to me that the government may well have seen this crisis coming and prepared in advance; perhaps the conspiracy theorists really are just paranoid lunatics, thinking that refugee camps are meant to be death camps.


Wow, talk about shortsighted. Let`s see, high priced food, lack of jobs because manufacturing has moved out of the country with more and more companies either laying off, or closing the doors, an economy that sucks big time, very little money if any in the bank, many with homes in foreclosure, a tax base that goes further down the hole as jobs are lost, high unemployment with little or no hope of finding work, and let`s not forget, people breaking immagration laws by not going through the process, and with many of them getting free health care at the tax payers expense. Nope, the working citizens of this country should all be jumping for joy, right?

One thing you forget, when you talk about material wealth. When people are put out of work, and end up running out of unemployment benifits, many of them end up losing what material wealth they have. These are many of the people who are not happy about all the things listed above. As for the economy picking up like you THINK it will........boy, have I got a bridge to sell you. That house of cards we call a monetary system is about one card short of falling apart. As for this being a short term economic crisis. What is short term to you? Two years, five years or ten years? Tell that to the people who don`t have a job, but yet have children to feed, cloth and need a roof over their heads right now.

By the way, how is the U.N. fairing with other countries about UDHR, oh, such as Mexico?



Fiatlux,
The patriots that advocate shooting illegal immigrants may be a vocal minority, but they do exist. We are not discussing theory here. We are discussing reality, and the reality is that there are very many people willing to deny basic human rights based on citizen status and ethnicity, among other things. It is foolish to ignore this.


How many of them have been shot by these people? So then, by what you have written so far, the Mexican government is in the clear, never having violated any human rights? And now, it`s ALL the U.S. and it`s citizens fault, right? Not one of the illegals broke the law by being here without due process?



adifferentbreed,
I say to you that Obama had to take this to the UN, or else it would never have gone anywhere (please read the Malcolm X quote). I also say to you that the UN is a higher government for the US; though you are free to deny it, that doesn't change the facts.


So that`s a fact? When did that become the law? Dates and facts please, or it isn`t true.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


I don't think that nationalists will be able to unite against globalism. If they were able and willing to do so, then they would have done it decades ago. Instead, nationalists continue to do what they have always done - fight amongst themselves, fight other nationalist groups, and generally occupy themselves with very narrow perspectives. The world is becoming a global village, and the transition gets faster every day in this information age. People's perspectives are opening up and becoming ever wider, and less provincial. I have to ask; what reason is there to try and preserve the USA as it exists today? Why shouldn't it join with the international community?

I for one do not think that globalism is some trick to enslave us. I think that nation states are a means of dividing us against each other, so that we become 'patriotic' (a code word for stupid, easily angered and easily exploited). Globalism will free us from slavery to nationalism, it will do at least that much for us.


Is the international community without corruption? No, not at all. So what good will it do to drop one corrupt government, and join another? Or is it the old, lesser of the two evils thing? With the political corruption that is rampent all around this world, and yes, also in the U.N., this world is far from being ready for Globalism.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


White nationalists are not thoughtless animals. They have a definite ideology that guides their ethical actions. The will turn against the perceived alien in their country (that is to say, non-whites). It doesn't matter whether or not they make up the majority of the Tea Party, they will be dangerous no matter how many of them there are. It is their racist ideology that is dangerous.

The problem being addressed is not a civil rights issue in either the United States of America or the United States of Mexico. It is a human rights issue; that is why it has been brought before the United Nations. If a person is not granted rights when they enter a foreign country, then the UDHR is being violated; that is the core issue.

The current economic crisis is happening because the state apparatus that maintains the normal operation of the economy is aged and decrepit (because the white men who run it are aged and decrepit). The crisis is being exploited to install a new economic model. This installation will take time, and the transition will not be easy for those unable to adapt to the new economy. It's too bad that so many manufacturing jobs have been lost, but new information jobs will take their place.

Other countries have violated the UDHR. This thread is not about those countries. It is about the coming world revolution that Obama has a unique opportunity to instigate. It is not a negative thread. It is a positive message of Hope and Change, one which credits the great United States of America and its great President with bringing about a more humane age.


So that`s a fact? When did that become the law? Dates and facts please, or it isn`t true.

June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed by 50 countries including the USA. The President has the right to make legally binding treaties with other nations.

17 January 1946, the UN Security Council was first convened. According to the UN legal advisor to Sec.-Gen. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "No Security Council Resolution can be described as unenforceable"

The UN is a legally binding structure even if it is not customarily treated that way.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Excuse me, but the UN can kiss it.

You act like the US has been shooting illegal immigrants since day one at the border.
Like we've been the most uncaring, inhumane people to another people in need. :shk: And nothing could be further from the truth.

America has grumbled a bit, and deported a few, but the vast majority of illegal aliens have had their way with this country for enough years now. To the point of waving Mexican flags in our faces and giving us the finger on our own streets. To the point of no English spoken at all, forcing us, on our own turf, to learn Spanish to even communicate with them.

And I want to be clear: I am talking at a people to people level, NOT government to government. The Mexican PEOPLE themselves have worn out the welcome and seriously ABUSED the porous border. I do not see how anyone could argue that point, at THIS point in time. It was a nice long ride, but the party's over. And at least 20 states adopting stricter illegal immigration measures is testament to that fact.

But it is you one world government people that scare me the most, forget the illegals.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux
 


The problem being addressed is not a civil rights issue in either the United States of America or the United States of Mexico. It is a human rights issue; that is why it has been brought before the United Nations. If a person is not granted rights when they enter a foreign country, then the UDHR is being violated; that is the core issue.


First, you didn`t answer my question. Is Mexico being checked for the same thing? Second, is it that you don`t believe there should be laws to restrict the flow of people coming into the U.S.? Or, do you think people should be able to just wander in whenever they feel like it?

May I ask you this? Is the U.N. going to help fund the illegals while they are here? Or is this going to be put on the backs of the tax payers as usual? The national debt is already beyond paying, but yet, this should be put on it also?



The current economic crisis is happening because the state apparatus that maintains the normal operation of the economy is aged and decrepit (because the white men who run it are aged and decrepit).


Greed doesn`t have one skin tone, does it? Or is it all white now?



The crisis is being exploited to install a new economic model. This installation will take time, and the transition will not be easy for those unable to adapt to the new economy. It's too bad that so many manufacturing jobs have been lost, but new information jobs will take their place.


I`ve said that all along about the system. The problem I have, is just who are the ones that will be installing the new system? Who are these people, and why should they be trusted?



Other countries have violated the UDHR. This thread is not about those countries. It is about the coming world revolution that Obama has a unique opportunity to instigate. It is not a negative thread. It is a positive message of Hope and Change, one which credits the great United States of America and its great President with bringing about a more humane age.


Why is the U.S. alone, the target of this thread? You say other countries have violated the UHDR, but yet, they don`t count in this? Why not?




June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed by 50 countries including the USA. The President has the right to make legally binding treaties with other nations.

17 January 1946, the UN Security Council was first convened. According to the UN legal advisor to Sec.-Gen. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "No Security Council Resolution can be described as unenforceable"

The UN is a legally binding structure even if it is not customarily treated that way.


So, that treaty makes the U.N. judge and jury over every country that signed it? It`s a document used to threaten countries with, if they don`t play the game that they want them to play? So they signed away our sovereignty as a nation, so the rest of the world can come in, and take the whatever resources they may want, and dictate policy? It seems to me, the U.N. was formed as a front against communism and fascism, not as a means for global dominance. Or was WW2, just a means of getting this setup?

You see, that is where you and I differ. Both sets of my great grand parents came to this country, to get away from a country that thought it had the right to just walk in and take from them, whenever they wanted, and whatever they wanted, without asking. That treaty, is no different, only this time it isn`t a country that wants to do this...........it`s a group of so called leaders.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
I don't think that nationalists will be able to unite against globalism. If they were able and willing to do so, then they would have done it decades ago.


I don't agree. There are nations that have allied against our foreign policy and when America can no longer perpetuate it's imperialistic exportation of it's culture other nations will follow. You addressed some of that in your OP...


I have to ask; what reason is there to try and preserve the USA as it exists today? Why shouldn't it join with the international community?


For a plethora of reasons. While we have sociological and economical issues, the foundation on which this nation is built is still intact, IMO. We do have problems but, these are American problems and Americans will solve them as we always have for 500 years.

Another reason is States Rights. There is nothing, that I am aware of, in the Constitution that allows the federal Government to allow foreign nations to decide State policy as a term to their joining the Union. On the contrary, the POTUS has a Constitutional obligation to protect the State of Arizona's borders and other state's borders for that matter.

Another reason I will give is monoculture. It isn't a good thing. Diversity in markets, politics, and many other areas allows for us to survive differing circumstances with relative ease in comparison to one world anything. Agriculture is a perfect example of this. If we all grow one kind of corn and we had a parasitic infection then millions would starve. But diversity isn't easily controlled and exploited.


I for one do not think that globalism is some trick to enslave us.


Then, in my opinion, you are blinded by your idealism. Centralizing power into the hands of wealthy nations does little to free us from the constraints we push against today. With out national sovereignty to protect the interests of the American people we fall at the mercy of compromised leadership that does not have our best interests at heart.


I think that nation states are a means of dividing us against each other, so that we become 'patriotic' (a code word for stupid, easily angered and easily exploited). Globalism will free us from slavery to nationalism, it will do at least that much for us.


Definition of PATRIOT:
one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

This is what I understand that word to mean. The idea that by rejecting the vision of our founding fathers and destroying this nation's sovereignty would liberate us from slavery is cognitive dissonance.

Our rights, as enumerated, are self evident and true. The US Constitution would have to be thrown out for any NWO to take hold and if you are for dismantling any portion of the Constitution, in part or in whole, that position is antithetical to the very foundation of this nation.

You discussed a global revolution in the OP. If it came to brass tacks I believe it will happen. I would rather die than live in the world you envision and I know am not alone. my position has nothing to do with America in her current state. It has everything to do with an ideology that can not be defeated any more than invading Afghanistan has defeated Taliban. The amount of blood that would have to be spilled in order to usher in a more "humane era" is counter to what you would have me believe about your thoughts on globalism.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 

Is Mexico being checked for the same thing? Not to my knowledge, but as far as I know the duly elected President of the USM has not brought his nation's potential human rights abuses to the UN, and the duly elected President of the USA has. That is the difference.

I have argued in other threads that border laws should be enforced as long as they exist, but that if it is found that they illegally contradict human rights then they should be dismantled.

Greed doesn't have one skin tone, but it would be absurd to deny that Congress is full of old white men. How can they keep their finger on the pulse of a youthful, diverse nation? Evidently, they cannot.

The people installing the new system are no less trustworthy than the ones who installed the old system.

For a front against communism, the UN did a very bad job of keeping the USSR out of the Security Council. It has always been a global government, although without its own police force it is unable to enforce its power in the way that the Federal government can enforce its will on the States.

The NAU, NATO and UN superstates won't dissolve the Constitution of the USA; it will still apply within the borders of the fifty states, just as the French constitution still applies within the borders of Metropolitan France even though it is part of the EU. In these superstates, the USA will operate much like Arizona operates within the USA. Any problem that larger federations pose is a problem shared by the existing federations in the world, like the USA, USM, Russia, Canada, et cetera.

Power is already centralized in the hands of powerful nations. The UN Parliamentary Assembly would bypass all nations and give power to the global populace instead of any one national clique of voters.

It is sad that you would rather die than live in the global community. It is almost upon us already, all that remains is to formalize the unions. Do you really find the current state of the world so unbearable?

P.S.

I don't agree. There are nations that have allied against our foreign policy and when America can no longer perpetuate it's imperialistic exportation of it's culture other nations will follow. You addressed some of that in your OP...
Can you explain this in more detail for me? I am a little bit lost.


reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I have included sections from the Universal Declaration that are most relevant to the illegal immigration case:



ARTICLE TWO


Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.




ARTICLE SEVEN


All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.




ARTICLE TWENTY-EIGHT


Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.




ARTICLE THIRTY


Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I am sure that international lawyers could do a much better job than I at pointing out how the anti-alien attitude in those 20 states contradicts the Declaration.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join