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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
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.


So that makes what your doing here ok? Ohhh, I see now, this is a big build up for the president on your part. His intentions may be ok, but his method and tactics suck. I don`t like being told by anyone, who is running for president, that they are going to do one thing, then turn around and either not do it at all, or do the complete opposite, as this president has done many times. You want to finish ruining the economy? Do it without hurting so many people, and without putting them in dire straights.



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.


Why are you feeding me this? I don`t buy it one bit. Why don`t I? Well, for one, from your debates with others that i`ve read, that it matters more to you, that you want the illegal people here, and any little thing this country does to stop them, would be against their human rights.......no matter what, even stopping them at the border. So, on one hand, in your opinion, we`re wrong about not allowing them to be here, then you say we need to enforce the border laws. You know, in saying that, i don`t believe you really know what you want. Your not going to have it both ways. Either they stay on the other side of the border, and enter the counrty in the way the law states, or they don`t.



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.


When anyone, I don`t care who they are, when they talk about others, and use skin color in what they say, is in my book a racist. And I don`t care how evil the people are they are talking about.

During your search for enlightenment, and on the day you found your truth, you forgot to throw the old bigot away.



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


If that is the case, until their motives are known, don`t expect people to just throw open the door, and lay down the welcome mat.


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.


And for their sake(the U.N.), you better pray they don`t get a force big enough. When they start using force to make people bow down, that`s asking for trouble...big time. That my friend, goes against the free will of the people.


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.


And much like the Federal government has done, by over stepping it`s boudries as the constitution tells it, the people will not stand for it. The people in this country doesn`t need another form of government standing over them wanting to tell them what to do, how to do it, how they have to live, ready to take away what few freedomes we have left as humans. What the federal government is doing to the people here, and now you want the U.N. included, is no more than limiting the peoples free will.....and i`m sorry to say......neither one has that right.


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.


Nothing like handing over the sheep to the wolves, is there? Those national clique of voters, as you so look down on, has every God given right to exist without the dominence of the U.N. standing over them.


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?


I have no problem with living in a global community at all. But not today, with the corruption that is running things. Not in todays world would I allow this, not with the greed that is running rampant in every political system, and banking systems in every country on this planet.


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.


Sorry, I didn`t write it, so don`t ask me to explain it.




[edit on 4-9-2010 by FiatLux]




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I do think that migrants have a right to be here, but I think that the law is the law and must be enforced for practical reasons if nothing else. My opinion regarding whether or not we should restrict the flow of migrants is not the point of this thread. The opinion of the UN human rights committee is, and if they decide that there are human rights violations happening in this case, then so be it; it's out of my control in any case.

Race is a political reality, despite your colourblindness. It is ignorant to say that a person's ethnic background, which is so strongly tied up with their cultural and social identity, has no impact on their attitudes and behaviours. I have been emphasizing that the state is run by a cadre of people out of touch with the New America (I notice you didn't criticize me for my apparent ageist remark that old people in Congress can't understand their young constituents). There is nothing wrong with being white, of course, just the same as there is nothing wrong with being black or Latin or anything else.

I don't understand fear of the UN, except insofar as it is fear of a foreign Other. Evidently you fear any form of government that has any kind of bite to back up its bark. What use is a government that can't enforce the law? What use is a law that can't be enforced? Do you like anarchy? I am willing to give up a great deal of unnecessary and frivolous freedoms so that I can live in a secure society. Maybe you should live in a hippie commune, where the only rule is Love, man.

I don't understand your seemingly contradictory views. Please explain this to me because I am ignorant; you say that the federal government oppresses the states (and I presume the states oppress the people more directly), but you also say that nations have a right to exist without answering to the UN.

Corruption always has and always will exist. It exists at every level of government everywhere in the world. This is not a particular problem of the UN.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I do think that migrants have a right to be here, but I think that the law is the law and must be enforced for practical reasons if nothing else. My opinion regarding whether or not we should restrict the flow of migrants is not the point of this thread. The opinion of the UN human rights committee is, and if they decide that there are human rights violations happening in this case, then so be it; it's out of my control in any case.


Any migrant can go through the channels to get here, but that doesn`t always mean 100% of them will always be allowed to enter the country.

By the way, just what "human rights" do you think are being violated in this case?



Race is a political reality, despite your colourblindness. It is ignorant to say that a person's ethnic background, which is so strongly tied up with their cultural and social identity, has no impact on their attitudes and behaviours. I have been emphasizing that the state is run by a cadre of people out of touch with the New America (I notice you didn't criticize me for my apparent ageist remark that old people in Congress can't understand their young constituents). There is nothing wrong with being white, of course, just the same as there is nothing wrong with being black or Latin or anything else.


And because "race is a political reality", that makes it ok to use those terms when talking about it......right? Mental illness is a human reality, so it would be absured to not call them all "sickos", right? And I`m not talking about being PC, i`m just talking about being down right negative in the use of terms.



I don't understand fear of the UN, except insofar as it is fear of a foreign Other.


Being "foreign" has nothing to do with it. It`s the corruption within it that bothers me.



Evidently you fear any form of government that has any kind of bite to back up its bark.


All humans should fear any government, be it national, or global, that has any kind of corruption within it.



What use is a government that can't enforce the law?


A government without corruption, I understand.
But what if they were corrupt governments trying to enforce their laws?



What use is a law that can't be enforced?


Should a law, that stifles free will be enforced?



Do you like anarchy?


No, why, am I suppose to?



I am willing to give up a great deal of unnecessary and frivolous freedoms so that I can live in a secure society.


What`s that quote from Ben Franklin? “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”. So, what freedoms do you see as being unnecessary and frivolous that you would be willing to throw in the old trash can? Or, maybe, you just don`t like certain types of freedom?



Maybe you should live in a hippie commune, where the only rule is Love, man.


At least in a hippy commune there`s love. How about a world run by a corrupt government? Lot`s of love there, right "man"?


I don't understand your seemingly contradictory views.


Please, by all means, quote me where they are contradictory.


Please explain this to me because I am ignorant;


Nope, I won`t go EVEN touch that line.


you say that the federal government oppresses the states (and I presume the states oppress the people more directly), but you also say that nations have a right to exist without answering to the UN.


If your going to use what I say, quote me in the correct way. I said, "Those national clique of voters, as you so look down on, has every God given right to exist without the dominence of the U.N. standing over them.". Ah, I see what your doing now, and why your saying my views are contradictory. All because I didn`t add the Federal government into that statement about the U.N. Sorry "man", but that won`t cut it.


What IS it with you? What part of corrupt governments, be it Federal, state, local, AND the U.N., don`t you understand? Yeah, sure, we ALL want another one piled on top, shouldn`t everyone? Give me a break. Doesn`t the word corrupt give you a clue?


Corruption always has and always will exist. It exists at every level of government everywhere in the world. This is not a particular problem of the UN.



Yeah, yeah, that is such a well thought out reason to want them running things. What a great thought, it gives me goose bumps just thinking about it, we wouldn`t just have three evils to run our lives, but four. I sure want to live in that world, how about the rest of you folks out there? What freedoms the first three can`t think of taking away, the fourth can. Great, I so look forward to it.*sarc off*

A world government would be good, IF, there is no corruption within that government. And if we do have a world government in full control that is good, it won`t be in this plane of existence, but in another.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I listed a few articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could be reasonably said to be violated by the Arizona case at the bottom of the previous page.

I did not say anything derogatory about people based on their race. I said that the old white-majority government comes from a socio-political background that is becoming less relevant every day as America becomes increasingly diverse and 'progressive'. It's as much a criticism of corrupt careerism in politics as it is a criticism of an assembly that is becoming less representative of its constituents.

I am willing to trade off freedoms on a negotiable case-by-case basis.

There are no governments without corruption, and I do not expect that there ever will be. If I am going to live under a corrupt government, I would at least like to live in a borderless world.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
heres my perspective.

it's not really a human rights issue.

If it were then I could easily justify going over to your house. eating all your food. running up your utility bill. live there for any amount of time I want. And tell you what to do in your own home. I have human rights and can freely move into your pad. I like your master bedroom. It's mine. don't tell me to leave. dont tell me I'm breaking the law or trespassing or stealing. and you better not remove me from your house by force because you will be trampling my human rights. after all your house is nicer than mine and you wouldn't want me to be without I'm a human being.

the argument that kicking illegal immigrants out of your country is a human rights issue is absurd. the real human rights issue would be about what ever god forsaking s hole country they fled from. thats where the problem needs to be addressed not here.

Sorry pablo lives in a shanty due to the culture and politics of their crap hole country. so sorry that i don't live in the same s hole and actually have a roof over my head due to a difference in a cultural perspective about how life works. bring the fight to the problem which would be from where they are fleeing from. the US is NOT a hostle, a hotel or a refugee camp.

to me it's obscene that an illegal immigrant can even try to push their agenda in the us illegally and be given any slack for it.

Hey lets see how this works. I got an idea. I think I'll move illegally to moscow and start telling the russians that they have to give me everything my heart desires including changing their laws to suit my illegal needs. I'm not a citizen. i dont vote, I'm not even educated and i'm going to make russia foot the bill and change their laws to placate me. and once they do I'm going to tell them that they are scum for not doing it quick enough. and to boot I'm going to force them to work around my self imposed limitations and not assimilate into the same culture that just in reality rescued my sorry butt. Sure that will go over real well there. or in any other country that can think objectively in any form or way.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I listed a few articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could be reasonably said to be violated by the Arizona case at the bottom of the previous page.


Ok, where does it state in there, that basic human rights, gives anyone the right to break laws that keep people from flooding into a country and without them going through the correct process?




I did not say anything derogatory about people based on their race. I said that the old white-majority government comes from a socio-political background that is becoming less relevant every day as America becomes increasingly diverse and 'progressive'. It's as much a criticism of corrupt careerism in politics as it is a criticism of an assembly that is becoming less representative of its constituents.


So, now isn`t white thought of as a race? Or, are you now making new rules to the game to fit what you want?




I am willing to trade off freedoms on a negotiable case-by-case basis.


Trade ALL of your freedoms if you like, just leave the rest of ours alone. You want to live life like that, have at it all you want, it`s just that it will have to be in another country than the U.S., the majority of people in the U.S. don`t see having rights taken away as a good thing.



There are no governments without corruption, and I do not expect that there ever will be. If I am going to live under a corrupt government, I would at least like to live in a borderless world.


Wow, your last quote here, says it all about your thinking. From what I see, it`s not much thought at all. Give up freedoms, live with a corrupt world government running the show, with no borders to help protect you from that corruption. Nothing like wanting things worse than they are now. I`m glad you don`t have any say in our lives, or speak for the rest of the people.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by FiatLux]

[edit on 6-9-2010 by FiatLux]



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Human rights? What about the rights of the legal citizen who just got killed by an illegal with previous arrests? What about the gang members, drug dealers, pedophiles, murderers and thieves who just waltz across the border to do as they please? Do you want them in your neighborhood? With open borders these people go unchecked and bring in diseases and you get a lot of very bad people coming through. We have laws for a reason.

Human rights? How fair is it that an illegal has all his needs met while our legal citizen get denied because they make like 2.oo or 3.00 above the poverty limit and have thousands of dollars in medical bills etc? How fair is it that we have numerous tent cities where our legal citizens must live because they lost their jobs and homes and have somehow fallen through the cracks? With homeless shelters filled to capicity, where are they to go? In colder climates, many will die.

What do you think will happen when all our people run out of benefits and still can't find a job? Did you know that some companies now require you to speak spanish in order to work in a friggin factory??? You have to speak a foreign language to be employed in your own country?????? In a factory?

How fair is it that an illegal will get a job before a legal citizen? What makes that illegal more important than the legal citizen who is already here? There are too many illegals who are getting all their needs met while our own citizens are not. If the UN comes down on anybody, they had better come down on the governments of the 3rd world people.

All countries protect their borders, so should we.

I think too many people feel that if an illegal immigrant comes here, they will be get the same benefits as a citizen. The fact is that they get what many legal citizens should be getting and are not. People think America is rich while we are trillions of dollars in debt. People think we are the land of opportunity and we are not. We have millions of unemployed people. Our factories are gone, our jobs are outsourced to other countries and we now have to compete with millions of illegal immigrants who are mostly chosen for a position before a citizen. Our citizens feel abandoned, shoved aside. They are resentful and angry.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I immigrated to the US in 1993 from Russia at age 9. However, we did it legally. I went through the a bureaucratic process of getting my green card, and my citizenship as well.

Why should the illegals be legalized when everyone else has to do it the right way?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gsup1
I immigrated to the US in 1993 from Russia at age 9. However, we did it legally. I went through the a bureaucratic process of getting my green card, and my citizenship as well.

Why should the illegals be legalized when everyone else has to do it the right way?


You have every right to be upset and ask that question. To allow such things as this, is no more than saying, hey, it`s ok to break the law, so go for it. Also, it mocks those who have, and are working to get through the system legally.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Goodness, someone is angry!

You do know that American criminals cross state lines to flee law enforcement and continue committing crimes, right? And that American citizens flee across state borders to seek work when their home state's economy fails? With open borders these people bring their filth and disease across the whole country, aided by the interstate highways. No, wait, that never happens in the United States of America!

If you were a strict constitutionalist then you would know that the USA is actually 50 sovereign nations and not one large one. There are no borders between these fifty countries. This is globalization in miniature; a federation of sovereign states under a central sovereign power. It hasn't destroyed the fifty states yet!

Certainly the problems will grow when the borders between nation-states fall, but so too will the response. An internationally organized and enforced health agency can better co-ordinate resources needed to combat TB and AIDS and so forth than can a group of discorporate national agencies. What do you think is better at combating the spread of HIV in America; the nation-wide CDC, or the health department of the state of Hawaii?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Night Star
 


Goodness, someone is angry!


Like Night Star doesn`t have a right to be angry?



You do know that American criminals cross state lines to flee law enforcement and continue committing crimes, right?


So, you want to add to all of this, by letting the illegal people do the same thing in the U.S.? Yeah, that`s using the old noodle.


And that American citizens flee across state borders to seek work when their home state's economy fails?


At least they are legal citizens, right Smedley? By the way, they don`t "flee" across state borders, it`s called job hunting where ever you can find it. "Flee", what a statement.


With open borders these people bring their filth and disease across the whole country, aided by the interstate highways.


And your open national border wouldn`t make it worse?


No, wait, that never happens in the United States of America!


Way to go Smed you ol cuss you. Put links up about things that happened how many years ago? Not a very good argument on your part.



If you were a strict constitutionalist then you would know that the USA is actually 50 sovereign nations and not one large one. There are no borders between these fifty countries. This is globalization in miniature; a federation of sovereign states under a central sovereign power. It hasn't destroyed the fifty states yet!


Yep, your right. They treat all the states equally. If one state gets the shaft, they all do. An equal opportunity for all states to get the shaft at the same time. Now put that at your global level, and with a corrupt government running it.



Certainly the problems will grow when the borders between nation-states fall, but so too will the response. An internationally organized and enforced health agency can better co-ordinate resources needed to combat TB and AIDS and so forth than can a group of discorporate national agencies. What do you think is better at combating the spread of HIV in America; the nation-wide CDC, or the health department of the state of Hawaii?


And which would do a better job in this country? Your own CDC, or your international one?

Smedley, when you can afford to own your own country, and speak for the people in it, then I would say, sure give up all your freedoms, do away with your borders, and let the global government run your lives. You don`t speak for all the people in the U.S., thank God.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


In a global society the problems will be larger but the solutions will be still greater and more effective.

Keep denying it all you want, the global society is already upon us. Keep up your Luddite, anti-government, anti-law anarchism all you want, but it will not prevent what must of necessity come to pass.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BASSPLYR
 


You're making too much sense for this discussion!
I love it! Great example. I'm gonna roll with it, if you don't mind.

Why is it that people like the OP care so much about the human rights of those who break the law, but don't care about the human rights of the people who have contributed to building the very society that the illegal is trying to come into? It took centuries to build this country and the laws it has. Borders are in place for a good reason. The U.S. isn't perfect, but it must be doing something right if so many people from so many countries are trying to flee to it (including my own family! We immigrated legally of course).

As in your perfect example, the U.S. is much like one's household. Some people's houses are clean, organized and well-maintained, and other people's houses are messy, neglected and uncared for.

At first the U.S. family took in people who waited at their front door and extended their welcome to those who were running away from their dysfunctional families (i.e. some foreign country). As the years progressed and more people found their way to their front door, the U.S. family decided it was time to keep good track of who was coming into their home. It was important that the people who were offered shelter in this new home followed the rules of the household, for the good of all who inhabited it.

But soon the U.S. household became too crowded, and it was necessary to restrict people from coming in. When that happened, some foreigners began to break in through the windows and forcing their way in. They decided they didn't want to assimilate or follow the house rules, they just wanted to be able to come in and do as they please.

When the U.S. family said to them they must leave, they stood up and accused the family of violating their human rights. After all, everyone is entitled to shelter, food, free medical care, free schooling, and there's no reason why they should contribute to their stay in their new home. It should all just be handed to them. The U.S. family should be ashamed of itself for denying the foreigner the type of luxury they themselves enjoy.

Nevermind the fact that the U.S. family had to work hard to build their house, and to save enough money to take care of all their new house guests. Nevermind that their very first house guests did the right thing and ask for permission to enter. Nevermind that their first house guests followed the rules. Nevermind that by allowing new people who did not want to assimilate or follow the rules to enter the household would hurt those who are already there, working hard to maintain the lifestyle they have been blessed with. It didn't just one day appear out of nowhere, it took years of labor and trial and error to get it to where it is today.

But, by all means let's just call the U.S. family and their rule-following guests racists and inhumane jerks. That's easier. It's a good way to make them feel guilty and let you in just to prove to you they are not what you accuse them of.

The best part is when the other houses in the neighborhood start telling the U.S. family how to run their household, and criticize them for not letting those who broke in through the windows, stay.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
This is not an issue of Human rights violations as the federal government would have the public to believe, but rather that of the application of the Law and the inability of the federal government to enforce and protect the citizens of the United States and to apply the law equally. The main reason why Mexico is the target is that a majority of the illegale immigrants that are entering into the country are coming from Mexico and passing through the boarder there, bypassing the legal means. This issue is neither new or one that has been solved. Nor is it an issue for the United Nations to get involved with, nor would I trust the UN to solve any human rights violation at this time frame until it cleans itself up, as its track record for the past 20 years has not been exactly stellar or beyond reproach. Countries and areas like Rawanda, Darfore, Tibet and the break up of Yugoslavia do not exactly inspire confidence in the defense of human rights, nor does any number of other ongoing offenses of human rights violations around the world. The United States of America is not killing illegale immigrants, and to just single this out as a violation of human rights violation is an insult in itself.
The reality of the issue is that the US does not have the capacity to solve the problems of the world, nor can it just accept people into the country without some form of control over who is coming into the country. If anything the illegale immigrant issue is a matter of law and the relation between Mexico and the United States. Of all of the countries around the world, every single one of them, the United States of America has the lightest of the immigration laws on the books, and a population willing to accept the people coming into the country through the front door, respecting them for their willingness to take the steps to come in, and work to become citizens of the country. Most of the country acknowledges this and understands that this country was built on the back of those who are immigrants, but there has to be a control mechinism for such. What you propose would be diseasterous as Mexico is not willing to open its borders up to the citizens of the Us to come on down and live there, nor is it inclined. As this is not an equal exchange or means, then it is something that would need to be rectified on their part, not just ours.
Another issue is that the laws that are on the books and the US federal government chooses to ignore or fails to enforce them. This has been going on for years and years and now the people are tired of the lack of action on the part of the Federal government to do anything that they promise.
Let me ask you this, and think on this real hard: Where in the human rights declaration that states a people should be subject to the will of another? Or is it there that a person, in the persuit of those human rights, may violate the laws of another country? How about tresspassing, breaking and entering, and stealing? Would you be willing to be so forgiving, if someone you did not know, came into your house, lived there, ate your food, used your house, trashed it out, and then claimed it was their right under the UN charter to do such? I don't know about you but I would be very upset on such and wanting to see them prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Human rights violation on the part of the US? How about that of Mexico? After all the illegale immigrants before they even set foot on US soil, are often kidnapped, raped, killed, extorted, threatened, subject to abuse and misuse often by the very people guiding them to the US. Is this fair to just blame the US for those, when it did not even happen on US soil?
Or how about a country that states unless you are of its cultural and racial background, it is forbidden by law for anyone to migrate and live within its borders? There are countries just like that out there, or a country that puts such a strict immigration policy, those who are foriegn nationals are often treated like second class citizens, and if a person is an illegale immigrant, they are imprisioned and then sent back to their country of origin.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by gsup1
I immigrated to the US in 1993 from Russia at age 9. However, we did it legally. I went through the a bureaucratic process of getting my green card, and my citizenship as well.

Why should the illegals be legalized when everyone else has to do it the right way?


I have great respect for you gsup. You had the respect and honor to do things the right way.

Illegals cut to the head of the line, don't want to learn the language or respect the laws. They steal identities and present false documentations.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Night Star
 


Goodness, someone is angry!

You do know that American criminals cross state lines to flee law enforcement and continue committing crimes, right? And that American citizens flee across state borders to seek work when their home state's economy fails? With open borders these people bring their filth and disease across the whole country, aided by the interstate highways. No, wait, that never happens in the United States of America!

If you were a strict constitutionalist then you would know that the USA is actually 50 sovereign nations and not one large one. There are no borders between these fifty countries. This is globalization in miniature; a federation of sovereign states under a central sovereign power. It hasn't destroyed the fifty states yet!

Certainly the problems will grow when the borders between nation-states fall, but so too will the response. An internationally organized and enforced health agency can better co-ordinate resources needed to combat TB and AIDS and so forth than can a group of discorporate national agencies. What do you think is better at combating the spread of HIV in America; the nation-wide CDC, or the health department of the state of Hawaii?


Because we have crime in America, doesn't mean that we invite crime from elsewhere. Common sense. If I am angry or resentful, it is for a good reason. I have seen illegals cheat the system and get away with it. When I was employed, I saw citizens overlooked for a job and an illegal take their place. I and many others have lost job opportunities because we don't seak spanish. The companies reasoning for requiring that we speak spanish: "Because most of our employees speak it." What a slap in the face. These were just factory jobs for God's sake! There is no reason we should have had to speak a foreign language in our country. Not for that type of job. First I saw it once, then twice then a third time...This is the USA where all foreigners have learned the english language here yet some are catered to. How does that make our other immigrants feel??

I saw the tears in an elderly women's eyes as she spoke of needing help with her medical bills and was denied because she made 3.00 over the poverty limit. How is that 3.00 going to pay for thousands of dollars of medical bills?? There are some people who have to choose between medicine and food etc. All the while an illegal can lie and cheat and have all their needs met. Yes, that angers me and it should anger you as well. That we place more importance on an illegal than an honest, law abiding citizen who has worked hard their entire lives, is quite the problem.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
You can't "fix" a flood by declaring the water has a right to go where it wants.

Fix the dam first, then decide how much and where.

You want the western arm of the NWO?
Fine.

Lets all agree to follow MEXICO'S immigration laws.

Look it up or ask a Guatamalan what happens at Mexico's southern border.

Human "rights" issue my bum.
It's a $$$$$ issue.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux
 


In a global society the problems will be larger but the solutions will be still greater and more effective.


As will the corruption.



Keep denying it all you want, the global society is already upon us.


Anyone, who would want to live in a global society, with all the corruption that is going on in all of the governments this day and age, even the U.N., needs a reality check.



Keep up your Luddite, anti-government, anti-law anarchism all you want, but it will not prevent what must of necessity come to pass.


Hummm, Luddite? Let`s do a check of the meaning.

: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change
— Luddite adjective

Funny, i`ve never destroyed any machinery, nor have I opposed any technological changes, so, nice try Smedley, but, try thinking in the present, not the past, ok? Anti-law anarchism? Here`s a reality check for you. A couple of things that I do oppose are people who think that breaking laws is an ok thing to do, so cut the crap, ok? Also, people who want others to believe it`s ok to live under a corrupt global government. No, no thanks Smedley, like I told you before, if that`s the kind of world you want, by all means, go find a planet that has no corruption, your not going to find it here, at least, not in what remains of our lifetimes. A corrupt national government can be delt with much easier than a corrupt world government any day.
As for anti-government, it`s not governments per se I have a problem with, just the corrupt ones.


edit on 17-9-2010 by FiatLux because: Just to add to my statement.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 



As will the corruption

As will the response to the corruption.

The State is a technology. You are opposed to increasingly sophisticated State technologies. You are a modern Luddite.

P.S. every government is corrupt, good luck finding one that isn't corrupt!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux
 



As will the corruption

As will the response to the corruption.


Uh huh, and 25 cents along with your responce will buy me a rotten cup of coffee from a vending machine. Again, not in our lifetime.



The State is a technology. You are opposed to increasingly sophisticated State technologies. You are a modern Luddite.


And you are the spokes person for that corrupt world government. I don`t believe your going to buy very many votes for your cause here Smedley.


P.S. every government is corrupt, good luck finding one that isn't corrupt!


Ummm, I believe we already figured that one out Smedley, remember, your the one who wants the whole world to live under one, not me. When corruption dies out in this world, then maybe it will work, but not in these days. I`m all for people working together for the sake of humanity, but a corrupt world government will want you to work for their sake, not humanities.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join