It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No. Thats why I think borders should be enforced - different groups of people simply cant be enemies if they live 3 000 km apart, separated by borders.
Were Serbians from Kosovo and Albanians such mortal enemies before the huge influx of Albanians into Kosovo in the last century?
Were there such tensions with muslims in western Europe 20 years before as there are now?
Mixing of incompatible cultures or economically and culturally incompatible (poor vs. rich, educated vs. illiterate and ignorant, secular vs. fundamentally religious) populations is what creates tensions, enemies and eventually ethnic wars.
Thats the elite globalisation agenda, thats what the word actually means - to abolish souvereign nation states and unite the whole world as slaves for them under their one world government. Huge immigration of foreigners into western world, and also the conflicts in the middle east, and invasion of Jews into Palestine, are all part of this plan.
Originally posted by neo96
some already do
but it wont make a difference as long as sanctuary states and cities exist.
going after the employer is a nice idea but the reality is is just how big this country is
and too many people in this country think its a constitutional right for illegals to live and work here.
Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by openminded2011
Without cheap immigrant labor, either legal or illegal, crops will rot in the field and prices of hand picked vegetables will sky rocket and will only be for the wealthy.
I don't think Americans will work for min. wage picking fruit or other crops.
edit on 5-6-2011 by whaaa because: pt
Originally posted by YoungMind92
reply to post by openminded2011
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you or this tread in anyway. I really don't mean it if you feel this.
Would you want this if you was an Immigrant? Cause I sure wouldn't.
Why are people so hard on Immigrants?
All they try to achieve is a better life for their family's.
Heck, These guys do the jobs you guys don't even want to do. We shouldn't have to get rid of em.
Plenty of other ways to help Us and them, Don't forget we're all HUMAN!.
Why did Mexico need to go into debt to foreign lenders? It had its own oil in abundance. It had accepted development loans earlier, but it had largely paid them off. The problem for Mexico was that it was one of those intrepid countries that had declined to let its national currency float. Mexico's dollar reserves were exhausted by speculative raids in the 1980s, forcing it to borrow just to defend the value of the peso.2 According to Henry Liu, writing in The Asia Times, Mexico's mistake was in keeping its currency freely convertible into dollars, requiring it to keep enough dollar reserves to buy back the pesos of anyone wanting to sell. When those reserves ran out, it had to borrow dollars on the international market just to maintain its currency peg.3
In 1982, President Portillo warned of "hidden foreign interests" that were trying to destabilize Mexico through panic rumors, causing capital flight out of the country. Speculators were cashing in their pesos for dollars and depleting the government's dollar reserves in anticipation that the peso would have to be devalued. In an attempt to stem the capital flight, the government cracked under the pressure and did devalue the peso; but while the currency immediately lost 30 percent of its value, the devastating wave of speculation continued. Mexico was characterized as a "high-risk country," leading international lenders to decline to roll over their loans. Caught by peso devaluation, capital flight, and lender refusal to roll over its debt, the country faced economic chaos. At the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Portillo called on the nations of the world to prevent a "regression into the Dark Ages" precipitated by the unbearably high interest rates of the global bankers.
By 1994, Mexico had restored its standing with investors. It had a balanced budget, a growth rate of over three percent, and a stock market that was up fivefold. In February 1995, Jane Ingraham wrote in The New American that Mexico's fiscal policy was in some respects "superior and saner than our own wildly spendthrift Washington circus." Mexico received enormous amounts of foreign investment, after being singled out as the most promising and safest of Latin American markets. Investors were therefore shocked and surprised when newly-elected President Ernesto Zedillo suddenly announced a 13 percent devaluation of the peso, since there seemed no valid reason for the move. The following day, Zedillo allowed the formerly managed peso to float freely against the dollar. The peso immediately plunged by 39 percent.5
What was going on? In 1994, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office Report on NAFTA had diagnosed the peso as "overvalued" by 20 percent. The Mexican government was advised to unpeg the currency and let it float, allowing it to fall naturally to its "true" level. The theory was that it would fall by only 20 percent; but that is not what happened. The peso eventually dropped by 300 percent – 15 times the predicted fall.6 Its collapse was blamed on the lack of "investor confidence" due to Mexico's negative trade balance; but as Ingraham observes, investor confidence was quite high immediately before the collapse. If a negative trade balance is what sends a currency into massive devaluation and hyperinflation, the U.S. dollar itself should have been driven there long ago. By 2001, U.S. public and private debt totaled ten times the debt of all Third World countries combined.7
Although the peso's collapse was supposedly unanticipated, over 4 billion U.S. dollars suddenly and mysteriously left Mexico in the 20 days before it occurred. Six months later, this money had twice the Mexican purchasing power it had earlier. Later commentators maintained that lead investors with inside information precipitated the stampede out of the peso.8 These investors were evidently the same parties who profited from the Mexican bailout that followed. When Mexico's banks ran out of dollars to pay off its creditors (which were largely U.S. banks), the U.S. government stepped in with U.S. tax dollars. The Mexican bailout was engineered by Robert Rubin, who headed the investment bank Goldman Sachs before he became U.S. Treasury Secretary. Goldman Sachs was then heavily invested in short-term dollar-denominated Mexican bonds. The bailout was arranged the very day of Rubin's appointment. Needless to say, the money provided by U.S. taxpayers never made it to Mexico. It went straight into the vaults of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other big American lenders whose risky loans were on the line.9
The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has a stake in Reconquista. The pope and his henchmen are looking to turn America, founded and still a Protestant country, into a Roman Catholic country. But space requires that I narrow this discourse down to providing documentation of that just-made claim, which to some people makes me not only a "Catholic basher" but also a "white supremacist." That's what Alex Koppleman, a columnist for the Drexel University magazine Dragonfire, called me in a March 30, 2006 column in which he included this statement from an article I wrote some time ago:
. . . the Roman Catholic Church has its own plan of reconquest. She is determined to reestablish the power she once exercised over the civil governments and populations of the world. The pope, along with the Reconquista cadre, views South, Central, and North Americas as being one "from Argentina to Alaska." On several occasions, Pope John Paul II has "consecrated" this "America" to "Our Lady of Guadalupe." The Mexican people streaming across America's porous southern border are Roman Catholics. It is in the interest of the Vatican to establish as many Roman Catholics as possible in the United States of America. The pope and his partners in spiritual crime care little how the job is done—whether illegally or legally—just so it is done.1
The bishops' pastoral letter is far from being the only documentation which could be given to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is unlawfully using illegal Mexican immigrants to build her power base in America. For instance, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C. said this about illegals in El Paso Times: "They . . . come with the values that are so needed in the United States today . . . . This is a special moment in the history of the Catholic church and the history of migration."
Archbishop Jos? Gómez of San Antonio, speaking of the illegals, told Zenit press,
"(T)he values they bring . . . is [sic] making North American culture return to its Christian roots .... The values of the immigrants are very basic, reflecting a profound Catholicism."
Cardinal Norberto Rivera, Mexico's archbishop, has exulted: "In the north the emigrants, Mexicans and those who pass through Mexico, are bearing the faith to the north of our continent. Only five years ago the [Catholic] church was in the minority in the United States, it is now the majority" (EI Universo, July 28, 2002). The Cardinal was a bit premature in his Catholic majority claim; but the way things are going, one can understand his overstatement.
Of course, the Catholic bishops are the generals in the offensive against America's sovereignty, security, and Protestant identity. The thousands upon thousands of diocesan and religious order priests are the frontline troops who are charged with turning rhetoric into reality. As might be expected, the priests tend to be even blunter than their bishops with regard to the Catholic church's "human rights" work on behalf of illegal Mexican immigrants. For instance, consider this from Priest Paul Manx, as quoted in the wellrespected Catholic paper, the Wanderer, May 6, 1987: "America is a dying nation. I tell the Mexicans when I am down in Mexico to keep on having children, and then to take back what we took from them: California, Texas, Arizona, and then to take the rest of the country as well."
Originally posted by haarvik
having just moved from NC, and having two living near me (one next door) they hate the US. They are here to get money to send back to Mexico. They refuse to learn our language, and now the schools have to hire translators for the parents, and everything sent home has to include a spanish version. When my son was in third grade, he was taught Mexican history. He is now in tenth and has yet to learn American history. When you went to wal-mart, the wife would have a cart full of groceries and pay for it with food stamps. The husband would be behind her with a full cart and pay cash for it. He would have a roll of cash. Then they would take their purchases and load them into a brand new Expedition.
It is quite easy to fix this. They are ILLEGAL! If you are caught employing, renting to or aiding in any form/fashion you are charged with aiding and abetting a known criminal and subject to not less than 5 years in a federal prison. I have seen first hand what happens when your community is overrun by the illegals, Crime goes up, public drunkenness, disregard for private property and of course jobs. I tried to get a job about 10 years ago in a construction related field that I had over 10 years of experience in. One company told me to come in because they needed help badly. I showed up and saw three mexicans filling out spanish applications. I was told they were not hiring.
So you can believe they are all good and should be here all you want. I have felt/seen the full effects of these people and that is why I left NC for good! Ship them all back and let them come here the right way! Anything less is a slap in the face of any person who has come here legally and had to conform/adapt to our way of life and traditions. These people could care less.
Originally posted by whaaa
Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.