Quote:
Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich called the Bush approach "indentured servitude."
"You know, the Statue of Liberty, the poem at the base didn't say, 'Give me your tired, your poor, and we will fingerprint them, we will take their picture and then we will deport them after we're finished getting their work,' " he said.
Now, i'm going to float this angle here as I was trying to debate this at another MB but the topic kept going back to peoples hatred of illegals.
Quote:
Quote:
If we control the immigration, maybe Mexicans will be forced to take steps to change their own government and to finally enter the twenty first century and they can say !Viva la Independencia de los Estados Unidos!
Now this is something I agree with IN THEORY. The reality though is if you FORCE upheaveal in Mexico, guess what? The peasants revolting are going to most likely respond to the kind of ..."socialist" government that would be perceived as adressing their needs. In other words, Washington would have Castro and whoever would rise up in Mexico to work for the working class and against the corrupt social elite and their "Yanqui" cronies.
No, I think amnesty and a porous border would be preferential to this Administration (or any other that preceeded this one) than anything that may threaten their free trade deals and may bring about a peoples revolution at their southern border.
So the question is, is illegal immigration the price America pays to prevent the kind of revolutionary 'socialist' Venezuela style government rising up on our southern border that may potentially be at odds with the U.S. and U.S. business interests? Is a corrupt, incompetent ally with a peasant population, a population which increasingly ends up in our country, the lesser evil?
Plus the added benefit of cheap labour of course...
Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-14 12:24 AM.
