Thursday, October 12, 2006

From the Land of the Free to North American Union?

The Fjordman Report
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files.

I mentioned earlier my theory that US authorities and politicians on both sides, including the Bush administration, are doing so little to uphold US border controls with Mexico because they have already decided that the border is scheduled for demolition anyway, in favor of a North American Union. I was accused of paranoia by some, but I am increasingly certain that this interpretation is correct after reading about the European Union. Many powerful elitists do in fact view the European bloc as a success, and are adopting similar tactics of gradually abandoning border controls by bureaucratic and administrative decisions, with little or no public debate.

Without effective border controls, there is no national sovereignty, and without national sovereignty there can be no effective democracy. What will be the future of the United States if this open border policy continues? My prediction is that it could mean the end of the USA as a superpower, perhaps the end of the USA as one country.

I read recently that in the Los Angeles region, racial and ethnic segregation is in fact increasing, not decreasing as the Multicultural diversity enthusiasts are claiming. One of my friends from California sent me a link indicating that some of the large Hollywood studios are contemplating moving out of Los Angeles because of the tensions and crime rates caused by massive Mexican immigration. With Latin American immigration, the US is also importing some of the problems of Latin America. The violent gang problem that is so huge in Central America is now being exported to you. So maybe will political corruption.

Will the USA become the Brazil of North America, with massive Third World ghettos, urban violence and a few rich, gated communities in between? Or will the country simply fall apart?
- - - - - - - - - -
From my earlier post at Gates of Vienna:

Are the American elites really as clueless as they seem? There is another, and more disturbing possibility: The US political establishment are in no hurry to stop illegal immigration because they have already de facto decided that the United States as a nation state should be dismantled in favor of a union of North America, perhaps later of all of the Americas. They just forgot to inform their own citizens about this. Does this sound like a crazy conspiracy theory? Well, this is in fact what happened in Europe.


It is striking to notice how the political establishment on both sides of the spectrum are unwilling to do anything to uphold the territorial integrity of the USA.

From Human Events:

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

…none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

…Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.


What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community.

From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Mexico says it may go to the United Nations to challenge US plans to build hundreds of kilometres of fences on its southern border.

The Foreign Secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, said the plan was offensive.


The US President, George Bush, yesterday signed a homeland security funding bill that includes $US1.2 billion ($1.6 billion) for fencing along the US-Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants and criminals sneaking over.


Mr Fox’s spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said the US Congress was unlikely to approve enough funding to finish the project, despite the $US1.2 billion approved.

"There is no money to build it, so it won't be built," he said.

From The New York Sun:

Students stormed the stage at Columbia University’s Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen…

Having wreaked havoc onstage, the students unrolled a banner that read, in both Arabic and English, “No one is ever illegal.”…

The Minuteman Project, an organization of volunteers founded in 2004 by Mr. Gilchrist, aims to keep illegal immigrants out of America by alerting law enforcement officials when they attempt to cross the border. The group uses fiery language and unorthodox tactics to advance its platform. “Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious ‘melting pot,’” the group’s Web site warns.

From The Center For Immigration Studies:

Immigration and Usurpation

When I aided the foreign relations of presidential candidate and president-elect Vicente Fox back in 1999 and 2000, I met with almost 80 U.S. congressmen and senators during numerous trips and at several events. …American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to “send more.”


Democrats wanted increased immigration because Latin American immigrants tend to vote Democrat once naturalized (we did not meet a single Democrat that was openly against mass immigration); and Republicans like immigration because their sponsors (businesses and churches) do.


I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.


Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had “defanged” or “gutted” anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc.

During the 18 months when I aided Fox’s foreign relations, in those meetings with what became the new Mexican elite I do not recall so many discussions about “what can we do to make tough decisions to reform Mexico,” but rather more “how can we get more concessions from the United States.”… Lacking internal or external pressure, the Mexican elites have taken the path of least resistance, which is not the best outcome for the country.


If an organizeable mass of Americans comes to suspect that mass immigration from Latin America is being used by the political class to undermine their democracy and as a tool to liberate the political elites from the Jeffersonian and Madisonian constraints, then indeed we may witness a reaction — but hopefully not against the immigrants themselves, as they are also objects of elite manipulations in more than one country.

From The Conservative Voice:

…there’s increasing disenchantment with President Bush on his handling of illegal immigration and border security… Mexican nationals dressed in military uniforms are coming into the United States while they protect drug and human traffickers and yet our leaders in Washington at best offer lip-service, at worst ignore the problem not wishing to alienate a perceived voting block.


In Los Angeles, 95 percent of the outstanding arrest warrants for homicide are for illegal aliens, with 65 percent of the overall arrest warrants are for illegals.

…How can the President of the United States allow a foreign soldiers on US soil who are carrying automatic firearms? …US police departments are outgunned and outmanned and no one save a few congressmen are displaying any concern.

From my earlier post at Gates of Vienna:

Ethnically homogeneous nations enjoy a “trust bonus” which reduces the amount of conflict. There is little evidence that any theoretical “diversity” bonus from immigration will cancel out the loss of this “trust bonus.” South Korea and Japan are among the world leaders in technology. They are both ethnically homogeneous nations. Even China, which does have significant ethnic minorities, could soon be more ethnically homogeneous than many so-called Western nations. There will be no lack of “diversity” in the 21st century, but there could be a lack of functioning, coherent nation states. Maybe the West will “celebrate diversity” until our countries fall apart, and global leadership will be transferred to East Asia.

…it is not without dangers to “celebrate diversity” in a country as diverse as the US. Americans should try celebrating what binds them together instead, or they may wake up one day and discover that they don’t really have a lot in common. What then for the United States?

From: The Financial Times:

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists… “In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”


Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”…

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Between the last official census in 2000 and the one of 2050, non-Hispanic whites will have dwindled from 69 percent to a bare majority of 50.1 percent. The share who are Hispanic will have doubled to 24 percent.


“The fact that today we see young people intermarrying more, interracial dating much more common — all of that I think portends that we’re going to become much more ecumenical in the way we look at things than we were in the past,” says William Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution. “I think we’ll have much more tolerance for people of other backgrounds, cultures and languages, points of view, and religious and belief systems.”


jrdroll said...

North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen
Resolution aimed at blocking merger, funding of 'NAFTA superhighways'
Posted: October 1, 2006
7:21 p.m. Eastern

© 2006

Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va.
WASHINGTON – While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build "NAFTA superhighways" or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.

Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.C.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada."

jrdroll said...

North American merger
topic of secret confab
Meeting on integration of U.S., Mexico,
Canada brings together top officials
Posted: September 20, 2006
11:55 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

WASHINGTON – Raising more suspicions about plans for the future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

While the conference took place a week ago, only now are documents about participants and agenda items leaking out.

Despite "confirmed" participants including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada, there has been no press coverage of the event. The only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady

jrdroll said...

North American Union to Replace USA?

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 19, 2006

Story Options
Text Size: S M L
forward to a friend
email the editor
digg this story

Related Stories
Senator Cornyn's Symbolic Gesture

North American Union Escapes Scrutiny

Want Mass Amnesty? Vote for Democrats

Q&A: David Bossie on 'Border War'

Cardinal Mahoney's Unspoken Agenda on Illegal Immigration

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

Brian said...

What I find most interesting about this phenomenon is that one of the places benefiting from the movie industry leaving LA is… Texas. Yes, Texas, with a longer border with Mexico, much of it in the wilderness and nearly impossible to patrol effectively. But Texas doesn’t appear to be acquiring the problems California has from immigration. Why?

First, Texas has no income tax. The state budget is funded primarily through property taxes and sales taxes. And since income is spend-come, especially for those on the bottom end of the economic scale, any illegal immigrant who shops at Wal-Mart or 7-11 or the corner grocery store is paying taxes, just like his legal neighbors.

Texas schools still expect students to learn English as quickly as possible. While there’s a lot of Tejano culture down here, it’s also not much of an insulator against the gringos, who enjoy a bit of salsa dancing after a round of margaritas with their grilled fajitas. There’s been an unconscious decision among Texans to counter-invade the culture of our Mexican immigrants. Yes, you do get pockets as you approach the border. However, I remember a few years back when I was working for a telemarketing outfit, and they were planning a program in Corpus Christi. They guy putting together the call lists was searching the zip code databases to find which would require employees who spoke Spanish. Finally, in consternation, he asked me, a Corpus native, where the Mexican neighborhoods were. I chuckled and pointed out that, so far as I knew, there were no homogenously Hispanic neighborhoods. Murphys lived next door to Rodriguezes, and their kids joined the same Cub Scout pack.

Finally, Texas enjoys fairly liberal (in the traditional sense of the word) gun laws. I think the statistic I heard a few years ago stated there were two handguns for every man, woman, and child in the state. To call Texas gang-unfriendly isn’t entirely accurate. We are, after all, home to the Banditos. But Texans do tend to be a tad more polite to one another, as you’d expect in a heavily armed culture. Street crime isn’t unheard of in Texas. It just seems to come at a much higher cost to the criminals around here.

That all being said, pretty much all the candidates for governor up for election next month are campaigning as tough on illegal immigration. Rick Perry proudly advertises his use of the National Guard to patrol the border. Even the quasi-libertarian Kinky Friedman, who has discussed legalizing marijuana and said of gay marriage, “they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us”, proposes heavy fines on companies that hire illegal immigrants.

So I’m not too worried about the republic just yet. The Republic of Texas, that is. As for the rest of North America, we always knew it was headed to hell in a handbasket anyway. ;)

- Brian

rich said...

From "Border: The U.S. Mexico line, by Leon C. Metz, Mangan Books 1989.

From Chapter 29 starting on p. 361.

On March 2, 1875 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration was a responsibility of the Federal Government.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 established the principal of exclusion by race.

Congress first provided for a superintendent of immigration in 1891.

In 1907 The US and Japan entered into a "Gentleman's Agreement" that barred Japanese from immigrating to the U.S. without enactment of a law. At the same time a head tax of four dollars was imposed on European Immigrants. The head tax was not collected on the Mexican Border.

In 1911 a Senate Committee published the "Dillingham Report" an investigation of "Immigrants in Industries."

In 1917 a head tax of eight dollars and a literacy test was imposed on immigrants and was enforced on the Atlantic coast and on the Mexican border. It was at this point that Mexican immigration became illegal. Most Mexicans could not afford the eight dollars (which would at that time purchase a months worth of groceries.)

Illegal immigrants were not removed during WW I because of demands for labor.

Congress passed the Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924 limiting European immigration. These laws did not apply to Mexican immigration. But a ten dollar fee for a visa was applied to Mexicans. This and the eight dollar tax again resulted in large numbers of illegal immigrants.

The National Origins Act of 1924 excluded Japanese, it replaced the 1907 "Gentleman's Agreement."

These restrictions were evaded by Asians landing in Canada and Mexico and crossing the border on Land.

Congress created the Border Patrol for the Mexican and Canadian borders in 1924.

From ch 30 page 379.

In 1929 as a result of the great depression and the availability of American workers, Mexicans lost their jobs and most returned to Mexico, Seven thousand illegal Mexicans were deported, as were illegal Europeans. For the first time in its history America lost more population than it gained.

From ch. 31 p.384.

The advent of WW II caused the demand for labor to surge and the bracero program started in 1942. This program lasted from 1942 - 12/1947 and 2/1948 to 1964.

End of the reference to Metz.

The point of this history is that American immigration law was not uniform. It developed separately: first on the Pacific Coast, then on the Atlantic Coast and finally on the Mexican border.

The Mexican border was the last to be regulated and it has always had the most lax enforcement. The Mexican workers came here illegally and broke the law, but the law was not enforced.

Now illegal immigration on the Mexican border has become important for two reasons: the advent of the American welfare state beginning with the Great Society of the 1960s, and the War on Terror starting on 9/11/2001. .

A third reason, ignored but just as valid, is the need to stop the smugglers and drug cartels from violently controlling border crossings.

So, the Mexican border needs to be controlled and a fence must be built to control it.

One of the real benefits of a fence will be a reduction of violence along the border. If this prediction is accurate and violence is reduced land values along the American side of the border should also increase. And wouldn't that be nice as well.

Finally, the US still needs access to Mexican labor. We are fortunate to have this labor available. Mexicans have cultural values which are compatible with American cultural values. This counsels that we be moderate in regularizing the border, and that we develop a workable guest worker program.

OMMAG said...

Re the Mexican /US Border...unless the US is willing to annex Mexico..and I doubt they could afford the inherent costs....the US has to establish firm border security. To fail in this will cost them far more than the repurcussions of the closed border.
A big problem is at the other end..the Canada / US border!
There are plenty of backwater tin pot politicians in the US congress and senate who don't even know that this is the single largest trade corridor that exists for them and still they want to stifle the trans border traffic with policies designed to keep wetback migrants in Mexico.

What the US needs more than anything is fewer shit for brains politicians.

That being said...there is a need for better security at the Canada /US border's just got to be
very different from the "Fence" concept.

Papa Ray said...

"So I’m not too worried about the republic just yet. The Republic of Texas, that is. As for the rest of North America, we always knew it was headed to hell in a handbasket anyway. ;)"

Yep, he's dead on. Besides we are the only state that has it written into our consitution that we can secede. So we might just do it again when we think we have had enough.

Here is the first time we decided to secede.
That Texas is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.

Papa Ray

Patrick Prescott said...

Will the USA become the Brazil of North America, with massive Third World ghettos, urban violence and a few rich, gated communities in between?

Come to Los Anegeles. I will show you where this already exists.

Asger Trier Engberg said...

Hey we are winning!

If you want to observe a positive development, you should turn your eyes on the present situation in Denmark.

There has been a lot of fuss about the Dansk Folkepartis youth organisation.(a patriotic local party)

Yog probably know the some of the story. But here is the latest development:

- The Dansk Folkeparti decided to publish an article about a book about Mohammad being a pedophile - as a respons to the critisizm of their youth organization.
- Everybody more or less now has given up on them, even the local Imams are ignoring the provocation
- Everybody are so goddamn tired of the muslims, and saying so publicly
- There has been a few uproars in the middle east, but nothing has happenend here en Denmark so far

Conclusion: Well all this uproar and talking is just - talking. And it doesnt work - if you just continue using your freedom of speech, telling the truth, in the end the muslims street will give up, because it does not work. In the process the muslims also loose a lot of goodwill and credability, because they act totally stupid.

So after all, the weapon Freedom of speech is as potent as ever, if we dare use it

Spanish diplomat said...

I simply can´t believe the American elites are planning to create a North America Union and dissolve the US in it.

The argument about patrolling the border is something we also have here in Spain with the leftist Government we currently have. There have been so many people actually coming in the last 2 years (illegal aliens, I mean; plus the legal ones) that the public opinion is starting to worry Zapatero, because people don´t like what they see in our borders in Ceuta, Melilla or the Canary Islands.

But I believe when some people talk about the border security issue and the influx of Hispanics into the US they are actually mixing two different things which should be kept separated.

Unlike Muslim immigration, that comes from a different culture and value system, Hispanics are Westerners, Christians. They make up the bulk of the foreign immigration we have here in Spain and they are, certainly, welcome.

As for the US, I believe Hispanics are adapting in general, and many of them are succeeding. The fact that many keep Spanish should not be thought of as a sin, but as a plus, and whatever you say they will have it anyway (though not all). Actually, in the world we are heading to the more languages you speak, the better.

On the other hand, you should look at the different models. I agree with Brian. Texas is, certainly, a very good model. Just as Florida too with their Cubans (who tend to vote Republican).

The wrong example is multi-culti, pee-cee California, and because of their policies of the past they have the results of today.

I further believe it is important to distinguish between Mexicans and other Hispanics. Mexicans have a very proud, deep national conscience (no joke about dissolving Mexico into anything else, amigos! no way! whatever these American elites might wish...). The issue with Mexican immigration to the US is that they come from just across the border, mainly to live in a land which was theirs until early 19 century. Hondurans, Colombians or Cubans cannot share this feeling.
So it is all too easy for those among the Mexican community who fail to integrate or succeed to start claiming the wrong things or showing their identity in the worst possible way. And certain policies followed in California, I believe, have contributed a lot to that.

We don´t have many Mexicans here, but I know if we had, and they failed to integrate, then many would start to use Hernán Cortés and everything else as an excuse to blame us for ther failure.

So the solution should be clear: change your policies, and you change the mindset of your immigrants (as long as they are compatible with your values. And, I repeat, Muslims are way too far away from ours, unlike Mexicans).

Jeremayakovka said...

Spanish d,
You say so many people [i.e., Muslims] have been coming into Spain in the past couple of years. Have you heard about Spain's long-range plan: 4 million over the next 15 years?

X said...

Spain's problems are caused by their membership of the EU, oddly enough, but there's also a subtle ironic twist to the tale. You see, most of the immigrants in to Spain are from the north and north-west coasts of Africa, and nearly all of them are fishermen who have lost their livelihoods to spanish trawler fleets. These fleets virtually strip any patch of sea they enter and are operating under an EU policy that unilaterally gives EU members the right to fish in everyone elses territorial waters, even (or especially) if they aren't EU members. The spanish have taken advantage of this in a huge way, to the point that even their local coastal fisheries are suffering, and fish stocks all around europe and north africa are being depleted to stupidly, dangerously low levels. They wouldn't be facing the current hige influx of african immigrants if it weren't for their behaviour, but their government is hiding behind the flag of the EU in order to deflect the blame.

Now,a s for the North American Union... Fjordman, you're thinking too small. President Bush has been making overtures to south american countries in a bid to expand NAFTA. At one level this is great, because it brings prosperity and trade to these countries. At the level you're oeprating on, this becomes a little worrying.

Travel to any country in south america and they'll tell you about the huge highway that runs from the bottom of Argentina all the way to Alaska. It isn't real, though teh highway system allows you to make the journey in a roundabout sort of way. The main highway heading north out of Beunos Aires is, however, claimed by some to be the first part of a non-stop highway traversing both continents. This North American Union idea is really too small. The ultiamte goal might be a Union of the Americas. Or it might not... everyone I met south of the border seems to think it is, though.

Spanish diplomat said...

Yes, I heard of the "long range plan". Actually, it is promoted by the regional nationalist authorities in Catalonia, who are very keen trying to dilute Spanish national identity in their territory and in the rest of Spain. But the long range plan is very likely going to cost them votes in Catalonia itself, as the people are starting to be fed up with the influx.


You show total ignorance of what you are saying. First of all, the majority of immigrants in Spain come from Latin-America (more than 50%), especially Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and others.
Muslims (mainly Moroccans, but also West Africans) account for about one third of the total number of immigrants.

Then you ignore that Spanish fishermen have been prevented from working in Moroccan waters for long time, and that the majority of Moroccans coming to work in Spain are not fishermen. What you said is simply not true at all.

What is true is that the waters now belonging to Morocco have been the traditional working area of Spanish fishermen for centuries: we eat a lot of fish, more than anyone else except the Japanese. So it´s only natural we have a big fish fleet. But those who have suffered a lot economically have been our fishermen, not Moroccan´s (Morocco is not a seafaring nation, by the way).

As for our problems being created because of our membership (and your country´s) to the EU, this is not true either. The problem came with our Government´s decision to legalize nearly everyone living in Spain, no matter how he or she came. Then you had huge numbers of people coming here from everywhere. This attitude of preventing law-enforcing authorities to do the job is responsible for our current mess. And this attitude is created by the political-correctness, leftism and good-guy looking that Zapatero wants to show.

X said...

I'm not the only one showing ignorance. It's spanish fleets that have decimated fish stocks in the north sea, spanish fleets that are stripping the seas all along the west coast of Africa and spanish fleets that were shot at by the canadians a few years back. You fail to make distinction between the kinds of fleets yur country fields. There are two. The ones you are obviously talking about are the local fishermen, the ones who I mentioned, who are complaining that their livlihoods are being ruined by huge factory trawlers. They aren't being reuined because the moroccans are assering their territorial integrity, but because your own waters are being decimated by those other fleets I mentioned.

Now, I know that over time the majority of immigration to Spain has been from latin america but that isn't what I was talking about. They aren't peruvians or argentinians sitting in the Canaries. They're africans, the same Africans who have had their only source of income stripped away because of EU and Spanish policy regarding fishing rights. Right now they make up the majority of illegal immigrants in to Spain, and they're wholey seperate from the immigration across the straits of Gibraltar. These people are from Western Sahara, Mauritainia and even Senegal and Gambia, well beyond the range of yoru coastal fisheries.

Like it or not, these people have had their lives wrecked by factory trawler fleets flying the spanish flag and they're flooding in to Spain now because they believe there are jobs to be had there. Fishing, oddly enough.

X said...

Incidentally, excuse all the typos in my last post. I type fast and haven't got time to check for mistakes right now.

Spanish diplomat said...

Look, fishermen are fishermen. They know their job and there is no difference between Spanish or British fishermen in terms of how they exploit the sea.

Our high seas fishermen are currently working in the South Atlantic, both East and West; and the Indian Ocean. Plus the North Atlantic. Some are working along the West African coast, but not many. The actual number of local fishermen in those countries is very small. Their livelihood cannot be too much affected, because they are not seafaring people. Simply go there and see what they eat!

The reason why we have now so many illegal immigrants coming to our southern shores is simply because of the call-effect my Government policies had in Africa. These people come from both coastal and inland countries: I wonder how much effect had Spanish fishing in the economy of Mali, Niger or Burkina Faso... While you forget that actually Spanish vessels do employ many local sailors, both because the local Government so demands and because it´s cheaper than sending Spanish ones!

Look, what I am trying to say is that your insistence on "fishing" is simply exaggerated. It does not have that much effect, while local mafias for recruiting people and the simple economic gap between Africa and the closest European country they have (us) is what really make them come, because they also want to improve their lot. On top of that you never hear complaints against us for what you say. The only thing some say is talking about the colonial guilt, which as far as Africa is concerned is, certainly, very modest for us.

Far more detrimental and negative for third-world countries is European agriculture policy. And it is agriculture, and not fishing, the main activity Africans have.

But I remember we were talking about North America. These Africans don´t go there simply because it is far away, although some try. It is protectionism in both Europe and USA what most affects their economic prospects. Without forgetting the unstable and capricious nature of their political institutions in most cases.

France does try to create a compact between Europe and Africa, in theory to offer aid and support for the continent, in reality to advance their "Françafrique" notion and imperialistic approach towards Africa. This project is similar to Eurabia, only this time is "Eurafrica". This design could easily be compared to the idea some American elites have about a single community for the Americas, which is not good for the individual nations, although free trade and mutual assistance is always beneficial.

bordergal said...

Dymphna and Baron-

Isn't Virgil Goode your Representative? He seems to take this threat seriously...

WASHINGTON – While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build "NAFTA superhighways" or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.

Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.C.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada."

"Now that Congress is preparing to take up the issues of the North American Union and NAFTA superhighways, we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as 'Internet conspiracy theory,'" explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation and link Mexico and Canada with more transcontinental highways and rail lines. "This bill represents a good first step."

Also, beware of Congress during the lame duck session, I'm hearing word that they're going to try for "Comprehensive Reform" again.

Gerry said...

I think y'all are taking this too seriously. Annexation of Mexico seems more likely than a North Am. Union. Acquiring Mexico's oil reserves would make up for annexation costs.

X said...

spanish diplomat, forgive me if I sounded a little strident in my last post. The truth is, our fishing fleets have been decimated by European directives, while yours seem to have been boosted by those same directives, and from here it does appear that Spanish fishermen get the best part of a highly unfair deal when it comes to fishing quotas and the like. All the information I have regarding Spain's current immigration puts a great deal of blame on the EU's behaviour. Perhaps a better way to see it would be that the blame rests with people who think like the EU...

Since you're the guy in Spain, I belive I should trust your information more than mine. At least we both agree that it's the attitude of the government that has caused the problem, right? :)

LA.Bueche said...

As a lifelong Los Angelino I have seen the problem of immigration grow from a curiousity to a major source of tension and discord in Southern California. There is a huge amount of voter anger to be tapped and politicians are beginning to see this. My opinion is that the heyday of easy immigration has passed. Public uproar shutdown this springs "comprehensive immigration reform" and left only the enforcement piece intact. I've never heard people talk more openly, and less politically correctly, (thank God!), about the issue.

As to North America turning into a Hispanic version of Eurabia - I don't worry as much about that either. i think the issue needs tending to, and as I said, i think politicains are coming around, (whether they want to or not). however, even the worst, unassimilated Mexican immigrant never screams Allah Akbar and blows up a pizzeria or a bus. The cultures south of the US are generally pretty well synchronized to ours, and generally do assimilate after one to two generations. I don't think you can say the same about Mohammed and his buddies living in the UK, Sweden, etc.

Given the choice between Mexifornia or Eurabia, I'll take Mexifornia andy day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Via Con Dios from the City of the Angels...

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but you are an ignorant fool LA Bueche.

You think we can maintain what we are, as Americans, when our founding Anglo-Protestant culture is destroyed?

You think it's a coincidence that Latin American looks the way it does, and that Anglo-America looks the way IT does?

It's not.

We need to resist Latinization of the US with all our might.

I too am a Californian -- native born, and old enough to remember the paradise that was Anglo-California even as shorta time ago as the 1980s.

And I have seen the "changes" the Mexicans have brought when coming en masse. None of them are good.

Drug gangs planting dope on our national parks and destroying the pristine wilderness. Big problem, maybe you should look into it some time.

Gang graffitti in every public space.

Upsurge in the US of Third World diseases like medicine resistant TB.

Failing schools -- Anglo-California had the top schools in the nation in the 50s and 60s -- today we are number 49 out of 50.

Failing hospitals -- 70 hospitals shut down because of illegals.

Massive environmental degradation -- maybe you should come north sometimes and see what the Central Valley looks like now? Mountains of trash on each side of the freeway, scarring a landscape that was once an incredibly beautiful vista of bucolic farm life, stretching for miles and miles. Now a trash dump.

600 drug gang murders a year in LA, 200 a year in the Bay Area, and GROWING.

Oh, and have you seen the Aztlanista movements? They are not non-violent that is for sure. Many are openly advocating ethnically cleansing white people from California.

I weep for my homeland.Hollywood has to be bribed by Traitoraigosa to film in LA these days because IT LOOKS LIKE A GODDAMN THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE. Who would want to make a movie there anymore?

Anonymous said...

Oh and have you seen the photos on the Internet of Mexican-"American" Speaker of the House of the California Assembly, Fabian Nunez, pledging alliegiance to the Mexican flag?

You know my family moved to California during WWII to help defend it from the Japanese. Why did we fight so hard back then?

Take a look at what Mexico looks like now, and what Japan looks like now -- what's better -- that we would have become Eastern Japan or Northern Mexico?

I know which one I'd choose, if I had to.

Anonymous said...

For all of you who think that Mexicans are good at assimilating into our society and being American First, Mexican second - you are in for a rude awakening.

Visit the discussion board at this site:

Pay attention to the posts of the Mexican-"Americans" who post there.

They make it crystal clear what they are all about -- all they care about is getting as many Mexicans into the US as possible -- whether or not this is good for the US doesn't matter to them. Whether or not other Americans agree with this, they don't care. They want massive immigration of "their people" into the US and openly brag about taking over our government by demographic conquest, changing our language to Spanish, etc. The owner of this site is a Bush-supporting Mexican-"American" named Lionel Sosa. Look at the editorials that are posted there -- there's one up right now blatantly encouraging "Latinos" to vote strictly by race, nothing else.

"Raza" to Mexicans is what "Ummah" is to Muslims. We are looking at a civil war in 20 years, same as Europe.

Spanish diplomat said...

The adventuress,
You talk about Mexicans in California and you are probably right.
However, why don't you consider something?: what is wrong with Mexicans in California is right with Mexicans in Texas. And the reason probably is that over there they have consistently followed a public policy that differs sharply from California's.
If Mexicans migrating to Texas are on average similar to Mexicans migrating to California, then the odd-element must be not among Mexicans themselves but among Californian politicians and elites, don't you think?
Look, I believe I understand what you feel about those Mexicans you see. However, you should admit that it is, as La.Bueche said, much easier to integrate Mexicans in the USA or any other given Western country than Muslims.
The "dangerous" element with some Mexicans is the Aztlán issue.

Matt Ahern said...

The real problem here is with Hamas in 40 states and Islam infiltrating our schools, raising up Islamists in our midst.

These vermin breed like rats and they will train up their children to hate everything and everyone which is not of Islam.

The decision is upon us. We cannot hope that our civility will impress upon them. We have actionable intelligence and it is time to act.

Anonymous said...

what is wrong with Mexicans in California is right with Mexicans in Texas.

Texas is only 10 years or so behind California.

However, you should admit that it is, as La.Bueche said, much easier to integrate Mexicans in the USA or any other given Western country than Muslims.

We don't HAVE to do either. Both Muslims and Mexicans have worn out their welcome in the US.

LA.Bueche said...

Touched a nerve I see.

I think unchecked Mexican, Central American, etc. immigration are a very serious issue, which must be dealt with accordingly. Atzlan, Metcha, etc. are troubling and insulting to anyone who values America and American culture.

However, I still stand by the simple point I was trying to make that our problems, while significant and deserving immediate attention, are essentially solvable. Where as, I have my doubts about the long term prospects for France, Holland, Sweden etc. The Metcha advocates don't fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up at pizzerias.

Enough about how I need to wake up and smell the coffee - I live here in the coffee pot - OK? Two good friends of mine are married into decent, naturalized hispanic familes who are college educated, church going people, paying taxes, not destroying National Parks, shutting down hospitals, etc.

As for Mohammed and his kin in Manchester, I doubt you'll see much of the same...