Gerald Celente: Anti Immigration trend is going to be a great issue

[bobbyw24]

Anti Immigration trend is going to be a great issue

Gerald Celente was on the Australian Jo Joyce of ABC Local Radio Maroochydore November 2009 :

from 1900 to now we have added 5 billions , no population expert could see this population growth , most countries do not need more people ...self sustaining and innovating countries countries will be safer , nations that put the interesting of their citizens above their own agenda , resource countries like Australia New Zealand and Canada , countries that are self sustained will be on the top

About 6 minutes into video

YouTube - Gerald Celente The Greates Depression of 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgJjr-kX7KI&feature=player_embedded)

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html

[stu2002]

Celente also says that this will reverse the trend toward Globalization so bring it on!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Celente also says that this will reverse the trend toward Globalization so bring it on!

What we definitely don't need is rampant protectionism.

[stu2002]

Democrat Decries His Party's Amnesty Bill Christmas Present
By Donald A. Collins

You have got to be kidding, Democrats!

Nearly half of my party members in Congress joined with Treason Lobby Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) to introduce the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP) on December 15, 2009.

Just in time for Christmas, they have let the 25 million Americans who are either unemployed or relegated to part-time work know that the elected elites in my party simply don't care about them.

According to the language of this piece of treasonous perfidy, amnesty would be offered to every illegal alien now here. That number is in dispute, but probably some 12 million and likely many more would come out of the woodwork if this abomination were to somehow slither through. And we know that President Obama would be willing to sign such legislation—based on his past statements and his appointment of an open border Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.

Folks, we are talking equity here. In a high tech era, where China, India and others are racing forward to surpass us in promising areas such as environmental controls (China) and high grade engineering education (India) and many others where we have sold our technology cheap, now is obviously not the time to increase future flows of low-skilled, low-wage immigrants.

Last time I looked, we were running a huge federal deficit, with projections of same running far into the future. In the opinion of many analysts the USA is actually bankrupt, issuing dollars which the world is taking with less and less enthusiasm.

But then there is no really good time for legislation such as this. It simply shows how far out of touch these elites are with real folks who are suffering real deprivations as this recession stretches into what many believe will be years of flat or worse job opportunities.

The bill specifically offers these law breaker aliens a fix-up-your-immigration-status-price of $500. Imagine. I can't even rent a low price car for a week on that amount. But I say that no price is high enough for keeping our Rule of Law intact.

The Obama Administration has shown no real capacity to enforce our borders and ports. This bill would weaken even the present situation. I bet the immigration lawyers will find the bill most helpful in expanding their capacity to protect those presently here illegally. And we the taxpayers will pay the bill.

While many of the states—including Georgia, where one of my children lives—are getting tougher on enforcement, a new amnesty bill will undermine and override such efforts.

At a time when there are vast legitimate concerns about who is coming here, based on reports of terrorism in Europe and home-grown jihadists here, are we anxious to keep the flood gates open?

Or is this the moment when a responsible Congressional leadership and Administration would use their present power to enact an immigration moratorium, which could allow unemployed Americans the chance to find jobs?

I suspect that come the midterm elections, if long past history is a guide, the Democrats will lose some 30 seats in the House. But they could lose many more, if they try to ram this obscene CIR ASAP down the throats of Americans.

In fact, if another amnesty passes, I am going to change parties, vote Independent, and pray we can find a candidate who represents our country—not these politicians who have the chutzpah to attack America when it is in its present vulnerable condition.

Who are these people? They must be crazy or feckless or probably most likely in the pocket of the same business interests and ethnic/ideological advocacy groups whose efforts so far have allowed over 50 million newcomers, most in the last 12 years, to invade America.

How Gutierrez and the other Democrats in Congress who joined him can go home to their states for Christmas and face their constituents I simply cannot fathom.

Donald A. Collins [email him] is a freelance writer living in Washington DC, and is Co-Chair of the Federation for American Immigration Reform's (FAIR) National Advisory Board. His view are his own.

[Dunedain]

Celente also says that this will reverse the trend toward Globalization so bring it on!


Less Globalization AND Immigration...I can see this certainly as a trend in the future as people get sick and tired of both.

Immigration and Globalization are both arms of the same problem. Chop one off and the other will wither away.

[Met Income]

Protectionism is not the answer. Businesses should dictate immigration, not states.

[SevenEyedJeff]

Protectionism is not the answer. Businesses should dictate immigration, not states.

Businesses dictate immigration now and it's a smashing success. :rolleyes:

[Met Income]

Businesses dictate immigration now and it's a smashing success. :rolleyes:

The states are absent?

[bobbyw24]

The states are absent?

I think the issue concerning states and immigration is whether the US Constitution allows states to regulate immigration

[romacox]

Protectionism is a word being thrown around a lot lately with little understanding of it's meaning... even by politicians.

Here is it's definition protectionism:
The government's placing of duties or quotas on imports to protect of domestic industries from global competition
http://www.investorwords.com/3913/protectionism.html

Here is Protect defined: Main Entry: pro·tect
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈtekt\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover — more at pro-, thatch
Date: 15th century

transitive verb 1 a : to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction : guard b : defend 1c <protect the goal>
2 : to maintain the status or integrity of especially through financial or legal guarantees: as a : to save from contingent financial loss b : to foster or shield from infringement or restriction <salesmen with protected territories> <protect one's rights>; specifically : to restrict competition for (as domestic industries) by means of tariffs or trade controls
3 : defend 5 <protect a lead>intransitive verb

The Founding Fathers put tariffs on imported goods because there were few factories in the U.S., and we were dependent on foreign goods ( mostly England then), which made us vulnerable to England. So in order to allow the development domestic production they put tariffs on imported products. Hum m dependence on foreign goods...much like what we have today...



It is funny how our political leaders have changed the meaning of words over the years. They call us a Democracy...we are not and never have been....The Founding Fathers created a Republic, and we pledge allegiance to a Republic.

The word welfare in the preamble of the Constitution has been changed to mean something entirely different from what the Founding Fathers intended.

You see Protectionism was not criticism in the time of the Founding Fathers. It was actually logical to protect the Country from harm back then.

[Met Income]

Protectionism is a word being thrown around a lot lately with little understanding of it's meaning... even by politicians.

Here is it's definition protectionism:
The government's placing of duties or quotas on imports to protect of domestic industries from global competition
http://www.investorwords.com/3913/protectionism.html

Here is Protect defined: Main Entry: pro·tect
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈtekt\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover — more at pro-, thatch
Date: 15th century

transitive verb 1 a : to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction : guard b : defend 1c <protect the goal>
2 : to maintain the status or integrity of especially through financial or legal guarantees: as a : to save from contingent financial loss b : to foster or shield from infringement or restriction <salesmen with protected territories> <protect one's rights>; specifically : to restrict competition for (as domestic industries) by means of tariffs or trade controls
3 : defend 5 <protect a lead>intransitive verb

The Founding Fathers put tariffs on imported goods because there were few factories in the U.S., and we were dependent on foreign goods ( mostly England then), which made us vulnerable to England. So in order to allow the development domestic production they put tariffs on imported products. Hum m dependence on foreign goods...much like what we have today...



It is funny how our political leaders have changed the meaning of words over the years. They call us a Democracy...we are not and never have been....The Founding Fathers created a Republic, and we pledge allegiance to a Republic.

The word welfare in the preamble of the Constitution has been changed to mean something entirely different from what the Founding Fathers intended.

You see Protectionism was not criticism in the time of the Founding Fathers. It was actually logical to protect the Country from harm back then.

It’s pretty hypocritical to say we value freedom here but not THERE. There’s nothing immoral with two people mutually agreeing on trade – it’s really no one else’s business. The problem is the welfare state. We are giving benefits (which are extracted from tax payers) to people who do not pay taxes. If you get rid of the welfare state, immigration is great – it improves efficiency and makes us wealthier.

[andrewh817]

Post-collapse in Russia saw a skin-head uprising...... California is going to see the same thing I think.

[bobbyw24]

It’s pretty hypocritical to say we value freedom here but not THERE. There’s nothing immoral with two people mutually agreeing on trade – it’s really no one else’s business. The problem is the welfare state. We are giving benefits (which are extracted from tax payers) to people who do not pay taxes. If you get rid of the welfare state, immigration is great – it improves efficiency and makes us wealthier.

Does the "Welfare State" include free public education and emergency care at hospitals?

[Dreamofunity]

All I know is I hope more people from Thailand immigrate to my area and open up more restaurants.

[Met Income]

Does the "Welfare State" include free public education and emergency care at hospitals?

Yes.

[BillyDkid]

Celente also says that this will reverse the trend toward Globalization so bring it on!You know, I have never been comfortable with "globalization" and its various multitude of implications. It's interesting that many, many libertarians (including many of those I admire) considered, at the time, that people like me were short sighted curmudgeons for opposing globalization. Free trade across borders and between countries I completely support, but "globalization" sort of mean more than that. I suggests international law and forfeiture of sovereignty to an unavoidable extent. It means that corporations have no loyalty to the countries of origin. It is part of what has gone wrong in America in my view. Libertarians like to talk about unintended consequences and I think this is an example where some libertarians were blind to the unintended consequences. I think big multinational corporations, beholden and loyal to no one and no country, are part of the problem.

[Dunedain]

I think big multinational corporations, beholden and loyal to no one and no country, are part of the problem.

It is interesting that government will recognize international global corporations but require U.S. citizens to give up their citizenship to other countries (or so I`ve heard).

[Met Income]

It means that corporations have no loyalty to the countries of origin. It is part of what has gone wrong in America in my view. Libertarians like to talk about unintended consequences and I think this is an example where some libertarians were blind to the unintended consequences. I think big multinational corporations, beholden and loyal to no one and no country, are part of the problem.

Businesses loyalty should be for profits, not nationalism. What is a nation anyway? If a company is generating profits, it means it's providing value and making us all wealthier.

Protectionism is a statist and utilitarian viewpoint.

[BillyDkid]

Businesses loyalty should be for profits, not nationalism. What is a nation anyway? If a company is generating profits, it means it's providing value and making us all wealthier.

Protectionism is a statist and utilitarian.So the export of virtually all of our manufacturing to China and India has been a good thing and has made us all wealthier? It's either nations or global government and I don't know anyone in here who supports global government.

[Dunedain]

It's either nations or global government and I don't know anyone in here who supports global government.

I think many people on here support global government without knowing it; and they stay away from that term because they know it reeks of anti-liberty.

Open borders / no borders is another euphemism for global government. As you pointed out, no borders means no states. No states means global government. This is the chink in the armor of extreme libertarianism. Extreme Libertarianism does not equal liberty. Libertarianism is full of people that do the bidding of world government. I haven't figured out yet if they are simply in error or if they are truly one world government types.

There are extremists in every group. The extremists in our group are the one-world government libertarians.

[Met Income]

So the export of virtually all of our manufacturing to China and India has been a good thing and has made us all wealthier? It's either nations or global government and I don't know anyone in here who supports global government.

Low prices make us wealthier.

[Met Income]

I think many people on here support global government without knowing it; and they stay away from that term because they know it reeks of anti-liberty.

Open borders / no borders is another euphemism for global government. As you pointed out, no borders means no states. No states means global government. This is the chink in the armor of extreme libertarianism. Extreme Libertarianism does not equal liberty. Libertarianism is full of people that do the bidding of world government. I haven't figured out yet if they are simply in error or if they are truly one world government types.

There are extremists in every group. The extremists in our group are the one-world government libertarians.

I'm a no-world government libertarian. Free trade != one world government. It only does if people let it.

[Dunedain]

I'm a no-world government libertarian. Free trade != one world government. It only does if people let it.

I still don't understand your position. You are for keeping our nations separate or for world government?

[Met Income]

I still don't understand your position. You are for keeping our nations separate or for world government?

Neither. No government.

[Dunedain]

Neither. No government.

Total world anarchy? Hooo boy....can we live in reality for just a little while? We've got a lot of problems to solve down here. Please take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and give us a hand.

[Met Income]

Total world anarchy? Hooo boy....can we live in reality for just a little while?
We've got a lot of problems to solve down here. Please take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and give us a hand.

What's our current reality? A national government that is ceding power to global governance. You want to give power to one violent monopoly so another violent monopoly doesn't take over. Does not compute.

Government power will always eventually consolidate. When is the last time the Federal government contracted in power? It's not going to happen. The Constitution was well-intentioned but extremely flawed. Start over.

Governments don't work. Let's try something else.

[FSP-Rebel]

What's our current reality? A national government that is ceding power to global governance. You want to give power to one violent monopoly so another violent monopoly doesn't take over. Does not compute.

Government power will always eventually consolidate. When is the last time the Federal government contracted in power? It's not going to happen. The Constitution was well-intentioned but extremely flawed. Start over.

Governments don't work. Let's try something else.
Lysander Spooner said in paraphrasing: Either the Constitution allowed all the breaches of its rules or it was powerless to prevent it.