[immigration] post reviewed, comments answered

This follows from an earlier thread which is now closed as of 15:44, Apr 24th.

Paul Kingsnorth alleges I have not answered his questions, which I quite clearly have. I like Paul's blog and he's now posted his 200th post. Congratulations! In any other circumstances, we might have got along well. Such a pity and I mean that.

Now, in the interests of fairness and so that Paul does not think I'm shirking the issue, I'll go over it all again. The rest of you just skip over this post if it's too boring. Let me go through the original post again, in short:

Entering the country

identified, assessed for quality by summary panels of local authorities and if found wanting - deported immediately, along with all members of the extended family

Reference to illegal aliens entering the country, not to anyone else.

be holding camps for assessment and these should be humane in nature

Again, illegal aliens, no one else.

entering a country should observe the adage: When in Rome, do as the Romans do

Anyone coming in - and what's wrong with that?

When they arrive, they promise to conform to the official religion, the political system and the social mores or else they don't get in.

Conform quite clearly means 'not to work to destroy'. It does not, as those who flew off the handle charge, have anything to do with Anglicanism per se or that they must support Tony Blair or whatever. This is wilfully taking the comment out of the spirit in which it is written. This post is about illegal aliens and those coming in who indulge in behaviour like race riots. That's what the post was always about.

Those now resident

primary purpose is to integrate with the society Any benefit to the immigrant which accrues from their new country is their own good fortune

And what? Any problem there?

loosely conform to those of the native inhabitants

The operative word was 'loosely', in other words, acting in a civilized manner. Again - and what?

Had to smile at the logic of one commenter who says 'there's no such thing as a British culture to conform to' and in the next breath, says: 'we don't do that over here'. Who doesn't? The non-existent Britisher? If there's no such thing as British culture, then there can be no such thing as the rule of law and order, characteristic of this country.

You can't have it both ways. Either we do do things a certain way 'over here' or we don't. If we do - then that's the culture I'm referring to.

2nd generation. - youth demonstrations - their whole extended family is under threat

This was the one which caused the trouble. It does not refer to wholesale deporting but simply what it says: "Under threat." This would be so without any words from me. If a young man had been up to something, of course the parents would be contacted by the police and of course the greater family would be involved, especially with cultures where the family is still important and the father/grandfather listened to.

street demonstrations

This, admittedly, was not explained well in the first post but later was explained in the comments and the 2nd post - it's referring to race riots, pure and simple. This might be the point on which we genuinely fall out because I do take a strong line on these.

bi-monthly, interviews

Meaning once every two months and only in the case of those who are stirring up trouble.

Misrepresentation

Nowhere was I referring to the ordinary citizen - the whole post was motivated by immigrants who come in and abuse the privilege of being here.

So bloggers' wives and friends and girlfriends have zero to do with the post. No one's referring to deporting a 2nd generation wife to Leamington Spa or whatever. This is absolute tosh and was neither stated, suggested, intimated or in any way could be construed from the post.

Other aspects of Commenters' comments which need to be addressed

Higham is a racist.

Surely, 'previous' counts for something here. Having had a Jamaican girlfriend, a Jamaican best mate from New Cross, a Serbian wife and curently a S.O. who is Muslim, I can't really see how this constitutes racism. Against which particular race is this alleged?

Higham is anti-Muslim

For goodness sake - I work for and with the Muslims every day. I've just come home from them now. I don't recall any charges of being anti-Muslim today.

These charges just don't wash. If I was some sort of White Supremacist, well maybe. But I'm not and most of the readership and all those over here know that.

Now I'm only going to take one of Paul's charges and address it because his whole behaviour in ths matter is just too tiresome for words. Paul said:

'Extreme measures were not what was being discussed'?!?!? Deporting ther children of immigrants?

Note the punctuation used. This is arguing from raw emotion, not from logic. No Paul, deporting the children of immigrants was being discussed by you and one or two others. Not by me.

Once again, look at the one above: 2nd generation. - youth demonstrations - their whole extended family is under threat and my explanatory paragraph.

Now it's my turn. I charge that you, Paul Kingsnorth and to a lesser extent others in certain places, have wilfully misconstrued a post, twisted it to your own prejudices and introduced elements or made assumptions which just weren't there.

However, unlike you, I don't give a toss about your attempted character assassination, as it is based on nothing more than bilge. Personally, I like your blog and plan to continue to visit it.

If that is 'bizarre', as you termed it, Paul, then so be it.

[north american union] immigration too

The comments have been made and show that the Americans don't actually agree themselves on whether it will happen.

Lord Nazh says the American people won't buy it and there'd be insurrection; Beach Girl says it's already underway.

It's certainly underway, as the European-wide powers are but whether it can continue to fruition is another thing. It depends how surreptitiously they can do it and how much legislation they can get past the people before the people wake up to what's happening.

Matt was the driving force behind the revelations, having collected all the material and i just read it and did the post.

I'd like the Brits to read it if possible but perhaps they're still too angry with me just now over my Immigration posts. For them, in a nutshell, the situation is:

A CFR taskforce recommended that by 2010, a North American Union be created, not as a sovereign state but in charge of:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system,

within the three countries. A NA Advisory Council would oversee this.

At best, it would mean a U.S. dominated continent albeit with de facto diminished U.S. powers, i.e. the power would be through the NAAC and spread over the three countries.

The Whitehouse implemented the CFR recommendations in the form of the SPPNA and it's due to start in 2010. Huge legislative changes are not necessary for this, as it is only officially a 'partnership', i.e. the constitution and sovereignty issues are sidestepped.

This makes one reflect on what the EU is doing at this end. The question for me is whether the idea of the SPPNA is to counter Europe, to counter the growing Chinese hegemony or both. Or else is it simply a stage on the road to a global confederation?

Interesting aside on the CFR by Beachgirl:

One comment on the CFR - bad stuff that. Condi was a member. When these folks get into public office, either appointed or elected, they go into an "inactive" status so that their names don't usually show up as members. These folks are the true new world order/internationalists and they "know" we are idiots. Life may well prove them wrong.

I hope Lord Nazh was right on this. His last word was:

Unless a 3rd entity comes into play, the NAU doesn't stand much of a chance, given the level of partisanship in this country.

That may be so, Lord Nazh but that's not going to stop the CFR and other clandestine bodies trying again in a different form. These people never give up with their stealth legislation, as Europe is discovering.

Footnote on the Immigration issue [below]:

It was, as stated at the end of my first post, an ongoing discussion paper. The views expressed were never fixed - they were always modifiable, also as stated. The only points this blogger felt strongly about in the whole thing is that extremism shouldn't be preached from pulpits and that when we go to another country to live, we should respect that country's institutions.

After all the comments, I still can't see what is wrong with those principles.

[oviedo] easter parade or kkk

Before we go any further, if you saw these people in the photo coming at you, what would you think? Who do you think they look like? Would you think they were benevolent, some sort of danger to you or wouldn't you think anything?

Wolfie reports, from Oviedo:

This was the first time I’d managed to visit Spain during the Easter holidays and I was particularly looking forward to seeing the Easter parades with their colourful and somewhat macabre outfits. The area surrounding the Asturian city of Oviedo is home to my wife’s ancestral family roots and for some reason I found myself having an immediate affinity to the impeccably well mannered people, the beautiful mountainous green land and wholesome rustic cuisine.

Read the whole post, look at the other photos and see what you think.

[north american union] good idea or not

There is a tendency for many people to automatically see Exxon, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Paris, by definition, as evil, whether or not they are.

For example, the Chairman of the Bilderbergers was asked whether they were nefarious kingmakers and was 'accused' of 'grooming' Blair and Broon.

He never denied it but stated that that simply made the Bilderbergers good talent spotters - a necessary trait in business. Ed Balls is one being thus currently groomed.

Look at it from their point of view. The CFR is a well-funded think-tank, committed, quite openly, to advising governments on policy. They buy the best talent who write for them, they hold meetings with heads of state, they advise.

Where's the problem? Every government has paid, un-elected advisers who … er … advise. What, would you prefer the government listened to the least talented from the internet?

That's the theory.

The difficulty with the theory is that they are following a globalist line and the only 'talent' allowed breathing space is globalist in nature. The globalists therefore rise.

Thus it is with the North American Union, now termed:

Security and Prosperity Partnership

Has a nice homely ring to it, don't you feel? In "Building a North American Community", John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe and William F. Weld, co-chairs of the task force, run their disclaimer that they have absolutely no connection with the U.S. government but are simply an advisory body, then get down to the SPP. Here's what the CFR pdf says about them:

"we are joined in an effort to make North America less vulnerable to terrorist attack"

and:

"all three countries face a historic challenge. Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous American societies or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?" [Intro p1]

Then follows the justification - greater terrorist threat, the fact that all NA countries are interested in oil, cross-border cooperation more secure and so on. Then comes the crunch:

# "To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation, by 2010, of the North American community, to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity."

# "It's boundaries will be defined by a common external tarrif and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people will be legal, orderly and safe."

# "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy…" [p6]

# the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence centre

# expand NORAD into a multi-service defense command [p11]

# increase information and intelligence sharing

# develop a North American Resource Strategy

# create a North American economic space [p19]

# establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution

# increase labour mobility within North America [p26]

# expand temporary migrant worker programs

# establish a North American Advisory council to advise governments on policy [p31]

# create a North American Inter-Parliamentary group

As a result of this, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [SPP] was set up with this aim:

The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

They state:

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.

Matt, of Buckeye Thoughts, reports that the currency will be called the Amero but he admits he is light on info on its details.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies.

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

So much for the official line. Now for the critiques. In a stirring defense of the Bush administration's plans to dismantle the U.S.A. by 2010, Michael Medved attacks “a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues, and opportunists” for suggesting the Bush/CFR/SPP plan as:

“a secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and then to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called ‘The Amero.’” He further charges that criticism of the Trans-Texas Corridor is another “delusion” that “involves the construction of a ‘Monster Highway’ some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.”

Jerome R. Corsey, at Human Events dot com, cites the object of Medved's ire:

At the top of the list, we will proudly place Phyllis Schlafly, who was one of the first to write extensively about the plan to integrate the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Lou Dobbs has devoted several segments of his CNN television show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” to a discussion of the North American Union. Resulting from a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch has obtained an extensive set of documents detailing the extensive trilateral working group activity going on in the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada under SPP.

These documents add to the nearly 1,000 pages of documents I received from SPP detailing the extent to which the SPP trilateral working groups are “integrating” and “harmonizing” our administrative laws and regulations with Mexico and Canada. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus has joined with Schlafly and me in forming a coalition opposing North American integration.

He continues:

As Christopher Booker and Richard North, co-authors of the 2003 book, “The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union,” write that Jean Monnet “knew that only by operating in the shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity could he one day realize his dream.” Architects of North American integration, such as Robert Pastor of American University, breathe new life into stealth politics when suggesting openly that a new 9/11 crisis may be just the event needed to advance his agenda for creating the “North American Community” he openly professes.

Judicial Watch has this:

The council’s recommendations to the North American “partnership” include advice on how to handle an international disease outbreak: “It is also essential that throughout a pandemic all borders and major roads remain open…” With respect to border enforcement, the council recommends that, “A reasonable grace period should be established at border crossings, during which time people lacking documents are educated about their options and allowed to pass.”

Eagle Forum has this:

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

Matt adds:

As you can imagine, I'm completely against the idea. It would destroy the USA. We have enough of our own problems, we don't need to be adding Canada and Mexico's on top of them. Also, with illegal aliens in some small cities, the government of California has begun to drop these cities out of their control and hand them over to illegal aliens.

As a Brit, I don't feel qualified to write about the North American situation but I do about the CFR. It would need several posts to cover them and their close relations with the major organs of power in Europe and the U.S.A. but suffice to say:

"The Trilateral Commission doesn't run the world, the Council on Foreign Relations does that!"

- Winston Lord, Chief Adviser to Secretary of State, the U. S. State Department on China and President, CFR.

H/T: Matt

[april 23, 303] happy st george's day to you all

For Toque, for Tony Sharp, for Gavin Ayling, for Theo Spark, for the people of England - this day is for all of you. May all your dreams for the nation be realized.

In a very nice post, Paul Kingsnorth addresses some of the issues of this day.

[french elections] in case you're interested

Nicolas Sarkozy veut dégonfler le front des "anti-Sarko" Le candidat UMP veut faire donner ses soutiens contre la "diabolisation". Bonne chance, Sarko!

The programme:

• 1600 GMT - 22 April: Polls begin to close
• 1800 GMT - 22 April: Early exit polls
• 1800 GMT - 25 April: Official results
• 27 April: Campaigning restarts
• 6 May: Second round poll
• 10 May: Final official results