Republican US senator John Kyl of Arizona recently had a meeting with president Obama about the US-Mexico border, particularly the federal government’s failure to secure the border.
After the meeting, Kyl said that Obama had said that he, Obama, would use more federal force to secure the border once he got a promise from Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform.
Imagine that: The president of the United States using border enforcement as a bargaining chip to get legislation passed(!)
The White House denies that there was any such deal tendered, and it certainly sounds like a political quid-pro-quo that would be considered patently unseemly. And don’t for a minute misunderstand what Democrats mean by “comprehensive immigration reform.”
It is one thing and one thing only – amnesty and citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens. Period. End of story.
So was senator Kyl lying about his meeting with Obama?
No, of course not. Perhaps Obama did not use those exact words, that he would hold the border hostage to immigration legislation. But we all know the truth about how the radical open-borders Democrats are thinking these days – that the border does not exist; that we are just one, big happy multicultural world; that there should be a free flow of people around the globe; that border enforcement should be seen as merely an intellectual exercise.
Except that the only borders that are falling these days are the borders of rich nations, particularly that of the United States. Meanwhile, Mexico treats illegal immigrants very harshly, as do many poor nations that do not want more poor people entering.
And it is important to remember that Obama will use any trick in the book to get amnesty. Because Obama is a deceitful leftist. So perhaps he might even crack down on the border temporarily until "comprehensive immigration reform" is signed.
But once he gets his “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty), Obama will relax all federal control at the border to let as many illegal immigrants flood into the country as possible, give them all amnesty, give them as much in federal money as they want, get them registered as American citizens and Democrat voters, and expand the Democrat voter rolls so as to control all elections for the next 100 years.
Then America will tumble into the abyss of poverty and stasis, the same kind of economic stagnation that today is driving millions out of Mexico.
Between 1929 and 2000, Mexico was utterly controlled by the PRI, a leftist group equivalent to the hard left of the Democrat party in America. PRI controlled all political power and economic matters. And that is why Mexico is so poor and thoroughly corrupt in the first place – because socialism always causes poverty. And now the poor people disenfranchised by socialism in Mexico are coming here and supporting the same kind of big-government socialism that wrecked Mexico, but with big handouts here that were not available in Mexico.
Now here is a corollary situation in our own country:
Today, the state of New Hampshire has become very liberal. It has a Democrat governor, its house and senate are controlled by Democrats, it has approved homosexual marriage, has one Democrat US senator, and could have two after this election, although that is unlikely with Obama’s unpopularity.
For centuries, New England was a pretty conservative place, like much of America. But after World War II, much of New England turned ultra-liberal like Vermont and Massachusetts. Today every single US House member from New England is a Democrat.
There was one political holdout for many years, however – New Hampshire.
Throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, New Hampshire was mocked by the lefty Ivy League New England elite as a wacky, right-wing, Republican enclave with a kook-job state motto that said ‘Live Free or Die’.
They said: Ha! Did you hear about the freaks over there in New Hampster! Oh, boy, those nuts! They don’t even have a state income tax, or a sales tax! Woooo! Boy, that won’t last long!
Yes, they called New Hampshire every name in the book. Only thing is that New Hampshire’s economy was fhourishing while rabid Democrat policies were devastating the economies of Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont. Connecticut has remained somewhat stronger because of its proximity to New York City's wealth.
So starting in the 1980s, thousands of skilled and educated people from all over New England - including liberals, many from Massachusetts - started moving to New Hampshire to take advantage of its growing economy. And rather than rejecting the failed politics of liberalism that they were escaping, these transplants brought their politics with them, building up the Democrat party and making New Hampshire liberal. And with this liberalism, New Hampshire already has started down the path of economic decline. In 20 years, it will look like Massachusetts, guaranteed.
This is much like the situation in which Mexicans are leaving their socialist, big-government nation behind, coming to the more conservative US (particularly Arizona) and then are supporting liberal policies that are causing the US economy to deteriorate.
Mexico has made some reforms in the last 10 years, but still its economy is suffering from the devastation of the 20th century when left-wing corruption and stasis ruined the future for the Mexican people while the elites in Mexico City took all the power and money for themselves. Ditto Massachusetts. And until Americans recognize where this force comes from, states like New Hampshire will be consumed by socialism, and we all will suffer as economic opportunity has fewer and fewer places to breed in our nation.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.