As you can read at the above link, it seems like SOS is joining forces with people from The Minute Men Project in AZ, who driving out to demonstrate at Baldwin Park. This should help the anti-hate groups organize since this will be the first time the solders that were hunting Mexicans along the border in Arizona are coming to our yards to try to clean the so-called cease pool. Lets give the solders the same warm welcome we gave their grand dragon leader in Garden Grove!!

Be careful though, the racist that goes by 1-inch, as well as the Minute Men Thugs are proud to tell the world that they carry guns around everywhere (just like any other street gang). They want to rule through fear and terror, and these extremists (like all terrorists) are very dangerous. The resistance needs to find new and innovated ways to oppose them, thwart their efforts, and get their groups to disband.

There's realkly no discernable difference among such people, whether they're calling themselves "Save Our State" or "Minutmen" or anything else of like-minded scum down through the centuries. They're all the same so making false distinctions seems pointless -- and caters to their agenda of trying to hide who they are and what they stand for.

Get over it. I am Hispanic and support the Minutemen.
We are not racist.You are. Your stories are so one sided and biased. I was in BP and Garden grove. Your people are animals!!

> Get over it. I am Hispanic and support the
> Minutemen.

Yeah? Well I can top that. I'm black and I support the Klu Klux Klan.

Huh? You don't believe me?

Gee. I wonder why. }:-}

and I'm a jew and love nazis...

...the ones in the IDF of course...

I do support them. I will be on the Ca. Mex. border soon. I do not support the KKK, if you do that is up to you. I will be in BP supporting SOS and any anyone else who is against illegal immigration.
What part of illegal do you people not get?
Break the law go to jail , if you are illegal you should be be deported, plain and simple.

Thats sick. You support the Nazis?
Grow up, deal with it. Illegal is illegal.
I will be in BP supporting AMERICA, not Mexico.

...what part of 'fuckin' douchebag' don't you people get?

I take it your one eyed man is your penis. However, it should be your Anus, because thats what you are talking out of.

...gee, how clever, I've never heard THAT one before...

...now, back to that dickless fuck, heckfizzle; what was it that the LIAR said about four Hispanic organizations working with HD?

Fred lives in a GATED COMMUNITY in the ultra-white community of San Clemente (South Orange County) !! You probably have no clue how about ordinary people and their problems. GATED COMMUNITY?? What gives, you hypocrite! Why not sell your house and move to a "culturally diverse" community like Baldwin Park? You won't. Most of these bleeding hearts live in affluence, thus they have no clue how much ordinary people struggle - like the Americans whom have lost their jobs and been replaced with illegal aliens for lower wages.

Is that the best you can come up with...that he lives in San Clemente?

feeble and flaccid....with losers like you championing the charge, SOS and MM are destined to complete and abject failure, and all of your "poor lil' whitey me" whining will make not one iota of difference.

...might as well join that new group...y'know PURSII....

...Pissing Up a Rope to Stop Illegal Immigration...

...y'know, judging by the posts seen here, the entire SOS and MMP do not have a single haired ball to share between them...

...buncha fuckin' whiney ass pussies.

...buncha fuckin' whiney ass pussies.

I don’t know of any whine from a White Man that can top those of Black race-hucksters demanding “reparations.”

I’d be fucking embarrassed if such losers pretended to speak for me.

I'm in a market with companies that are in love with H1Bs and offshoring work. My hourly rate, which was never too high, has dropped a lot. I don't go around cussing out people from India. They, like me, are just trying to make a living.

That's one reason why SOS is so reprehensible. They pick on the little guy instead of the guys in power.

They're pissed at Home Depot, but instead of going after the HD management, they go after guys who are trying to get some pick-up job next to the store.

When *you people* (illegal invader lovers) will address the problem of American law being broken each time someone enters America other than through the legal gateways I will listen to your debate.
As long as your side keeps talking about race and being fair and all the other crutches you use as an excuse to break American law you are simply hiding behind lies.

The problem isn't race, it isn't about being fair, it isn't about filling some job that your leader, Fox, says even Black's won't do (another lie based on race). The problem is a bunch of foreigners have decided that they are above the law and that they can walk into our homeland and do as they please and if we complain then we are the ones who are wrong.

That line of thought should hit you in the face as being about as stupid as any argument can get. But then I have to look at who is making those kinds of arguments - people who can't speak English when they get here so that they don't stand out like sore thumbs and make themselves so easy to see as they violate our laws.

Hilarious, spillz1.

Keep telling one eye what he needs to know.

I wish I could be at BP2 with you, but I am fighting the fight in my own backyard.

You know, they are everywhere, these illegals.

Criminal invaders.

For the cause, hope to meet you in person someday.

Keep up the good work.

...what ever happened to that lying' whiney pussy heckfizzle...

...proven a liar and he disappears like the coward he is...then this jizz1 shows up in his place...hmmm...couldn't be the same loser...could it?

The SOS and Minutemen, do not need guns.

The Minutemen were on the border for a month.

The Minutemen did not commit one act of violence.

The SOS, HAVE NOT COMMITTED ONE ACT OF VIOLENCE.

But your group of people do nothing but commit violence. It is all on video.

Hal Netkin, Jim Gilchrist, Joe Turner and Tom Tancredo are America's new hero's.

They do not need guns. They are non-violent and have the police and National Guard on their side.

WE HAVE THE LAW ON OUR SIDE. YOU SUPPORT THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL MEXICAN IMMIGRATION.

THE LAW OF THE LAND WILL PREVAIL.

so horny: "The Minutemen were on the border for a month. "

...so, was your pissing up a rope method of stemming the brown hordes effective?

You're better off ignoring the turd that calls himself "KPC."

As you can see, he's a vicious troll who brings nothing to the table but insults.

...better use both hands and hold tight, sailor!

Disclaimer: I am not 100% supportive of American Economics and Political Thought. I am neither a Natural Law Theorist, nor an Adam Smithian (Though there are several ideas by both that I DO agree with). These two people laid the very foundation of conservative economic and political policy. I am posting this only to demonstrate to our right wing friends on here their absolute confusion in political thought. The first section is a direct quote from the declaration of independence, the second section is from a very reputable online encyclopedia, and the third is a secondary source that I read and spent several hours verifying before I decided to us it (with several calls to old philosophy professors who are experts in the field). I have posted links for rational interpretation and critical analysis. In these you will see a few things. One, that the actual philosophy we base our system on does not discriminate in the rights of people to have liberty (absence of external restrictions) based on nationality or citizenship, and two, that our economic system promotes the free immigration process that SOS and MMP is against. Now, it is still possible that they can be against immigration, but it is not possible to claim they are "on the right", because this is one area where they are taking an extreme leftist position. Now, I am a progressive minded person, and I understand that on this issue, I lean to the right. My strength is that I can admit this, and do. I do not believe in complete free trade (which is the free movement of labor, and unrestricted markets to hire at any wage), I do believe in an individuals natural right to move and seek a better life (legal or illegal as illegal is the unethical restriction on liberty by a government), but I support minimum wage, health coverage requirements, and safety standards. These 'conditions' I support are anti-free trade in nature, but I never claimed to support 'free-trade' as it is 'fair-trade' that I back. Before you respond, read this, study it, and try to do a 'rational' response. To just dismiss this as crazy, stupid, or not worth the time, is to dismiss our very nation in the same way as EVERYTHING our forefathers and government representatives have laid out is based on this, you toss it, you toss America.

As a side note, I would love to do all primary sources, but if you know philosophy, you would know that this would include about 400 pages here. I encourage you (if you want to understand this better) to go get the books, and read them. I have....

When you can't beat them, beat them with their own philosophy.... enjoy

---------------------------------
---Our Founding Document----

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
[...]
He [King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
[...]
------------------------------------
Based on Natural Law by John Locke (The philosopher behind American Politics)
[Secondary Source]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
--------------------------
If God's purpose for me on earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property -- then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things. Equally, considering other people, who are my natural equals, I should conclude that I should not violate their rights to life, liberty, health and property. This is the law of nature. It is the Golden Rule, interpreted in terms of natural rights. Thus Locke writes: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..." (II, 6) Locke tells us that the law of nature is revealed by reason. Locke makes the point about the law that it commands what is best for us. If it did not, he says, the law would vanish for it would not be obeyed. It is in this sense, I think, that Locke means that reason reveals the law. If you reflect on what is best for yourself and others, given the goal of survival and our natural equality, you will come to this conclusion.

Locke does not intend his account of the state of nature as a sort of utopia. Rather it serves as an analytical device that explains why it becomes necessary to introduce civil government and what the legitimate function of civil government is. Thus, as Locke conceives it, there are problems with life in the state of nature. The law of nature, like civil laws can be violated. There are no police, prosecutors or judges in the state of nature as these are all representatives of a government with full political power. The victims, then, must enforce the law of nature in the state of nature. In addition to our other rights in the state of nature, we have the rights to enforce the law and to judge on our own behalf. We may, Locke tells us, help one another. We may intervene in cases where our own interests are not directly under threat to help enforce the law of nature. Still, the person who is most likely to enforce the law under these circumstances is the person who has been wronged. The basic principle of justice is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. But when the victims are judging the seriousness of the crime, they are more likely to judge it of greater severity than might an impartial judge. As a result, there will be regular miscarriages of justice. This is perhaps the most important problem with the state of nature.

(From 1p1p: In the law of nature, Mexicans are our natural equals, and any actions to violate their rights can and should be stopped by others. Since their ability for health, and security is hindered in their lands, they have a right to leave it to find health and security. In attempt to stop their free exercise of this natural right can and should be stopped by those who have the power to).
-------------------------------------------------
This is all pretty easy stuff....
-------------------------------------------------
Adam Smith (The father to American Economic Policy)
[Secondary Source]
(http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm)

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
-----

By analogy with Say's Law, one of the most important ideas in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations might be proposed as "Smith's Law": That the purpose of production is consumption [note]. While this might be so obvious as to seem self-evident, as Smith says himself above, there is nevertheless often a very different principle that occurs in political and economic discourse: That the purpose of production is to provide a livelihood for the producers. While this is certainly a positive externality of production, it becomes a disastrous principle when the value of production as a source of livelihood begins to be given precedence over the value of production for consumption. Such a dangerous and damaging principle to the progress of human wealth and happiness might be called the "principle of feudal tenure," even though it was an affliction of feudalism, as it is of capitalism, rather than anything original and essential to it.

[...]

Another hot public and political issue, not just in the United States but elsewhere, as in France, is immigration. Apart from a simple xenophobic dislike of foreigners, hostility of immigrants is often based on economic ideas that immigrants, like "cheap" foreign labor, drive down wages and take jobs away from natives. Again, however, workers qua workers are producers and labor costs are production costs. Driving down labor costs drives down production costs, which will benefit consumers, either by the reduction of prices in a competitive market or by an increase in profits which will attract competition that will also drive down prices.

One can object, of course, that lower wages mean that the quality of life will decline for workers, so that the supposed benefits for "consumers," who are also workers, will be erased. However, if prices decline along with wages, it is very possible that the net result would be no change. But the more important point is not to forget Say's Law: the value of wages depends on the value of money, which depends on the size of the economy, not on the intrinsic value of labor or on the good will of employers. The introduction of immigrants, all other things being equal, would reduce the quality of life, not because they drive down wages, but because they share the same total of previous production. "All other things being equal," however, is not what happens. With new immigrant labor, as long as productivity remains constant and wages fall to a market clearing level, production will increase in proportion to the new consumers. If productivity increases through capital formation, as it should, then production will simply increase per capita and immigration will have, if anything, only a positive effect on the growth of wealth.

All of this is so familiar from American history that there is almost no excuse for anyone not being aware of it. The peaks of American prosperity tend to correspond to peaks in immigration, while the troughs in prosperity also correspond to troughs in immigration. Thus, the greatest surge in immigration ever, between the turn of the Century and World War I, which must have burdened job formation to an unparalleled extent, was also an era of unparalleled prosperity and low unemployment. On the other hand, the Great Depression occurred in an era of low immigration, and a program of suppressing immigration further and expelling aliens (especially Mexicans) nevertheless had little effect on domestic unemployment. Exceptions to this pattern are the low immigration but prosperous decades of the Twenties and the Fifties, and the high immigration but economically sluggish Seventies. Higher immigration had started during the prosperous Sixties, and so someone might argue that the stagnation of the Seventies could have been due at least in part to immigration; but then prosperity returned in the Eighties without any significant or effective steps being taken against immigration.

The greatest benefit of immigration is to increase the size of the domestic free trade zone without all the uncertainties, disputes, recrimination, and misunderstandings that attend the issue of foreign free trade. This made a world superpower of a immigrant nation like the United States, as different policies on immigration and development keep immigrant nations of similar size, Canada and Australia, well back in the pack, great-power-wise. Australia almost "protected" itself into conquest by Japan.

The debate over immigration in the Nineties, however, still continues in a kind of vacuum of history and economics, although one may suspect that a kind of Know Nothing-ism in these areas has the same roots as the original Know Nothing Party--in xenophobia. Representative of this tangle, as it also involves issues of free trade and "cheap" foreign labor, it the relationship of the United States to Mexico.

For most of American history, there was simply nothing to stop Mexicans from coming into the United States to work. Much of this was agricultural and seasonal labor, under conditions marginally better, but not much, from conditions in Mexico, but some of it was also for industrial labor, as far away as Henry Ford's auto factory in Michigan. The proximity of Mexico made for a variety of purposes and experiences for Mexican immigrants. In Michigan, Mexicans clearly had to become "Americanized" to the same extent as Lithuanians, Jews, Italians, or anyone else coming into the country. They might persist for a time in their own community, speaking their own language, and observing their own traditions, but they also had to learn to deal with the other communities around them on the basis of a common language and certain common principles of behavior. Along the border with Mexico, however, or off sojourning in agricultural labor, accomodation to "Americanization" would be less necessary, both because one foot might still be retained in Mexico and because an exclusive sub-culture might exist without much interaction with others.

Quote: "Most of these bleeding hearts live in affluence, thus they have no clue how much ordinary people struggle - like the Americans whom have lost their jobs and been replaced with illegal aliens for lower wages."

Name 3 jobs that Americans have lost.

Proud to be an Anchor Baby!

<>

YOU CAN READ, RIGHT? SEE BELOW. (Fred & 1Peabrain - "Fox News," "CIS is "anti-immigrant", "No Person is Illegal", blah, blah, blah)

A Jobless Recovery?
Immigrant Gains and Native Losses
Center for Immigration Studies, October 2004

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1104.html

The recovery from the recession of 2001 has been described as “jobless.” In fact, an analysis of the latest Census Bureau data shows that between March of 2000 and March of 2004, the number of adults working actually increased, but all of the net change went to immigrant workers. The number of adult immigrants (18 years of age and older) holding a job increased by over two million between 2000 and 2004, while the number of adult natives holding a job is nearly half a million fewer. This Backgrounder also finds that the number of adult natives who are unemployed or who have withdrawn from the labor force is dramatically higher in 2004 than it was in 2000. These findings raise the possibility that immigration has adversely Affected the job prospects of native-born Americans.

Among our findings:

Between March of 2000 and 2004, the number of unemployed adult natives increased by 2.3 million, while the number of employed adult immigrants increased by 2.3 million.

Half of the 2.3 million increase in immigrant employment since 2000 is estimated to be from illegal immigration.

In addition to a growth in unemployment, the number of working age (18 to 64) natives who left the labor force entirely has increased by four million since 2000.

Even over the last year the same general pattern holds. Of the 900,000 net increase in jobs between March 2003 and 2004, two-thirds went to immigrant workers, even though they account for only 15 percent of all adult workers.

In just the last year, 1.2 million working-age natives left the labor force, and say that they are not even trying to find a job.

Immigrant job gains have occurred throughout the labor market, with more than two-thirds of their employment gains among workers who have at least a high school degree.

There is little evidence that immigrants take only jobs Americans don’t want. Even those occupations with the highest concentrations of new immigrants still employ millions of native-born workers.

The decline in native employment was most pronounced in states where immigrants increased their share of workers the most.

Occupations with the largest immigrant influx tended to have the highest unemployment rates among natives.

The states with the largest increase in the number of immigrants holding jobs were Texas, North Carolina, Maryland, Georgia, California, Arizona, New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, the biggest increases in immigrant employment were in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Dallas, Houston, New York, and Seattle.

Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation’s age structure. If the 6.1 million immigrants (in and out of the labor force) who arrived after 2000 had not come, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36 years.

LOL - you post items from CIS!?

What a joke, that is one of the biggest Spin Factories on the net.

You still didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it, you probably can't read Spanglish.

Name 3 specific job titles that were taken by UNDOCS?

If you can do that, I'll show you who the real culprit is - the companies that gave them the jobs.

Stop scapegoating. Or are you afraid to go after the big guys - bet you are. It's easier to attack a helpless invisible target.

BTW - calling me Pancho is very racist. You lost your credibility, not that you had much to begin with.

Put an end to your madness and go in Peace.

Those numbers don't clarify anything because they're so general.

A lot of anti-illegal-immigration activists are under the impression that if the immigrants are kicked out, that all those jobs would go to them. I don't think that's the case.

I think that massive capital flight is already happening, and the investment money would just open up factories and job shops in other countries. This is particularly true of manufacturing jobs, but also of intellectual jobs that are being offshored all the time.

You sound like a little girl. "calling me poncho is racist, you big bully!" Grow up. Mommy is not here to take care of you.

3 industries adversely effected by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (yes, that you PC-term "undocumented") with many job titles falling under each, are:
1) Meat packing processing workers;
2) construction workers (laborers, drywall workers, carpenters, handymen, etc.)
3) Landscaping workers (gardeners)

There you go. Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.

..OK Mr. Trailer Trash

May I assume that with all your concern for the American worker, you're are a union member and supporter?

What union do you belong to?

... but you're providing no information on yourself.

I AM a union worker (no, I'm not going to provide lots of personal information on myself, like Fred the Dork has). So yes, I actually know a lot about how our business leaders in concert with the politicians they've bought off have conspired to leave our borders open, even after 9/11, as the illegal immigrants work for far cheaper than Americans will.

You, Freddy, Poncho ("you're a bully boy racist") Villa and the rest of you are playing into the hand of these big business elite. For all the insults you send our way, most of which are not true, we're actually taking on the Republican elite including Bush that favors illegal immigration exploitation and open borders. You are their pawns. Your side dismisses credible reports not by debating the contents, but labling the authors. CIS is a think tank (duh), it's funded by big business (no, they want the borders wide open, as you do), you think the monument is racist so you must be the real racist (whatever), etc. etc. etc. Your comrades cannot debate on an intellectual level, especially Mr. cut-and-paste Freddy (I'm in my 40s but want to hang out with teenagers - you might want to make sure he's not a pedophile). And since you don't have the facts to debate, you ignore, label, ingore, label. Rather sad.

"...For all the insults you send our way, most of which are not true..."

...MOST!?!?

...that's too fuckin' funny!

So your taking on republican...where, in BP? GG?....at day laborer parks in LB?...by cozying up to the Governator? Circle jerking in the AZ desert?

Spare us comrade..please...the only lies you are revealing are your own...you're playing into the hands of racist and ethnocentric idiots like Babs Coe...and all your efforts amount to so much pissing up a rope.

"pissing up a rope."

Look jackass, you gotta come up with a new catchphrase. That one really didn't resonate to begin with and now you're using it in almost all your posts.

You gotta step it up a notch.

It's just plain bad writing. No style.

We can accept your idiocy but you must try harder to at least amuse us.

"pissing in the wind"

"spitting in the wind"

"excercise in futility"

"banging your head against a wall"

"spinning your wheels"

"buncha fuckin' wingnuts standing in the desert jerking off and drinking beer to stop illegal immigration"

...pick any one you like.

No!

They're all old and tired.

You gotta come up with something fresh.
Challenge yourself!

QUOTE:

You sound like a little girl. "calling me poncho is racist, you big bully!" Grow up. Mommy is not here to take care of you.

3 industries adversely effected by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (yes, that you PC-term "undocumented") with many job titles falling under each, are:

1) Meat packing processing workers;
2) construction workers (laborers, drywall workers, carpenters, handymen, etc.)
3) Landscaping workers (gardeners)

There you go. Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.
END QUOTE

LOL, you still need to start a statement with an insult. In psychology we call that a symptom of depression. Miss or madam, you need professional help.

Two industries you mention require Union Membership to participate in a viable job that pays at least minimum wage.

Landscaping requires licensing to do business.

You are stereotyping by assuming that the majority of those occupations are held by undocumented workers. There are no statistics, no one has conducted a valid study and you Miss are reveling in lies.

P.S. You are a Racist everything you say can only come from a irrational person full of hate.

Put away your madness and go in peace.

>ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (yes, that you PC-term "undocumented")

The term "undocumented" is the correct term. It's what's used in the immigration laws, and has been since the 1950s.

Look it up.

Okay - here goes. First, don't dismiss the issue of the monument. SOS organized to protest it. It has nothing to do with immigration. What am I to conclude about a group that, on the one hand, says it's about immigration, but then proceeds to focus on something that's not about immigration, but is about indigenous people, migration, race, etc.?

The SOS reveals its true colors in its actions.

Second, I don't think I've disputed that immigration, or any increase in the labor pool, lowers wages. Nor have I disputed or denied that business likes to increase the labor pool, to increase competition between workers.

In fact, I've written that this very conflict we're involved in is precisely that kind of hostile competition between workers. SOS certainly doesn't see it that way, but, if you look back at history, that's what it is.

I dispute that it's big business that benefits most from undocumented labor (or immigrant labor in general). In fact, the primary beneficiaries are small business and the "middlemen" businesses. Look at where the undocumented people work: it's at small stores or independently owned businesses. (When a big business hires the undocumented, it's usually via contractors like Labor Ready, or small subcontractor businesses that shield the big corporation from lawsuites. Wal-Mart does this with its janitorial contracts.)

If the southern border is closed, it will only displace migration to other locations. The coasts and the northern border will look more attractive.

Getting back to the labor issue:

What the "right" have done is tie two issues together about the undocumented. First, there's the issue of crossing and existing, and deportation. Second is the issue of access to services, and civil rights. Laws are being passed to reduce crossing, AND to reduce rights. This will only serve to create a two-class society, and further lower wages. This is very pro-business, because it not only lowers wages here, but also across the border, where these companies are free to invest their capital.

A slightly more progressive law would restrict crossing and increase rights. This would make all labor more equal, and reduce competition. However, the issue of capital investments is a problem -- the money would still leave the country to be invested where labor is cheap (and would be cheaper after restricting crossing).

A better option would be to restrict capital flight. This would force investment to be done locally, creating jobs within the country. Then, you could restrict crossing, and the effect would be to raise wages.

The only problem then becomes inflation -- higher wages overall will lead to some inflation.

But this last option is virtually moot. There is not enough People Power out there to oppose capital flight, at this time.

The last option, which I think SOS might like, is the vision of "High Tech Fortress America", where America is an armed castle, with satellite nations and factories all over the world. We become masters of the world, with slaves in every poor country.

Each morning we'd send out an email to slavemaster@saipan.com or slavemaster@haiti.com or slavemaster@puertorico.com, with our orders for the day. The slavemasters (aka, third world lackeys for America), would run the factories to produce things to ship back to Fortress America.

Hey, I just found out that Telemundo will be coming to Baldwin Park. We need lots of signs in Spanish for the cameras. In case you're Espanol is a bit rusty, just bring signs with these slogans. My roommate help me figure these out:

¡No, usted no puede comprar a mi pequeña hermana para tan poco dinero!

Usted los gringos no puede bailar a la derecha y huelen divertidos.

¡No necesitamos una tarjeta verde! ¡Tomamos lo que deseamos, cuando lo deseamos!

Let's give these racists hell tomorrow.