21st Century Culture: Free Enterprise vs Government Control

Arthur C. Brooks

This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new

Free Enterprise needs to exist for the gears to move.

struggle between two competing visions of the country’s future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise — limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.

It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the administration’s money and influence. Our leaders in Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a free enterprise nation.

I call this a culture war because free enterprise has been integral to American culture from the beginning, and it still lies at the core of our history and character. “A wise and frugal government,” Thomas Jefferson declared in his first inaugural address in 1801, “which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” He later warned: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” In other words, beware government’s economic control, and woe betide the redistributors.

Now, as then, entrepreneurship can flourish only in a culture where individuals are willing to innovate and exert leadership; where people enjoy the rewards and face the consequences of their decisions; and where we can gamble the security of the status quo for a chance of future success.

Yet, in his commencement address at Arizona State University on May 13, 2009, President Obama warned against precisely such impulses: “You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this “who’s who” list or that Top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That’s the message that’s sent each and every day, or has been in our culture for far too long — that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf — that’s how you will measure success.” Such ambition, he cautioned, “may lead you to compromise your values and your principles.”

I appreciate the sentiment that money does not buy happiness. But for the president of the United States to actively warn young adults away from economic ambition is remarkable. And he makes clear that he seeks to change our culture.

The irony is that, by wide margins, Americans support free enterprise. A Gallup poll in January found that 86 percent of Americans have a positive image of “free enterprise,” with only 10 percent viewing it negatively. Similarly, in March 2009, the Pew Research Center asked individuals from a broad range of demographic groups: “Generally, do you think people are better off in a free-market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don’t you think so?” Almost 70 percent of respondents agreed that they are better off in a free-market economy, while only 20 percent disagreed.

In fact, no matter how the issue is posed, not more than 30 percent of Americans say they believe we would fare better without free markets at the core of our system. When it comes to support for free enterprise, we are essentially a 70-30 nation.

So here’s a puzzle: If we love free enterprise so much, why are the 30 percent who want to change that culture in charge?

It’s not simply because of the election of Obama. As much as Republicans may dislike hearing it, statism had effectively taken hold in Washington long before that.

The George W. Bush administration began the huge Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, and for years before the economic crisis, the GOP talked about free enterprise while simultaneously expanding the government with borrowed money and increasing the percentage of citizens with no income tax liability. The 30 percent coalition did not start governing this country with the advent of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It has been in charge for years.

Mexican President: Disarm Everyone. Obama Nods Yes


Mexican President Felipe Calderón called upon the United States Congress to re-enact the assault weapons ban in a bid to disarm the American people as they are integrated into theNorth American Union system. Further, he placed blame for fueling drug cartels and gang violence squarely on the United States and their supply of firearms.

Calderón made these outrageous and anti-American remarks from the floor of the U.S. Congress during an official visit, and also renewed attacks on the immigration legislation passed by Arizona.

President Obama joined in his cause, making the startling declaration that “We are not defined by our borders” during a press conference welcoming Calderón on the White House lawn. Such a statement with immigration AND “weapons” problems on the border? Whatever happened to the Robert Frost adage ‘Good fences make good neighbors‘?

Calderón told the United States that it must “regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way.” He continued:

“Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands. Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.”

Calderón’s Call to Disarmament is particularly inappropriate before Congress, who are Constitutionally barred from making any law which would violate any part of the Bill of Rights– secured to the people and several states in balance against the power given to the Federal Government. Further, Calderón’s plan holds the same fallacy as other attempts at gun control. If carried out, banning “assault” weapons would empower– rather than restrict– narcotrafficking gangs and leave “good” people helpless. It would not, as he naively intends, curb cartel violence or dry out the tools of their intimidation.

Yet his proposals have long been advanced and supported by the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others. President Obama voiced general support for a renewed ban last year, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to achieve politically. Moreover, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has also expressed support for re-enacting a gun ban, but has shied away from it while the White House has kept it quiet purposely to avoid political damage to other parts of President Obama’s already wildly-radical agenda. Last year, Newsweek scolded Eric Holder for “backing away” from the ban issue and failing to support an issue ‘important to Mexican officials.’


President Calderón also used the opportunity to amplify his criticism of Arizona’s immigration laws, a position which is hypocritical on several points. First, why would he have a voice among Mexican people who fled at all costs from the failing and violent narco-state which he heads? Furthermore, how can the Mexican President decry the efforts of Arizona to control its borders and maintain stability, when Mexico has considerably more severe laws against illegal immigration than that recently introduced by the under-pressure border state.

Though Calderón issued a tongue-in-cheek travel advisory to ‘visiting’ Mexican citizens warning them to be wary of the strict new attitude in Arizona, it is his own country which has grown wild with corruption, violence, drug cartels, authoritarian police and the unsustainable blow of mass exodus which has turned Mexico into a vacuum and failed state. While the United States has attempted to progress on issues of discrimination, Mexico continues to openly oppress its minority groups and stifle attempts at resistance. Despite this distinction, many sanctuary cities across the United States have joined with Calderón and proposed bans on Arizona of their own.


Most of all, the two heads of state, Calderón and Obama, have demonstrated a reckless and uncaring attitude towards curbing illegal immigration– which threatens to wreck both countries. Yet they have pushed hard for amnesty and other provisions to legalize workers and prevented any attempts to impede the open flow of goods and people across the border.

They have both worked furiously to fast-track North American regional integration. They met in Guadalajara in August 2009alongside Canadian PM Stephen Harper to continue– largely in secret — the agenda announced under the Bush-era Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America agreement (talks included the hot-button issue of “illegal southbound flow of American guns and cash that helps fuel this extraordinary violence”).

President Obama– for someone who claimed ignorance about the North American Union during his 2008 campaign [video]– certainly has gone a long way in supporting the total destruction of United States sovereignty, all while embracing cheap globalist clichés, obliterating the economy and opening-up the floodgates to labor replacement from Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Politicians– through NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA and SPP agreements, among others– are ushering in a corporatist-controlled North American Union, alongside a longer-term global merger. Robert Pastor and other key architects from the Council on Foreign Relations clearly designed the North American Union to circumvent the confines of the U.S. Constitution, and such a system is unlikely (once in power) to allow or accept the resistance of an armed population.


A Escape Valve Called Illegal Immigration

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
April 27, 2010

As a Latino, I know what is it like to live in a less developed country. I lived in one for the first 18 years of my life. As a child, I understood I was not able to have it all, because my parents, a teacher and a secretary, could not give me what I wanted, but with much sacrifice what I needed. As a Hispanic, I also know what is it like to live in a country identified as developed, although not all illegal immigrationthe time. I lived 10 years in North America where everything is abundant and where opportunities exist. So history shows. However, these opportunities by many mistakenly identified as the American Dream, just do not fall into the hands; one must seek them out. The American dream never existed. It is one of those corporate inventions created to distract the masses.
For this, and deep study of history, the history that is not in the textbooks, I understand how illegal immigration has been used by corporations to promote their interests and destroy the last shining beacon for freedom. This has been happening for a long time, at least 100 years. Governments and economies in the hands of corporations use illegal immigration to destroy entire societies and consolidate resources.

Why is it that those who support compliance with immigration laws are described as racists? Because the groups that support illegal immigration, which are funded by corporations, believe that it is OK to apply the law selectively, as they see appropriate.

In the documentary Food, Inc., the producers show this trend. Illegal immigrants are brought from Mexico to work illegally at a meat processing company. To keep the immigration police at bay, the company agrees to allow weekly raids where 15 to 20 workers who are captured and deported to their countries. The next day, the meat company already has other illegal workers hoping to fill the empty positions left by their compatriots the night before. When these raids are reported in television news, the police’s action is praised as a show of strength against illegal immigration. What is not reported, is the corruption that exists in every one of these raids. The corporate media is also complicit in this exploitation because they use the news as a way to attract their audience while keeping them ignorant of the agreements between the police and the company and more outrageous, agreements between governments that allow this to happen.
It’s easy to advocate for the rights of illegal immigrants from the human point of view, ‘it is not human send them back to their countries of origin away from their families. But from a legal standpoint, cold and simple we can not have two standards. Either there is respect for the laws governing a nation, or the country will turn into complete anarchy, which is what the corporations want. That anarchy is what prevails in Latin America, and that’s why people leave their families behind to seek a better life.
Mass immigration to the United States, Canada and Europe is the result of the failure of politicians and Latin American leaders to provide his countrymen with better quality of life. It is also a consequence of the adoption of policies that corporations support as they are vital for their overall intention . These policies are forced upon those who are banished by multinationals to seek better prospects. Such prospects exist in places where income is ten times better for the same work, and where the money goes a longer way.
Illegal immigration to North America and Europe is a escape valve that relieves the pressure for irresponsible politicians who let the corporations take over their countries in exchange for indecent tips, positions of power and awards such as Nobel Peace Prizes. While politicians receive recognition, the people must give up their family and homelands to find humane living conditions. This lack of conditions is what makes that even countries with more resources than the United States or Canada, have higher rates of poverty. Corporatist bankers managed to keep the third world in poverty, as they consolidate their power and wealth in a few countries which they will demolish through each economic crisis. So it must be said and clarified once and for all: it is not the Gringos, or the Europeans who exploit immigrants, but the elites that control the governments.
Latin America is a clear example of this policy of consolidation. From Argentina to Mexico, from Nicaragua to Brazil, all countries are handled as chess boards in an effort to consolidate power and wealth. The direct effect of this action is extreme poverty and illegal immigration to lands with more opportunities. The immediate consequence of massive illegal immigration for the developed countries is the collapse of their economies by the overuse of its social safety net. Despite this, those who call for an end to illegal immigration, are called racist and inhumane, even though their requests have nothing to do with either race or humanity.

Here are several examples to help us illustrate the above points. Mexico has more natural resources than the United States. However, the gap between rich and poor is huge. The free trade agreement between the two nations, -a global policy of consolidation- exterminated the middle class and now there are only two classes: the feudal lords and the rest. Although the results clearly show what neoliberal policies and trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA are capable of, more countries in Latin America continue to adopt such agreements with Europe, China and the U.S. itself. The giant of the north lost last year more than 500,000 jobs a month due to the economic crisis caused by the same bankers who control the economic cycle. NAFTA made tens if not hundreds of companies molt their operations to Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, India, China and other developing countries. There, with little or no labor regulations, companies pay a fraction of the wages paid in Europe or the United States and legally exploit a workforce that in many cases is as qualified as that of the U.S. or Europe, as they have college education or receive training from the employers. The only difference is the color of their skin and nationality. Is this not the clearest example of racism? Of course, incompetent governments refuse to ask for better conditions for their workers in their own land.
In developing countries, the arrival of companies like Intel, General Motors, Citi, JP Morgan and others is seen as a triumph for their mediocre leaders. What is never revealed however, are the concessions made to the companies for them to arrive and remain in those countries. These concessions include but are not limited to total tax exemption, working long hours at unusual times for the same pay, little or no chance to grow within the company, competition agreements which limit or prohibit the arrival of competitors, zero taxes on exports and imports, zero production tax, zero social guarantees for workers and many others. The weak nations simply fall in the hands of corporate criminals and become the type of democracies where two wolves and one sheep decide what’s for dinner.
Brazil is another example of how globalization is applied to the detriment of society. Recently, President Luiz Inacio da Silva, who clamored for the creation of a New World Order and also pursues the chair of the UN Secretary-General, legalized millions of illegal immigrants from countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador, -all running away from their crumbling countries- without making a thorough study of the possible needs or not of foreign workers in the country. The press and much of society almost knelt before Lula for his decision and qualified it as ‘successful’ and human. But what no one asked was whether the legalization of so many would affect the availability of jobs for Brazilians themselves. The move was applauded even more because the decision to legalize workers was mainly positive to collect more taxes to fund one of the most corrupt, lands in the planet, -it earned a 3.7 on the scale. That is super corrupt.

And what happens when a state or a country decides to establish limits on illegal immigration? Recently, the state of Arizona passed legislation to make authorities arrest and deport those who are illegally in the territory. Long before the adoption of the law, hundreds of people gathered outside the Arizonan Congress to demand the law was not approved as the media coverage provided its usual mediocre coverage, trying to turn illegal immigrants into victims of the new law . Although the law is not perfect, because it allows police to demand identification from those suspected to be in the state illegally, which violates privacy laws, it is an important step towards compliance with existing immigration laws. The Mexican government’s reaction was immediate, calling the law a disgrace and persecution of Latinos. President Felipe Calderon said: “They are entitled to be there, because they are model workers.” Why are they not given work in Mexico then? President Barack Obama also criticized the law saying “it threatened basic notions of justice” and said its implementation would be monitored to ensure it would not violate civil rights. It is clear that respecting the laws of the country is not a priority to Obama. In fact he is now actively working with Congress to pass legislation that would give the green light to legalize 30 million illegal immigrants in his country. It’s no surprise that the number of citizens who support his job is the lowest in the first year of any president. Only 29% in the latest survey strongly supports his actions, while 60% of respondents support legislation such as the one passed by Arizona last week against illegal immigration. See the result here.

The reform of immigration laws known as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, or the approval of no real legislation, is what corporations support, because it will allow them to continue their reign of exploitation of the people. This fact is simply ignored by those who want mass legalization. For them this issue is about race, which is a point that originates in the organizations paid by corporations to promote their interests, such as LA RAZA. The corporate media and pro-illegal immigration groups increasingly polarize the population with their anti-Yankee discourse, and pro-invasion of the south western United States, that many people erroneously believe belongs to Mexico.

Now both Democrats and Republicans – both controlled by bankers and corporations-, work in the drafting and adoption of the new law to legalize million and would also give them health care insurance of the type recently approved by the Obama administration. This policy will further weaken the social safety net and end in a total collapse of the democratic system. This is what the elites want to carry out their most precious process of consolidation in the history to control the natural resources and infrastructure the United States. It is a diabolical plan, no doubt about it. Polarizing the masses of people to keep them busy while the bankers steal everything, even their homelands. And what will happen when there is not a escape valve called the United States to absorb the pressure? What will all this anger pressure cooker called the third world go? Judge for yourself!

What to do about it? Educate current and future citizens about the true origin of such issues as illegal immigration, showing them the root of the problem so that it is clear people are able to seek for real solutions, instead of doing what is best for the interests of the powerful. If we have opportunities, a comfortable and dignified place to live, we need not go anywhere, but if we do, we will understand why it is better there than here and how we can improve.

Una Válvula de Escape Llamada Inmigración Ilegal

“Creo que las instituciones bancarias son más peligrosas para nuestras libertades que los ejércitos permanentes. Si el pueblo permite un día que los bancos privados controlen la emisión de su moneda, primero por la inflación, luego por deflación, los bancos y corporaciones que crecerán alrededor de estos, privarán a la gente de toda la propiedad hasta que sus hijos un día despierten sin hogar en el continente que sus padres conquistaron. El poder de emisión debería ser tomado de los bancos y restaurado a la gente, a quien le pertenece.

Thomas Jefferson, tercer presidente de EUA (1743 – 1826)

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Abril 27, 2010

Como hispano sé lo que es vivir en un país menos desarrollado.  Viví en uno por los primeros 18 años de mi vida.  Desde pequeñoillegal immigration entendí lo que era no poder tenerlo todo, pues los salarios de mis padres, un educador y una secretaria, no alcanzaban para darme aquello que más quería, pero sí con mucho sacrificio aquello que necesitaba.  También como hispano se lo que es vivir en un país identificado como desarrollado; aunque no en todo.  Viví 10 años en Norteamérica donde todo es abundancia y donde las oportunidades existen.  Así lo demuestra la historia.  Sin embargo, esas oportunidades por muchos erroneamente identificadas como el sueño Americano, simplemente no caen en las manos; hay que buscarlas.  El sueño americano nunca existió.  Es una de esas invenciones corporativas.

Por esto, y mucho estudio de la historia que no está en los libros de texto, siento que entiendo como es que la inmigración ilegal ha sido usada por las corporacionespara promover sus interéses y destruir el último faro que brilla por la libertad.  Esto viene aconteciendo desde hace mucho tiempo, por lo menos unos 50 años.  Como parte del plan de retroceso, los gobiernos y las economías en manos de las corporaciones usan la inmigración ilegal para destruir sociedades completas y consolidar los recursos.

Porqué es que quienes apoyan el respeto de las leyes de inmigración son calificados de racistas?  Porque los grupos que apoyan la inmigración ilegal, los cuales son financiados por las corporaciones, creen que esta bien aplicar las leyes de forma selectiva; de la manera que les conviene.

En el documental Food, Inc, se muestra esta tendencia.  Inmigrantes ilegales son traidos de México para trabajar ilegalmente en una empresa procesadora de carne.  Para mantener a la policía de inmigración en raya, la empresa acuerda permitir redadas semanalmente en donde se detienen entre 15 y 20 trabajadores, quienes son deportados a sus países.  El día siguiente, la empresa de carnes ya tiene otros trabajadores ilegales esperando para llenar los puestos vacíos que sus compatriotas dejaron la noche anterior.  Cuando estas redadas son reportadas en los noticieros de televisión, la acción policial es ensalsada como la mano fuerte contra la inmigración ilegal y no se reporta la corrupción que existe en cada una de ellas.  Los medios de comunicación corporativos son entonces cómplices de esta explotación, pues utilizan la noticia como una manera de atraer su morboza audiencia al tiempo que los mantiene ignorantes de los acuerdos entre la policía y la empresa.

Es muy fácil abogar por los derechos de los inmigrantes ilegales desde el punto de vista humano, pues es ‘inhumano’ enviarles de regreso a sus paises de origen ‘separandolos de sus familias.’  Pero desde el punto de vista legal, frío y simple, no se pueden tener dos estándares.  O se respetan las leyes que rigen una nación, o se permite la anarquía que las corporaciones quieren.  Eso es lo que reina en America Latina, y por eso es que la gente deja su familia atrás para buscar una mejor vida.

La inmigración masiva hacia Estados Unidos, Canadá y Europa es el resultado del fracaso de los políticos y gobernantes latinoamericanos de proveer a sus compatriotas de mejores condiciones de vida.  Es también consecuencia de la adopción de políticas que las corporaciones ven como confortables para sus intenciones globalistas.  Estas políticas forzan a quienes son desterrados por multinacionales a buscar mejores perspectivas de vida.  Esas perspectivas son reconocidas en lugares en donde se gana diez veces más dinero por el mismo trabajo, y donde el dinero alcanza para más, mucho más.

La inmigración ilegal a América del Norte y Europa es una válvula de escape para los políticos irresponsables que dejan que las corporaciones se adueñen de sus países a cambio de propinas indecentes, de posiciones y de reconocimientos tales como premios nobel y membresías beneméritas.  Mientras los políticos reciben reconocimientos, su gente debe renunciar a su família y a su patria para buscar condiciones de vida humanas.  Esa falta de condiciónes, es lo que hace que inclusive países con más recursos tengan mayores índices de pobreza.  Los banqueros corporatistas al mando de las grandes multinacionales se las han ingeniado para mantener al tercer mundo en la miseria, mientras consolidan su poder y riqueza en unos pocos países a los que, a través de cada crisis económica, les exprimen de sus recursos. Entonces, debe ser dicho y aclarado de una vez por todas: No son los gringos, o los europeos quienes explotan a los inmigrantes, sino, las élites que controlan esos gobiernos.

América Latina es un ejemplo claro de esta política de consolidación.  Desde Argentina hasta México; desde Nicaragua hasta Brasil, todos los países son manejados como tableros de ajedrez en un esfuerzo para consolidar poder y riqueza.  El efecto directo de esta acción es la pobreza extrema y la inmigración ilegal a tierras con más oportunidades.  La consecuencia inmediata para los países desarrollados que reciben a los inmigrantes ilegales es el desmoronamiento de sus economías por el sobreuso de su red de seguridad social.  A pesar de esto, aquellos que claman por el fín de la inmigración ilegal, son llamados de racistas e inhumanos, aunque sus peticiones no tienen nada que ver con ninguna de las dos.

Veamos varios ejemplos que nos ayuden a ilustrar los puntos anteriores.  México tiene más recursos naturales que Estados Unidos.  Sin embargo, la brecha entre ricos y pobres es abismal.  El tratado de libre comercio entre ambas naciones -una política globalista de consolidación- acabó con la clase media y ahora solo existen dos clases, los señores feudales y el resto.  A pesar de los resultados clarísimos que las políticas neoliberales y los tratados de comercio como NAFTA y CAFTA muestran, más países en America Latina continuan adoptando acuerdos de ese tipo con Europa, China y el mismo Estados Unidos.  El gigante del norte perdía el año pasado más de 500 mil empleos al mes debido a la crisis económica causada por los mismos banqueros que controlan el ciclo económico.  NAFTA hizo que decenas sino cientos de empresas mudaran sus operaciones a Brasil, Costa Rica, México, India, China y otros países en desarrollo.  Allá, con poca o ninguna regulación laboral, las empresas pagan una fracción de los salários que deberían pagar en Europa o Estados Unidos y legalmente explotan una mano de obra que en muchos casos es tan calificada como la estadounidense o europea, pues tienen educación universitaria o son debidamente preparados para el puesto por la mismas empresas. La única diferencia es el color de su piel y su nacionalidad. No es este el ejemplo más claro de racismo? Por supuesto los gobiernos incompetentes se niegan a pedir mejores condiciones para sus trabajadores en su propia tierra.

En los países en desarrollo, la llegada de empresas como Intel, General Motors, Citi, JP Morgan y otras es visto como un triunfo por sus gobernantes mediocres.  Lo que nunca se detalla, son las concesiones hechas a las mismas empresas para que se establezcan en los países.  Estas concensiones incluyen pero no se limitan a exensiones fiscales totales, extensas jornadas de trabajo en horarios inusuales y por la misma paga, pocas o nulas posibilidades de crecimiento dentro de la empresa, acuerdos de competencia que limitan o prohiben la llegada de otras empresas del mismo tipo, zero impuestos a las exportaciones e importaciones, zero impuesto a la producción, zero garantías sociales para los trabajadores y muchas otras.

Brasil es otro ejemplo de como la globalización es aplicada para el perjuicio de la sociedad. Recientemente, el presidente Luiz Inacio Da Silva, quien clamó por la creación de un Nuevo Order Mundial y además persigue la silla de Secretário General de la ONU, dio documentos a millones de ilegales de países como Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia y Ecuador, sin antes hacer un estudio profundo de la necesidad o no de trabajadores extranjeros en el país. La prensa y una gran parte de la sociedad casi se arrodilló ante Lula por su decisión tan ‘acertada’ y humana, pero nadie se preguntó si la legalización de tantos afectaría la disponibilidad de trabajos para los propios ciudadanos brasileños. La medida fue aún más aplaudida porque la decisión de legalizar a los trabajadores se hizo principalmente para poder recolectar más impuestos que continuen financiando uno de los Estados de corrupción más impunes en el mundo; 3.7 en la escala, o sea, super corrupto.

Y qué sucede cuando un estado o un país decide ponerle límites a la inmigración ilegal? Recientemente, el estado de Arizona aprobó legislación que manda a las autoridades arrestar y deportar a aquellos que esten en el territorio ilegalmente. Mucho antes de la aprobación de la misma, cientos de personas se juntaron en las afueras del congreso para demandar que la ley no pasara y los medios de comunicación brindaron su ya conocida cobertura mediocre, queriendo convertir a los inmigrantes ilegales en víctimas de la nueva ley. Aunque la ley no es perfecta, pues permite que los policías demanden identificación a quien sea considerado suspechoso de estar en el estado ilegalmente, lo cual viola leyes de privacidad, la misma es un paso importante para el cumplimiento de las leyes de migración existentes. La reaccción del gobierno mexicano no se hizo esperar. Inmediatamente, se calificó la ley de una desgracia y de persecución contra los latinos. El presidente Felipe Calderón dijo que “Ellos tienen derecho a estar allá, son trabajadores ejemplares.” Porqué entonces no se les da trabajo en México? El presidente Barack Obama, también criticó la ley diciendo que esta amenaza nociones básicas de justicia y dijo que se vigilaría su aplicación para asegurarse que no habrían abusos a los derechos civiles. Claro está que para Obama no es una prioridad respetar las leyes del país. Mas bien, ahora mismo él trabaja con congresistas para pasar legislación que daría luz verde a la legalización de unos 30 millones de inmigrantes ilegales en ese país. No es una sorpresa que el número de ciudadanos que apoya su gestión sea la más baja en el primer año de cualquier otro presidente. Solo 29% en la más reciente encuesta apoya fuertemente su gestión, mientras 60% de los encuestados apoyan leyes como la que Arizona aprobó la semana pasada contra la inmigración ilegal. Vea el resultado aquí.

La reforma a las leyes migratorias conocida como “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, o la no aprobación de legislación alguna, es lo que las corporaciones apoyan, pues les permitirá continuar su reino de explotación de la mano de obra. Este hecho es simplemente ignorado por quienes quieren la legalización masiva. Para ellos este tema es sobre raza, lo cual es un punto que se origina en las organizaciones pagadas por las corporaciones para promover sus intereses, tales como LA RAZA.  Los medios de comunicación corporativos y los grupos pro inmigración ilegal polarizan cada vez más a la población con sus discursos anti-yanqui, y pro-invasión de la región sur oeste de Estados Unidos que según muchos, pertenece a México.

Ahora, tanto demócratas como republicanos -ambos grupos controlados por banqueros y corporaciones- trabajan en la redacción y aprobación de la nueva ley que además de legalizar millones, también les daría seguro de salud del tipo recientemente aprobado por la administración Obama. Esta política junto con otras perforán aún más la red de seguridad social y terminarán en el colapso total del sistema democrático -que es lo que las élites quieren para llevar a cabo su más preciado proceso de consolidación en la historia y anexarse los recursos naturales e infraestructura en Estados Unidos. Es un plan diabólico, no hay duda. Se polarizan las masas poblacionales para mantenerlas ocupadas mientras los banqueros les roban todo; hasta sus patrias. Y que sucederá cuando no haya más una válvula de escape llamada Estados Unidos para absorber a los despatriados de América Latina y el resto del mundo? Para dónde ira la presión de esta olla llamada Tercer Mundo? Juzgue usted!