In terms of immigration, the point isn't about how many succeed in immigrating, but how many
want to. Moe's statement was about people crawling over each other to come live in the US. If we opened our immigration up more, more people would come here. Nearly without limit.
As to the whole UN Declaration of Human Rights? Very poetic. But it's also more or less meaningless as far as legal documents go.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Most of the first lot pretty much most Americans would agree with. Several of the amendments are pretty much identical, except reworded or spread among several amendments. The major difference between the two bills is that there is no U.N. "Human Right" to bear arms.
No. The biggest difference is that there is no mechanism within the UN to require that member states comply with said declaration much less enforce them in any way. The reason the UN is a joke is because it claims to hold to high standards of liberty and justice and whatnot, but it allows anyone to join, no matter how little those member nations actually meet those standards. The result is predictable. The number of nations who actively violate those principles, or don't care enough to bother enforcing them in any way have outnumbered the relatively small number of original charter nations who did care about those things and intended them to be principles the UN would act to foster around the globe.
That group of nations uses the UN to allow them to continue to commit the very atrocities and human rights violations the UN was originally founded to try to prevent. They've figured out that if they get onto the right committees they can make sure that they aren't investigated for violations, and UN membership protects them from any external interference. That's why the council on human rights includes such standard bearers of human rights like China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, and Russia.
Until the UN actually imposes its own claimed ideals on its own members, it will remain a meaningless joke.
