What is the difference between immigration and invasion?
Lawful passage? Earnest intent to assimilate?
The people now marching northward toward our southern border under their home-country flag present us with neither.
They present a clear intent to overwhelm ports of entry at which they seek to present their coached and rehearsed stories. They’ve been correctly informed that their stories won’t much matter – their number itself will necessitate that most will be released into the USA with a summons which they can safely ignore.
The Left tells us our Constitution obliges us to this. “No,” they say, “we cannot stop them from presenting themselves at a port or to a border agent, and having done so, we’re obliged by our own Constitution to give their claim ‘due process’ – we cannot turn them back.”
So we’re obliged to “process them,” hand them a court-date summons and let them stay in the USA – for years, for a lifetime, it turns out.
22 MILLION and Counting. If we cannot find the moral fortitude to defend our nation for our own sake, perhaps we’d better find it on behalf of our kids and our grandkids.
Considering the collapse of Venezuela, this is about to accelerate greatly.
The way we respond to this next caravan is not about the cost or impact presented by this particular group of people. We are right now communicating our level of invasion-tolerance to the whole of South and Central America.
The goodwill of average Americans is readily extended to those whose dire straits leads them to seek refuge from a corrupt, repressive or collapsing government. This is the reason for the US policy allowing individuals (not whole towns) to present themselves at ports of entry for the purpose of APPLYING for asylum.
To seek asylum in another country is a last-resort option for those in desperate danger in their country of origin. It’s not the same as seeking to escape lousy economic policy in one’s home country and the resulting loss of economic opportunity. It’s a soul-crushing injustice when a government’s economic policy robs families of their right to self-support or the opportunity to improve their lot. These circumstances are endemic to socialist governments and those that are corrupt. The USA can offer an example of people demanding liberty. We offer a glimpse of the prosperity that results from economic liberty and in doing that, we supply hope to the world. We cannot reasonably welcome the world’s poor to live within our borders.
Human beings have both a right and a responsibility of self-governance. Having permitted the scourge of drug-cartels, socialism or other impediments to their own right to live, they now have a responsibility to themselves and their children to reform their governments at home, just as Americans have a responsibility to purge the corrupt elements from our government.
“…bring me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” exclaims Lady Liberty.
Liberty beacons to the world’s huddled masses.
Not the United States of America; the sovereign nation whose borders, jurisdiction and resources are limited, but Liberty herself whose promise, when unleashed, is UNLIMITED.
America’s greatest contribution to the fortunes of the world’s poor is the example set by self-governance and economic liberty. The greatest hope we might offer the poor of Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela and other countries is the assurance that Economic liberty will bring prosperity. When they demand liberty for themselves and their children, they can create prosperity and personal empowerment within their own countries.
Democrats claim the “moral high-ground” in advocating for an open-border policy. Considering their propensity to convert human challenges of nearly every type into political capital, their position is transparently self-serving.
Authentic American voters of every political stripe must find the political will to demand competent defense of our border.
For America’s sake, for the participants’ sake and for that of the many millions who would otherwise follow, this caravan of foreign invaders must be turned back.
Rather than wringing our hands over definitions while we are over-run as the Europeans have done, we have a MORAL obligation to ourselves and our children to PREVENT “Mass-migration.”
That there is a “better life” on display here is a function of TWO FACTORS in particular: economic liberty and equality under law.
Having allowed the leftists to chip away at both of these pillars (mass-migration from failed-state or 3rd-world nations is among the chisels used in this effort) prosperity is already being endangered.
Immigration is needed by the USA but ONLY at a pace permitting assimilation of immigrants. Our country has not only a right but a DUTY to CHOOSE immigrants for their potential to succeed in a condition of economic liberty.
Individual asylum seekers have a route by which they may apply. That process does NOT involve forming a mob to mow-down fences and other physical barriers. People engaged in mob behavior should be considered disqualified by their having participated in this lawless invasion.
While some individuals may escape to better lives, the sad reality is this: Most of the population in countries which SUCCUMB to terrorists, criminal organizations, totalitarian regimes, socialists or communists will suffer greatly and many will starve or be murdered. The same fate awaits us if we succumb.
This is not “right-wing extreme” idea but a lesson taught by history.
And we’d best remember that our country is vulnerable to the destabilizing efforts of power-seekers as well. If economic liberty falls here, mankind itself is in for a bitter, dark winter.
Our MORAL obligation is to put up a vigorous defense for Liberty, Rule of LAW over chaos, individual rights over social engineering by gov’t and while doing that, to assure the populations struggling under corrupt or incompetent gov’t that their ills can be addressed by instituting just government which features Economic liberty and Equality of individuals under law.
I think you are completely overlooking the purpose of the migration.
There are actually two purposes. The purpose of the individual people and individual families migrating is, of course, to find better lives than those they had in their countries of origin.
But then we have the purpose of those financing and supporting the migration, which is not only to overwhelm our ability to process applicants, but more importantly, to completely overwhelm our ability to assimilate.
We see the same thing in Europe. First, NATO (including the United States) did everything it could to destabilize the Islamic world, including toppling governments, creating ISIS, and fighting wars. Next, European leaders did everything possible to encourage as much mass migration as possible. Now we see the cultures of individual European nations strained. The government of Sweden has openly stated that there is no such thing as a Native Swedish culture, and that Sweden belongs, not to the Swedes, but to the migrants who have settled there. European nations are refusing to prosecute migrants who commit rape. The chancellor of Germany has advised women not to leave their homes without male escorts, and not to dress in any way provocative, so as not to create ‘misunderstandings’ with their migrants. Free speech in Europe (and Quebec) is gone.
Rape is particularly problematic, as the Koran considers any case of rape to be inherently the woman’s fault, and also calls for the use of rape as a terrorism/conversion tool to be used to subjugate native populations. In other words, Islamic migrants in Europe have every reason, according to their religious texts, to rape as many European women as humanly possible. And for the most part, the rapes go unprodecuted, lest the government’s seem insensitive to the migrants.
What about seeming insensitive to the native population, you ask? Somehow that is never asked – and without free speech, no one is allowed to ask it.
In our case, mass migration is still a new phenomenon. The overall purpose of this current migration is to use the stories of the individual migrants and migrant families as emotional levers against our immigration laws, such that we let the migrants in. Once we do – and the political pressure to do so will be extreme (note that this is being timed to coincide with the midterm elections) – the flood gates will open.
Note too that the Democrats have completely changed our political narrative into one where supporting and expanding our current batch of socialist programs is ‘the middle’, where creating new socialist programs is ‘progressive’, and where being against socialism in any way is ‘extremism’. The Democrats control the media, as well as our educational system.
We win every battle, but they are winning the war, and the truth is that the Democrats do not need mass migration to continue turning us into a socialist state. They need the migrants to do so in a way that is not gradual.
We are no longer in the stage where we debate the merits of socialism. That ship has sailed. We are now moving to the implementation stage.
If you oppose letting the migrants in, you will be painted as being opposed to the lives of the individual migrants, and of the individual migrant families. This will, to the public at large, make you a heartless monster. Many Republicans would rather buckle than sound like heartless monsters. If the nation stands fast and keeps them out, that will be used for maximum effect in the midterm elections to flip as many Republican races in the House and Senate as possible, and the waves of new migrants will continue unabated.
The Democrats are betting that they have already won the heart and soul of the country. We shall see if they are correct.