Oh, Albion! What have you done?
My heart breaks.
Oh, Albion! What have you done?
My heart breaks.
So, basically, President Trump – famous for saying he would “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” – has done himself one better: he’s built, as the title of this video puts it, a “wall made of Mexico”!
Some of us have said for some time that people who pass through one safe country (such as Mexico) on their way to another one they like better (such as the United States) have ceased to be refugees, in need of asylum; they have become migrants, in search of a better deal (or, as this video aptly puts it, they are engaged in “real estate shopping”). And if they seek ingress by violent means, as some have, they are no longer migrants, but invaders!
Migrants may, arguably, have a right to migrate; but certainly the lands they migrate into have a right to decide whether or not they want them there, and to deny them entry (or kick them back out again) if they do not.
Some Left-wing talking heads have commented on the irony of Americans complaining about unwanted immigrants after what we did to the Native Americans, and they’re not wrong about that; but they are missing (or intentionally ignoring) the point: what happened to the Native Americans is a textbook example – and a cautionary tale – of what happens if unwanted immigrants are not denied entry or kicked back out!
As A.G. Barr has pointed out, a large number of people are attempting to use our asylum system – intended to benefit a relatively small number of people who are genuinely oppressed and in fear for their lives due to their racial, ethnic, religious, or political identity – as a back-door to economic immigration: a work-around to the ordinary process of legal immigration. That needs to stop, and Barr’s action is an important step to seeing that it does stop.
In any case, a good, interesting, and informative video!
“It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to its self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”
– Supreme Court of the United States, Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892).
This decision has never been revoked or overturned.
Asylum is meant to be granted to a very small number of people in extreme circumstances, not as a substitute for the process of immigration itself. Yet, the two have gotten mixed up. It’s also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax and being gamed.
Fareed Zakaria is no fan of President Trump. Far from it! In fact, his knee-jerk negativity when it comes to the President has caused me to have to revise my former appreciation for him as that rare bird: a thoughtful, objective, and reasonable political commentator. He is, however, square on in this; and his antipathy to the President makes his comments all the more arresting.
I think a lot of our chaos where immigration is concerned has to do with a lack of understanding (or in some cases, I fear, intentional misrepresentation) of what “asylum” actually is. As originally conceptualized and expressed in international law, in the aftermath of WW II and the Holocaust, it was intended “to protect those who are fleeing regimes where they would be killed our imprisoned because of their identity or beliefs.” However, Zakaria notes, “This standard has gotten broader and broader over the years”:
“Since 2014, the flow of asylum seekers into the United States has skyrocketed. Last year, immigration courts received 162,000 asylum claims. A 240 percent increase from 2014. The result is a staggering backlog with more than 300,000 asylum cases pending and the average immigration case has been pending for more than 700 days.
“It’s also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax and being gamed… Some applicants for asylum have suspiciously similar stories using identical phrases. Many simply use the system to enter the U.S. and then melt into the shadows or gain a work permit while their application is pending.”
The asylum system was never intended to be a work-around for “the ordinary process of immigration itself,” for people who may be having a fairly rough life in their home countries, and who think the US is the land of milk and honey, where all their problems will be solved. News flash: there are a lot of people living, and in many cases born, in the United States (some to families who have been here for generations, others who have emigrated legally in more recent years), who are having a fairly rough life here.
If this ever was the land of milk and honey, it is so no more; and it is not unreasonable that we should want to take care of our own people first, before importing additional people, and additional problems, into the mix. (And if it ever was the land of milk and honey, it was so because we enjoyed a population that was relatively small, compared to our resource base. That is certainly not the case, any more!)
People may, arguably, have a right to asylum if they are in imminent danger to life and limb due to their ethnicity or beliefs – at least, the UN says they do, and the US is signatory to the relevant documents. But they do not have a right to emigrate into a country – any country – simply to improve their lot in life, or to treat the asylum system in the U.S. as what Zakaria accurately calls “a backdoor, bypassing the normal immigration process.”
Or rather, people may seek to migrate with the intention of bettering themselves, but the countries they wish to enter have a right to decline, to protect their own people, economy, ecology, standard of living, and the customs, culture, and traditions of their existing society. No one has the right to simply impose themselves on someone else, unwanted, and expect them to simply take it, as a matter of course.
As the old saying goes, “your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.”
Zakaria is absolute correct: the system is broken, and in need of correction and reconfiguration, with clear standards of what constitutes a legitimate asylum request, and clear lines of demarcation between asylum and immigration – and, I would argue, with the clearly expressed premise that asylum will be granted to relatively few, and only those most clearly at risk; while immigration will be controlled on the basis of our needs, and what the would-be immigrants can offer us, not the other way ’round.
[Many countries require of would-be immigrants that they be able to support themselves economically, for instance, so that they are a benefit to and not a drain on the host society. That seems far from unreasonable.]
“Diversity,” in and of itself, should in any case not be a criteria for admission, in the absence of specific skills, abilities, knowledge, resources, or other clear and positive benefits of admitting that particular person. We are more than diverse enough, as a culture, already, even if one accepts the premise that diversity is an inherent good on its own; we don’t need more of it, and certainly not for its own sake.
[If anything – given the history of the last few decades, when we have seen ever-increasing diversity, and also ever-increasing societal fragmentation and social chaos – a bit more homogeneity, unity, and stability might be beneficial!]
At any rate, those who claim that there is no crisis are certainly wrong; and Zakaria is certainly right that “a much larger fix is needed.” The President and his administration are at least trying to fix the problem. All the Democrats can do is vow to open the borders still further, increasing rather than decreasing the crisis.
We need better than that, or I greatly fear what the next few years or decades may bring: either complete chaos as we are overrun, or a violent backlash that must be laid solely at the feet of the Democrats and their Left-wing fellow-travelers, who seek to exploit the immigration crisis for their own political benefit.
I had an instructive incident this afternoon, as I was teaching one of my behind-the-wheel students: since the struggle to save the West does not come with a salary, I teach driver’s education to put meat and bread on the table, and otherwise attempt to keep the wolves from the door.
Seeing a Toyota Avalon ahead of us at a stop light, I quipped to my student, “Well, there’s Avalon! I wonder where King Arthur is?” There was a brief silence, followed by a (slightly sheepish, to her credit) “I didn’t get that one!” from my student.
She didn’t get it. An Anglophone high school student, and one with a European last name and apparent ancestral heritage, to boot, didn’t get a reference – and not an obscure one – to the Arthurian legends, one of the most formative legendary and literary cycles in the history of the English-speaking peoples (and significant to French and German-speaking ones, as well). If there is any doubt that our educational system is in serious disarray, this one incident is proof positive, I would confidently assert.
I passed off the episode lightly, for my student’s sake – I’m teaching her to drive a car, not appreciate her own cultural heritage, and there were tasks to accomplish, and traffic and road conditions in need of attention – but it bothered me, and it continues to rankle.
But thinking about it tonight, I realized that from the perspective of the propagandists and ideologues that make up much of our educational establishment, this is an example, not of disarray, but of how well their plan is working. King Arthur should most emphatically not be taught, according to this outlook!
He is not only a member of one of the most despised of all classes (and one of the very few it is permissible – indeed, encouraged – to despise), a “DWEM” (Dead White European Male), but he actually fought against the
invasion and subjugation diversity and cultural enrichment of his Romano-British land and people by the Anglo-Saxons. Really fought! With swords and spears and things. And in the process became an icon and an inspiration for defense against immigrant invasion opposition to multiculturalism for centuries thereafter.
How vile! He must have been one of those white supremacists. Oh, wait – the Anglo-Saxons were white, too! And so were the Vikings… and the Normans… and even the French and Spanish, who tried and failed to invade England. Best we just leave British / English history out of the schools entirely, unless we can find ways to convincingly pretend that they weren’t nearly as European as they very clearly and historically were, at least until the last decade or so.
We certainly don’t want to infect any of today’s students of European ancestry with any pride in their heritage, do we? Much less suggest to them, however indirectly, that it might be – perhaps even, ought to be – defended from invaders? Perish the thought!
We are seriously screwed up, and are getting screwed-er up-er, all the time!
“Orbán’s nationalist approach seems to be working: Hungary’s economy is booming, its birth-rate is up, marriages are increasing, and abortions and divorces are on the decline. And for Hungary, that all started by simply building a border fence.”
Source: Hungary’s illegal immigration plunges over 99% after building border fence | One America News Network (via Youtube)
Words to the wise…
Many African heads of state are surprised by Europe’s open border policy and urge the continent to change it, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said to German tabloid Bild.
“According to Ethiopian President Sahle-Work Zewde it’s better if the African youth remained in their countries and don’t even want to come to Europe.
“‘It is clear that we must not lose our youth because they flee to Europe. We need to tackle the causes rather than worry about the symptoms.
“‘The escape is dangerous. Criminal human smugglers make money with it. We must keep the people who will lead Ethiopia – and Africa – into a better future,’ Sahle-Work Zewde said.
So, why this push to import more migrants from developing nations, including African ones, on the part of some Europeans? As I have commented before, an unholy alliance between open-border (a euphemism for anti-European, anti-Western) ideologues, and corporate interests looking for a cheap labor pool.
But maybe the worm is finally beginning to turn, as both ordinary European and source nations begin to push back. We can hope and pray!