">
Posted on 08/01/2016 6:01:53 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Borders are in the news as never before. With Muslim refugees flooding into the European Union from the Middle East, and with terrorism on the rise, a popular revolt is taking shape against the so-called Schengen Area agreements, which give free rights of movement within Europe. The European masses are not racists, but they now apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the degree that these newcomers arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook—protocols that the EU essentially discarded decades ago as intolerant.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I am stunned that the LA Times printed a common sense editorial.
Some old-time sage once wrote:
“Good fences make good neighbors.”
For centuries the “elites” have assumed borders only protected them. Now they want easy access to money and markets we discover that borders protect a people perhaps even more than the tyrants who rule over them. Or as Savage has long said, borders protect a culture.
The elites seek to destroy borders, and the MSM is in lockstep towards this goal.
Destruction of borders assists their agenda.
The elites see us as too wealthy. Our society is too peaceful. Our crime is too low. All of these characteristics retard their agenda.
They cannot simply change society in the above ways, so they import it. They import poverty. They import crime.
Destruction of borders helps them do all that.
It is apparent that many of our American neighbors are at root bad and to insure borders, must be eliminated
I don’t know why this concept is so hard to grasp.
Immigration law should serve the interests of citizens. First, foremost, always. Only.
People in charge of administering it should be able to articulate the basis upon which people are admitted to the US, in terms of how it benefits citizens. How many are we admitting, and how did we arrive at that number. What countries are they coming from and why are we allowing immigration from that country.
Good luck getting honest numbers or honest answers about any of that.
The only people who should be admitted should be people who have something to offer the country, who are likely to assimilate, who essentially love us and want to be us. And only in numbers that can be easily integrated. People should not be admitted in numbers that will change demographics, or control wages, or change voting patterns.
If you are administering immigration policy, that’s not your job or your call. Again, immigration policy should serve the interests of citizens.
And in a shrinking job market, the numbers admitted should be very nearly zero.
——People in charge of administering it should be able to articulate the basis upon which people are admitted to the US, in terms of how it benefits citizens.-—
therein lies the problem in America. The administrators have abdicated by ignoring the law.
New administrators are required ASAP and the current crop must be exiled, cast out.
The elites need the free flow of worker drones across borders to maintain their profit margins.
One World, One People.
Open Borders
Free Trade
Karl Marx
If anyone ever bothered to read a little, you would find that Marx was fully in Favor of this for the sole reason that it would DESTROY NATIONS from within.
“Immigration law should serve the interests of citizens. First, foremost, always. Only.”
Its not about countries anymore, its about corporate interests and the bottom line and building a constituency for it.
The citizens are on to the game so they must be diluted and replaced.
People that live in fenced in gated communities hate international borders.
Trump’s wall is the People’s Wall. We want our wall and we want it now.
Many unassimilated Muslims in the West assume that they can ignore Western jurisprudence and yet rely on it in extremis. Today’s Pakistani new arrival in London might wish to follow sharia law as he knew it in Punjab. But implicit are two unmentionable constants: The migrant most certainly does not wish to return to face sharia law in Pakistan. Second, if he had his way, institutionalizing his native culture into that of his newly adopted land, he would eventually flee the results — and once again likely go somewhere else, for the same reasons that he left home in the first place.
Invaders from Punjab are not escaping from Sharia. Hanson admits as much but he misses the essential motivation of the invader. Far from wanting to escape intolerance these (predominantly)young men are bent on enforcing their cultural intolerance on tolerant cultures. They come to rape and pillage. That is the better life they seek, more opportunity to satisfy their domination.
Hanson is enough of an elitist to be unscathed by and unafraid of the brutality of invading Muslim hoards. We are experiencing the sacking of Rome and the pillaging of Spain. Surely the great historian, VDH, can see the parallels with Paris and GB today.
And I’d bet money that one of Obozo’s last acts to shaft America before he finally leaves office will be some kind of yet another lawless “executive order” which will bring in an unprecedented wave of unvetted rapefugees, one which will dwarf every such previous act. It will be his last big “FU” to America.
">
If you are for Free Trade then you cannot be a Patriot. Nationalism and Globalism are polar opposites. One cannot be both at the same time.
Robert Frost, I believe
Thinking the same thing. What’s funny is reading the typical LA Times/Sac Bee/CA bs rags, their entire comments section is 95% against the Left.
I honestly think there are massive swaths of people who don’t pay any attention to the news and simply pull the D lever in their booth cuz that’s what they’ve always done.
Well said. I would also say, that as is the case with almost every political revolution of every kind, that these invaders have no problem with the sharia under which they lived in their countries of origin. It’s just that they want to be the enforcers instead of the ones being enforced.
I wonder if people realise just how unique the American Revolution was in that the people who were revolting against the power, did not want, in their turn, to be the new power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.