Immigration in America Has Serious Problems
Let’s be clear. America loves immigrants and is generous about immigration. America is more generous than most nations worldwide.
But how the nation is handling immigration today has divided it. And this sifting process over immigration has been ongoing for a very long time without a good solution in hand. A nation divided cannot stand.
The mishandling of immigration during the Biden years and subsequent left-wing support of keeping things as they are is very concerning to at least half the nation.
Both sides are fighting for what they believe in. But the left-wing “Open Borders” policy is unsustainable and illegal. It is already breaking our nation financially and in other extremely important ways. The United States simply can’t take on the world’s problems any more than any other nation can.
Like any nation, we are interested in taking in those who would assimilate fully and work with Americans to keep America the great nation that so many worldwide want to be part of. We can’t afford an extreme version of the “melting pot” where we simple-mindedly decide anyone can assimilate into our culture.
There are people groups out there with diametrically opposed philosophies that are incompatible with our way of life.
This is why it is so important to screen applicants wanting to come to America. More on groups that are incompatible below.
Open Borders Policies
Open Borders was not only an illegal policy, but it deliberately ignored the wishes of half the country (and more). The fact that the Democrats did it anyway demonstrates that they disregard our laws and acts with impunity when in power. At least half the nation is left out because their wishes are ignored. Half the nation!
And if that wasn’t bad enough, they are now staging violent protests to keep the damage intact! Every day, the Department of Justice roots out more problems. DOGE found massive fraud in the Administrative branch, where tens of millions of unelected Federal employees were creating policies that impact us all and waste our tax dollars. And democrats are suing the president and his administration, trying to preserve these things and take over the government without declaring war.
The World is Too Diverse in Philosophy to Assimilate Into One
That there are so many diverse, incompatible philosophies around the globe is a very strong argument for borders and against trying to assimilate every people group around the world in the US. It’s the reason we screen potential immigrants. It’s the reason we have immigration laws and borders.
Congress adopted the motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) in 1782, just six years after the United States was formed. That motto was intended to convey that out of many nations coming to the US, we became one people.
It shows America’s spirit toward immigration, including as many worldwide who would assimilate and who want to come. That is, within reason. We can’t indiscriminately let in large numbers of people, which is why we have quotas.
Imagine letting everyone in at once. We got a taste of what that would be like with the flood of “Open Borders” illegal immigration during the Biden years. Our economy would break. The infrastructure would suffer. That has happened under “open borders” illegal policies. And we found out why it is illegal. We wouldn’t be able to provide jobs, housing, food, and everything needed to support life. It would be an unforced error; a disaster for America.
Assimilation doesn’t mean immigrants are expected to completely drop their homeland traditions and unique identity. But it does mean that they are expected to be ready and willing to adopt the traditions of the United States when their homeland traditions conflict with US traditions, laws, and customs.
Americans Work Together Even With Opposing Views
We admire the passion and much of the thinking that goes into defending your ideas about immigration. In an ideal world, we would all get along and believe the same things, like the John Lennon song “Imagine” dreams about. But that simply isn’t realistic. Just a cursory examination of the world’s cultures shows us how impractical that idea is.
First of all, some cultures believe this world is not fixable, and the ideal world John Lennon dreamed about is heaven, where God rules, and everyone bows the knee to Him. There will never be circumstances to change that worldview.
Part of what has made this nation great has been the desire to hear each other and work together toward solutions that work for the greatest majority, and then work to solve problems for the margins of society. But that dynamic has changed in the more recent years of this century. That’s the best compromise we can ever hope for, and certainly the best we can do as the process improves.
A Critical Argument Against How Immigration Is Working Today
Our argument against how immigration has unfolded in this century doesn’t have to do with a desire to see harm come to those who wish to assimilate and live in the United States. It is born, not of callousness or uncaring…or a lack of humanity, but rather for our safety and preservation as a nation. And the United States is arguably the greatest nation to have existed. It has been a force for good and a persuasive influence worldwide all these many years, decades, and centuries.
And it can and should continue to be for centuries to come (God willing).
A Problem Has Surfaced
Today, there is an attempt, whether deliberate or incidental, to silence and oppress the conservative voice of the nation through slander, false accusations, and an immigration scheme that will—whether intended or not—lead to one-party control of politics in the US.
It starts with a political party that has complete control of the Federal Government through controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
The party that pushed this philosophy under current circumstances is the Democratic Party, and those who caucus with Democratic (liberal) philosophies, including a large part of the media, organizations like the Democratic Socialists, the Communist Party of America, and several billionaire activists like George Soros. All are trying to overthrow the government with a thinly veiled, but hostile process.
Title 8 – Chapter 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertains to immigration. “Open Borders” is not a part of that law. In fact, many of the laws in that section of the code make it illegal for leaders in the United States to just open the borders to whoever can make it across those borders. This has been the law for a long time. See the history timeline of immigration in the US here.
Below are the statutes, policies, and rulings being used to justify the “Open Borders” doctrine. Note that it is impossible to prove motives. These things are there regardless of intent. The public knows about these things, and any think tank looking to dominate politics to the point that the competition can’t win elections can exploit them. It’s hard to see anyone taking these actions, knowing their effect, who isn’t doing them deliberately to impact the vote.
Get Illegal Immigrants Inside Our Borders
Get illegal immigrants inside our borders so we have to process them. The “due process” we give them is an Asylum Parole Hearing. This allows them to begin life in the US until the subject can be investigated and their asylum claims addressed.
Biden’s process allowed aliens to cross illegally without being pursued. As many as 80% of those who crossed into the US did so outside legal ports of entry, intending to evade the process and simply squat on the land. And they had (and still do) the Democrats’ blessing to keep them here as they fight hard against the Federal government’s lawful and reasonable attempt to remove them. This proves Democrats’ effort to bring them in was deliberate and not the “unstoppable flood” Biden said it was.
Democrats accomplished this without the approval of the political right wing. They were able to do that because they controlled the Administration and Congress. That situation tied Republicans’ hands. And now we understand Biden’s Autopen Politburo actually did these things.
Biden was incapacitated due to age, but instead of telling the nation he was unfit, his administration and his wife and son continued to institute policies as if Biden were controlling things. They used the autopen to sign his Executive Orders.
That administration acted like a communist politburo in that it was a small committee of unelected elites making decisions over the direction of the nation. It was not the “democracy” that Democrats constantly harp on that they are “trying to save it”. It was deliberate planning to overrun this nation with a hostile takeover. The fact that they used the autopen machine to simulate Biden signing executive orders prompts us to refer to what happened as the “Autopen Politburo”.
The Autopen Politburo in Action
This astonishing, illegal, and unconstitutional feat is what has allowed more than 20 million foreign nationals to enter the United States illegally. Only 20% came through legal ports of entry, leaving the other 80% to enter through illegal points and evade registration for a “Parole Hearing”.
Many who registered for their parole hearings never appeared. It is estimated that of the 21 million who came through during the Biden administration, only 2 million actually went to their hearing. Fewer than that actually obeyed their deportation orders and STILL remain here.
Democrats (the whole lot of them described above) are practicing lawfare against the president and his lawful action to deport these illegal aliens. Screaming in public about not letting them have their “due process”, they have registered lawsuits in Federal district courts where they are reasonably certain the judge will rule in their favor to slow down the president taking deportation action. But they had the opportunity for “due process” and rejected it by either skirting the process or failing to show for a hearing. They have had their due process and have been found deportable.
Neighbors?! Do They Actually Even Know These Neighbors?!
Anti-ICE protesters impede law enforcement in the performance of their duty, calling those targeted for deportation their “neighbors” to add emotional appeal to their actions.
“Neighbors” who entered illegally and deliberately skirt our laws and processes. “Neighbors” who break our criminal laws and commit all kinds of heinous crimes here, including murder. And those who commit fraud, stealing BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars earmarked for people who need the money, are called “neighbors” by these insincere protesters.
Even those who are innocent of all crimes except immigration laws and hiding from due process have taken legal citizens’ jobs. What these hostile masses of people protesting in the streets see as “neighbors”, most Americans see as people trying to exploit America and Americans, and they are here illegally. And we can do something about that. And we see those hostile people as a problem equal to the illegal immigration problem.
The Contrast Between Democrats and Republicans on Stopping Illegal Immigration
They called it “Open Borders” policies. And it was not based on anything Constitutional, but simply on policies Democrats deem as “humanitarian”. They didn’t consult the other side of the aisle to implement this devious plot. And despite objections by the right-wing, they did it, excusing themselves by saying they needed Congress to pass a bill giving Biden money to stop it.
Alejandro Mayorkis told Americans He had the border “under control”, and Biden’s Vice President Kamala Harris who was tasked with trying a “diplomatic solution” with countries sending their unwanted citizens to our border to stop. She was wholly ineffective, and many say it was because she didn’t want to stop them coming.
Trump stopped it without a bill. He simply closed the borders and declared that anyone trying to cross would be immediately deported without the ability to come in legally. Simple. That stopped them. Simple. But the Democrats knew that, too. They just chose to keep letting them flood our borders.
Trump exposed their lies. We knew at that point the whole thing was deliberate.
Consequences of Illegal Entry & Not Following the Process
When foreign nationals enter this country at illegal entry points and evade the asylum process, they destroy their chance to become citizens. That goes for not appearing for a registered parole hearing, too. Violating the process set up for illegal aliens results in a “deport order”. This includes the 18 million who evaded registration for a parole hearing.
That is fair and just. And the federal government has bent over backwards to be kind, fair, and just to illegals in this position. We have invited them to self-deport via the CPB app, and we will also give them a free airline ticket and $1,000 or more upon successful self-deportation. This will allow them to come back legally later. Avoiding the legal process ensures you will be deported without an opportunity to return legally.
The US doesn’t have to treat them that way. We could simply say get out, and if you’re caught here, you’ll be deported and not allowed to petition for immigration or asylum. And that’s exactly what happens with those who try to avoid self-deportation.
Let Illegal Immigrants Begin a Life Here
Foreign Nationals in the US illegally can’t legally work here. They earn jobs typically held by legal citizens under the radar with US businesses that risk their companies, betting the law won’t ask where their employees come from. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal for US businesses to hire illegal aliens. US businesses break this law for the cheap labor. Employers like the cheap labor, illegal aliens like having an income, but those legal citizens who were displaced don’t like it, and they shouldn’t be cut out of their jobs.
The left excuses it, saying they are jobs that Americans no longer want to do, which is, of course, insensitive, unfeeling nonsense. This response is patently tone deaf as they suggest that our immigration law enforcement is the cruel ones. Dealing with illegals taking US jobs is cruel, but letting illegals take those jobs isn’t bad or wrong?
Census Headcount
Include Illegal Immigrants in the decennial census to bolster representation in Congress.
When a census is counted, Illegal Aliens are included (or were in the last census when Democrats were in power). The effect of this is that the larger the population in an area, the more representation it receives in the House of Representatives. Congress is more controlled by the party whose districts have increased in number.
The implications are obvious. Democrats set up what they call “Sanctuary Cities & States” in hopes of attracting illegals to their areas and befriending them. It’s one way the system automatically increases the left-aligned party’s representation. And Democrats know it.
They don’t even have to redraw a district, though the political left has redrawn districts everywhere heavily to favor their party. Like gerrymandering, which carves up voting districts to favor a single party, this has a grave and profound impact, silencing voices across the country. The consequences are profoundly damaging and obvious.
Give Them A Legal ID & Address
They obtain a legal address and, in most places, are issued driver’s licenses, which is all that is required to vote in our elections. And they vote in our elections where they can get away with it (e.g., in Democrat controlled (“blue”) cities and states). Democrats tell us that they check for legal status, but none of them show us the process. But we know they allow anyone who possesses a valid ID and an address to vote.
Mass Amnesty
Demand Mass Amnesty for illegal immigrants with no plan to abate illegal immigration.
The US has been attempting to regulate immigration since the 1630s. In 1639 – Colonial Massachusetts law authorized towns to remove poor people who had no legal settlement in the town. In 1790 – The Nationality Act of 1790 was passed and signed into law. That was just 14 years after the United States became a nation.
Illegal immigration isn’t supposed to be a thing now, but it is.
Mass Amnesty relies on the fact that millions of illegal aliens are here; we need to do something with them, so since we can’t deport them all (we could), we should give them amnesty.
We tried to address this during the Reagan era, but technology wasn’t advanced enough to monitor our borders and track who had entered illegally. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was supposed to address the problem and set us on track to end the problem. Mass immigration isn’t supposed to be happening.
The situation didn’t appear to be a problem, so it was left in stasis at that point, and other problems took priority in Congress.
Birthright Citizenship
If you Google the legal definition of “birthright citizenship”, you won’t find a definition. That’s because it is a loose definition based on legal qualifications.
The Fourteenth Amendment opens with the Citizenship Clause. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” are citizens of the United States.
Birthright Citizens In History and Now
Children of foreign nationals who are born in our country are considered citizens by birthright.
Here is Mark Levin on Birthright Citizenship. Mark worked in Ronald Reagan’s administration as a key advisor, serving as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese and working in various capacities at the Departments of Education and the Interior, focusing on policy as a top aide in the conservative movement. He gained prominence for his legal and political work, supporting Reagan’s conservative agenda, and later became a well-known radio host. He’s a great researcher and has a wealth of knowledge on many political topics, including immigration.
Many on the political right contend that children born to foreign national parents are still under foreign jurisdiction. As foreign nationals, the parents are, by definition, subject to another jurisdiction. Therefore, regardless of what land they are on when they give birth, that child is a child of those foreign nationals, and also a foreign national.
Simply being on US land does not make the US citizens “subject to US jurisdiction”. They are still subject to the jurisdiction of the place they came from.
If you were discovered as a foreign national without anything justifying your presence, you would be deported back to the jurisdiction you came from because you are subject to that jurisdiction.
We expect those visiting our country to obey our laws, and if they don’t, we convict them of their crimes.
They are subject to our laws, but that is different from being a foreign national subject to foreign jurisdiction. Democrats try to obfuscate the two.
If they are convicted of crimes here, once their punishment has been completed, we deport them. They lose their opportunity to migrate legally.
Defining Birthright Citizenship and the Legal Meaning
The Fourteenth Amendment opens with the Citizenship Clause. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is key to the birthright citizenship argument. As stated earlier, if you are in this country illegally, you aren’t a US citizen and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction. If you have children in the US while being subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government, your children are also foreign nationals, regardless of whether they are born inside our borders or not.
They let the children of Foreign Nationals Illegally in the US become birthright citizens. Even without mass amnesty, if illegal aliens are here long enough to conceive and give birth, their children are automatically considered citizens because of a mid-nineteenth century Supreme Court ruling. This is called “birthright citizenship”.
We permit this under the nineteenth-century Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted to allow formerly enslaved Black people to become citizens of the United States. It was later reinterpreted to allow immigrants who came here with legal status to consider their offspring US citizens. But it needs to be re-examined, given the abuse of the spirit of that ruling to hatch a scheme so Democrats can dominate politics. It’s wrong, it’s unethical, and we can’t allow it to happen!
Chain Migration
Birthright citizens can invite family and friends to come in and become citizens through what is called “Blockchain Migration” or simply “Chain Migration”. Chain Migration is a program that allows birthright citizens to invite their relatives and friends to migrate to the US.
Think of this in terms of illegal immigration. People travel to the US specifically to have their children within the US borders so they qualify as birthright citizens. They are born to foreign national parents who are unvetted and have not gone through naturalization and have never pledged allegiance to this country. Parents of Birthright children have made no declaration of allegiance to our country. They have a foreign ideology that they pass along to their children.
Many of those who have made it in have a foreign ideology incompatible with the Constitution.
One silver lining to the Chain Migration process is that all immigrants who wish to become U.S. citizens, including those who obtain lawful permanent resident (or birthright citizenship) status through chain migration, must take the Oath of Allegiance during the naturalization process.
The fact that this is used to gain a foothold in the United States without going through the naturalization process makes it wrong. It’s a loophole in a process that should be fixed.
Defying the Spirit of Our Immigration Laws For Political Gain
No matter how Democrats resort to such tactics and try to brand themselves as “kind, compassionate, and caring”, they exploit the above well-known mechanisms as a scheme to dominate close national elections. All of them are close today. It’s why gerrymandering has such an impact. This behavior exposes that description as empty lies.
This is neither freedom nor democracy. It is silencing voices and destroying a precious and important mechanism of checks and balances that ensures we are all free and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a nation, we have steadily worked toward this goal for more than two centuries.
An unconstitutional interpretation of our immigration laws, coupled with legal precedent set by the courts, has created loopholes, or gaps, in the system’s safeguards. This has set up an electoral phenomenon that will change the character of our country and disallow the conservative voice, and deny freedom to half the nation.
A Better Tactic – Tried and True Throughout Human History
We wish people would look into things enough to get all the facts… and then act on the complete truth. Far too many people are acting on emotional responses, half-truths, wishful thinking, false premises, and believing lies, and that is dangerous.
In these Immigration pages, we attempt to gather all the facts and approach this from a level-headed, systematic perspective.
Emotional Versus Factual
So many, especially on the political left, have tried to make emotional response more important than the facts. We have heard in the news, from people like Minnesota’s governor, speaking about an ICE shooting in Minneapolis, saying that the political right is acting callously, uncaring, and lacking humanity toward immigrants and protesters.
To the political right this sounds like childish demands to have their way without regard for the concerns of half the nation.,
Wonton Disregard For the Law, Safety, and Security of Americans
The mere fact that they are declaring themselves “sanctuary cities and states” shows they ignore long-standing immigration laws. But not only that, the furious fight they put up to keep illegal immigrants here seems to demonstrate they are deliberately exploiting the aforementioned events, leading to one-party rule.
Without ethics, it is tempting to do just that. The fact that they resist our immigration enforcement shows they disregard federal law. And it seems that Democrats have lost their moral compass in this regard. It seems they believe their ideas about compassion and fairness supersede anyone else’s needs and ideas. It is profoundly self-centered.
Callousness, Uncaring, and Lacking Humanity On the Political Left
The political right feels that Democrats are acting callously, uncaringly, and lacking humanity towards legal, long-standing citizens whose jobs are taken by illegal immigrants. And whose taxes are being spent on accommodating those illegal immigrants with welfare needs Democrats let into our country without following the law or even considering half the nation that expects the legal immigration process to be followed. Democrats are acting callously and uncaringly about the legal American citizens who are killed and/or otherwise impacted by criminal illegals (which makes all of the outrage at a protester being shot to death seem disingenuous, performative, and a political move to sway voters).
Democrats and the political left in the US are slandering these legal citizens on the political right who are just trying to keep law and order in the immigration process. And they are acting extremely uncaring and unlawfully toward the federal law enforcement there to enforce immigration laws.
The fact that a left-leaning community would even hire a person as the top sheriff and let them spew childish, profoundly ignorant, and hateful things as the Sheriff of Philidelphia is astounding and disappointing.
And that is on top of the fact that the states are not independent kingdoms or their own countries, separate from the union when it suits them, yet taking advantage of the benefits of the union, also when it suits them. Federal law is the law, and it stands for all of the union…not some of the union, maybe…when it suits them!
The American political left would like to make immigration a politically partisan issue they own with respect to the truth. But they regularly pay attention only to facts that interest them and ignore other facts that are gravitational to the discussion, including immigration.
“Minnesota Nice” Emotionalism
“Minnesota Nice” is a self-description of a regional cultural trait characterized by politeness, friendliness, and a strong aversion to confrontation, often rooted in Scandinavian and German immigrant traditions, but it can also manifest as passive-aggressive behavior, guardedness, or subtle criticism, where pleasant words mask true feelings or disagreements. It’s a complex mix of sincere neighborliness and a reluctance to express strong negative emotions directly.
Sounds conflicted, a little prideful, and dishonest.
That attempt at self-branding fails as these folks face off with Federal law enforcement. You can put on airs, but that doesn’t mean that’s who you are. When trials cause something else to come out, you haven’t controlled yourself to the point that who you “think” you are comes out when you’re squeezed. It exposes delusion. It’s simply emotionalism in action to soothe your conscience.
Democrats in general embrace this “Minnesota Nice” self-description.
Emotionalism evades truth and conscience. And our conscience is the mechanism that prompts us to correct our ways. If pride overgrandizes one’s conscience, the conscience is seared, and correction evades the soul. One afflicted in this way loses their way and radicalizes unreasonably.
Political Correctness Emotionalism
Political correctness (PC) refers to language and policies intended to avoid offending or marginalizing specific groups, especially those historically disadvantaged by race, gender, sexuality, or disability, aiming for inclusivity and respect. While its roots involve avoiding harmful stereotypes, the term is often used critically or derisively to describe excessive sensitivity, dogmatism, or the stifling of free speech, with different political viewpoints applying the label to perceived overreach by opponents.
Democrats today own Political Correctness. Again, it is emotionalism.
It’s fine to conduct yourself so as not to offend people groups. And most Americans, whether on the left or right, don’t want to relegate anyone to an unimportant or powerless position in society. Everyone is subject to being “marginalized”, and the use of the Golden Rule is a best practice when interacting with others.
Don’t force your ideas about what proper conduct is if it isn’t in the law. And don’t assume that because someone resists your ideas, they are also opposed to the underlying precepts. It is possible, and in fact true most of the time, that people love their fellow countrymen, neighbors, and friends, but often do not like their behavior or decisions. Disagreement does not equal hatred. It simply means people differ in their views of how to go about things.
Remember, an establishment is a gathering of people who can agree to do things the same way under the law. It doesn’t mean they deliberately cut out the “marginalized”. Those who don’t fit in with the establishment, of course, should have their needs met. But not to the exclusion of the majority.
People with such differences are why we have immigration laws in the first place. Some philosophies are incompatible with the majority. We will cover that on this topic.
Emotionalism Is a Fail In Public Policies
Like those who brand themselves as “Minnesota Nice”, the “Politically Correct” also expose failings when they are tested. Very recently, Democrats who pound the podium all the time about being “Politically Correct” have begun an anti-White male, and Jewish/Christian campaign. That is marginalizing those groups.
Democrats often accuse the political right of racism. They believe that Whites are a fundamental determinant of racial differences and display an attitude of superiority against them. It’s the very definition of racism. In that way, they marginalize the entire right wing of the White race.
So, Political Correctness is hypocritical.
Well-Meaning But Wrong-Headed
Branding ourselves with emotional doctrines betrays truth. Rather than improving things, it causes us to dig in and divide. It causes us to practice hate. We filter life through an unfair perspective and avoid inconvenient facts. It is a wrong-headed approach.
Many of us watch these political activists protest and agitate, see the resolve and belief that they are doing right, andshake our heads. It’s not because we are muttering pejoratives under our breath, calling them bad things. It’s because we can see that they are Americans going on half-truths, partial facts, and rage that is wrong-headed. Americans. These people, in times of war, would rally with us like we have done multiple times in history, and we would all pull our weight in the same direction.
It’s very sad to watch. They think they are defending human decency when they’re actually tearing the nation apart. And they are doing so by defying the laws they deem uncompassionate. But these people don’t get to take that into their own hands without considering the rest of the nation. The law of the land is the people’s voice, and until the laws change, the people have spoken.
Borders and Immigration
With ever-expanding populations, humanity has sought out places to settle. And as the more desirable real estate has been taken, people have had to expand into less hospitable areas. Or into states already established. As things were established in these areas, borders were drawn to define where laws, rules, customs, and governance were practiced. Other incompatible ideas were kept out.
This is the need and importance of borders.
Illegal Invaders
There are an estimated 21 million unauthorized immigrants in the US today. They came in mostly through the Democrats’ “Open Borders” policy of the Biden era. It’s an illegal policy that had our border and customs authorities look the other way while tens of thousands came through illegally daily.
These foreign national aliens who came here illegally (illegal aliens) are a burden on our homeland. Not only do they crowd our cities, but they bring crime, homelessness, mental disabilities, and absolutely no understanding of our laws, Constitution, or expectations. Nor do most of them care about this nation.
A popular slogan today is “America is a nation of immigrants”. Today, this has become a slogan used to push an “Open Borders” political agenda about immigration. The slogan encapsulates ideas that open-borders supporters want to highlight. But it exaggerates the benefits and downplays detractors. It ignores other key demographics of America (and all countries) that are harmful to America. Like all “old sayings”, it has some basis in truth.
Our National Identity is Being Stolen Through Immigration
This Mark Levin video is an excellent case for immigration overhaul. Here’s Mark Levin on Immigration laws in this video.
The History of Immigration in the US
Legal Immigration
Immigration in Ancient Israel
Our Laws and Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian values. It makes sense, then, to begin a brief study on the history of immigration with Ancient Israel.
There are those who are desperately trying to keep foreign nationals who entered our borders illegally and then declined to register for a parole hearing in our nation.
Welcome the Stranger – Love Your Neighbor As Yourself
What do you think of when you think of what a neighbor is? Don’t you have an intuitive sense that it’s someone who lives in harmony with those who live on the land? Would someone who came here from a foreign land with the intention of taking from the land without giving back be a neighbor? No, probably not. They would likely be considered a troubler or invader.
Misunderstanding of Scripture Applied to Immigration
Would someone who migrated and committed awful crimes such as murder, rape, pedophilia, assault, or abuse be a neighbor? What about human traffickers, criminal gang members, and drug cartels? What about those who come, occupy the land, and say it belongs to them and want you to get out? How about if they come here with the deliberate intention of attacking us inside our borders? What if they came to the land with the intention of converting it into a hostile religious state? Wouldn’t all of these types of people be enemy invaders rather than neighbors?
These are all people who came to the US through “Open Borders” immigration. Are they neighbors we are “compelled” to be kind to? No, they are enemies.
Recently, a Catholic church official illegally interrupted a congressional hearing on the deportation approach of the Department of Homeland Security. Specifically, on actions taken to rid the land of foreign nationals here through illegal immigration. He shouted at the top of his lungs that we are “compelled to welcome the stranger!”.
Judeo-Christian Scriptures instruct us to “Welcome the stranger”. The Jewish book of Exodus is the first place we see the “stranger” discussed. Exodus 12:49 says, “The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.” Again, we get the sense that “a stranger who sojourns among you” is there to assimilate into the culture. They are to obey all of the laws of the land. That includes laws concerning immigration into the land.
Immigration Laws Then Versus Now
Immigration law in ancient Israel was God’s law. Obey His statutes, ordinances, and commandments in the land He gave them to possess. Everyone there was expected to follow the same law, including those who “sojourned among them”.
Those who sojourned among them were not Israelites. They were considered what we would call immigrants.
They didn’t strictly protect their borders unless enemies invaded. But the numbers were easier to control than what we deal with in the United States today. The situation today calls for tighter restrictions at our borders, even in Israel.
Exodus 23:9 says, “You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt”. This is a variation of “the Golden Rule”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The Egyptians oppressed them for 400 years of slavery. They were commanded not to respond to strangers in like kind.
This is how we practice Love toward a stranger. But there is a distinction between strangers and invaders or enemies. Enemies were left alone unless they tried to invade. When an enemy tried to cross Israel’s borders, they were dealt with as enemies.
The Jews immigrated to Egypt to escape famine. They were “asylum seekers” (in today’s language). The Israelites didn’t invade Egypt’s border to harm them, but to take a cooperative attitude and purchase food.
The Scripture Meaning Sense of “Stranger”
The meaning sense of a stranger in Scripture is that they are assimilating with you. They are your neighbor because they are completely friendly, cooperative, and intend to assimilate into the nation.
You might obey every other law of the land, but if you break our immigration laws and go around the legal process to simply occupy land here, you’re not intending to assimilate.
There is a distinction to be made in the types of people who come through immigration. You can be a stranger dwelling in the land or an enemy invader dwelling in the land.
Not Every Stranger Dwelling in the Land is a Friend
In 1 Samuel 17, the Philistines, Israel’s enemy, had gathered their armies for battle in Socoh, part of Israel. They had crossed the borders of Judah (Israel), occupied the land, and prepared to kill the Jews living there. 1 Samuel 17:1 says, “Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim”.
Strangers are friends, not enemies. They are there to assimilate into the culture, not invade it.
David and the Unwanted “Immigrant” – Goliath
This is where the famous story of David & Goliath begins. Righteous indignation from the Lord rose inside of David at the tone of Goliath (a Philistine invader) toward Judah. David exclaimed, “…Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?”
The Philistines (modern-day “Palestinians”) were technically neighbors. They came into Israel through illegal immigration (invasion, really), but they weren’t in the land of Israel to assimilate. They wanted to subdue the land for Philistia and kill all the Jews there or subject them to enslavement. Philistia is modern-day Gaza. Things haven’t changed since ancient days there.
Some Immigrants Are Enemies, Not Strangers
Do you think God was expecting Israel to “welcome the Philistines”? He set up the defeat of the Philistines.
Were these strangers to welcome? They were enemies, both of God and the Israelis. We need to distinguish between a stranger and an enemy. Those who are friends in the land and those whose immigration means destruction. Common sense applies. Hearing God concerning them applies.
God brought about the United States as the world’s strongest nation, based on Judeo-Christian ideology. And He gave the US as a force for worldwide good. Many foreign ideologies are against God, and they are not welcome here. The Catholic Archdiocese representative who charged into that hearing was wrong in his interpretation of a “stranger”.
Jewish Scripture, which is being used to bolster the idea we need to “welcome the stranger”, is full of stories about how God was offended by this kind of “stranger” and slew them. That’s how they were “welcomed”.
The human will can stubbornly fight against God (and the people of the land). If human will goes against God, it will not stand. Through immigration (or invasion), they were allowed into the land but were not welcome. It’s dishonest to include such a stranger as those we should “welcome”. God dealt with them by eliminating them.
Scriptural Principles Related to All Strangers
The New Testament, after Jesus arrived and taught us how God wants us to conduct ourselves, says: “…You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 28:39). And in another place it says: “…love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”. We are to love our enemies. But we don’t have to let them harm us when we can do something to prevent it. We have laws concerning enemies meant to protect us.
Concerning the government, Romans 13:1-3 says, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.”
Good Versus Evil Government
Of course, this is Scripture, which is read in the context of Scriptural teachings. Outside secular teachings may or may not be “good”. They might be “evil”, in which case we would fear their evil behavior even if they are the government.
When the government exists for the good of all the people, it is good. But when it tries to oppress some of the people with illegal ideas and ways, it is evil.
The Biden administration broke our immigration laws through an unlawful “Open Borders” immigration policy. That policy allowed tens of millions of foreign nationals to enter illegally. Among those let in, there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of criminals. Many mentally disabled people immigrated illegally. People who hate this country, its flag, and its Constitution, who are actively trying to change the character of this country, immigrated here illegally, too. That last group is being encouraged by the left wing of our government. It’s shameful.
We have seen the result of that…legal citizens have lost many jobs to illegal immigration. Cities have been overwhelmed by the sudden population increases. We have had to allocate enormous sums of tax funds to accommodate them. There is an evil plot to use illegal immigration to impact our elections to favor one political party.
Whether intentional or just a serendipitous side-effect, this is a real effect of “Open Borders”. And the party that stands to benefit is the one that instigated the open borders illegal policy. Democrats.
One other scheme to mention here is that of legal citizens who want to “fundamentally change” the Constitution. This kind generally has a false belief that the founding principles are bad and must be changed.
Illegal Immigration
Procedures to Deal With Illegal Immigration
Paroling Illegal Aliens – Temporary Protected Status
When someone arrives at our borders without permission to come across, their status becomes “illegal alien”. Each illegal alien is expected to register for parole with the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Key Steps in the Parole Process
1. Application Submission: File Form I-131 (Application for Travel Documents) with USCIS either online (for specific cases) or by mail, detailing the humanitarian or public benefit reason.
2. Eligibility Criteria: Must show "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," such as serious illness, life-threatening situations, or benefits to the U.S.
3. Sponsorship & Financial Support: A U.S.-based sponsor is typically required to provide financial support for the parolee's stay.
4. Vetting & Background Checks: Applicants undergo rigorous security and background investigations. (At least they are supposed to be vetted, but that didn't actually happen during the Biden administration, as the tens to hundreds of thousands who have been arrested for crimes who have criminal records).
5. Case-by-Case Adjudication: USCIS or Customs and Border Patrol CBP reviews the request, considering factors like community ties and flight risk.
6. Approval & Entry: If approved, the individual receives temporary permission to enter and stay in the U.S., but is still considered an "applicant for admission".
Important Considerations
- Temporary Status: Parole is temporary and does not lead to permanent residency or citizenship.
- No Derivative Benefits: Parolees cannot bring family members through parole.
- Work Authorization: May be granted work authorization.
- Specific Programs: Specific parole programs exist (e.g., for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans – CHVN; Ukrainians) with tailored criteria.
- Travel: Departing the U.S. can terminate parole; advance parole is needed for safe re-entry.
Programs That Encouraged Illegal Immigration
The Bracero Program, between 1942 and 1964, was a U.S.-Mexico agreement that provided temporary Mexican contract laborers (Braceros) for U.S. farms and railroads, addressing wartime labor shortages. The program led to an increase in unsanctioned border crossings. More people wanted to join than there were available slots, leading to undocumented migration. Returning Braceros encouraged others to migrate.
Immigration Legislation
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted after the government dealt with two million foreign nationals in our country illegally by giving them Mass Amnesty.
It was landmark U.S. legislation aimed at curbing illegal immigration through employer sanctions (penalties for knowingly hiring undocumented workers), increased border enforcement, and an unprecedented legalization program for long-term undocumented immigrants (including a pathway for some agricultural workers). It established the requirement for employers to verify work eligibility using the I-9 form, creating a system to make hiring unauthorized workers illegal, while also granting legal status to millions, a compromise balancing enforcement with reform.
That isn’t as hostile as it sounds. All human beings desire to live their lives in a place compatible with their beliefs and ideas. It’s a natural thing to seek.
One important thing to consider is that if you don’t register with USCIS or CBP, you are here in violation of the law and subject to deportation without a Parole hearing. That is all of the “due-process” you will receive and can expect.
That’s the law. It’s not a political party being heartless and unconcerned about those poor people. If you’re in a place where you blame the law being enforced rather than the lawbreaker, you aren’t considering the legal citizens of this country.
Mass Amnesty
Many Americans alive today have witnessed first-hand things like the mass amnesty of almost 3 million illegal immigrants, which was supposed to end in the 1990s, and our borders were supposed to be locked down at that point. Some of them who worked on this legislation are still in Congress today.
The left cannot be ignorant of all of the above things. They know, and I would assert they studied these things to find a way to exploit them to dominate elections. They knew these things would pertain to the illegal aliens they let in our borders by the tens of millions, which could be used as leverage to get their way with one-party rule.
Democrats have an ulterior motive…a hidden agenda that is evil.
It’s a grand strategy that has players in many parts of the system (e.g., the “Deep State”).
Starting at the top of the Federal Government, a message is sent to would-be immigrants around the world, that “Hey! Our borders are open to all who want to come here! Don’t worry about our naturalization process, just come, and if you qualify, you can stay.”
Immigration Quality
Indiscriminate immigration prevention isn’t about prohibiting migrants to enhance a country’s benefits, but rather about ensuring the quality of the individuals coming in through immigration to preserve a nation’s character. Afterall, people come to America for its benefits. If those benefits are rendered useless by the bad quality of immigrants, their character changes, and their desire diminishes.
Democrat Plots to Encourage Illegal Immigration
Illegal Schemes to Create a One-Party System in the US
Going Against the Constitution is Illegal and Evil
Immigration laws prohibit illegal immigration. Title 8 of the U.S. Code, specifically within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
8 U.S.C. § 1325 – Improper Entry by Alien: This statute makes it a crime to enter or attempt to enter the U.S. at a time or place not designated by immigration officers, to elude examination, or to obtain entry through willful misrepresentation. A first offense is a misdemeanor, and a subsequent offense is a felony.
8 U.S.C. § 1326 – Reentry After Deportation: This law makes it a felony to unlawfully reenter, attempt to reenter, or be found in the United States after having been previously deported or removed. Penalties increase significantly if the individual was previously removed after being convicted of certain crimes.
8 U.S.C. § 1324 – Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens: This federal criminal statute makes it an offense to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” an undocumented person, or to “encourage or induce” someone to come to the United States illegally. Enhanced penalties are provided if the offense involves serious bodily injury, death, or is done for commercial advantage.
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA): This act strengthened existing immigration laws, adding civil penalties for individuals apprehended while attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully and creating bars to future admission for those unlawfully present for certain periods of time (e.g., a three-year or ten-year bar).
8 U.S.C. § 1324a – Unlawful Employment of Aliens: This law makes it unlawful for any person or entity to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an alien who is unauthorized to work in the United States.
Federal agencies, primarily U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), are responsible for enforcing these federal laws, both civilly and criminally.
US Jurisdiction
Each state’s government has jurisdiction over its state. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over all of the states in matters of national security (among other things). Immigration is a matter of national security; therefore, ICE and CBP (among other federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI) have jurisdiction over the entire country.
They can go anywhere in the country to enforce Federal Immigration law, just like the military and the National Guard. States are not independent countries that can block federal agencies from enforcing federal laws. To attempt that is unconstitutional. Protesters who are out there impeding law enforcement operations are endangering themselves, other protesters, and law enforcement. They are breaking the law by impeding law enforcement, and if ICE wanted to be hard-nosed about it, they could arrest every protester impeding their enforcement operations.
Sanctuary cities and states are just made-up ideology that has no basis in law. It’s state governments acting as though they are sovereign countries on their own. This is unconstitutional.
A One-Party System is Marxist — Not Democracy
There are circumstances being set up (whether it is deliberate or circumstantial), with illegal immigration. It will upset the delicate balance between parties and ensure that Democrats will win every future election.
That would make this a one-party system.
Democrats are fighting to keep foreign nationals in this country illegally in our country. That includes dangerous illegals who have murdered, assaulted, raped, abducted, and otherwise committed crimes across the country. To protect this type of illegal alien is to endanger legal citizens, whom these elected officials are supposed to protect. There is plausible evidence that these illegal foreign nationals are voting in our elections, particularly in states run by Democrats.
It’s hard to imagine that Democrats are not involved in this situation, knowing they could be advantaged in elections.
“Loyal Voter” Immigration Scheme
Do you ever wonder why Democrats fight so hard to keep criminal illegal aliens in the US? They say it’s for compassion, but is it compassionate to let migrants travel such great distances, facing hostile terrain and even more hostile Drug Cartels? We don’t find their rationale to be genuine. It’s far more likely they are motivated by the prospect of retaining power in government constantly.
What Democrats are doing is performative, that is, they are doing it for the optics. Risking their careers and reputations to fight for illegal immigrants has the effect of creating loyal voters should they get the vote.
Are We A “Nation of Immigrants?”
Do we welcome the immigration of every kind of people? No! The people we let immigrate here are supposed to be a qualified list. We intend to vet all potential immigrants. That’s what made Biden’s Open Borders so evil. Tens of millions got in without being vetted. They all came in without getting in line and doing it legally.
You can hear the sarcasm in the tones of left-wing activists as they condescendingly tell us we are a nation of immigrants. They conjure images of how Irish and Italian Americans were treated when they began immigrating en masse. They insinuate that we are just doing that to Latin American aliens immigrating here. It’s an attempt to make us feel bad for resisting illegal immigration.
Of course, the slogan about our country being a nation of immigrants isn’t exactly accurate. Unless you are a first-generation immigrant here legally, you’re considered “native” to the land. Many generations of people have been born here who are neither immigrants nor birthright citizens. They are considered native to the land. And they have been here making America great for many generations.
Immigration and Welfare Draining Freeloaders
Across the wide spectrum of personality types, there are many freeloading sluggards who take but don’t contribute. They drain resources without adding to our benefits. Many have been born here as naturalized citizens, but many have come here through immigration, too.
Many come here who aren’t freeloading sluggards, but don’t have work here because they have overwhelmed the economy. Instead of filling available jobs, they become a burden to our welfare system, and our taxes are keeping them alive. Taxes that should be going to other infrastructure needs, like repairing bridges and roads. Those who do find jobs take them from American citizens by undercutting their wage requirements.
This is a type of migrant we don’t need or want. Legal citizens who are sluggards are trouble enough for the rest of us. Let’s not invite in more to deal with and pay for through illegal immigration.
Wealth Redistribution is a Form of Illegal Immigration Support
A political party that can’t distinguish freeloaders as a problem and support them is also a problem for us. The “Wealth Redistribution” crowd is among this type of person. Socialists, for example, don’t care how much effort an individual puts into improving society (and the world). They want everyone to have exactly the same-sized slice of the pie. They call it “wealth redistribution”.
It isn’t fair if you contribute far more than the average person, sacrificing your life (e.g., doctors, EMTs, and the military), while beggars get the same amount of wealth.
Where’s the incentive to be strong contributors? We have recent examples of how this ends in the former Soviet Union (Communist Russia, the USSR).
This type of political activist wants both character types to have the same thing. That’s even though the freeloader contributes nothing, but others do. Most active jobholders give far more of their time, talent, and even treasure to benefit society. Some give far more than average for their earnings. Military personnel and law enforcement officers risk life and limb to preserve the freedoms and safety we enjoy. It isn’t fair that freeloaders should earn the same as productive contributors to society. It seems immoral if they get that money to ruin their lives with drugs and alcohol.
A Better Way to Handle Freeloaders
Freeloaders are people who don’t manage themselves well for whatever reason and take from the welfare system without giving back.
The political left pats freeloaders on the head and consoles them, and gives them lots of welfare money. It makes them feel better about themselves. They endeavor to take money from those who produce for the country and give it to no-account bums. It’s the wrong approach.
Soft, squishy, “love” isn’t called for under those circumstances. Freeloaders need a firm hand, hard truth, tough love, accountability, and unrelenting guidance. They don’t need money they didn’t earn.
Immigration and The Mentally Disabled
Illegal immigration brings in migrants who may have mental instability for some reason. Some foreign countries have actually sent their criminals, their mentally disabled, and their indigent people to the US. And it was made possible through “Open Borders” policies.
These countries send their problem people so they don’t have to deal with them. This could be considered an act of war; an invasion of immigration.
The vast majority of Americans want to care for the mentally disabled. We should help them instead of letting them wander the streets, because they clearly can’t take care of themselves. They end up homeless and fall in with bad company that corrupts them.
Some believe not locking them in institutions is being compassionate toward them. But in reality, we are more cruel to them by letting them fend for themselves on the mean streets.
Ronald Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 into law following a vote on the Federal budget. “The Act combined various social service funds, including mental health, into block grants for states. (Title IX: Health Services and Facilities – Subtitle A: Block Grants), reduced federal involvement and gave states more control.”
Over the next forty years, we witnessed which states could handle the mentally ill, and which could not. Many flocked to states that had better programs, and the systems were overwhelmed. We can see that even states that want to take on mental disability and homelessness get overburdened.
This demonstrates that we don’t have the resources to take on other countries’ social problems like mental illness.
Immigration and The Impracticability of Taking on Other Countries’ Problems
Now, we see how impractical it is for society to release the mentally unstable into society to fend for themselves. Yet some social activists overlook this reality and push for it just the same. It’s really to soothe their own consciences, rather than to help those in these situations. Why? Because they are just as troubled here as they were where they came from.
During the Biden Administration’s illegal “Open Borders” policies, evil governments sent their mentally ill people and criminals to our country.
We don’t know how many were released within our borders. But we have identified tens of thousands of illegal aliens from this category in this country illegally. And that is likely the proverbial “tip of the iceberg”.
America is not obligated to handle all the world’s problems. It seems like it because we are interested in how the world goes, and we try to affect outcomes. But that is for our peace, security, and stability…not because we are assuming the role of the world’s caretakers.
We can’t take on all the world’s problems, and that should be apparent now—even to Democrats. We have that problem Democrats created with “Open Borders” and illegal immigration demonstrated for us here today.
Closing the borders is a very popular policy that Republicans have enacted. It is popular with at least 80% of Americans. Democrats fight to bring more illegal aliens here. And they fight for those illegal immigrants coming here harder than they fight for their own constituents.
Why? It’s part of their hidden agenda. They want people coming here who can be counted on to vote for Democrats. And befriending them is a good way to ensure they will be loyal.
They are on the wrong side of this 80/20 issue with legal citizens in this country.
Immigration and Those Who Would Circumvent the Naturalization Process
Some leave their home countries to escape tyranny, war, and poverty. We welcome this kind of immigration (with exceptions) because these immigrants are likely to assimilate. They are likely to add their strengths for the betterment of our country.
However, for whatever reason, many try to circumvent the lawful process for immigration to the United States. It demonstrates an inner attitude that isn’t conducive to loyalty to our system of laws.
And of course, evil countries send their criminals and the mentally disabled, which overwhelms our welfare and legal systems.
Immigration and Homeland Indoctrination That Could Radicalize and Trouble The United States
There are no guarantees that the people seeking asylum here are compatible with our ways. When a migrant comes from their native land, they bring with them some of the thinking from that land. And not all of that thinking is compatible with the United States culture.
We all get indoctrinated with culture, ideas, philosophies, religion, etc. But some personalities are such that, under some circumstances, violent indoctrination arises within them, and they become radicalized. A country never wants to bring that kind of trouble on itself. But especially if it is a foreign import. Our own troubled citizens are enough to handle without taking on more.
This type of immigrant is not welcome in America, but it is hard to vet and screen them out.
There are those who hate the United States and what it stands for. These are people with different life philosophies that are incompatible with human rights, freedom, and self-governance (e.g., “democracy”). Some of them are intent upon changing everyone to conform to their worldview.
We like to keep our enemies outside our borders. And this topic is a safety and security concern. People have free will and will make their own decisions. If someone is determined enough not to assimilate or adapt, they become a security and safety concern. It’s why we lock up those who have stubborn criminal or beligerent wills and commit crimes. And we have more than enough of that type who are legal citizens. We don’t need to import those from other countries.
The Reconquista Movement (An Example of Peaceful Invasion by Immigration)
There is a belief among many Mexican nationals that “Mexicans didn’t cross the border—the border crossed them.” Desde California hasta Texas (from California to Texas), this was all México until the U.S., drunk on Manifest Destiny, straight-up stole it.”, they say.
Many “reconquistas” are here today, occupying the land illegally. And they defiantly stand on platforms with fists in the air, telling US citizens the land is theirs. And they tell us that we need to leave. They wave the flags of their homelands and hate our flag in angry protests.
This is one type of immigrant we don’t want living here, because they fight against us from inside our borders.
Muslim “Caliphate” Invaders (An Example of Hostile Invasion by Immigration)
“…Mass immigration is a form of revenge and conquest. Just ask Wajahat Ali,” wrote senior Federalist contributor Adam Johnston.” (The Blaze).
Wajahat Ali is a Pakistani of immigrant parents…a so-called “birthright citizen” because he was born here. Ali is a social media influencer on the “The Left Hook” podcast. He has contributed to the New York Times and Al Jazeera, among other left-wing and far-left organizations. To watch his podcast is like watching any Muslim extremist terrorist rant.
“Ali launched into a … tirade on a recent episode of his podcast, “The Left Hook,” suggesting that Trump’s proposed effort to “rid the country of antipathetic foreign elements” is a lost cause. In all his rage, however, the former Al Jazeera host appears to have unwittingly justified Trump’s plan as well as lent additional credibility to the so-called great replacement theory.” (The Blaze, Dec. 4, 2025, Wajahat Ali says quiet part out loud in attack on Trump’s re-migration plan: ‘Mistake that you made is you let us in’).
“We’re not going back. I want all the hatemongers who watch this — and I hope they do watch this because I know they hate-watch us — you’ve lost. You have lost. You lost. The mistake that you made is you let us in in the first place.” Wajahat Ali, “The Left Hook” podcast.
“See, that’s the thing with brown people, and I’m going to say this as a brown person. There’s a lot of us. Like, a lot. There’s like 1.2 billion in India. There’s more than 200 million in Pakistan. There’s like 170 million in Bangladesh. Those are just the people there,” continued Ali. “There’s a bunch of us, and we breed. We’re a breeding people — and the problem is you let us in in 1965.”
Where Immigration is Concerned, Caliphate is a Replacement Theory
Replacement Theory is not a false, unfounded conspiracy theory as so many far-left media and activists claim. It exists! Detractors have no proof that it is a false theory, but as is their usual tactic, they irresponsibly broadcast falsehoods.
And when discovered, they just wait out the public’s memory of the lie and do it again… and again. They persuade those who are deluded and engage in wishful thinking. But the country knows at this point they are liars and unreliable sources for information.
First of all, a conspiracy can be valid or invalid based on the facts relevant to the topic. A theory is simply something believed until proof arises that demonstrates it is wrong. Science operates on theories. A “conspiracy theory explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a … plot by … conspirators”.
A Conspiracy Theory can be completely legitimate. The political left often adopts the label as a dodge to take focus off of something they are doing wrong. And they try to discredit people for having that theory. Hillary Clinton is best known for her constant diatribe about “the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory”, for example.
Invasion by Fecundity – An Immigration Plot
“Invasion by fecundity” is a concept in invasion … where a non-native [group] successfully establishes and spreads [inside] new [borders] primarily due to a higher reproductive output (fecundity) compared to native [groups].
Powerful conspirators don’t have to be wealthy or head a group that possesses power and control over others. It can be a large group who, simply through a hidden agenda, remain inconspicuous and reproduce at a rapid rate until they have sufficient numbers to begin influencing, then dictating their will over the land.
Wajahat Ali brazenly said the quiet part out loud in America. He showed how confident his group is that it will overtake America. He believes his people will simply out-populate the rest of us. His radical Muslim group believes that we can do nothing about it because we are true to our “birthright citizenship” ideology.
That conspiracy theory is not a figment of our collective “right-wing” imagination. There are people here, whom we have allowed to immigrate here, who already have this violent counter ideology. And they are determined to carry it out if they can.
The Ottoman Empire – Radical Islam’s Attempt at Worldwide Conquest
The Ottoman Empire was a Caliphate. It was an empire of conquest. Muslims invaded the lands outside of Turkey and absorbed them into the empire.
It was a straight-out invasion and conquest by a group of people who believe, to this day, that the world can only be saved by strict observance of Islam.
So their philosophy is to take ground for Islam with the design of taking over the entire world. They are patient and willing to wait even millennia to accomplish their goal.
Shiite Muslims Are Bad Immigration Candidates
Not all Muslims are extremists, but the Shiite Muslims are extreme in their ideology. They call the United States “The Great Satan” and Israel “The Little Satan”. Muslim Extremists are avowed enemies of non-Muslims. They constantly attempt to invade and subdue all lands they invade through conquest.
Among the Shiite Muslims are Al Qaeda, El Shabaab, the Taliban, ISIS, and of course, the Theocratic Dictatorship of Iran. There are others not listed here.
These names should be familiar to the reader because they have all made the news for massive, violent attacks on non-Muslim people, including the United States.
And Iran is the control-center of it all. Qatar is involved as well. Qatar has been called “An international bank with borders” because it brokers deals with all nations, including Iran. With Iran, Qatar brokers the Iranian “pay for slay” program. The program pays Muslim extremists to murder non-Muslims—especially Israelis and Americans.
These are not the kind of people we want to allow to migrate to the United States. They pose an imminent danger to Americans.
The Ottoman Empire Shows the Attitude of Muslim Extremists
The Ottoman Empire was an expanding empire, with designs on making the entire world into a caliphate.
“A caliphate is a form of Islamic state or government in which the leader, a caliph (from the Arabic khalifah, meaning “successor” or “deputy”), is considered the successor to the Prophet Muhammad and the supreme political and religious leader of the entire Muslim community (ummah).”
“In the 20th and 21st centuries, the idea of re-establishing a caliphate has been an aspiration of extremist Muslims. It’s a symbol of past Muslim unity and power. This goal has primarily been pursued by violent extremist groups, such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which declared a self-styled caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014. The claims of these groups are rejected by many Muslims and are not recognized by any nation-states.”
Extreme Left Democrats and the Immigration of Anarchists, Socialists and Communists
Some groups, like the Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists of America simply don’t like the direction America is headed. They believe they have better answers.
These organizations attempt to control everyone through imposing rules created by a small group.
Some groups in the United States hate the Constitution and the fact that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. How this kind of person exists in the US is a mystery. Much of it arose out of the hippie revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s.
Systemic Racism Conspiracy Theory-Based Enemies to the United States
There are also those who hate the United States because of slavery, after the new nation was formed. These reject the idea that God dictates to us what is ethical, moral, or right to do. They disagree that God preordained this nation with Judeo-Christian ideals.
They argue that slavery is incompatible with Judeo-Christian ideals, so the US, practicing slavery, contradicts itself. Detractors say slavery nullifies the Constitution.
Without a sound argument, they superstitiously argue that our country didn’t get rid of slavery, so it is founded on hate and racism. Because of this mindset, they reject the Constitution out of hand.
The Fallacy of Systemic Racism in the United States
Our laws—the laws of the majority of the civilized world—are based on pro-freedom and humanitarian ethos and morals. It’s all throughout the Constitution. There is no language even suggesting Blacks should be discriminated against. It is all humanitarian and based on the principle of freedom and self-governance.
Bad implementation of good ideas can happen for unavoidable reasons. Enslaved Blacks represented wealth and valuable productivity. These things were needed to wage the Revolutionary War, and people were understandably reluctant to give up their wealth.
Those who believe this idea (without studying history or replacing it with unfounded ideas) constantly reject the Constitution. They defy the laws they deem “unreasonable” and constantly seek to change them. But they don’t have the numbers to support their unpopular, controlling ideas.
Enemies Within – Many Are Here From Illegal Immigration
We have a military to protect us from would-be external invaders. But not all invaders attack us with weapons of war. And not all of them come from outside our borders. They aren’t always immigrants, but they mostly come from immigration. These immigrants aren’t strangers that Scripture teaches us to welcome. They are invaders.
The Reconquista Movement, the Muslim Caliphate, and Left-Wing Political Activists who hate America are groups hostile to America. Many of them got here through the immigration system and bad immigration vetting policies in the United States. They are here, they are real, and they hate America and what it stands for.
We wouldn’t consider them invaders if they were compatible with our way of life and friendly toward us. People in these groups are deeply indoctrinated in their political philosophies, and given the right conditions, will become radicalized. They are already brazen enough within our borders to be spouting their intentions. When circumstances are conducive, they will rise up and rebel against the United States from within our borders.
This makes them unwanted migrants, and that is why we are trying to purge them.
Even the First People, Native Americans, migrated here across the land bridge via the Aleutian Island chain in Alaska.
They are generally not considered migrants, though at one time they were also immigrants. The same is true for multigenerational Americans who arrived here by boat, coming from Europe… and eventually from other places.
Many Native Americans have become US citizens. Many remain in their own tribal lands within the borders of the United States and are considered “foreign nationals”. Born within our borders, they are foreign nationals…not birthright citizens. And that fact is called out in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Only Considered an “Immigrant” If You’re First Generation Here
Thirty percent of Americans are from multi-generational European families that have been here since at least July 4th, 1776. Some since the first colonists from England. Many more multi-generational families have been here since then, too. None of them is considered a migrant anymore; rather, they are natives of the land.
We are a land of both immigrants and long-time natives. Both may or may not contribute to the country’s success. But we are legal citizens. It is insulting and inaccurate to chide and taunt fellow Americans with: “After all, we are a nation of immigrants”. It’s a politically motivated slur.
The simple-minded notion they are trying to convey with that slogan is that we were all immigrants at some time. Not unvetted, un-naturalized immigrants! Not immigrants who come as hostile to our country! We came together to build a free Constitutional Republic that practices Democracy, not become a tribal bowl of mixed nuts.
If you want to be tribal, there are places in the world where people still live like that. You can go set up your mud hut amidst like-minded tribalists there. There’s a reason places like that don’t do well.
Sometimes kindness amounts to praying that they meet God and be transformed, but not welcomed to dwell among us.
There Are Other Enemies Besides Those Written About In Scripture
The point is this: many today try to consider the above-mentioned “strangers” welcome. That includes those who consider themselves Christians, even learned church officials. They do it, not because Scripture instructs it, but because they are furthering a political agenda or ritualistic practice.
Some Catholic ministries have successfully implemented the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself by taking them in, caring about them, and teaching them a better way. Unfortunately, there are willful people who will not respond favorably to such an outreach.
Scripture distinguishes between a stranger (immigrant) sojourning with the people of a land and enemy invaders. And there are many ways of invading a land, including “Invasion by Migration” and “Invasion by Fecundity”. These are more prominent today than in times past.
“Invasion by Migration” is people coming to a land with ill intentions toward it and simply occupying it illegally, growing in number and strength over time until they have sufficient numbers to overtake the people of the land.
“Invasion by Fecundity” is the influx of those with ill intentions who come and occupy the land, who simply breed rapidly and take over the land by sheer numbers, and impose and enforce their ways on the land they migrated to.
The common denominator is an ill intention to take over the land…not to assimilate. They are enemies, not strangers. And we need not “welcome” them in the way Scripture directs us to “Welcome the Stranger”.
There are other invasion-type immigration schemes.
Illegal Schemes to Create a One-Party System in America
And Democrats are devising other schemes, like vouching for people to register them to vote in Minnesota. Or states that have gone to mail-in ballots only, so they can obscure supervision that ensures only legal citizens are voting. Some states have actually held elections to see if citizens want illegal immigrants to vote. Some states require a valid address and government ID, but don’t distinguish a legal citizen from a foreign national. All of these schemes are being done only in Democrat-led states.
Leaders breaking the law is the government deliberately intended for evil. We are not subject to evil rulers and defer to God under those circumstances.
Going Against the Laws of the Land is Illegal and Evil
Going against the Constitution of the United States from within the US, for example, is considered evil. Even if you believe the Constitution should be modified, taking illegal actions like Open Borders is wrong.
Immigration, except for birthright citizenship, isn’t in the Constitution. It’s statutory, or simply a policy made up by the local government. This means it is a law created by Congress or simply a decision made by a government official. And Congress having the power to make laws IS in the Constitution. Unilateral decisions that go against the spirit of the law are illegal. That includes immigration laws.
You might think our immigration laws should be changed to let everyone come in, but that isn’t the law. You can’t simply ignore the law and do what seems good to you.
Opening our borders as immigration policy and letting in millions of “strangers” (foreign nationals) is unlawful. Whether certain leaders genuinely believe that everyone should have a shot at a better life in America, or they have an ulterior motive to “fix” elections so they always win, the scheme is wrong.
A One-Party Government is a Marxist Idea – Not Democracy
The one-party idea that these leaders are working toward is actually a Marxist idea. Those who argue that “being kind to strangers” is Scriptural should also argue that freedom is also Scriptural. And converting a free nation to a nation that follows Marxism is against Scripture. Marxism is a philosophy that denies God’s existence. It replaces God’s morals with human morals. It also denies some their voice. In the US, that means half the population doesn’t have a voice. It’s not a democracy.
To carry out what is “right in their own eyes” but at odds with half the country is illegal. It should not be done!
Some Immigrants Are Friends, Some Are Not
Migrants have entered the US through illegal immigration from all over the world. Migrants often do make America Greater than before they came, but that isn’t always true. Today it is more true that they dilute and worsen America because of mass illegal immigration.
The political left is trying to make immigration into a politically divisive issue, with the political right being anti-immigration. They present themselves as exclusively pro-immigrant.
This simply isn’t true. The political right also supports immigration. They just don’t support unabated, unvetted, unscreened immigration where immigrants let themselves in indiscriminately. And then they make up their own rules to be here.
That method leads to too many problems with people entering the country with bad intentions. And that jeopardizes our safety and security. It’s evil. We aren’t required to follow evil leadership that goes against God.
A Problem of Defining an Immigrant and Immigration
The problem is “how” we define what an immigrant is and should be in America. You will find people on the right are just as stalwart as supporters of immigration. When they genuinely have no other options than to seek asylum in a free nation like America, who wouldn’t be? Or anyone who wants to be a part of the United States of America, and is friendly to our Constitution and way of life.
We welcome fully vetted and naturalized foreign nationals, provided they want to be part of what we have. We reject those who want to “fundamentally change” it into what they immigrated from. Or to help a political party make us a one-party rule country like a communist-ruled country through a voter-multiplying scheme.
Only fringe elements that caucus with a party in America may practice such hate as to not accept the right kind of immigration. The vast majority of Americans don’t support such thinking.
An Ulterior Motive – A “Loyal Voter” Immigration Scheme
Democrats have an ulterior motive…a hidden agenda…concerning the immigration of foreign nationals. They circumvented our immigration process with an illegal “Open Borders” policy. That policy is designed to let in tens of millions of people who will become loyal Democratic voters.
They pushed that policy through while they held a supermajority (most recently under the Biden administration). They ignored our immigration laws and allowed tens of millions to pour through our borders unvetted. But even before that, smaller numbers were allowed in, as part of the Bracero Program between 1942 and 1964. That program led to increased unsanctioned immigration through illegal border crossings.
In this most recent illegal immigration policy, Democrats dared Americans to stop them. We couldn’t. They had a supermajority and a whole network of activist judges strategically placed across all federal district courts. Entrenched pockets of political activists in positions of power are still in places like Washington, DC. They pack the lower Federal Courts with them. Then they lodge suits against their opposition in those courts for favorable rulings. It’s the Democrats’ answer to a majority Constitution-friendly Supreme Court. But it only delays legal progress, and in most cases, cannot stop the legal immigration process. Those delays end up in the Supreme Court where they are finally ruled in favor of the Constitution.,
The Supreme Court is the Highest Court of the Land
To be sure, EVERY Supreme Court justice should support our Constitution and not a deviant political ideology. The “separate powers” doctrine works if no political party gains control and changes the Constitution to align with its ideological viewpoint.
The fact that we have a political party, the Democrats, that doesn’t support the Constitution says something about that party and its status in America.
The Founding Fathers defined the Supreme Court in the Constitution to support the Constitution. The Constitution defines only the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in America. The Constitution is the final authority concerning the law of the land. So naturally, the Supreme Court uses the Constitution as a guide when it hears a case.
The Open Borders opposition had its hands tied during the first two years of the Biden administration by the left-wing supermajority. That made it impossible to stop their “Open Borders” immigration policy.
This also says something about the Democratic Party. They are willing to ignore the wishes of half the nation to push their agenda further.
There will be those who respond by saying that Trump has tied Democrats’ hands. But Republicans, who won a supermajority in 2024, are not implementing a diabolical vote tampering scheme to create a one-party, communist-style government. They are trying to undo that scheme Democrats instituted despite their best efforts to stop them.
Denying Half The Population Is Not Democracy
What do you think? As politically polarized as America is today, and you live in a place where nobody represents your political ideology, are you represented? If you’re a Republican in a Democrat controlled place, do you feel represented today? Or if you’re a Democrat in a Republican controlled place, do you feel represented today?
Gerrymandering
Politics in America today is extremely polarized. With gerrymandering (adjusting the boundaries of electoral districts) it is possible to change election outcomes.
A party can be completely cut out of any say in how government is run.
Everyone is looking for an advantage, and some are not above rigging elections. The chart above illustrates how a place with 50 precincts can be arranged to favor either Republican or Democratic candidates. Democrats look at a block of precincts that are 60% in favor of them, and say, “Elections aren’t fair if Democrats don’t come out on top”. Republicans look at that precinct map and say, “If Democrats always come out on top, Republicans are never represented, and that is not democracy!”. And it works the other way around in Republican controlled places.
Gerrymandering is meant to give everyone a voice in a block of precincts. After all, precincts aren’t laid out in neat, organized charts like above. You have places where more Republicans reside, and places where more Democrats reside. It makes no sense to put a Democrat in charge of a precinct that is mostly Republican (and vice versa).
Gerrymandering to Come Out on Top and Not to Ensure Everyone is Represented is Not Democracy
Talk about destroying “democracy”! Democrats are always telling Americans they are “protecting democracy” while Republicans are trying to destroy it. Yet they systematically deny half the nation their voice and contribution to how government is run. In blue states (Democrat run states), they have gerrymandered so badly that most Republican voices are silenced.
Gerrymandering is easy to abuse, but it was originally intended to give everyone a voice in government. And that’s what democracy is about!
Government today looks nothing like it did in the beginning, but it was more democratic. Opposing voices forced Congress to work together across the aisle for compromises that met the needs of the greatest majority. Now, Congress fights for control. That doesn’t defend or protect Democracy. And it denies Americans their voice. Compromise is better than dominance from the perspective of everyone having a voice.
Gerrymandering Has a Role in the Election Tampering Scheme Involving Immigration
The 2024 Presidential election was partly an indictment of Democrats and their election tampering scheme. Many Democrats voted for Trump. Realizing that Democrats created an immigration crisis with Open Borders spurred Trump’s win to a great degree.
Democrats continue to prove they have an agenda by ignoring laws and creating illegal “Sanctuary Cities & States”. They fight against legal immigration to keep foreign nationals in our country illegally (illegal aliens). Democrats take this action even to the exclusion of their legal constituency and its wishes. Democrats and Republicans alike want to be rid of the illegal alien problem. It is costly and overcrowds. It consumes jobs that legal citizens would otherwise occupy. And it presents a dangerous safety concern with hundreds of thousands let in who are criminal or mentally disabled.
It wasn’t along partisan party lines, because voters across party lines voted for Trump in the 2024 election. Polls after Trump’s election showed that 80% of the public favored deporting foreign nationals in this country illegally.
Democrat politicians are fighting on the 20% side of that issue! The most relevant question is, “Why”? Democrats use a “cloak of morality” that deflects from the larger point that puts our country in jeopardy.
There are other free countries for people to migrate to, and there are legal ways for them to come here. We simply don’t need to flood our borders with people fleeing problems in their home countries. Democrats realize these things, but they still push for illegal immigration. Why? There is an advantage to be gained from that tactic, that’s why.
Alleged Compassion
People on the political left tell us they feel bad for the people making illegal border crossings. Democrats invited them to “come any way you can”. But is it compassion? Or is that just a false front, “moral garments” for their actual motives?
We have no idea how many perished trying to get to the US during “Open Borders”. But their families know—if they’re alive.
Why expose them to a hostile land for typically hundreds—if not thousands of miles? Why expose them to hostile people along the way who abuse, murder, rob, and exploit them? If they are concerned for them, why did they set things up so they would be exposed to this?
Evil, Illegal Policies
Democrats ignored immigration laws to implement “open borders” and “sanctuary cities and states”. The legal immigration process doesn’t just protect legal citizens. They devised illegal policies like sanctuary cities/states and open borders to rationalize getting them here and keeping them here. Many of those they have waved in, they watched die from the elements and from cruel, hostile people.
Democrats don’t have much to say about that. What can they say since they set up the circumstances for these things to happen? In fact, they deflect from that because it’s bad optics for their immigration ideology.
They would rather we focus on the sad stories of deportations. They would rather have us focus on big, bad Trump and his administration, who are sending them back. But Trump didn’t set up the circumstances for sad stories to unfold. Those who were involved in illegal immigration did. That’s Democrats and foreign nationals who crossed our borders illegally.
At least Trump is deporting them legally and safely. And the message he is sending is, “Don’t try it again”! Can you argue against that in light of the lives lost?
Why didn’t Democrats create a policy to make it legal and easier for them to get here? They controlled the presidency and, for a time, Congress. They knew that would be futile because they would be challenged at the Supreme Court. So they did it by skirting the law.
Why did they choose to burden Americans even more with an open borders policy when they spent record amounts on the budget? Americans, especially in so-called “sanctuary cities, are paying dearly for housing those illegal aliens.
And all Democrats have to say is, “After all, we are a nation of immigrants!”
A Nation of Immigrants?
Approximately 60% of those living in the US are from families who have been here since colonial days and generations since. And they are native citizens; not immigrants.
At what point do we stop calling them “immigrants” and start calling them natives of the Land? The answer is: after the first generation… when they are born here to parents who are LEGAL citizens. Children born to foreign nationals in the US illegally are a different story.
Children born to illegal aliens shouldn’t qualify as birthright citizens because it takes away our sovereignty. Allowing foreign nationals to enter who can then decide for themselves that they are under US jurisdiction is wrong. They are foreign nationals. Being inside our borders illegally doesn’t qualify them as US citizens—they are foreign citizens here illegally. Children born to foreign citizens are not birthright citizens of the US.
A Precedent Setting Ruling by the Supreme Court in 1898
In 1898, in a Supreme Court case called “United States v. Wong Kim Ark“, ” the Court weighed in on what a birthright citizen is. This case became the legal precedent from which any other cases would be weighed. However, the court got it wrong.
“In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen, the court ruled.”
HOWEVER, Wong Kim Ark was a child of foreign national parents who gave birth to him on US shores. Wong’s parents were in the US legally, according to the Supreme Court. They had a residence and dwelt in it while in the US for their business. That is a distinction made in this case.
In the Country Doesn’t Legally Mean You Are Subject to US Jurisdiction
According to the Supreme Court, people not in the country legally, when they give birth, are not subject to US jurisdiction. Because Ark’s parents lived in China and were subject to Chinese jurisdiction, their children were also foreign nationals. The parents were subject to the jurisdiction of China, not the US, according to the legal precedent available in 1898.
That ruling essentially gave any foreign national permission to come here and simply say they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But simply saying you are subject to the jurisdiction is not sufficient. You have to provide proof. If you’re in the country illegally, you don’t have proof.
Precedent Against British Common Law Worth Re-Visiting Birthright Rulings
The Supreme Court ruled using English Common Law as precedent. Considering that the Founding Fathers fled from English tyranny because of English common law, it isn’t an appropriate legal precedent.
In a feudal monarchy, having more “royal subjects” was beneficial because it meant more revenue for the king and more royal subjects to use for battle. And that is why they stipulated that anyone born on English soil was a subject of the kingdom of England.
The War of 1812 was fought partly because the British were boarding US-flagged ships and kidnapping sailors born in England. They argued that once born on English soil, you could not become a citizen of any other nation.
That applied even if those English-born people became US citizens in England’s view. But the United States had already rejected British Common Law as precedent for our nation’s laws. We went to war because the US disagreed with the English common law used in the Supreme Court ruling.
The “Birthright Tourism” Complication
Hans von Spakovsky on birthright citizenship.
One aside to this is that those who engage in “Birthright Citizenship” should not be allowed to use a tourist visa as proof of being here legally. We have borders and immigration laws because we want to be the decision makers about anyone who wants to migrate here.
We treat foreign nationals the same, whether they want to live here or not. Until they have been received into our land as legal citizens, they are foreign nationals under a foreign jurisdiction. If they have children here, just as a foreign diplomat living within our borders would, those children are considered foreign nationals born to foreign-national parents. Wanting to live here doesn’t affect the law. They are still foreign nationals.
The solution is either to remove any who wrongfully became birthright citizens, or to stop at some date, and allow those already affected to remain birthright citizens, and bar anyone after that point from becoming birthright citizens.
A problem this introduces is that some birthright citizens may be against the US. We don’t want people against the US becoming US citizens to fight us inside our government.
Blacks Are the Birthright Exception
We made exceptions for formerly enslaved Black people (under the 14th Amendment). We also made exceptions for those who came here legally to work and established their lives(e.g., Chinese nationals who came to work in the 1800s). Those arguing that today’s illegal aliens are here to work try to use this as legal precedent to allow them to stay here. But the problem is, many of them have undercut legal citizens’ wage demands and left them without jobs.
The difference between immigrants who came to work in the 1800s and those here to work today is that the former were invited here because we needed additional manpower. The latter were invited in by a governmental administration that was ignoring the law, and the jobs they came here to work were taken from those legal citizens who had them initially.
Modern Immigration Takes Legal Citizens’ Jobs
Job swaps between legal US citizens and illegal immigrants take place in HR departments in US businesses. We support free enterprise and business as conservatives. But there is a limit to our support. If you cut Americans out of jobs for cheap foreign labor, that is not supporting Americans. Real Americans lose jobs and are replaced by illegal aliens.
That’s a BIG deal to legal American citizens.
Democrats argue, “The immigrants take jobs Americans don’t want to do (or no longer want to do)”, is simply not true. It’s sloagoneering. Those jobs were essentially stolen from legal American citizens who wanted to keep their jobs. Truck drivers are just the latest group to lose their jobs to foreign nationals, often here illegally.
And not all of the jobs were blue-collar jobs taken by illegal aliens, undercutting our wages. Many were in the tech industry, too. It’s hard to argue that Americans didn’t want their tech jobs when they put in extra years in higher education to train for them, and paid large sums of money to colleges and universities to obtain that training. Those job swaps took place in HR departments and escaped most headlines as well.
Have immigrants been a big part of our nation from the start? Yes, of course. But it is dishonest to use that fact as a trope to argue that we need immigrants because “look at our history!” That’s sentimentality—not fact.
Good and Bad People in All Demographics
There are good and bad people of all demographics. Those good ones contribute to our success, and those bad ones contribute to crime and tearing our country apart. We want the good ones. We don’t want the bad ones. And that is natural for any country. The good ones are identified by voluntarily going through the legal immigration process and by cooperating with all of our laws. They gladly endure the long process because they are excited to become US citizens.
And there are some bad ones in politics today, too. There are groups—large voting blocks—in the US who are unfriendly to our government and Constitution. These are trying to destroy us. We don’t want them here and would prefer to “re-immigrate” or “expatriate” them from the US.
The Difference is Attitude
Democrats tout that we have always welcomed immigrants as an argument to support “Open Borders”. They also argue we should keep those illegal aliens here already with this logic. They quote the inscription on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free“, as if an inscription on a French gift is US legal policy or a Constitutional philosophy. It’s a sentiment that most Americans believe in, but within reason.
The French gave the Statue of Liberty to America to celebrate the freedom and liberty that founded America. It’s not about demanding that we take all comers, friendly or hostile, into the US.
This mindset has led to indiscriminate flooding of our borders with unvetted foreign nationals.
It’s Not All About Immigrants
We are also a nation of generations that have been here since the founding. Fully 30% of Americans are from generations that have been here since 1776. And many Americans have been here for generations since then. It is dishonest to reduce America to being “a nation of immigrants” when it is common knowledge that there are many multi-generational Americans.
A Well-Meaning, But Harmful Perspective
There is an attitude that has emerged today where people are saying it matters “when” we begin looking at who is an immigrant and who isn’t. Why not start at the beginning of history?
That attitude is prevalent in the “free Palestine” movement, where its supporters say it only matters when the “Palestinians” were occupying Israel, and the Jews having it for thousands of years before that doesn’t matter. What matters is who was the last to occupy Israel before Israel reclaimed it, according to “Palestinian” supporters. All they are looking at is that Israel took it back from them.
They ignore the fact that the “Palestinians'” predecessors took it from Israel, exiling them. The Jews were without a homeland and had to rely on foreign hosts to protect them. Nazi Germany proved the Jews couldn’t trust host nations to protect them. They had no choice but to return to their ancient homeland.
This mindset has been prevalent in the US regarding the native Americans from the other side, where those who arrived later are considered the problem.
Europeans colonized the Americas for two distinct reasons: 1) to escape religious persecution, and 2) to exploit the new lands for profit. Those who sought freedom from religious persecution worked with Native Americans in a cooperative manner. Those who sought wealth exploited the native Americans.
The Native American Perspective on the Land and Immigration
Native Americans mostly believe that they belong to the land and reject the idea that the land belongs to them. They were territorial, not because they disputed who owned the land, but because the things the land produced meant survival. When their hunting grounds were encroached upon by neighboring tribes, they went to war over the land. But it was for survival, not because they believed the land was theirs. It’s a matter of perspectives and focus.
The fact that Native Americans warred over territory shows that they do care about whether the land belongs to them.
A New Perspective Is Needed Today
As populated as Earth is today, there are no new frontiers to settle. And Earth’s populations are mixed from all nations…especially in the United States but also in most European countries as well.
We can no longer look at the world through a tribal lens. We have never viewed the United States in that way.
E Pluribus Unum is the traditional, de facto motto of the United States, appearing on the Great Seal since 1782. It means, “Out of Many, One”.
We celebrate the cultures and traditions of those living here and where they came from, but we aren’t here to be a “salad bowl”. This is not a land of individual groups camped out here and there. We aren’t separate tribal entities. We are a melting pot. Participation together as a single nation is expected of us all. And we are all expected to be friendly toward our laws. It’s not optional.
We are indeed many people from all around the globe, but we come together in the United States to be one people. We have the same national goals, which are supported by the Constitution and our way of life here.
The common good, and individual expression are preserved—as long as that expression doesn’t interfere with the welfare of the whole. And that’s how it has been from the beginning in the United States of America. It’s one of the things that make America great.
We welcome immigrants who want to assimilate here, but we have many generations of patriotic Americans who expect immigrants to be a productive and friendly part of the nation.
Blacks Are a Unique People in Our History
Today we hear some who read this saying, “Yeah, right! ‘Freedom’. A portion of the American population believes this whole nation was built on the backs of enslaved Blacks. There is a valid, but slightly different and important point buried in that notion. But isn’t that posture going too far?
After all, everyone worked hard and contributed to the building of the United States. However, enslaved Blacks did so without personal enrichment or freedom. They had no say in whether they wanted to participate in building America, and that’s the salient point of the objections raised by the Black population.
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment gave Blacks the right to decide if they wanted to participate in the building of America going forward. Those who stayed, which is almost all of them, agreed, whether knowingly or not, with the laws of the land and the Constitution.
Blacks were an important part, but not the sum total of the efforts that built this nation. Today, some Blacks demand “reparations” for what their ancestors have suffered in the way of setbacks to a normal life in the US. But that recompense is limited to their lack of personal wealth, and it is very difficult to sort out, primarily because it is based on a lot of speculation. After all, it’s impossible to know which family lines would have grown their wealth and which would never have obtained it or squandered what they had.
In the US today, we have compensated Blacks through the Civil Rights Amendment, and things like Equal Opportunity and other advantages given to Blacks that all other Americans don’t have.
Far more people were involved in building this country than enslaved Blacks. That’s not to diminish what enslaved Blacks went through or the benefits they missed out on because they were enslaved.
Enslaved Blacks Were Protected, Sheltered, Clothed, and Fed
But there is another side to that coin as well. Blacks benefited from shelter, clothing, and food. Even enslavers didn’t leave them naked and hungry under the weather. They also benefited from the protection of the US military. It’s easy to negate a benefit when the benefit is that something doesn’t happen because that benefit is there. And when America finally addressed emancipating enslaved Blacks, they benefited from those who fought and sacrificed their future by dying or becoming maimed on behalf of the enslaved. Very few Blacks perished because of the Civil War. They were mostly White.
Founded for Freedom’s Sake—Not For Racism
The founders didn’t promote slavery in the colonies (before founding a nation that broke free from England’s king, who DID introduce slavery). The colonists were subject to the economic levers that enslaved Blacks brought to the colonies; they had to tie up wealth in the use of the enslaved, and they were guilty of keeping it going in the new nation (without prejudice). Still, they didn’t do it with a racist purpose, and they didn’t have a lot of economic choice in the matter.
As vile and repugnant as it sounds today, enslaved Blacks were seen as assets like cattle. That’s just an unpleasant fact. As assets, they represented wealth to those who possessed them. Trapped in an economy that forced them to use enslavement for production by edict of an English king who wanted to develop the colonies “on the cheap” using enslaved labor, they used them to survive in that economy. In that sense, they were forced to invest their wealth in enslaved Blacks. They couldn’t compete otherwise.
That created a big financial and economic problem when considering freeing the enslaved at the beginning of the United States.
And that wasn’t the only problem. There were a couple of logistical and tactical problems that also made it impossible to free the enslaved and also fight the British in a War of Revolution.
Rather than rebuilding the whole argument about why enslaved Blacks weren’t a racist scheme of the Founding Fathers and the US government on this page about immigration, please read about it here.
Blacks Played a Key Role in the Formation of Immigration Policies
The Fourteenth Amendment was made law because of the problem created for Blacks living in this country when they became emancipated. They were previously considered chattel because they were bought, sold, traded, and inherited like other forms of wealth. After emancipation, they were people we needed to consider who lived here.
This nation wasn’t solely built by enslaved Blacks. They did help build America, though. And the US does exist today because we purged the land of those who introduced enslavement to the colonies.
There would have been no slavery in the colonies if the founders had controlled them from the beginning. The Founders were committed to the ideology of the Constitution, which promotes freedom rather than enslaving people.
Detractors of the Constitution have never proven that it is racist or flawed. They engage in reckless speculation to incite the willfully ignorant against the Constitution. Systemic racism is not baked into the system as some on the political left suggest. Those who accept an idea that it is, are living in a delusion, spurred on by what they want to believe…not the truth. It’s wishful thinking.
If Americans Were Racist There Might Still Be Slavery & We Wouldn’t Allow Immigration From Nations of Color.
Despite the loss of personal wealth resulting from freeing the enslaved, the US made the painful decision to engage in the Civil War to end slavery. There was no compensation for Americans who lost wealth. And there was no compensation for those who lost their lives or spent the rest of their lives maimed on behalf of freeing the enslaved.
Because of the ideology enshrined in the US Constitution, we DID end enslavement. The very Constitution that some on the political left condemn today as being “racist”. It happened because we are a freedom-loving nation, and the Constitution is full of the ideas that promote freedom.
We didn’t enslave people because of hypocrisy. The founders struggled, pondered, argued…even fought over freeing enslaved people in the new nation. It wasn’t possible because we had to break away from England, and there was no time to arrange economic support to free them.
But it did eventually happen! And that point invalidates all other complaints related to “systemic racism”.
The Bottom Line on Immigration
The point is, we built a nation of freedom-loving people. And that’s the predominant attitude of those who live here. To preserve that, we must allow only those who love freedom to migrate here, and only those willing to assimilate.
But many here today who migrated here don’t love freedom; they don’t even love our Constitution, and they are here to change this country to something unrecognizable.
They want to re-create the land they came from. It doesn’t make sense! Why re-create the same problem you left?! And that applies to people leaving deep-blue states for red states who vote the same way they did that led to the policies they left!
Bad Immigration Actors
Shiite Muslims
Sharia law isn’t freedom. It’s a subservient form of bondage to a religious ideology. It’s a severe and exclusive form of religious ideology.
I recently saw a post on X that said: “The Quran is the word of God“. And someone responded that his ‘word of God‘ didn’t come along until the 1600s AD, so how could it be God’s word? This Muslim replied, “Does God have a timeline for truth?“
It was rhetoric that this Muslim had no intention of debating. But we who believe in the spiritual realm, and that includes all of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, understand that God created us with a purpose. And if He created us with a purpose, and He is a loving God, why would He let so many generations live and perish without the Word of God? The answer, of course, is: “He wouldn’t”.
Digging Deep For Truth
And if you dig into Scriptures in historical context, you can see that God has always been in the picture, giving us His word from the beginning. Also, in the historical context (supported by archaeology), you see that Judaism is by far the oldest of the three religions. God contacted us. Islamics believe that Moses is a holy man of God who was spoken to and gave the laws. That happened thousands of years before Islam came into focus.
Yet Islam wedges those historical facts in, heavily editing Jewish and Christian Scriptures, saying they told the truth in some places but lied in other places. It’s hard to talk oneself into believing in the integrity of some facts in a document and not others. If the document is suspect, the whole thing is suspect. A man emerging from a cave alone with a story favorable to Islam, telling us which parts are suspect and which are true, is completely suspect.
Some History on Those Calling Themselves Muslims
Many people from the demographic that today call themselves Muslims, once practiced either Judaism or Christianity, or some form of pagan faith derived from the many that originated in that region. Islam favors the descendants of Ishmael and their troubled lives. They have a vested interest in wishing that Islam were the “Word of God”. But it took them until 1650 (or thereabouts) to figure out “the truth”…or as a Muslim would say it, “for God’s truth to surface in the timeline”.
I think we all see the fallacy in this notion. There’s just too much to doubt in the Muslim story about “the word of God”.
You also see that Christianity grew out of Judaism and is based on it. Jesus was Jewish, all of the disciples were Jewish until Paul proselytized that the Gentiles were Jewish. It supports the Jewish law and the prophets, and Jesus not only taught the law and the prophets, but said He had come to fulfill them.
The Incompatibility of Islam in the United States
This nation’s laws are based on Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
Islam rebels against Judaism and Christianity as lies and puts itself in the place of actual truth. It has cause to be bitter, because the followers of Islam, at least in the beginning, before it started proselytizing people, were descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s illegitimate child.
He was the firstborn but didn’t receive the blessing of Abraham’s inheritance because he was born out of wedlock to Sarah’s maidservant. Seething, embittered generations culminated in Muhammad emerging from a cave with a pro-Muslim message.
Interestingly, Islam is a combination of the figures in both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, which they accept as “holy figures”. But they rewrote the rest of that history to favor Ishmael’s descendants—today’s Muslims. They have a vested interest in their version of Biblical history because it favors them and their agenda to alter the world to their worldview.
The only things they threw out from Judeo-Christian Scriptures were the connections between God, the Jews, and the Christians. And they replaced that with the stories Muhammad brought out of the cave from this “angelic” being. He was alone when he came out of that cave. No other witnesses.
Muhammad should have stayed with his first thoughts about this “angelic being” who visited him in the cave and gave him the “enlightened” message.
Radical Islam diametrically opposes our Constitution. They won’t change, and their culture is severe and backward as far as quality of life is concerned. It’s not compatible with democracy. It’s their attitude that makes them incompatible candidates for migration here.
American Blacks
Another example is the attitude of Black people who try to argue both sides at once. They don’t want the nation as it is today, but they don’t mind the benefits either. And they don’t have a clear agenda for what they want…except money. They demand “reparations” for their troubles from the first Black enslaved in the colonies to the most recent Black person incarcerated at higher numbers than other demographics.
They see the result of their actions, but don’t take responsibility for them. You can’t go around committing crimes at a rate higher than other demographics, as a form of reparations, and not expect the rest of us to call you criminals and put you in jail at higher rates than the rest. No other people group goes around committing crimes as an unauthorized form of “reparations”. That makes Blacks uniquely rogue and gives the reason they see the inside of jails more often.
And somehow, all their troubles are someone else’s fault. We all see the problem with that outlook on life. But it is trouble for this nation. Trouble we neither need nor deserve.
But the response from Blacks and their enabling supporters is always a charge of “racism”, which gives them the permission to ignore truth and perpetuate dysfunction.
Because they were brought to America against their will, and we felt compassion for them and didn’t deport them back to Africa, but instead allowed them to become citizens, they have troubled this country since then with their bitter and falacious ideas about racism.
Hispanic and Latin American Invaders
Another example of bad immigrant actors is the attitudes of very many of the Hispanics who have come here, mostly illegally. They occupy our land and stand defiantly, proclaiming that the land is theirs and the United States stole it from them.
The Mexican Cession of 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1854, following the Mexican-American War, made the American Southwest part of the United States. Yet the Hispanics who are here today, the majority of them believe the land is theirs, and they are here to occupy it.
But they are wrong. And history proves they are wrong.
They don’t much care about our laws, and show it by ignoring our immigration laws, our asylum parole process, and by staging violent protests in the streets against our law enforcement while waving the flags of the countries they come from. That is a show of attitude toward us, at least half of the nation, and our laws. It doesn’t seem like they care if the US succeeds or not. They don’t care that someone else developed the land and made it inhabitable. In fact, they would love it if we gave it back to them, free of charge, with all of the developments on it, and stopped inhabiting the land ourselves.
There’s a lot of “lottery” mentality out there today.
Incompatible Immigrants
Every nation has founding principles. The principles found in the US Constitution are good, humane, honorable, and people-friendly. But they are not compatible with ideologies that demand their own way over everyone else.
Shiite Muslims, perpetually victimized Blacks in America, and foreign nationals who want to believe the United States is their stolen land, all go against the founding principles of the United States. They are hostile to this country. Not to the White race that formed the Constitution, but the principles found in that Constitution.
The US Constitution is Universally Humane
The US Constitution contains nothing racist or oppressive, only universally humane treatment of all people groups. It discourages oppression. The Constitution encourages people of all origins to come together as one people, setting aside cultural differences to join in strength and purpose, and fulfill the ideology within its pages, which is good for all of us and universally humane. It doesn’t demand that you forsake your cultural identity or ethnicity, but that you incorporate the principles of the Constitution and find ways to bring them into your life in harmony—not in hostility.
Not assimilating into this culture by accepting the guiding principles of the Constitution, our laws, and our customs is hostile toward this country.
Democrats Paint a False Picture of Illegal Aliens
These are the people that Democrats are making emotional appeals to stay here. Even criminals have families and hold down productive jobs. But those jobs once belonged to legal citizens, and legal citizens have families, too. You don’t deserve a shot at life here if your attitude is that you can ignore the laws you disagree with.
Another thing to consider, particularly with those who come here, breed, and begin to have significant numbers who all follow anti-American ideas, is that they can overwhelm our politics with their hostile ideas. They can begin to influence ideas about our Constitution that are un-American.
Why would you fight against universally humane principles?
When that is the case, we cannot allow migration to this country. That’s why we need a solid, uncircumventable process for vetting people wishing to come to the United States, and why we need to have borders and strong immigration laws to protect us, secure us, and preserve our way of life.
Simply “seeking a better life” is not enough. If you come here seeking a better life, but bring with you all these political ideas that are contrary to our Constitution, and you begin pushing those ideas as you grow in numbers, you change the land where you came to seek a better life. It’s counterproductive and destructive to the people already here who have worked to have the life we have for many decades—hundreds of years. And this nation has been desirable for that whole time because we have fought to shape it the way it is.
The Fallacy of “Open Borders”
Today, there are no new places to inhabit on Earth. The context of exploration and conquest has changed as a result. Every place on Earth has an established way of doing things. You can’t argue both that we should preserve the ways of a country and, at the same time, that we should overthrow the ways of that country. It’s one or the other but not both.
In the US, because of so-called “Open Border” policies (which are illegal and against our Constitution), we have different factions of hostile people living here under the guise of being immigrants seeking to be citizens of the US.
Confessed illegal immigrants…foreign nationals…are now affecting laws and policies from political positions. To be clear, foreign nationals are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, but of the countries they come from. That’s different than being subject to our sovereign laws. We can’t have these foreign nationals with ideas hostile to our Constitution influencing how our country is run. They are enemies of the state.
Immigrants Who Are Hostile to America
We see people here who have attached themselves as citizens through means like “birthright citizenship” born to illegal immigrants, or marrying someone who obtained citizenship somehow, or through “blockchain migration” who aren’t friendly to our country but only toward each other and their foreign ideas, who are legal citizens (in name only), and who are fighting against us.
Hostile Rogue Islamic Representatives in the US Legislature
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar was born to Somali asylum seekers who were granted asylum because of the war in Somalia. She came here with her parents and became a citizen in 2000 at 17. She constantly attacks our system using unfounded arguments that activists and anarchists use to disrupt our government and US policies, demanding we change things and destroy our Constitution.
Rashida Tliab is the 14th child of illegal “Palestinian” immigrants, born in the US…a so-called “birthright citizen”. She is also a Michigan congresswoman. Like Omar, she complains about our ways here and pushes to destroy the Constitution as well.
A Rogue Islamic Mayor in a US City
Abdullah H. Hammoud is the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, a formerly industrial American town that was taken over by a hostile community of Muslims who have migrated here. It’s an example of “Invasion by Fecundity” (increasing numbers by prolific reproduction). Hammoud was born to a Lebanese Shia Muslim family. Shia Muslims (on the whole) are the radicalized sect of Islam. Hezbollah, the radical extremist Muslim terror group, is of the Shea Muslims.
Abdullah Hammoud’s parents are Lebanese immigrants, and available sources indicate his mother became a U.S. citizen. The sources do not explicitly state whether his father is a citizen. We don’t know whether they went through the legal immigration process or are friendly to the idea of assimilation here. Their behavior and attitudes since coming here give us a clue about their attitude toward assimilation. They seem intent upon turning the US into a radical Muslim theocracy through a caliphate.
Radical Islam indoctrinates Shea Muslims. It is a small step from indoctrination to a fully radicalized follower. Hammoud appears to be a “birthright citizen” who is radicalized by his parents’ faith. We know Hammoud adopts the most radical positions of American left-wing activists.
Brazen Muslim Declarations in US Cities
Recently, Hammoud made national headlines when he told a Dearborn pastor in a city council meeting to speak against a proposed anti-LBGT+ resolution, “You’re an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know as mayor, you are not welcome here. The day you move out of the city will be the day I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of the city.” The pastor was a native resident, the son of several generations of Americans. He was branded by the mayor as “Islamophobic” because he didn’t submit to the Muslim precept of being anti-LGBT+.
American Christians and Jews are against LGBT+ behavior because God calls it an abomination. But we don’t go around calling LGBT+ Americans “Christianphobic” or “Judaiaphobic” or invite them to leave our communities. We have every bit as much fervor for our God and Scripture as any Islamic.
Biden’s “Open Borders” illegal policy has allowed tens of millions of migrants hostile to our nation.
This mayor has a beligerant attitude toward non-Muslim citizens.
Islamic Diffidentia Not Islamophobia
And since when does disagreeing with the position of an Islamic mean “fear of Islamics or their faith”? Maybe Islamic diffidentia (“distrust of Islam”) would be appropriate instead of Islamophobia, and so what if you do distrust them. Barging their way into our country and demanding we change to knuckle under their belief system is not a welcome change in America.
Shiite Muslims have given us many reasons to distrust them. They flew airplanes into our twin towers on 9/11/2001, taking nearly 3,000 lives on that day. Their leaders, who have pushed their way into American politics in an unfriendly, unsupportive manner, stand defiantly on podiums and behind microphones, telling us they are here to stay and they are planning to make us into an Islamic state (e.g., witness Rashida Tlaib in a 2025 rally where she told her many Muslim supporters, cheering her on, these very words).
Distrust is a different thing from fear or hatred. Attempting to psychoanalyze a stranger you have never met and determine they have an irrational fear (a “phobia”) is unobjective, irresponsible, reckless, and unwarranted…not to mention untrue.
A Mayor Isn’t There to be Hostile Toward Constituents
That is especially true when a public official at a public meeting makes such an analysis of people there to voice their concerns. The officials are there to take in concerns and find ways to address them… not condemn those who have them. Inviting constituents to leave and planning a parade to mark their departure is NOT an appropriate solution. His attitude was hostile and uncooperative with the system.
Shiite Muslim ideology is incompatible with being a citizen in the US, despite Hammoud’s idea that “We put into practice the ideal that people of all backgrounds, of all faiths, and of all beliefs can live peacefully and respectfully as neighbors…” Was he respectful of this non-Muslim, there to voice his concerns? Not hardly.
Living “peacefully and respectfully” is different from living in ideological harmony. You can’t enforce your particular beliefs on others and expect them to be compatible. This mayor proved that even he couldn’t put it into practice.
The Failings of Birthright Citizenship
He is an example of how a simple-minded view of “Birthright Citizenship” fails our Constitutional Republic. His parents came here, likely not fully embracing assimilation. Shea Muslim extremism indoctrinated their minds. Extremism makes people ripe for radicalization. At the very least, this Dearborn, Michigan, mayor is a Muslim extremist.
A Birthright Citizen of Migrant Pakistanis
Wajahat Ali “launched into an anti-white, anti-MAGA tirade on a recent episode of his podcast, “The Left Hook”, suggesting that Trump’s proposed effort to rid the country of antipathetic foreign elements is a lost cause.”
Ali is a former Al Jazeera host, columnist at the Daily Beast, and New York Times contributor, a left-wing media type hostile to our immigration laws.
Ali said, “See, that’s the thing with brown people, and I’m going to say this as a brown person. There’s a lot of us. Like, a lot… like 1.2 billion in India. There are more than 200 million in Pakistan. There’s like 170 million in Bangladesh. Those are just the people there, There’s a bunch of us, and we breed. We’re a breeding people — and the problem is you let us in in 1965.”
He was referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That Act, signed into law by President Johnson, “abolished the quota system that favored immigrants from Britain and Northern Europe and apparently enabled his fraudster Pakistani parents to migrate to the U.S.”
It’s another example of “Invasion by Fecundity”.
Our Immigration Process Needs An Overhaul to Cover These Modern Immigration Schemes
Above are four examples of people who have migrated here and found their way into American politics, who are completely incompatible with our Government and Constitution. Their growing numbers embolden Shea Muslims to change America into a Muslim nation. This is the deliberate intent of radicalized Muslims, and they call it “Caliphate”.
“Ali suggested that it comes down to a numbers game — that migrant communities from the Indian subcontinent, Asia, and Latin America can’t be removed en masse because they are too numerous and enjoy too strong a foothold in the U.S. owing to chain migration, miscegenation [interbreeding with other brown races], and their fecundity [prolific reproduction].”
This shows the intent of a large number of recent unvetted migrants to this country. They are so plentiful now that they feel they can be brazen about their intent to take over our country by sheer numbers!
While no one can say with certainty that all of the “brown” migrants in the US are hostile toward the Constitution, there is a growing number who are. Most come from Muslim communities. And I doubt that Ali, with all his fancy, highly educated vocabulary, intended to give away the big secret that he and all those like him who have migrated here through inadequate vetting, asylum, Blockchain migration, and rapid reproduction, want to take over this country.
Invasion by Immigration is a Real Thing
Invasion by immigration is a real, existential threat to our country!
There are other examples I won’t print here, but you can research them yourselves.
In Minnesota, there is a very large “voting block” community of Somalians who are trying to enforce Sharia law. In Texas, near Dallas, there is a proposed community of Muslims who, instead of integrating in the spirit of being Americans, are isolating themselves and, like a wart on unblemished skin, stick out as a parasitic group defying American ideals.
And the American political left sees no problem with this. They have an agenda, and they are wrapping that agenda in the “moral garments” of humanitarian compassion for those seeking a better life in the US.
But look at what that mentality has led us toward.
Alinskian Radical Tactics
Saul Alinsky (deceased), author of “Rules for Radicals”, wrote about his ideas for political activism. There were many steps in his process, but getting people to sympathize with a cause was one of those steps. He said, “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
Notice that his rules deviously circumvent the “establishment”. His methods are effective for rallying public support and pressure, for example, to get tenement owners to fix issues with their properties when they were seemingly immovable.
Political partisans have abused this process to incite protesters to disrupt fair and just Constitutional work. Barack Obama made widespread abuse of that process as president with his “fundamentally change America” agenda.
It’s a simple concept with humanitarian origins, but it can also be used to “cloak” an illegal, one-sided political agenda, thereby hiding an ulterior motive.
Compassion for Foreign Nationals Is the Moral Garment Here
The fact that it is illegal and they are deceptively trying to hide what they’re really doing makes it evil.
Democrats opened the borders illegally, under the Biden administration, and cloaked it in a wrapper of humanitarianism. Their excuse was that they “wanted everyone to have a better chance at life” to stave off resistance.
The Ulterior Motive
The ulterior motive for letting in tens of millions of foreign nationals illegally is that if they let them in, treat them kindly, and fight to keep them here, the illegal aliens will see the contrast between the political left and the political right. They will see that the political right is trying to enforce our immigration laws and deport them, and they don’t care that it is for our safety and security. And they will see that the political left is being friendly toward them, giving them homes, jobs, legal IDs, etc., on the taxpayers’ dollar. And they don’t care that taxpayers are accommodating them against their will.
That tactic casts loyalties toward the Democratic Party. Those illegal immigrants, if made citizens, will vote for the left consistently. In our razor-thin majority elections today, 21 million votes thrown your direction will ensure you win all elections. At least, that’s the theory. Some are voting in our elections as foreign nationals here illegally in Democrat controlled (blue) cities and states, proving the tactic is working.
Who would you vote for? The party that treated you kindly and like royalty, or the party trying to get you out of the country? If someone were able to stay and become legal, they wouldn’t support anyone who had tried to kick them out. Even if they politically align with the ideologies and morals of the political right, they would likely vote for the political left simply because they aren’t trying to get you out of the country.
The Immigration Scheme is the “Cat Out of the Bag”
Democrats know that, and that is one very big reason they are fighting so hard to protect and befriend them even when it is harming legal constituents. They are essential to holding blue cities and states in elections. Those illegals matter to Democrat control of our elections!
Scheme to Overwhelm Our Elections Through Immigration
The political right is also trying to prevent the scheme from overwhelming our elections so that there is a permanent single-party Democrat rule, which would turn our Constitutional Republic that practices democracy into a totalitarian regime. And that is the big concern over what the left is trying to do—and what they are doing is provably illegal.
Democrats put on a show of “innocently” letting foreign nationals cross our borders illegally “to help them”, while Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and Vice President Kamala Harris under Biden shrugged their shoulders, sheepishly grinning, and saying, “What can we do? We can’t stop them all!”
Trump did. And it was clear what needed to be done to stop it while Biden was “president”. They could have stopped it if they wanted to. The point is, they did it by design!
“Illegal Alien” is a Legal Term—Not a Device to Denigrate Minorities
An “alien” is someone who belongs to another country or government. There is nothing about that definition to suggest the “removal of humanity” as some on the left try to argue. The United States welcomes legal immigration. The term “Illegal Alien” refers to immigration, not the status of a human being. We have foreign nationals who came in legally, and their status is “Legal Alien”.
Recently, several politicians in Chicago objected publicly to the term “Illegal Alien”. Illinois State Rep. Emanuel Welch said calling illegal immigrants, “illegal aliens”, is like calling black people “slaves”. They berated their opponents as being draconian and removing the humanity of “undocumented immigrants” like their ancestors removed the humanity of their enslaved ancestors, and he sternly demanded a “more civil discourse”.
People can take anything that has even the slightest similarity to their pet peeve and turn it all into one related thing. “You have brown skin? You’re being treated poorly? It’s no surprise, because it’s white people removing your humanity like they did my ancestors!” (Never mind other relevant facts that are inconvenient to that amateur conspiracy theory.)
There is something that needs to be said at this point in the discourse, but it feels like it will evoke accusations of racism. And Charlie Kirk likely said something similar, and it evoked accusations of racism that are untrue. But these words led many to hastily, in knee-jerk fashion, run to accuse him of racism without understanding him.
This message is meant to move beyond the thing we seem stuck on about race.
Difficult But Necessary Points on Racism
Many Blacks are overly sensitive about their skin color and background. They see ghosts where there just aren’t any.
That’s not to diminish lived experiences. We get it! You go through things even today that most other people don’t have to face. We belabor those points so often, as a culture, that no other relevant (if inconvenient) things can be discussed without someone getting radically angry and shooting someone for saying something they didn’t like. Or just as unproductive, ignoring what people are objecting to.
Of course, some may not want to move beyond the problem, because there is nothing like a good crisis to engender support for a cause. There’s a name for such a person regarding racism and dishonesty: “race baiter”. Al Sharpton is a well-known race-baiter. But Sharpton isn’t the only one. Many of them get elected to public office (e.g., Maxine Waters, Al Greene, and Jasmine Crocket come to mind), and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Those who support them and egg them on are far greater in number.
Wouldn’t We All Want to Live in Peace and Harmony?
Is it not in the best interest of the rest of us to end the disharmony, maiming, killing, and otherwise harassing each other? Wouldn’t we rather live in peace and harmony?
Emanuel Welch’s claim above was false, unduly biased, and denigrating. Though Welch’s words he likely felt deeply, they were sanctimonious and careless, and they didn’t forward truth, but further divided us. It was a typical attempt to use race as an argument, because they could separate people by skin color for their disjointed position. It always somehow comes back to racism. It’s all connected at the knotted, twisted rootball, and it strangles the life out of the tree.
When you apply the concept of racism to everyone you disagree with, it becomes a toxic conspiracy theory on repeat in your mind. Then, when anyone even looks in your direction with a less-than-happy countenance, you deflect immediately to racism as the explanation for it.
Many would say Welch’s comments were a “racist” theme on their own. Where does that get us?
Misguided and Misplaced Allegations
Once the acrid smoke of allegations of racism cleared the room, we all realized Welch’s point was that we need to be careful with the labels we use.
In effect, though, Welch’s statement is condescending, like he is talking down to hold-backs in the preschool of “Race Sensitivity Political Correctness Training”. Society is so distracted and sensitized over these accusations that we don’t even consider relevant topics that could alleviate all the dysfunction over race. We’re nervous even to bring them up. And that’s where race-baiters want us to live.
Most Americans (On Both Sides of the Political Isle) Wants to Practice Racism
We all agree with this well-known, well-worn sentiment, and the vast majority of us (liberal and conservative) try to conduct ourselves with that sensitivity in mind. And all decent people, which most of us are, follow that rule of thumb. It goes without saying, and it really exposes that Welch is perpetually on the hunt for racism. It wouldn’t be surprising if that is what got him into politics. And he’s not alone. Chicago’s current mayor, Brandon Johnson, who has a 6% approval rating, hand-selected Welch. And he is in lock-step agreement with Welch.
How do we breach sensitive topics like race if we can’t be direct, and we have to walk around on eggshells so that we don’t offend someone who is hunting for racism? They are so averse to discussing it that some would rather eliminate the problem by shooting you than talk about it! That harms two people. The one being shot and the shooter.
Welch’s comment was so hypocritical and overly race-sensitive in this context that it didn’t even make sense, and instead of making his point, he just further drove a wedge between race-baiters and those they accuse of racism. He just seemed like an ignorant brute to many. Yet he thought he was being so scholarly.
Welch attempted to school us: “Generations ago, the legal term for his ancestors was ‘slaves’.” Only those who are so sensitive to the possibility of racial slurs have a problem with this normal English word.
The History of the Word “Slave” and Why It Doesn’t Apply Only to American Blacks
The word “slave” comes from Slavic people (who are White Eastern Europeans). They were so commonly enslaved that the term for all who are in bondage and enslaved comes from White slaves-the Slaves (pronounced like “slob” only with a “V” sound instead of a B).
Enslavement isn’t about race. It’s about the inhumane treatment of a disadvantaged group of people.
The Jews were enslaved in Egypt by brown-skinned people for longer than Blacks in America (400 years). Jews are also mostly White. Yet whites have no problem with the words “slave” and “slavery”, knowing it applies to inhumane treatment and not race.
Slavery is wrong, no matter the skin color of those in bondage. Most human beings understand that and take it seriously. Must we handle Blacks with kit gloves because they are overly sensitive about the topic?
Granted, other factors are easy and tempting to include in an argument about racism, and claiming we are a systemically racist country fits right in with that whole false diatribe.
A Psychological and Emotional Dysfunction
It’s a form of paranoia, a psychological and emotional dysfunction, to go around assuming everyone who uses these terms like “illegal alien” is racist and means harm to black or brown-skinned people. It’s a legal term, not a racial slur!
If you consider the worldwide population, brown and black-skinned people seem to outnumber Whites anyway, so we should stop looking at them as a minority. Not that segregating people into minority groups does anything productive for our lives—it doesn’t. Only those who exploit race for “crisis value” benefit. And when you think about it, why should people who would disrupt an otherwise peaceful, harmonious life benefit? We should ignore them.
We aren’t attempting to “remove the humanity” of “undocumented immigrants” by calling them “illegal aliens”. Calling the “undocumented” is a confession that they have skirted our laws to enter the country. That’s not a good look! Especially if you want to stay here.
Both are legal terms. A person who trades ivory from elephant tusks is an “illegal trader”. It has to do with the legality of what a person does… not with whether a person is legal or not as a human being. You can be an alien foreign national, but it is breaking immigration laws that makes you an illegal alien, just like you can be a trader, but it is breaking the trade laws that makes you an illegal trader. This is how we use the term “illegal” in English in legal contexts.
One Problem With Not Immigrating the Right Way Exposed
Welch accidentally exposed what happens when foreign nationals aren’t properly inducted into this country. Properly vetted and naturalized foreign nationals who wish to immigrate here learn enough English to be functional in their new country. And that’s a significant point about entering as an immigrant the legal way.
The word “undocumented” implies they have skirted the legal process, whether accidentally or intentionally, and they are “undocumented” because they haven’t followed the law. The IRCA of 1986 defines anyone entering illegally as unlawful. “Undocumented Immigrants” and “Illegal Aliens” mean the same thing with regard to the law. It’s just that “Undocumented Immigrants” implies they are otherwise legal immigrants—they aren’t. Words have meaning and consequences.
It’s really strike two, because they broke the law just crossing our borders. By strike two, every foreign national alien must know they have broken the law and what the legal process is, and they should follow it.
Being Undocumented Implies Illegal Action on Behalf of the Illegal Immigrant
Being undocumented implies illegal action. They are foreign national aliens (another legal term), and both labels mean the same thing. The term “undocumented” just attempts to cloak the unlawfulness of the foreign national being here. It softens the public perception of the criminal attitude of those who came here illegally, in order to prime us to receive them on amnesty.
Yet we have seen that those attitudes stick once here, and become rabidly hostile toward federal law enforcement when we try to remedy the problem of unvetted, unscreened people here illegally.
And that is a different situation from the enslaved Blacks. They were foreign nationals forcibly brought to this land against their will, not interlopers who came here of their own volition. Enslaved Blacks were not foreign national aliens who snuck across our borders illegally. Their humanity was removed when they were enslaved, but returned to them when they were emancipated.
The Woke Have it Wrong
The words “slave” and “slavery” are still valid English words derived from the first slaves, who were actually White and came from Eastern Europe. Jews were also enslaved for 400 years in Egypt. Many Jews are White people, too. Yet none of us has a problem with the use of the word “slave” as White people. A Black person could make a statement like, “White people were slaves once, too”, thinking they were slurring us by race, but the response to that, rather than accusing them of racism, would be, “That’s right, they were!”
It’s not meant as a racial slur. Welch and other Democrats piling on are trying to equate the enslavement of Black people to the illegal entry of foreign nationals, and how they believe the terms “slave” and “illegal aliens” are used as racial slurs, because illegals could be viewed as minorities like them.
There is no moral equivalence. The two facts are disjoined in the context used. Willfully ignoring the law and crossing our borders is not the same thing as being brought into our borders against their will, as was done with the enslaved Blacks.
Being a racial group associated with the illegal crossings is incidental to why they are labeled “illegal aliens”. If you paid attention to the news, you realized that people of every nationality participated in the wanton act of ignoring our immigration laws, crossing the borders, and clandestinely living within our borders. They are ALL referred to as “Illegal Aliens”.
Racism is Not Relevant to Immigration
Unless, as a group, people commit illegal immigration, race does not matter when using terms like “illegal immigrant”.
It applies to the illegal act of being in our country because our immigration laws were broken. Depending on who is charging racism, the condemnation of the term may be due to a lack of understanding of English and the culture in the USA.
Any foreign national who entered or remained in our country in violation of our immigration laws fits that label.
Some left-wing politicians try to accuse those on the right of profiling “illegal aliens” because of their race, because of their accents or the fact that they don’t speak any English. But look at the chart above. The numbers are in the thousands.
By far the largest number of people entering the nation illegally are from Latin America.
Law enforcement doesn’t profile people by race…not even Immigration law enforcement. ICE, for example, goes on information gathered about individuals to go after them.
It is dishonest and slanderous for left-wing politicians to accuse our law enforcement of racial profiling in an effort to stop them from doing their jobs and ridding America of illegal aliens. Why would they do that? It’s a good question to consider.
A Toxic Loop
Equating the term between Hispanics illegally crossing our borders, and Blacks who were enslaved is dishonest, and frankly, it is a toxic loop that runs continuously in the minds of many of those who would use this false argument. It exposes an illness in the minds of those who use this argument.
And it is really a slam to those Blacks whose ancestors went through enslavement. Equating enslaved blacks to people illegally in the country, on their own accord, is a false comparison. Those who try to twist that knot are witch-hunting—looking for points of attack. And ignoring the fact that non-minorities are labeled that, too?!
Enslaved Immigration Versus Willful Illegal Immigration
Blacks were brought here in bondage — they didn’t have the choice. Those brown and black-skinned people who are here illegally today had a choice and were driven by their own will. Welch didn’t even realize he was demeaning what Blacks went through because he was so focused on his political agenda and looking for a “smart” attack point.
And that happens often. People see it and don’t respond because, by the time such an argument is made, there’s no point in inflaming the situation further. Those making such a false argument are too entrenched to hear others. In their minds, they are right and have a righteous cause, and anyone who disagrees is automatically a problem. And why would you listen to the argument of a “problem”?
Are Those Who Discredit Charges of Racism Wrong?
Are they a problem? Or is the mindset of those who cling to such ideology the problem? We long ago did away with enslaving people, Jim Crow laws, the lack of Civil Rights for Blacks, and the problem of bringing them up to the level of everyone else. We aren’t trying to harm any ethnic group today, but many, whether innocently or with evil intent, aren’t acknowledging these things. They are deceived and deceiving themselves. They see ghosts behind every door, and witches trying to hex them at every turn.
If you are a foreign national illegally in this country, you aren’t being enslaved…you’re not being forced to do anything against your will except to follow the immigration laws and the due process of the United States of America. And there are plenty of those who entered illegally who didn’t follow even our Asylum Parole due process because they knew they weren’t likely to pass the “straight face” test.
Just Because Some Immigrants Ignore the Law Doesn’t Mean Enforcing the Law is Racist
Some Blacks are trying to further their political agenda by equating enslavement to illegal entry in this country doesn’t make it equivalent. The two things aren’t even closely related, even if both groups can be organized into minorities.
Just because large numbers of Black or Brown-skinned people are willing to break the law doesn’t mean enforcing the law is racist. And claiming it is racist exposes those who use that trope; either they aren’t investigating how criminals are investigated, or are using optics to twist the facts in order to create chaos and resistance to the law being enforced.
Arrests Not on a Warrant Are Fair Game
Those who are up in arms about Federal Law Enforcement picking up illegal aliens who aren’t on a warrant are using optics to make false claims that federal law enforcement is “targeting Brown and Black skinned people”. If the police have a warrant to pick up, say, a White felon who is with known associates, they will arrest the associates who are with the felon if they are wanted for crimes while they go to pick up the one they have a warrant for.
Fighting the felon’s arrest is considered a crime. If they are arrested for fighting the police and a background check is done while in custody, they will be arrested for any crimes that come up on the computer.
That applies to everyone, including violent protesters resisting ICE, for example, who are after criminal foreign nationals illegally in our country (e.g., Illegal Aliens, now, isn’t that easier to say? or do we create a new, confusing acronym CFNIIC?). It’s a law enforcement process that applies to everyone, regardless of skin color or gender.
It’s not like some day, we will have a more charitable view of foreign nationals invading our borders and just let them in without consideration for the law, safety, or security. Not going to happen.
And we’re not going to allow an election tampering scheme, which Plato called “Invasion by Immigration”, to overwhelm our country and let one political party dominate our government as a result. It is profoundly unethical and illegal. And yes, it is profoundly seditious. The problem is that half the nation, playing that “safety in numbers” game, is acting seditiously against the Constitution. You can’t arrest and imprison half a nation.
The Definition of “Alien”
The term “alien” is “relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government“. It has also been applied to another world, as in the science fiction movies Brandon Johnson wants us to equate with the word, as in: “belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing“.
In the legal sense, an “alien” is someone belonging to and owing allegiance to another country. That’s all. It’s not meant to evoke images of green, scaly creatures with long fingers and suction cups at the tips.
The term “Illegal Alien” is a legal term; it has nothing to do with a nation that is insensitive to minority groups, but it is a term that applies to the status of people here illegally. And it doesn’t only apply to minority groups, although the vast majority of those who have entered this country illegally ARE minorities. What does that say about the ethics of those wanting in? What does that say about the quality of immigrants the Democrats would have us take on?
Look at the picture on the left, or Google pictures of people trying to enter our borders illegally. Do you see any White faces in the crowd?
Would you profile White people for illegally migrating to the US if the vast majority of them look like this?
Granted, 775,000 illegal immigrants were White, but that is less than 10% of all illegal immigrants.
“Undocumented” Immigration
The fact that the left had to come up with a “sanitized” term, “undocumented”, to describe those here illegally shows that they are trying to keep them here under the radar. And it exposes an agenda we all know at this point is to use illegal aliens in an election tampering scheme.
By the way, if they are “undocumented” immigrants, it means that they never made contact with our government to submit a petition for asylum. So in addition to ignoring laws concerning entering our borders as a foreign national, they are deliberately skirting the process altogether and planning to live here illegally…with the political left’s blessing! It’s a criminal mentality, and such are not welcomed here, no matter their circumstances. The government is doing the right thing in rounding them up and deporting them.
Conspiracy Theory?
Is it a “conspiracy theory”? You bet! Is it one of Hillary Clinton’s “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories”? Not hardly!
A conspiracy is “the act of conspiring together“. To conspire is “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act“. The actors involved don’t have to go through a formal process to conspire. It can be completely unspoken: a political party, while in power, can let in millions of foreign nationals, protect them from the law while they’re here, and cultivate their loyalty without a single meeting on the topic. They can tacitly agree to an unspoken agreement derived purely from context.
Crossing US Borders Easily Had Been Widespread Knowledge
It doesn’t take a high school diploma to pick up on the message that it is easy to illegally cross our borders, or that the political left is fighting to keep them here. Pretty much a 10-year-old child can figure that out without any instruction. Hearsay alone, taken to foreign countries, is enough to motivate caravans of people to journey north in hopes of getting to the US.
The Democrat party, under Joe Biden (or more appropriately, whoever was acting on his behalf while he suffered incompetency), encouraged them to cross the border through hearsay.
As long as one party knows what’s going on, the other can have its own agenda, but it is still a conspiracy in which all of them participate. It’s just an unspoken agreement.
If you’re here, and you’re not a citizen, regardless of your legal right to be here—or not—means you’re legally classified as an “alien”. If you haven’t gone through the asylum parole process, and you don’t intend to, you are here illegally. That makes you, in legal terms, an alien here illegally, or an “Illegal Alien” to be concise.
That doesn’t say a thing about your status as a valid human being. Both legal and illegal residents are valid human beings. And if you don’t understand the difference, you don’t understand English well enough to be functionally literate in this country. That’s another liberal policy that dumbs down America.
The term is perfectly valid; it doesn’t demean people, as some on the left try to argue. If you believe it is somehow mean, demeaning, and/or racist, you’re motivated by something other than truth.
These Steps Are Well-Known to Immigrants Who Don’t Want to Wait in Line
These seven steps in the process are well known and historically documented. It’s a pathway to make many people legal citizens who are known to be friendly to one party by circumventing the legal immigration process. Democrats will tell you it IS legal migration, and it is in the law, but it is legal only by a very loose interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which ignores the intent of our election system.
The law was not intended to be set up so that a political party could exploit immigration to ensure enough people are befriended and made citizens so that any other party would be locked out of winning elections.
That’s not Democracy, despite the fact that Democrats constantly decry opposition activities as anti-democracy and that they are “protecting democracy”.
Democrat Immigration Ideology
On January 20th, 2020, Joseph Robinette Biden took office as the President of the United States. Whether he legally won the election remains to be determined. He was incompetent because of his mental fitness and his administration, and a behind-the-scenes “Autopen Politburo” was running the country. I refer to it as an “Autopen Politburo” because Biden’s administration feigned his competency and ran the government behind closed doors and out of public view—deceiving the American electorate.
It was an unelected committee that operated much like a communist politburo. They abused the President’s authority by using the autopen to sign bills and Executive Orders (EOs). That’s why they effectively are an “Autopen Politburo”.
Open Borders is An Unconstitutional Policy
They began an illegal “Open Borders” policy. It was astounding, but even though we watched it happen, the electorate was powerless to stop it short of armed resistance. We didn’t know how to deal with it. The 2024 election was a referendum on Democrats and that abuse, in addition to other things like spending us into a near depression.
And they hid the ulterior motive by saying everything was fine at the border and that the VP was looking into ways to diplomatically address the problems at the other end of the migration. All of those things are easy to accept in lieu of contradicting proofs, but also easy to lie about…and they did lie about it.
They ignored our immigration process, which screens incoming applicants to ensure they want to be here as friends of the nation and not as people hostile to the country. The process is well established and globally used in most civilized countries. Our immigration process is based on common sense. There is no reason to circumvent it other than the speed at which it allows applicants to be naturalized. And that isn’t good enough to jeopardize the nation the way Democrats have done with this scheme.
Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security
Alejandro Mayorkas became Secretary of Homeland Security on February 2, 2021.
To “attempt to” stem illegal crossings at the border, Mayorkas implemented a multifaceted approach, which included enhancing border technology, such as surveillance towers and “non-intrusive inspection systems”, increasing personnel on the border, and establishing new legal pathways for entry through the CBP One app.
Meanwhile, instead of an official statement from the president that all who enter the country illegally will be deported, they were instructing border patrol to let them in and issue a summons for an Amnesty Parole hearing. That wasn’t part of the Reagan IRCA Act. That came along with the Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) presidency. Biden’s administration introduced a new rule that limits asylum eligibility for those who cross illegally without first seeking asylum in another country or using a designated legal pathway. But that was only under pressure from opposition to what his administration was doing.
He claimed this “result[ed] in a decrease in illegal crossings”, though there is no way to quantify how many people continued to cross. Best guesses are that more than 21 million are here illegally now. News cameras continued to document as many as 12,600 crossings (that were spotted) on a single day. Thousands routinely crossed over daily. As many as 21 MILLION people came across our borders illegally during the Biden administration. Likely millions more than that.
Only Ten Percent of Those Who Crossed Our Border Illegally Registered for a Parole Hearing
Only an estimated 2.3 million actually registered for asylum parole. Around 90% of those here illegally ignored a parole hearing and are here in our communities. Many of them are committing heinous crimes against legal citizens.
Democrats act unconcerned about it because they fight to keep even the criminal element here, arguing they need to be afforded “due process”. Only one thing explains why any American would fight to keep criminals here, and that is trying to befriend the whole group. They don’t complain about the 20.7 million who skipped their due process. There’s something wrong with that. We know what’s wrong with that.
On April 28, 2024, Mayorkas claimed, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection now has total control of the border”. 21 million entered illegally under his watch, and only 2.3 million of those followed through with their parole hearings. Now they’re all waving the flags of the nations they are from in violent protests against federal law enforcement because they’re trying to get the illegals out. That’s not how people who want to assimilate behave themselves. That’s how people intending to take over the nation behave.
Still, they poured in by the thousands every day, even organizing caravans north to our southern border. This is well-documented and photo-documented.
Another distracting false accusation from Democrats is that Federal Law Enforcement is “profiling” brown and black skinned people. Look, if it is mostly all of the illegal immigrant population in the US, who do you think is going to be targeted?! It’s a false charge of racism to claim the federal government is going after minorities because of their race.
Biden’t “Border Czar”
In March2021, President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with leading the administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras). It was another ineffective Democrat “tax-and-spend” expensive policy that led nowhere but afforded them the opportunity to kick the can down the road while they waved in millions of illegals.
Kamala Harris’s approach to immigration involved a dual strategy: addressing the root causes of migration through foreign aid and diplomacy while also supporting stricter enforcement measures at the U.S.
In other words, spend masses of our tax dollars with foreign governments to try to induce them to fight their citizens leaving their country, and snuggle up with them to convince them we were friends. We’ve seen how that works with the international community. They simply take our money and let it happen anyway, all while stroking us and telling us we are friends.
Harris also “supported stricter enforcement measures at the U.S. Borders”. In other words, she gave her full backing and support to Mayorkas, the then Secretary of Homeland Security, who just let them come in and told Border Patrol to let them come.
The failings of this approach are obvious. The “Northern Triangle” countries (Latin America) continued to send their people north without lifting a finger to stop them, while spending the money Kamala had given them. Many of whom they sent were criminals and mentally disturbed, or unskilled and a drain on the welfare system.
Send your thoughts and questions on Immigration in the United States
Powered by WordPress