Is a Civil War in the Cards for America?

 It's been said here many times, and I think it's appropriate to say it again. America is more divided than at any time since just before the Civil War just over 150 years. We are actually more divided on the number of issues than were our forefathers, and the division on those issues appears to be at least as deep as it was back in the late 1850's. There seems to be the same lack of interest in compromise. Politics has become, for all intent and purpose, scorched earth.  It's all or nothing.

Let's look as the recent 2022 election. For the first time (at least in recent history), there was a protest which morphed into an attempt at a coup by intimidation. Such was the anger directed at Congress. But who was really surprised? The approval rating for the House has been in the toilet for decades as has that of the Senate.

 In most countries, with approval ratings like these (some as low as 9%, but most around low 20's) would have already triggered a revolution.  What did we expect? Even the judicial system has shown negative numbers along almost every other institution in America. Ironically, despite the Antifa and BLM "peaceful" riots and lootings, the police was one of the few institutions whose numbers were positive (along with the military).  

As of September 2022, some ten months after the Presidential election, 61% of Republicans believe the election was rigged; that Joe Biden didn't win the election fairly. On the other side of that coin, some 64% of voters don't believe the January 6 protest was spontaneous. In both instances that's 6 out 10 individuals (as an aside, immediately after the election 70% of Republicans and conservatives that the election was stolen).

To make matters worse, the majority of Americans no longer trust the mainstream media (or as conservatives now call it, "lamestream" media). To further irritate the Right, the liberal media continues to call the opposition to Biden's election the "Big Lie", echoing Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels' use of the term when referring to his brand of propaganda (a backhanded way of calling Republicans and conservatives "Nazis").

When Trump was President, the Left routinely waved flags and chanted "not my President" and the media encouraged it. When Trump supporters did the same thing (referring to Biden), it's suddenly "anti-American". Could the bias get any more obvious? 

Meanwhile, political establishment has lined up to go after Trump and his supporters every way they can, with the media carrying virtual non-stop coverage despite continuously getting some of their lowest viewership numbers ever.

The media's role has traditionally been providing the American People and the world with impartial and unbiased news. It's essential to a free nation. However, since Watergate the media (which has come under an ever tightening control of a smaller and smaller number of corporate owners) has become increasingly biased as to be essentially nothing more than the mouthpiece of their owners.

According to a Gallup Poll from October 2022, only 34% of Americans trust the mainstream media...despite how slick or sincere they look. When broken down by the partisanship, 70% of Liberals and Democrats trust the media, which given its liberal list, isn't surprising. 14% of conservatives and Republicans agree (likely Fox viewers), along with 11% of Independents (the nation's majority political bloc).

In case you're wondering, 96+% of all media is owned by just five corporations. That means everything you read, see, and hear. It also includes the movies you watch. The music formats you hear. The newspapers, magazines, and even what books are published.

They control internet content (and who gets censored, blocked, or "shadow blocked" such as yours truly). They even willing cooperate with government agencies in turning over personal information. Joseph Goebbels would have wet dreams over this kind of clout!

So, how serious it is...really? Well, it ain't good. According to a poll taken in August 2022 said that 66% of Americans believe that the divisions in this country have gotten worse since 2021. 62% of those think things are going to get worse with 60% expecting an increase in political violence.

Another poll from August 2022, roughly 43% of those polled think a civil war is likely in the next 10 years. A further 14% expect something close to a Civil War within the next decade or so. 55% of Republicans and conservatives agreed. So did 40% of Democrats. A earlier poll, from July 2022, indicated the number of Americans who expected a civil war sometime "over the next several years" was 50%.

The liberal leaning Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights was even more pessimistic. They said that 78% of Americans believe democracy is currently "under attack" (it is, but not by who they think). 53% think that America will no longer be a democracy in four to five years (not breaking news: we never were a democracy. We were a Republic, but no longer. We're a neo-fascist Corporatocracy). 54% say we're on the path to a civil war.

As an aside, their polling also indicated that race relations in America is getting worse. 62% say that discrimination against blacks is a "big problem". 62% think the government should do more to protect blacks. 66% want the government to take steps to lessen racial inequality while 55% want to see the government to do more to end income inequality. 67% want to see gay marriage protected while 62% want to protect abortion rights. 

A University of Virginia poll from  October 2020 said that they felt America was already in a cold civil War. The same poll also showed that 41% of those who voted for Joe Biden thought it was time to "split the country".  The Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School released an even more stunning poll result.

According to their poll, over half of those under 30 years of age saw America as "failing" with over one-third expecting a civil war in their lifetimes. But what if that happened? Well, the Civil War was the bloodiest America has ever experienced bar none. Approximately 600,000 people died during the four year conflict. 

Using the same percentage killed based on population, that would translate to about 19.8 million today, and that number could easily go higher. Much higher given that we have a far greater percentage of trained veterans as a percentage of population now than they did then, not to mention the deadliness of the weapons available.

They say that every revolution contains within its own seeds for self-destruction. While the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, America's future might be more balkanized. Our increasing diversity---racial, ethnic, and so forth, all under the guise of "multiculturalism" may well be the culprit.  It has already manifested itself in our politics by challenging our values, traditions, and even language.  

These changes are showing up in our neighborhoods and communities in the form of more drugs, more crime, and more violence, especially in the form of racial and ethnic gangs murdering for control of territory. In some instances, they demand "their own" do the policing, which is rejection of our legal system.

We already see "Little Havana", "Little Vietnam", "Little China", "Little Columbia", and so on. No longer do they seek to mix and integrate into their new homeland as our immigrant ancestors before them had done. Instead, they remain aloof and separate. Some don't even bother to learn English or allow their children to be taught the language despite being supported by taxpayer dollars, adding insult to injury.

Perhaps the only solution would be the balkanization of America, leaving  it a loosely based confederation of regions. It's happened before. It happened in Ancient Greece, in Ancient Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and elsewhere. We are, as humans, naturally tribal after all.

 One thing is for sure, doing nothing will not only result in a de facto balkanization along various social, racial, and economic lines, under a neo-fascist Corportracy, but also allow the increasing diverse cultures to come into conflict, providing a greater excuse for the expansion of the surveillance state.

It seems there is only one other option, and that's to accept the multiculturalism on our own terms. But that means that the country we've known---our collective history---and we grew up with has to be allowed to fade into the past. No dominance of any one race or culture or language. It means changes in laws, values, and acceptance of different or perhaps new religions which could dominate or replace older ones. It means starting over again as a country surrounded by those who wish us harm.

It's possible. It's too has happened before, under Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, the Kings of Persia, and, albeit briefly, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. You could even include the Mongol Empire. But it's all dependent on maintaining liberal societies along with tolerant leaders and capable administrators. The instant someone comes who shows a preference or a tendency toward despotism, and it crumbles. Some have suggested an economic and political system run by artificial intelligence.

The power elites who dominate this country has been trying to divide us any way they can for decades. In that they've been largely successful. Divided we are easily controlled and manipulated. United and we're unstoppable, but can we do it? We've reached one of those historical crossroads. A "Rubicon" if you'd like, which will be crossed whether we want to or not. What will it be?  

 

 If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Poll: 61% of Republicans still believe Biden didn't win fair and square in 2020

64% Think The January 6th Attack On The Capital Was Planned

Americans' Trust of the media Remains Near Record Lows.

Two in five Americans say a civil war is at least likely inthe next decade...

Leadership Conference  Poll:  54 Percent Fear America Is on the Path to Another Civil War...

Imagine another American Civil War, but this time in everystate

The Rise and Fall of Multicultural Empires

 

The Changing Face of America: The New Demographics

America is changing. Rapidly. When the Pilgrims first celebrated what we now call "Thanksgiving" in 1623, the land was populated by indigenous people. The Pilgrims were just a tiny handful of English settlers. Further to the south there were small Spanish settlements, but that was about it. The French and Dutch were just starting to eye this "New World" for a piece of the pie. By 1800, America as it was now known had grown in size and population, but it was still mostly Western Europeans along with African slaves who had been brought over by English, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish explorers and traders.

By the turn of the 20th Century, the native population had been mostly killed off or confined to "reservations". So much for "civilization". America was overwhelming European; 98% by most estimates. They came from everywhere. There was a growing but still small population of Asians (mainly from China) and Hispanics, plus a burgeoning black population. By the start of WWII in 1939, America remained a dominant "European" country. By the 1950's, America represented nearly every population on the planet. By the 1970's all this began to change.

Birth rates among whites began dropping off following the end of WWII in 1945. Meanwhile the black population continued to grow along with rising Hispanic and Asian populations. However, the overall demographics of the country largely remained intact, but for those watching the trends, the eventual outcome was obvious. America would, within half a century or so, cease to be a predominantly European based nation, and with it perhaps begin losing its Western appearance.

Whites would still dominate but as their numbers declined they would reach a point where they were simply a large minority whose political, social, and economic influence wouldn't be as it once was. Most estimates put the tipping point around 2050. However, those estimates didn't anticipate the mass influx coming illegally or the infusion from developing or second tier nations.

It didn't take into consideration either the invasion and collapse of Europe by so-called "migrants" from Africa and the Middle East (many not coming from war impacted countries), nor did it consider the potential conflicts the diversity of religions and ethnic groups with differing values and traditions would bring. Perhaps the most damning factor was that America had previously been a "melting pot" nation, where each immigrant brought their own experiences and values and added to everyone else's with the goal of becoming an integrated "American" and all that entailed.

It now appears that the estimated tipping point of 2050 was too optimistic. According to recent data, the tipping point may be closer to 2035...if not sooner, at least in terms of politics. For instance, while Hispanics have been the largest minority in terms of numbers, having surpassing blacks years before, blacks have outvoted Hispanics. However, it appears that Hispanics may now, for the first time ever, show up in larger numbers than blacks starting in 2020; 13.3% to 12.5% registration. Not that the impact will be all that different since both blacks and Hispanics tend to register and vote Democrat.
What may be most affected, however, are the issues since Hispanics will vote issues which most impact them, specifically on matters of immigration. Several states (most notably California and the western states) already have large Hispanic minorities or even majorities in some cities and towns. Many mostly "red" or Republican states among them. An increase in number could swing those states back to the blue column.

Another factor was the increase in immigration from Asia, principally Chinese. This has resulted in a major increase in Asian communities not just in places especially along the upper West Coast into places like Northern California, Oregon, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia Canada where they are having the same impact as Hispanics are elsewhere. Again, like Hispanics and blacks, Asians tend to vote Democrat although as a group, they have increasingly registered as Independent.

Also, beginning in the 1960's, immigrants, legal or otherwise, were encouraged to keep their own identity; their own language, culture and values. Instead, we would find ways to adapt to them in order to make them feel more "comfortable" in their new homeland. The result was the creation of a multicultural nation rather than a integrated "melting pot", thus planting the seeds of a potential balkanized American future. Another factor, an ageing population, became a new issue.

Babyboomers, who range in age from 55 to 73, are no longer the largest segment of voters. Millennials are, and they lean mostly Left or even Far Left (much has already been written on their strong support of democratic socialism). As an aside, in a recent survey, Millennials, ages 23 to 38, were asked why they didn't support Hillary Clinton. Their answer? She wasn't socially liberal enough!

However, it's Generation Z, the follow up to the Millennials, who are the ones to watch. They are the most racially diverse of the cohorts, and likely to be one of the best educated (Millennials now hold that title). Nearly half--48%---are racial (including mixed race) or ethnic minorities. They are more likely to come from homes with single parents. They are also more likely than not to come from homes which have experienced some form of poverty and the least likely to own a home (many having been homeless at some point in their lives).

While most Millennials are college educated and earning record incomes, many describe themselves as "poor" due to crushing debt (college); many still live at home with their parents or grandparents. Gen Z, on the other hand, perhaps taking a cue from their elders, are concentrating on the low debt/high pay trade and craft jobs; many of which have critical shortages What's most interesting is that socially and politically, they lean further Left than their older siblings. If that trends holds, we will see two generations track to Left or even the Far Left, not including, of course, the remnants of the Silents, Babyboomers or Gen X.

In terms of voter registration, things are changing there too. Currently the largest political bloc are Independents, with approximately 38% followed by Democrats with 30% and the GOP bringing up the rear. Women tend to be the single largest bloc for the Democrats (mainly due to social issues) with 56% compared to 44% of men; white evangelicals make up the core of Republicans. While the majority of Silents, Babyboomers, and Generation X have clung to their partisan labels, Millennials have eschewed being labeled. Instead, they have opted to register as Independents by and large. The same to be holding true for Gen Z thus far.

Nevertheless,71% of Millennials, regardless of their political registrations, say they would prefer a third party (including an Independent) over either the GOP or Democratic parties. Broken down by race and gender, 80% of whites, 71% of Asians, 67% of Latino, and 65% of black males said they are over the two corporate owned parties. Meanwhile,73% of black females agreed along with 70% of white, 67% of Asian, and 61% of Latina women.

So, where does this leave us? In short, it means that the country most of us grew up with is fading rapidly. White voters are still expected to cast 74% of the ballots in 2020 with Hispanics, Asians, and black making up the remaining 25%, but that's down from the previous years. Going forward, that percentage will continue to decline as the number of minorities, particularly Hispanics and Asians, increase.

How much does this really matter? In terms of the overall complexion of America, not much. The two cohorts--the Millennials and Gen Z---will be increasingly comprised of minority races and mixed parentages. I guess that in that sense, America will remain a "melting pot". Historically speaking, today's Italians are not the same ancient Romans, nor are modern Greeks the same as their illustrious ancestors and neither are the Insular Celts of the UK. Time marches on, and so do people. In terms of the direction America will take, it matters a great deal.

In terms of age, the white population will have grayed due to the fact they had fewer replacement children going back to post WWII. The majority of young adults will be Hispanic or Asian while the black population will remain steady at around 13%. The largest population growth will be from immigrants. In fact, most Americans will be either immigrants themselves or the children or grandchildren of immigrants.

In 2018, 15% of Americans were 65 years old or older. By 2050, 1/5 of the population will be at least 65. Many will be disabled or in need of continual medical care. Currently there is about 33 workers for every American 85 years old and up. By 2050, there will be 13 workers for every America 85 and older. That will likely mean that taxes will dramatically increase to cover the costs while the overall level of care decreases.

Another factor to consider is the continuing decrease of the Mainstream Christian churches. Those churches which remain will likely be more mixed racially. Among Protestants, the Baptist church will be the strongest. Meanwhile, traditional Roman Catholic churches catering to the Hispanic community will thrive. We will also see an increase in mosques thanks to the increase in immigrants from Muslim countries and tendency to have large families. There will also be in increase in Buddhist and Hindu temples as well. But overall, most Americans will be secular or at least hold non-traditional beliefs.

From a political perspective, white evangelicals will remain central to the GOP while white Christians will become a small minority in the Democratic party, with most of its members will be secular or belonging to other religions.

Politically I think America will be very different. Some estimates show as many as 20 states will have majority non-white populations with perhaps another dozen or so have substantial minorities. Among these are the electoral rich states of California, New York, Illinois, Texas and Florida. If the present trends continue, Democrats could emerge as the defacto national party. Of course, the Democratic Party may be quite different from the one we currently have.

Millennials and Gen Z have repeatedly stated that the Democratic Party isn't liberal enough. Both show a strong support for some form of socialism. Also bear in mind that both groups strongly support a new third party and/or support for Independents (indeed, many are already registered as Independent and nationally, both parties are hemorrhaging members). Therefore, there may be some other political party or movement in place of either corporate controlled party. Who knows? Perhaps by 2050 the two demonian parties might the Greens and Libertarians!

As for the Republicans, they will have to either adopt a much more moderate or liberal attitude such as they had in Rockefeller Era or accept becoming a largely regional or local political party. Rigid conservatives and the Far Right will likely find themselves on the fringes and excluded from power.

As with most changes, especially of the type I've discussed, we can expect conflict across numerous lines, be it socially, economically (current data also indicates a much wider gulf between the working poor/chronic poor and the uber-wealthy), political, racial, immigrant versus citizen, rural versus urban, or along religious lines (especially if Muslim extremists attempt to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims along with their historical conflicts with Hindus and Buddhists as they have in other countries).

Come Thanksgiving in 2050, America and indeed the world will be as different to us as the one the Pilgrims celebrated in 1623 and world they left behind. America will no longer be a nation with either a racial or cultural majority. There will be larger populations of other religions than we've ever experienced before as a country. We will likely have two or even three primary languages. To survive as a nation, we will have to focus more than ever on what unites us or face internal conflict and the breakup of the United States.



6 demographic trends shaping the U.S. and world in 2019


Trends in Party Affiliation Among Demographic Groups

Millennial Poll: Strong majority want a third political party

America: This Is Your Future

America's Changing Religious Identity

Understanding No-Go Zones: What Are The Outcomes?

We've all heard or seen the term. It often shows up on the news and "talking head" political shows, and even on our social media sites from time to time. It's often used in conjunction with stories about war zones, and more recently, in places where it's simply to dangerous for ordinary people to venture (and just as often, too dangerous for even the police to patrol). But what is it really? What does it mean to have a "no-go zone" in your community, and where are these forbidden zones starting to become more prevalent?
As I said, "no-go zones" are typically found in war zones. They are often referred to as "exclusion zones", meaning that there could be unexploded ordinance hiding in the rubble, as well as landmines (which are the single deadliest weapon when it comes to civilian deaths).

It also means that the area is likely unsecure, with a high probability of roving enemy combatants lurking about (especially snipers).
As in years past, these area were often marked with warning signs (like with a large "Warning" in various in various languages, accompanied by a skull and crossbones---never a good sign). Entry into these zone are done so at one's own risk. There is no guarantee that anyone entering these zones will be provided with any type of assistance, be it due to getting lost, captured, injured, or wounded (and if killed, it's very unlikely anyone is coming for your body).

Of course, not all no-go zones are in places of conflict. In fact, most aren't located in or near a active war zone. The majority of no-go zones are actually found in various cities and towns where divergent (and unassimilated) populations attempt to enforce their own laws; independent of existing local laws. This includes roving patrols who harass, detain, and fine anyone who fails to comply. They are attempts to apply their own traditions, culture, and religious restrictions. In some cases, they may even attempt to "arrest" an individual and bring them before a religious tribunal where some type penalty of is applied. It's also common that these communities expand the tribunals into a de facto government.

In addition, this application as described above, usually have the support of the local population. These zones come about when individuals from either the same country or with a similar culture, religion, etc. settled in a certain area and begin to tacitly apply their cultural and/or religious values on their own street, or block, and then join with others to expand it to cover blocks, and eventually entire sections of a community. Typically, this begins subtly; with polite requests and calls for inclusion, tolerance, and openness.

As their numbers increase, these "request" begin to take a change in tone. They start to become more assertive. As the numbers continue to grow, so the growth of likeminded individuals, who bring with them their extended families, their businesses, and (naturally) their biases, traditions, and values. Often, at the same time, as these numbers grow, native populations begin to leave; not feeling safe or disliking the changes they are seeing. At some eventual tipping point, terms such as "tolerance" and "inclusion" start losing their original meaning, and are replaced with words like "compliance" and "dictate".

Somewhere during this transformation, the emerging population becomes unsatisfied with just those within their own community abiding by their value systems, and begin to apply it to others. Again, this usually starts as a "suggestion" or "request" in the name of "tolerance", but after a while, escalates to becoming compulsory, to the point where it supplants local law. Attempts by law enforcement to apply local law, or even conduct routine patrols in these communities, is view as an intrusion; an attempt to impose "foreign" laws on them!

As a result, the migrant population often responds violently by harassing the legal authorities, from verbal or physical threats (and, perhaps some general pushing and shoving) to becoming increasingly belligerent, up to and including open attacks, riots, destroying property, throwing rocks, "Molotov cocktails" or other homemade bombs, and so forth (it's not uncommon that afterwards, these same groups will demand the government clean up the mess caused by the rioters and restore their damaged property).

At this point the area is generally declared a "no-go zone", although governments often attempt to soften the obvious negative connotation of an area uncontrollable by the local authorities and use terms like "sensitive urban area", "vulnerable area", "exposed" or extreme exposed" zones, a "sundown area", as well as "closed zones" (which, by the way, all these apply to the native population, not to the migrants inside the area So when they say "stay out", they mean you). As an aside, there have been several attempts by journalists to cover these areas from the inside. Many who do are often meet with the same hostility unless they first obtain permission from the tribunal, and then only with an assigned escort, who also censor what is and what isn't covered.

So where are these so-called "sensitive" areas to be found? While they're are pretty much located just about everywhere, they are quickly popping up throughout Europe, especially in Western Europe. The idyllic country of Sweden has some 53 of these areas (with 15 of them classified as "particularly exposed" by the Swedish police). Germany has at least 40 such areas according to some police reports; perhaps more. Paris has approximately 25 such no-go zones, with dozens of others scattered about in France's major cities and towns such as Toulouse, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Avignon (one French police officer described crime as a "leisure activity" in these zones).

In the Lowland countries of Holland and Belgium, they too have their "no-go zones", although the Dutch are a bit more sensitive about it and often vigorously deny any such zones exist, though locals will likely beg to differ. The same for Belgium, though locals will nonchalantly suggest outsiders might want to skip the tour through Molenbeek (one local taxi cab driver said felt like a "seething North Africa ghetto" as author Robert Chamlers wrote in a article for the British edition of "GQ Magazine" on June 21, 2017 ).

Norwegian officials also deny they have any "no-go zones", though they might want to check with the local police and citizenry. Police officers have reported several cases of being attacked and "aggressive" responses to their presence (one police officer reported that Gonland, a district of Oslo, was "more Muslim than Morocco". Locals report of roving gangs, often targeting unaccompanied females and gays, amid rising violent crime (sexual crimes are perhaps the most serious issue, and are not just here, but reported throughout European countries with high migrant populations).

Denmark too has its share of growing "exposed" areas as well as what the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rassmussen, calls "parallel societies"; unintegrated communities with their own laws and language. However, the Danish PM insists that he will not allow Denmark to suffer the same fate as Sweden and other European countries, and has refused to permit any majority migrant neighborhoods, and if necessary, will forced integration into Danish society (which I'm sure it will be...kicking and screaming all the way).

Of course, of the countries with the largest number of "exposed zones" is the UK (in terms of dozens through the country). England has perhaps the largest growing non-native populations of any country in Europe, outside of perhaps Germany. In the industrial city of Birmingham, the native population will make up just 48% of the population by 2019 (an entire decade than originally predicted). The same trend includes cities like Leeds, Manchester, York, London, Luton, and others. In fact, at the current rate, somewhere around the year 2040 or 2050, native Britons will be a minority throughout England due to low native birth rates, an increasing external immigration with matching high birth rates (this is known as "population replacement"). As an aside, unlike its fellow European neighbors, at least 2/3 (68%) of the migrants entering the country are Asian, principally from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and not the Middle East.

While this issue of "no-go zones" seems to be primarily a "European problem" at this time, there is no reason to assume it will remain one. Both Canada and the United States has had issues of immigrant populations refusing to integrate. This ranges from the influx of illegal immigrants, to refusal to learn the native language and adapt to local laws. It also includes criminal complicity of individuals, businesses, and organizations (mostly religious) who are intent, for their own gain, to aid and abed these individuals (as an aside, other countries such as Australia, are experiencing a similar problem too. Mexico and South America have had less problems with illegal or unintegrated populations due to strict immigration laws and enforcement).

Although there are existing punitive laws for this, they have rarely been enforced, especially during the eight years of the Obama Regime. As a result, taxpayers have been stuck with the bill, which amounts to some $113 billion dollars annually (some figures are slightly higher and some lower, depending on how its calculated. But regardless, it's still a substantial figure which could be avoided). Europe's "open door" policy has proven to be more than a mere mistake or miscalculation. It has proven to be national suicide. The great Teddy Roosevelt (my personal favorite president) once said that while immigrants, with all their energy and innovation were welcome, this country has no room for divided loyalties. If you came to this country, you did so a future American; hyphenated Americans need not apply.

I agree with ole "Rough and Ready Teddy". If you come here with the intent to learn our laws; adapt to our collective traditions, values, and learn the language, then great. Come on in! If, on the other hand, you intend to recreate your country with perhaps a different climate (and especially at taxpayer expense), then I suggest you keep on going. If you're here just to make a buck or two, that's fine too. Just do it legally and get a "green card". We must not become a "Balkanized" America, complete with border checks and "sensitive zones" within our own country. This is the same mistake which has befallen other nations down through history (usually in the name of altruism and tolerance). Let's hope it division is never allowed to take root here.


Germany No-Go Zones: Police Afraid to go into lawless areas after open-door


Inside Germany's No-Go zones: Part One-North Rhineland-Westphalia

Are there police no-go zones in France? The police say yes


Europe's no-go zones: Inside the lawless ghettos that breed and harbor terrorists

Stealth Jihad is alive and well in Canada

Danish PM Warns of No-Go Zones