Uneasy Bedfellows: Sweden, Finland, NATO and Putin

Sweden and Finland, two Scandinavian countries to Russia's northwest formally submitted an application to join NATO on May 17th in light of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously warned both nations of the potential danger they faced by joining NATO rather than remaining neutral, which many took as an not so subtle Russian threat.

While Putin doesn't directly oppose the move by Sweden or Finland, NATO's Musketeer-like pledge of "one for all and all for one", makes it clear that any incursion by one NATO member would result in an appropriate military response on all NATO members, or so says Putin. So, why would Putin approve Finland and Sweden's admission to NATO and not the Ukraine's?

NATO came into being just after the end of World War II in 1945 as a means to offset a newly expanded Soviet Russia into the Soviet Union with the addition of so-called "liberated" nations from Nazi and fascist control. Later, in 1955, they would transform into the Warsaw Pact, which was in response to NATO, which was created in 1949, and intended as a buffer from a potential invading Western coalition.

Several nations, Sweden and Finland among them, wanted to maintain as military neutrality between themselves and the USSR. This was in part to keep open historic trade relations with Russia and its partners similar to the 1956 non-aligned movement which included India, Egypt, Yugoslavia and 117 other countries which sought to maintain a economic balance between the West and the Soviet states.

That, however, didn't preclude Sweden at least for conducting restricted joint military games with Europe. In 2017, Sweden held the largest war games in 20 years jointly with NATO members. In anticipation of joining NATO, Finland has participated in limited war games with NATO. Previously, there was always the fear of irritating the Russian bear.

Such fears gradually decreased after the implosion of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 and then, Soviet Russia in 1991, along with continual trade and economic integration which had created the European Union. Now, with the invasion of the Ukraine, that fear has reasserted itself and turned into one of self-preservation and urgency.

However, Sweden and Finland may have to hang on together a little longer. Turkey, the second largest military member of NATO (behind the United States) and one of two Muslim nations in NATO's (the other is Albania, which is 60% Muslim compared to 99% for Turkey) is opposing the entry of Sweden, and to a lesser degree, Finland, into NATO.

Under the rules of admission, any one member of NATO can oppose entry of a nation into its ranks. Turkey's President Erdogan has said that he opposes admission of Sweden and Finland over "security" issues and support of "terrorist" groups. Specifically, he is referring to the support of Sweden and Finland of the PKK---the Kurdish Workers Party---which promotes a free Kurdish State and allegedly has killed tens of thousands (mostly Turks) since 1984.

In addition, both Sweden and Finland have used their clout in the EU to oppose arms sells to Turkey with the express goal of using those weapons to fight Kurdish rebels known as the "YPG" or Syrian Kurdish People's Defense Units, which is linked to the PKK. Lastly, Erdogan opposes Swedish sanctuary of Fethullah Gulen's followers after a failed attempt to overthrow the Turkish Government in 2016. Gulen is a radical U.S. based Muslim cleric.

Finland has been part of the EU since 1995. Its largest trade partners are Sweden, Germany, and United States. Russia, which is Finland's 6th largest trading partner, gets 12% of its imports. Russia accounts for 5% of its exports. Notable but not overly significant.

Sweden, also an EU member since 1995, exports just 1.2% of its good Russia and in return gets back 2.5% in imports, so any economic effects from Russian sanctions would be minor at best. Sweden's largest trading partners are Norway, Germany, the United States, Denmark, and Finland, with Russia ranked 15th (as an aside, China is 6th in terms of exports, at $8.4 billion while Russia receives just $1.2 billion in exports).

So, economically, neither Finland or Sweden is of that important, and there's no reason to expect NATO membership would preclude an change in trade between either country and Russia. If anything, it may provide an additional conduit for trade between Russia and the West in the event of expanded sanctions.

So, why Russia would accept NATO membership of Finland and Sweden but not Ukraine? Does the answer again go to national security just as Putin has maintained all along? As far as Moscow would be concerned, the addition of NATO troops, ships, and particularly missiles in Sweden and Finland, will make little difference. If truth be known, Russian military planners long ago accounted for Sweden and even Finland in their response calculations should a war break out with NATO.  To paraphrase an old adage I adapted, "if you're not with me, you're against me. The only neutrals are in cemeteries".

While Sweden shares no common border with Russia, Finland does with some 830 miles of mostly inhospitable mountainous terrain, bitter cold, and dense forests with Russia. With Finland, the majority of its population and industry are located within 25 miles of Helsinki, which accounts for 27% of its total population (Finland only has a total population of about 5.5 million, and just nine cities with populations over 100,000).   

In Sweden's case, 85% of its 10.21 million population live in urban areas. About 3.3 million live in Stockholm and the surrounding metro area. The city of Gothenburg, Sweden's second largest city, has around 2 million, while another six cities have roughly 100,000 each.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has a 1,426 mile long border, which includes 199 miles along the Black Sea. Its land is among the most fertile in the world and it's moderately populated (both Russia and  Ukraine also share a similar language, history, and culture). Note too that Ukraine was occupied by the Soviets from 1922 until the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 before becoming independent in 1991. 

Russia's largest naval base since 1783 and home of the Black Sea Fleet is nearby at Sevastopol in the Crimea. It comprises an area of 334 square miles and a population of around 430,000 (when you add in surrounding towns and other populated areas, the total population jumps up to 510,000).

It's worth nothing that some military analysis believed that the Black Sea Fleet is the least prepared of the Russia's four main naval bases, ranking them in order of importance, Baltic, Northern, Pacific, and lastly, Black Sea. However, it is a key link between Russia and its ally, Syria. Then too, there's that matter of oil.

It was recently confirmed that the Black Sea shelf and the Azov Sea may potentially be one of the richest reserves in the world. Ukraine had, in fact, been quietly counting on acquiring full access to it and making closed doors deals with energy giants like Exxon, Dutch Shell, and BP (Europe receives approximately 40% of its oil and gas from Russia, with Germany---the EU's economic engine---getting 70% of its oil and gas from Russia), but then came the annexation of Crimea.

So, how much oil and gas are we talking about? Best estimates are 2.53 million tons of crude oil, 58.6 billion cubic meters of natural gas, and 1.231 million tons of natural gas condensate. That's more than enough to go to war for. It's estimated that Russia's annexation of the Crimea deprived Kyiv of some 80% of its energy potential.

If Russia manages to keep the four Donbass provinces as a result of the current war, it could possibly acquire most of the Ukraine's estimate 60 million tons of coal (90% of the Ukraine's coal lays in the Donets Coalfield, in the Donbass Region). While the Ukraine is rich in other natural resources, including gold, strategic metals, wood, and some of the most fertile soil on the planet, the loss of the Crimea oils and gas fields as well as the coal rich Donbass would severely hurt its energy needs.

Putin claimed the invasion of Ukraine was a matter of national security, and maybe it was, at least to a point. Putin didn't want NATO troops, artillery, tanks, and especially missiles on his border, and especially at the naval base in Sevastopol (even if it's a third rate base). He certainly doesn't want NATO surveillance staring him in the face.

But, it was the oil and gas of the Crimea which was key. And it's the coal rich Donbass region in the east that he wants. The war wasn't so much as a matter of national security as it is one of acquiring energy. In the near future it will be over the fertile soil like that of the Ukraine, strategic resources, and potable water elsewhere. Control of resources will the reason for all  future wars regardless of the "cause" assigned to it.

Since Sweden lacks a border with Russia and Finland's is so insignificant, Putin can use feigned indifference to their applications to join NATO. It doesn't hurt that Finland lacks oil and gas too. Otherwise, Finland's admission to NATO would be deemed a national security and denied just as in Ukraine. If Putin hoped to weaken NATO in his quest for oil and gas, he failed miserably.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at 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 A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

The leaders of Finland and Sweden say they will jointlysubmit their NATO applications

Finland and Sweden want to join NATO. Here how it works andwhat comes next.

Sweden's Top 15 Trading Partners

Finland's Top Trading Partners

Russia's naval base in Ukraine: Critical asset or point of pride?

Exxon and Shell win Ukraine oil bid

Energy in Ukraine

NATO chief sure spat over Sweden,Finland will be resolved

Fossil fuel companies are exploiting Russia's attack on Ukraine

Why Do So Many Countries Hate Trump? A Global Perspective

Here we are, at the end of 2019, and what a year it's been. Like most everyone else I thought about doing a retrospective; taking a look back at perhaps the top stories we did for A/O or maybe a look at the year's leading stories, but that wouldn't be very original would it? So, instead I decided to look at how President Trump stacks up among some of our allies.

While they don't have a direct impact on our elections, their opinions do impact us through the perceptions they create. It also has an impact on our trade relations since their impressions reflect their confidence in the presidency and the government. Besides, Trump's Presidency began with the absurdity that somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election which kept Hillary Clinton from her coronation. So, let's take a look shall we?

In tenth place is Japan. An important economic partner of the U.S. which doesn't seem to like Trump. Since the beginning of the Trump Presidency, Japanese opinion has dropped 54 points. In addition, their opinion of Americans in general has fallen 15 points as well. The Japanese seem to equate Trump with their largely unpopular Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as having no sense of humor, a big ego, and militaristic. Additionally, like Trump, Abe was born wealthy and appears out of touch with most Japanese. At least Trump hasn't thrown up on Japanese PM yet unlike another certain U.S. President!

The ninth spot is our friends down under, Australia. Although 75% of Australians have a positive opinion of Americans, only 45% can say the same thing about Trump. The Aussies don't seem to be particularly confident of Trump being able to do the "right thing" when it comes to his foreign policy, especially on the topic of refugees or ability to comprehend the complexity of the situation on Nanru and Manus and ship based human smuggling.

Next is perhaps our closest ally, the United Kingdom. Trump's approval is down 57% from what it was under Obama. In fact, some of their media goes as far as to say that the Brits "really really hate" Donald Trump, but that's not all. Just 50% have a positive opinion about America and Americans in general.

The reason most cited was Trump's promise to minimize Muslim immigration into the US. Of course, the UK has been inundated by Muslim "migrants" as has Europe, much to their detriment I might add. In fact, several large cities in the UK, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, have substantial Muslim populations, not to mention Sharia courts and "No-Go" zones, albeit unofficially.

Our northern neighbor, Canada, is next. So could those obnoxiously polite Canadians dislike about "The Donald"? Well, apparently everything. According to Pew Research, they regard the President as arrogant (92%), intolerant (78%), and dangerous (72%). 84% doubt he's qualified to be the president. They dislike his policies just as much as him personally, and for the first time since Pew began tracking opinions in Canada has Canadians polled over 50% in their dislike of Americans.

According to the survey, 57% of Canadians have a negative opinion of the U.S. while the remaining 43% apologized profusely (just kidding). As an aside, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, came in 14th with a 44% disapproval rating of Trump (mostly due to illegal immigration). Thus while Trump and America are viewed rather poorly by our two closest neighbors, it's Canada which has the worse opinion of us.

Spain is sixth on the list. Spain, which has become a major entry point for "migrants" entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East, not only strongly dislikes President Trump, they don't care much for Americans either. According to Pew, Trump is down 68% from former President Obama. The majority don't believe that President is capable or willing to do the "right thing" when it came to his policies.

They also believe that Trump doesn't understand the international situation well enough to be president. Regarding Americans, a whopping 60% of Spaniards had a unfavorable opinion of Americans while 23% had a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S.. The previous high has never exceeded 7%.

Next on the list shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, it's France, which has had something of a national "Napoleonic Complex" toward the U.S. since the end of World War II (you're welcome again by the way) and presidency of Charles De Gaulle. That's not to say the French People don't like Americans, they do...well, mostly. 73% of those polled had a favorable opinion though they admitted to getting a bit miffed when tourists show up and expect everyone else to speak their language. Trust me when I say that most Americans these days can relate!

Nevertheless, President Trump is down 70 points from Obama! To put it another way, the French hate Donald Trump more than Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, or even Germany's Angela Merkel (who is partly responsible for Europe's decline thanks to the importation of the "migrants"). France's current president, Emmanuel Macron (the other person most responsible for Europe's decline) has even tried to bill himself as the "Anti-Trump".

As for why the French hate Trump so much, it really covers about every one of his policies, from trade to terrorism to the environment, human rights and the global economy. They dislike his personality and just about everything else about him. The only thing they seem to like is his wife, Melania Trump (the French do love class and style and she exudes it).

Interestingly South Korea is fourth. Now with a nut job with possible nukes just a few dozen miles to the north, you'd think they would have a more favorable opinion of Trump. After all, he has been one of the few American presidents who hasn't been bullied into backing down every time Kim Jong Un throws a tantrum.

In fact, very few world leaders have actually stood up to Kim in the past, including presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. In addition, the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, as well as our strong trading partnership, are major reasons South Korea is still there.

Nevertheless, 71% of South Koreans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump compared to Obama. Many fear that Trump is using South Korea as a pawn in his dealings with Kim Jong Un. They also believe that Trump is "indifferent" about South Korea's role as an ally. If that was case, I doubt that Trump would have gone to bat for them as often as he has in the past. By the way, 75% of South Koreans still have a good opinion of America and Americans.

Now for Germany. Is anyone actually surprised? The only thing I found more surprising was that Germany wasn't higher than third on the list. Pew's poll showed a 75% decline in favorability from Obama to Trump; a drop which cuts across all of Germany's political lines.

Perhaps it's because Trump has been a vocal critic of Angela Merkel's disastrous policy of "open borders" of the so-called "migrants" into Europe (many Germans feel the same way except that "war guilt" seems to keep getting in the way of Germans doing the right thing for Germany and Europe). Merkel's immigration policies smacks of national suicide; a desire to destroy Germany's culture, traditions, and sense of national identity, even if that means taking Europe down with her.

Like Germany, the Netherlands has an equal distain for President Trump and like Germany, it's favorability toward the American President has dropped 75 points. Like the Germans, the Dutch believe that Trump is intolerant, arrogant, and lacks the practical experience of a world leader. They too, as others on this list have expressed, believe that Trump lacks the moral character to "do the right thing", be it pertaining to immigration, human rights, the environment, the Middle East, or just about anything else. On the plus side, 71% of the Dutch still have a positive opinion of Americans.

Finally, the number one spot. The country which hates President Trump more than anyone else is (drum roll please)...Sweden. Yelp, that ultra polite "Canada of Europe" dislikes Trump more than any other country in the whole wide world. It's hard to believe actually. Sweden is, after all, so damn polite. They are consistently listed as being among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. They are routinely ranked among the best educated people in the world. Sweden has one of the world's best social safety nets, top government infrastructure and environmentally friendly countries in the world.

Of late Sweden has been suffering from the influx of "migrants" coming into the country; many of whom are poorly educated and lack few, if any, transferable work skills. They've proven to be a huge drain on Sweden's economy, especially its once renown social safety net. Additionally, crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed throughout Sweden, particularly in major cities like Stockholm.

In addition, there has been increased demands by these "migrants" for the implementation of Sharia law (including Sharia courts) as well as curtailing Sweden's traditionally liberal social standards. Many political scientists have proclaimed that Sweden, as a solidly liberal society, may be the first large country lost to the "demographic replacement" of Europeans along with Holland and Belgium.

As a result, we have a nation caught in the grips of a transitional crisis. Nevertheless, their opinion of Trump puts them at the top with an 83% disapproval rating, though the American People retain a 80% approval rating. The principal reason, they claim, is Trump's failure to "fact-check" before speaking (or tweeting). They believe Trump is too intolerant (especially toward Muslims), and lacks the intellect as well as personality to be president.

Could the Swedes be right? For that matter, could everyone else on the list be right? Is Donald Trump the wrong person for the job? Would someone like Hillary Clinton have done a better job as president? If her record as Secretary of State or as a candidate are any indication (including her attempt, along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille to rig the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders, illegally obtain questions in the final presidential debate, Benghazi, or the Clinton "pay to play" Foundation), the answer is no. Hillary fails, if for no other reason, than on moral grounds.

We also need to remind ourselves that almost every country on this list has a politically Left government. A few, such as Sweden, have a long tradition of socially and economically liberal policies. Some were part of empires or were the nexus of the empire itself. Many too have had brutal Far Right juntas imposed on them with the help of the U.S. Government. All have had a close economic relationship with the United States. A few are heavily dependent of American economic aid.

To them Trump perhaps represents a threat. He is not just tightening the borders, preventing illegal immigration into this country, but as a result, restricting money from going back to these countries which has become an informal form of economic aid; something which props up small communities. It has also helped to relieve local poverty thanks to the illegal exodus, providing education and healthcare which would have otherwise been unavailable.

Along the same lines, they may be concerned about the cutback of official aid or military support, forcing them to pick up the slack instead on relying on "Uncle Sugar" to do it for them. Of the countries in Europe, they are suffering under the crushing burden of these "migrants"; many of whom are Muslim. No doubt they'd like to see more redirected to the U.S. America has been viewed for decades as the breadbasket, policeman, and bank to the world. As long as the money flows, they love us.

They worry that America may decide to turn its attention inward and start taking care of Americans first. Many would like to see America drop its border restrictions and turn itself into n open "feed trough"; doing for the world what their own governments won't thanks to their greed. Instead of removing their own tyrants and incompetent government officials, they turn to America for free handouts. This, I believe, is what they're afraid of, and Trump is just the outsider who would do it.



These Are The Countries Which Really Hate Trump


Making America Grate Again

Where Countries Stand With Donald Trump: A Crib Sheet

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