America: A Nation of Exiles, Misfits, and Second Chances. But has it gone too far?

America. There has always been something truly unique about this country. People of all sorts have been coming here almost ever since its discovery, and they keep coming despite all our faults and failures (and there are many).  Nations, far older than us, are constantly comparing themselves to us. We’ve become the world’s yardstick for practically everything, but who are we really?

We don’t tend to think about it much, but most of those who came here to settle were misfits and exiles. They were people who didn’t fit into society any longer. They came to escape the restrictions their native country had placed on them. For many, they were locked into an economic and social caste system irrespective of their intelligence, ability, or motivation.  

Many were just one slippery step from debtor’s prison. Others had already fell victim to the harsh judicial system, often for petty crimes committed in the name of survival. The lucky one’s found themselves “transported”. This was a way to be rid of petty criminals, social deviants, and malcontents while emptying out their overcrowded prisons and relieving a marginal social safety net based largely on charity.  They were typically sent abroad as “indentured servants” to work off their sentences in places which were often difficult and dangerous (Georgia and the swamplands of South Carolina were often a key destinations).

Meanwhile, others simply wanted to chance to start life over again and a chance to show the world (and themselves) what they could do if given the opportunity, and so they came by the tens of thousands.  Many bore  the same title of “indentured servant” as the felons, though under slightly better circumstances in most cases.

These individuals were mostly young, poor, marginally educated, with very limited opportunities. Many were orphaned. They voluntarily leased themselves out for a set period of time. This usually covered their passage (typically in steerage) as well as their labor with the hopes that, in the end, they would get their chance at a new life. It was a difficult and often risky choice, with many never seeing the end of their bondage, but it was better than what awaited them if they had remained.

A surprisingly large segment of immigrants also came to avoid religious persecution. It was commonplace for each country to have an official religion, often headed by a monarch,  to which everyone was expected to participate, if not in person, then financially. It wasn’t uncommon for so-called “dissenters” to find themselves harassed by authorities, fined, imprisoned, or stripped of everything they owned in order to pay the mandatory tithes. This new country demanded none of that. There would be no state mandated religion.  It’s easy to understand why, to believers, this was seen as the “promised land”.

Not much has really changed in all those centuries since the first Europeans set foot on this continent. We still attract the world’s misfits, exiles, and those looking to start over. America is a different sort of country. It is not a nation which evolved organically over time like Europe or Asia. We came about in less than a blink of an eye in terms of history. We were created as an experiment, born out of a sense of justice, fair play, and individual sovereignty.

 In lieu of having a long history to shape our nation, ours was based a heritage of ideas stemming from the Enlightenment, Judeo-Christian morals, and the philosophies of the Near East, Ancient Greece and Rome.  Even our government was modelled on the Roman Republic. All of which is nicely summed up in our traditional national motto---"E pluribus Unum” (“Out of Many, One”) along with our official national motto, “In God We Trust”, which reflects the desire of many to come here to seeking their religious freedom.   

The Statue of Liberty, which graces the entry into New York, reminds us that we are still a nation of second chances. It’s often the first thing arriving immigrants see. The plaque at its base bears the  famous poem by Emma Lazarus entitled “The New Colossus” which speaks of America as the “Mother of Exiles”. It urges the world to “…Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free. The wretched refuse of teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift up my lamp beside the golden door!”

Marvelous words expressing the aim of America to welcome all those seeking to be free, but something has changed since those words were pinned in 1883. America was conceived of as a welcoming melting pot, where all would leave behind the worthless hatreds and prejudices from wherever they came. Here they would become a new people---“Americans”--- sharing a common language with a shared set of values, laws, and uniquely American traditions.

Somewhere along the way something changed. We no longer concerned ourselves with those who come here in defiance of our laws. We stopped being proud to be Americans. Today, we have some 13+ million illegals living here with millions using taxpayer based social services they never paid for. They have no interest in adopting our language, laws, traditions or values. Worse, we have politicians, cities and groups which are fine with that. What happened?

According to a U.S. government budget committee report on the costs of illegal immigrants to taxpayers dated January 11, 2024, 69% of illegal immigrants don’t have an education beyond high school (compared to 35% of Americans) which impacts their work skills and employability. Each individual cost taxpayers approximately $68,000 each over their lifetime or about $42 billion.  In addition, the children of illegal immigrates (including children born in the U.S. of parents here illegally) received roughly $68.1 billion dollars (as of 2019) in taxpayers funded services. Taxpayers also picked emergency care and other medical costs to the tune of $7 billion dollars annually.

Some hid behind the 14^th Amendment, which was intended to provide citizenship for recently freed slaves following the Civil War, in order to claim legal status, thanks “anchor babies” as noted above. More recently, others have claimed asylum status when they’re only seeking employment without applying for a work permit (employment isn’t recognized as a legitimate reason for asylum status under international law).  Still others send their children with strangers and then come seeking to be reunited with them.

Even certain religious institutions blatantly choose to ignore immigrations laws, believing that somehow they are exempt from following the law, and going as far as not just encouraging them to migrate, but providing them with shelter, housing, job contacts, and even how to manipulate the system to access taxpayer based services. Of course, these immigrants fill pews and church coffers, as well as improve their political clout.

We became fixated on the “right” of these individuals to enter our country undeterred while other nations, ever anxious to rid themselves of hungry mouths they can’t afford thanks to antiquated societal norms, openly proclaim that we had no legal right to protect and secure our border.

Somehow, our right of national sovereignty had come under attack while their sovereignty remained securely intact. Immigrants now come, not to be Americans, but to transplant their country, language, values, traditions, and all! Some intend to even transplant their religious values despite not being compatible with ours. We’re the ones expected to conform and adopt, not the immigrant. What went wrong?

Our  English language is treated as unimportant. The government now caters to “diversity” instead of promoting emersion. Immigrants view the taxpayer funded social security net as an entitlement just for being here. They regularly send money home to support their families and community, which is perfectly fine. But why do they refuse to apply for work permits and pay their fair share of taxes to the country which makes it all possible?

At about the same time, we started to see more and more people no longer identifying as Americans. They had become hyphenated Americans, be it cultural, racial, ethnic, or whatever. In addition, the very notion of “American” increasingly became as a form of slander. The “ugly American” of the 1960’s had suddenly returned home.

We were increasingly taught to be ashamed of our collective history. Entire chapters of our history have become distorted and rewritten. Critical thinking skills have been replaced, and with it, the quality of education. Discipline is now seen as a form of suppression. In colleges and universities, students aren’t expected to take responsibility for the debts they willingly incurred despite many earning majors where there is no demand in the job market.

Even the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer publicly acceptable. Neither are displays of the American flag (which is now considered a “trigger object”).  Statues and monuments deemed “offensive” by a select few are defaced, vandalized, and removed.  Individuals with criminal histories are portrayed as heroes while law enforcement is viewed with contempt.

While America has always welcomed various religions, how do we deal with a religion which wants to impose its own religious laws on society, going so far as verbal and physically attacking people, blocking sidewalks and traffic while they “pray”? They become incensed at criticism of their faith but encourage attacks on other religions. In Europe, this has proven to be a disaster as the governments continually cave to their demands while punishing the victims.  

This is all part of a new narrative being preached throughout America---the “Gospel of Political Correctness” as proclaimed by so-called “woke” Millennials and Gen Z. To contradict the gospel in any way is regarded as blasphemy or heresy, often resulting in being  “canceled” (sounds like a euphemism used by the Gestapo or KGB). The good news, however, is that you’re freely entitled to their opinion at any time, whether you want it or not.

How does a nation founded on freedom of speech, religion, and association cope with this? How does a nation protect its national security when our borders are ignored?  How do we address the issue of hyphenated loyalties, a declining education system, no common language, or an agreed upon history survive? Historically, nations similar to this  have become ungovernable and ultimately imploded. No nation can be pulled in multiple directions and hold in the long run  (I’m reminded of Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as the Ancient Roman Republic).

I’m reminded of a quote by Theodore Roosevelt (perhaps our greatest president and certainly my favorite). In speaking before the Knights of Columbus at Carnegie Hall in 1915, the former president addressed many of these same issues when he said, “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he’s an American , but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room but for one flag…We have room for one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that loyalty is to the American people”.

I couldn’t have said it better Teddy. Well done. The question  which needs to be addressed is whether we are going to heed Roosevelt’s word, spoken some 110 years ago or are we going to go the way of the Yugoslavia past or current Europe? America has always been a country of second chances for those with nowhere else to go. But for us, here and now, there’s no place for us to go. There’s no one coming to our rescue. Republics rarely, if ever, get second chances.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Poems: The New Colossus

“Americanism”  by Theodore Roosevelt (1915)

Theodore Roosevelt: No Room in This Country for Hyphenated Americans

Hyphenate American

House Judicial Subcommittee Report: The Costs of IllegalImmigration to Taxpayers

Indentured Servants  

Our Never Ending War on Illegal Immigration: A Brief History

Immigration has been an important issue in the United States since at least the middle 19^th century when the U.S. began considering the creation of immigration laws. During the post-Civil War period, the United States experienced an economic boom, and we were expanding westward at breakneck speed. We needed people able and willing to meet this boom head on. Men and women were needed to fill the ranks in factories, lay railroad tracks, bend rivers to our will, level mountains, build cities, work farms, raise cattle and sheep, and provide back breaking labor. The war had laid bare our "Manifest Destiny".

Starting in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the first immigration law. The law included a literacy test, established a tax to be paid by new immigrants, and allowed officials a wide berth in deciding who could be admitted or excluded. The law also contained a “Asiatic Barred Zone”, which was a quota system to limit individuals from certain country entrance into the U.S.

Nevertheless, it paved the way for the Immigration Act of 1924. Originally, the laws were created with the purpose of keeping track of and limiting who was entering the country, their skill level or occupation, level of education, did they have the means provide for themselves until they got established, and country of origin. Eventually other statistics came along and asked questions about age, religion, overall health, or ethnic group to gain a more complete picture of our changing national demographics. America was, after all, a melting pot.

Today, we continue to regulate and monitor who comes and goes from our country, as does every other nation on the planet. Governments worldwide have a duty to secure their borders and an obligation to protect their citizens. It’s the central component to the legal concept of national sovereignty. Without a defined and secure border, it's not truly a nation. It's merely a territory.

America is facing a national crisis. Some even refer to it as a non-violent “invasion" similar to what Europe is currently experiencing (although that situation has become more violent due to an increase in physical assaults, murders, robberies, and rape gangs). While illegal entry into this nation (mainly along our southern border) has been going on in drips and drabs for decades, it’s been since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that it has evolved into the serious problem is it is now. 

The primary reason for the influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, at least initially, was the social and economic upheavals happening in Latin America (some at our instigation), such as militarily in places like El Salvador, Panama and Nicaragua, or were due to violent hurricanes and tropical storms  hitting nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic. President Ronald Reagan was the first post-Watergate president to address the issue of illegal immigration.

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (aka "IRCA"). The law set new minimum guidelines for arriving immigrants and streamlined immigration policy.  It promised tighter border security and established strict penalties for employers who knowingly hired someone here illegally. In addition, Reagan granted amnesty to some 3 million, mostly Hispanic, individuals illegally residing in the U.S. 

In signing the bill, President Reagan made it clear that this was “one and done” and that the U.S. would crackdown hard on illegal immigrants and there would be no further amnesties offered or given. However, what would-be migrants apparently heard was that if they could illegally enter the U.S. and evade authorities long enough, they’d eventually be granted amnesty too. As a result, the flow of migrants crossing the border illegally increased over previous years.

During George H. W. Bush's administration in 1990, Congress modified and expanded the Immigration Act of 1965, which increased immigration levels by 40% and included a provision for allowing family members to join those already here. It also doubled the number of work-related visas and increased the number of applications available to “underrepresented” nations.

 In 1994, under Bill Clinton’s presidency, Congress also pardoned roughly 548,000 illegal immigrates living the U.S. while fining them $1000 (which was waived). This amnesty was renewed in 1997 and again in 2000. Also in 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) which give legal status to over one million illegal residents (most form Latin America) who had lived here since 1995. Facing claims of discrimination, NACARA was amended in 1998 to include an undisclosed number of Haitians illegally living here since 1995.

However, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRAIRA”). Critics thought the bill went too far.  Under the bill, immigrants, regardless of the legal status, could be deported if they were convicted of having committed a felony. The new law would also remove anyone who overstayed their vistas, by so much as a day, could be deported and would automatically be ineligible to apply for a new non-immigrant visa. From 1996 through early 2000, deportations went from 50,000 to more than 200,000.

In 2000, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE”) was passed, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants attempting to obtain permits (aka “green cards”) to work here legally and had married legal or natural citizens. This allowed them to jump to the head of line, thus bypassing millions of other would-be immigrants waiting to gain legal entry into the United States. And who says crime doesn’t pay?

Despite promises to crack down on illegal immigration while running for office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). This allowed some allowed some 700,000 individuals who had come here illegally while under the age of 18, de facto U.S. citizenship in the form of renewable grants.

In 2013 and 2014 two efforts were made to allow illegal immigrants a path to remain in the U.S. The first was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The bill would also dramatically increase the number of work visa programs from 65,000 to 180,000. In 2014, President Obama attempted to get Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (“DARPA”) into law but failed. This was another efforts to provide a pathway for approximately 3.6 million illegal immigrants to become citizens.

During this same period, dozens of American communities opted to ignore federal immigration laws by declaring “sanctuary” status. What this meant was that they would not cooperate with federal immigration officials is identifying, apprehending, or detaining any non-resident, illegal or otherwise. Not unexpectedly, there were massive increases in illegal migrants which brought huge jumps in demand for government services.

As a result, local taxes were dramatically increased along with demands for more state and federal money. Can you imagine refusing to cooperate with federal authorities while demanding they send more money to help them in breaking the law? Talk about a sense of entitlement!

Under President Donald Trump’s first term, there were several attempts made to curtail the tidal wave of illegal immigrants coming from our southern border, but from Asia (including China), Africa, the Caribbean (many of whom were fleeing areas hard hit by storms and corrupt governments), and the Middle East, which included not just refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but unfortunately members of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorists as well.

Trump went so far as to try to contain the influx of migrants attempting to cross illegally by beginning to be a massive wall along the southern border. While nationally, many people supported the concept, which was also locally popular, Trump face widespread criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, various pro-immigration groups (many of whom had strong church ties), and even foreign governments.  In addition, Trump was urged to suspend all border crossings under Title 24 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Starting on day one, President Joe Biden sat about dismantling as much of Trump’s immigration policy as he could by signing the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. He ended Trump’s travel ban which prohibited unrestricted travel from known terrorist countries like Iran and Libya, started tearing down the border wall, and reaffirmed the legal status of DACA recipients. 

 In June 2024 he signed legislation to shut down the border in illegal crossings that surpassed 2500 a day.  Between January 2021 and January 2024, ICE encountered 7.2 million illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. In 2023, there were a record 2.5 million occurrences.  The bill also suspended protection from deportation to anyone unable to provide proof of need for asylum.

It's also worth mentioning that international law states individuals seeking asylum may do so if they are being persecuted due to their race, religion, gender, or ethnic status. Seeking asylum for economic purposes is not recognized as a legitimate reason to be granted asylum. Secondly, the individual seeking asylum must apply to the next closest country, not the country of their choice.

Now that Trump is again president, he has hit the ground running on the immigration issue as promised. With nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and decades of bipartisan blunders to correct,  thousands of illegal immigrants have already been deported to their home country, despite a lot of gnashing of teeth by their respective leaders.  Apparently, they think that the United States is somehow obligated to accept and provide for these individuals. Ironically, if this happens there, the outcome wouldn’t be so amicable. Individuals caught in their country illegally face an automatic prison sentence as does anyone who aids them in any way.

Some leaders of foreign countries have been openly critical of the United States efforts to exercise this most basic of national rights, while at the same time exercising their right to secure their national borders and protect their national sovereignty.  The media makes sure you see migrants carrying signs which read "We're Human" and "No One is Illegal". No one is doubting their humanity or that people aren't illegal. However, sometimes their actions are. That's why we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. It's the price we pay for a civil society. 

Clearly there needs to be a single universal law regarding the disposition and repatriation of individuals seeking to enter a country illegally which protects the right of a country to secure national borders and maintain its national sovereignty.  It should also include guidelines for dealing with individuals, groups, or associations (and private or religious) who promote the breaking of international and national laws concerning immigration. It should be up to each nation to provide for any exceptions such as a natural or manmade disaster.  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

 Historical Overview of Immigration Policy

The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)

 

Immigration and Immigrants: Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996

Immigration policy under the Joe Biden administration

The Status of Immigration: Poll Show Americans Have Had Enough!

According to the article, "Americans Sour on Immigration", written by Casey Harper of The Center Square (formerly known as Watchdog.Org), a conservative oriented website owned by the Franklin News Foundation, a recent Gallup poll shows voter support for maintaining the current immigration level has dropped.

The poll indicates that the approval level has declined from 34% to just 28%. It hadn't been this low since 2007 when it dropped even lower, to 23% (the highest it has been was 41% in 2018). Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Last year (2022), the United States took in just over one million legal immigrants.

The majority came from India, Mexico, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. 25,000 of new arrivals were refugees. Over the preceding 18 months, around 150,000 illegal immigrants crossed into the U.S. according to information released by United States Customs and Border Protection.  The Department of Homeland Security also stated that in the second quarter of 2022, roughly 221,000 "non citizens" were given lawful permanent status to remain in the U.S..

Many immigrants come from Mexico, however, increasing percentages are arriving from Central and South America; countries like Columbia, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. In fact, the majority of immigrants illegally trying to cross our southern border are coming from Venezuela, replacing Mexico as the origin of most illegal immigrants.

The primary reason most often cited is the collapse of the Venezuelan economy following the death of President Hugo Chavez in 2013 and the imposition of strict restrictions by the U.S. government (an example of reaping the whirlwind?).

The most cited reason is economic and political hardship (as an aside, economic hardship is not generally accepted as legitimate reason to claim refugee status).   In addition, individuals arriving from Caribbean (such as El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, also known as the "Northern Triangle") have also been on the rise.

They too cite the economy (in part due to horrific damage cause by increasingly severe hurricanes) as the main reason along with the usual political corruption. These areas underdeveloped economically and are dependent on tourism to keep their economies afloat, but thanks to COVID-19, tourism dropped to a fraction of what it used to be due to travel restrictions  and cancellations by cruise ship companies.

Most of those coming here illegally are settling in Florida, Texas, Arizona (places already with large Hispanic populations) as well as North Carolina. There are also large migratory populations to be found in more rural states like Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.

It's also worth noting that there has also been a substantial increase in individuals from Asian countries coming to America illegally as well with India and China being the top two, followed by Korea and Vietnam.

At present, around 14.6% of the U.S. population are foreign born, which is the highest percentage in 112 years. That translates to about 48 million individuals (legal and illegal) as of September 2022 and a 2.9 million increase since the beginning of the Biden Administration according to the Center for Immigration Studies.  Some 900,000 have gone on to become American citizens according to a report from Pew Research from 2022.

Along with the 48 million immigrants, there were 17.2 million "children" (those under 18 years of age) with a foreign born parent. Therefore, including the immigrant and their children, that account for  approximately one in five U.S. residents.

It's worth noting, particularly given the prevalence of "help wanted" signs appearing in nearly every business window or on every telephone poll, that of the 48 million immigrants in the U.S. roughly half---27.4 million---were employed. This represents two million prior to the COVID-19 crisis. It's worth noting too that most are considered to be hardworking.

In fact, several surveys have shown that most illegal immigrants don't want to become U.S. citizens. They don't want to "blend in" with other Americans, including learning English. They are here solely for the money. Nothing more. Many send a portion back home to support their family.

 In some cases, entire communities are at least partly supported by money sent home by their sons and daughters working in America. If they get caught, so what? They get a free physical paid for by U.S. taxpayers, a good meal, and free trip back home (along with any money earned while here in the States).  Once home many repeat the process all over again a few days or weeks later.

So, what's the takeaway? What are we to make of this?  Well, America has always been the number one "go to" destination for immigrants---legal or illegal. America was, after all, founded by and for immigrants.

No other nation in history (except perhaps Ancient Rome) has had the influx of migrants as we have had. It can truly be said that nearly every country, race, ethnicity, and religion can be found somewhere in this country. I suspect that every language and nearly every dialect can be found here too.

However, America was intended to be a "melting pot". People who came here did so with the intent of becoming "American". To become a U.S. citizen was the goal of nearly everyone who stepped off the boat. Most did their best to learn the language (with varying degrees of success). It was part of what it meant to be American. They did their upmost to adapt to the prevailing customs, laws, and traditions as best as they could.

They tried  to leave behind centuries of hatreds, feuds, and other prejudices. Some changed their names and others their religions. Many married not just out of their social class, but often our their own nationality. This was an opportunity to start completely anew. 

While certain traditions were kept by these new migrants, the objective was to become part of the giant American "melting pot", where our collective backgrounds were added together to create this new being called "American". However, sometime around the 1960's this began to change.

Instead of trying to blend in and part of this nation, we encouraged immigrants to keep their own languages, cultures, traditions, and values. It would be us who would adapt; who would accommodate you.  In time, we began to accept their refusal to blend in and to excuse away their laws and customs even when it came in conflict with our own in the name of "multiculturalism".

Immigrants now can refuse to have their children taught in English, opting instead to have a taxpayer tutor teach them in their former tongue. We provide instructions in a multitude of languages. Even phone recordings are in different languages, which wouldn't be so bad I suppose except we are suppose to "push one" to hear English. As an aside, I won't do it. If you briefly wait, it will continue on in English.  

While we should try to be accommodating, we shouldn't remove the incentive to learn the language spoken here by making it easy to avoid it. Otherwise, we're simply enabling the separation of our nation into ethnic enclaves. As I've said many times over the years, a common language is the thread which binds the fabric of a nation together. 

Once everyone typically wore generally similar types of clothing. Not anymore! Now it's common to see individuals wear traditional native garb. The problem is that some areas try to impose "modest" dress customs (usually based on religious traditions) on others comes into their neighborhoods as if these are foreign enclaves instead of the U.S.

This is a big deal in Europe which even has its own "morality police" which can arrest and even fine so-called "offenders" (usually women) This topic has recently popped up in New York and other U.S. cities. The same goes for food or drinks where pork products or liquor are served or sold in certain neighborhoods.

This has already happened in Europe too where native restaurants are penalized for offering pork or alcohol on their menus. Sure, you can still get these "off menu", but you have to consume them out of sight of other customers less you risk "offending" them. I'll be damned. Give me a BLT and glass of cold beer and I'll enjoy them both wherever I bloody well please!

I don't begrudge anyone's heritage or beliefs, but they should understand that they are the foreigner. It is therefore up to them to adapt to the traditions, values, customs, and language of the nation which took them in and provided them with an opportunity to start over...not the other way around. If they don't like it, they are free to catch the next flight out. That's one of the pluses about America. You can leave at anytime.

We don't need a poll to tell us that Americans are tired of dealing with this mess just as we're tired of weak willed political stooges ignoring us, but the validation that we're not alone doesn't hurt. I also suspect that many immigrants are just as tired of others, in their self-righteous arrogance, making life harder on them as well. We often see signs at rallies and protests which read "No One is Illegal", which is true. No human being is illegal, however, their actions sometimes are. That's why we have laws. 

 

 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! 

Foreign-Born Population Hits nearly 48 Million in September2022

U.S. Immigration---2022 in Review

 

DHS: Legal Immigration and Adjustment of Status ReportFiscal Year 2022 Quarter 2

Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle With MigrantFlows in 2022

 

 

 

Religion, Freedom, and Americans

According to a Gallup Poll from December 2021, 75% of Americans identify with some form of religion. Of that, 69% named Christianity as their religion of choice.  When asked for specifics, 35% said Protestantism while 22% said they were Catholic. However, 12% said declined to say.

 Meanwhile, 7% of those surveyed said they weren't Christian. Of those, 2% professed to being Jewish, while 1% each identified as Muslim or Buddhist. 3% declined to answer. But it's worth noting that 22% of those interviewed said they had no religious preference.

The significance of this survey comes into focus when you look at a similar survey conducted in 1971 when 90% of those interviewed identified as Christian, a 15% drop over 50 years, or about two generations. Further highlighting the shift was that in 1971, just 6% said they weren't Christian and a mere 4% had no religious preference.

The 2021 Gallup Poll said that 49% of those who adhere to a religion felt said that it was important to them.  Another 27% said it was "fair" important, while 25% felt it was of little or no particular importance.  But back in 1965, it was quite different. Then 70% of those survey said religion was "very important" to them. That dropped to 52% in 1978 before rising to 60% in 1990 where it remained consistent until 1996 before dropping to its present level of below 50%.

Church membership and attendance are two other key factors affecting religion in America. In 2000, Gallup asked participants if they attended a religious service in person or online, 44% said they did. Compare that to 49% in 1958 who attended services. By 2021, that number had dropped to just 29%.

When it came to membership, the numbers are just as bad. When Gallup first asked respondents if they formally belonged to a church back in 1937, 73% said yes. In 1999, that number was still pretty high with 70% saying they were. However, in 2021, that figure had dropped off to 47%.

The decline was primarily among those under 30 years of age, while it remained fairly stable among seniors.  For those born before 1946, those belonging to a organized religion dropped from 77% to 66%. From Babyboomers (1946 - 1964), that number went from 67% to 59%. Gen X (1965 - 1980), the figure declined by 12%, 62% to 50%. Finally, Millennials (1981 - 1996). Just 36% are belong to some religious denomination. As for Gen Z, 34% were unaffiliated with any religion.

When we break those numbers down further in order to get a clearer picture things get really interesting. First, the largest drop in membership was among Catholics who've dropped from 73% in 1998 to 58% as of 2020. For Protestants, it went from 73% to 64%, with mainstream churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc) being hit the hardest. Even Evangelical churches, which had the largest growth just a few years ago, are seeing record number declines.

Women, once the staple of church membership, has dropped by 20% over the last 20 years, down to 53%. 18% for men or 46%. Among whites, 59% attend, a decline of 16%. For blacks it's was slightly worse--- a 19% decline to 59%. For Hispanics, however, the numbers were worse. Since 2011, church membership among Hispanics has dropped off to just 37%.

As an aside, a 2018 Pew study showed that for the first time ever, the majority of Hispanics in America are no longer Catholic (something I'm sure certain Catholic service organizations were expecting when encouraging Latinos to illegally enter America). In 2009, the number of Hispanics who considered themselves Catholic was 57%. By 2019, that number had dropped to 47%.

Hispanics who considered themselves Protestant rose from 23% to 26%. Of those, the majority self-identified as Evangelical. 3% said they were no longer Christian, while an impressive 23% said they were agnostic, atheist, or nothing in particular.

There's a great line from the novel "Dune", written by Frank Herbert that says "When religion and politics ride in the same cart a whirlwind follows". Although there's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state, America has done a great deal to keep religion and politics as separated as possible. It's not that the Founding Fathers disapproved of religion, far from it.  They were just fearful of a state created religion like what had forced others from Europe.

Under a state religion, others exist at the discretion and magnanimity of those in power; to be granted or withdrawn at a whim. In addition, the state church imposed a tax on the citizens as well as on the non-state churches. In addition, the members of these non-approved churches were required to support their minister and church which represented another tax burden many couldn't afford.

The decline of religious membership and participation among Liberals went from 56% to 35% over the last 20 years, a 21% drop. Among moderates, they experienced a 21% as well, going from 66% to 45%. Perhaps not unexpectedly, Conservatives fared the best, falling 14% from 78% to 64%, which still represents a majority.

When we break it down along partisan lines, Independents, who are the nation's largest political demographic, fell from 59% to 41%; a 18% drop.  Democrats saw the largest drop, going from 71% down to 46%, which represents a falloff of 25%.   Again, as expected, Republicans had the least drop. Over the last 20 years, they've gone from 77% to 65%, which once again still leaves them with a majority of participants.

It's ironic that the Left it portrayed by the media as being morally superior, while accusing Conservatives and Republicans of corrupting Christianity; of advocating a form of "neo-fascism" Christian Theocracy the way the Taliban has corrupted Islam. After all, wasn't it said that if fascism ever came to America it would be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible?

 They cite the Right's push for mandatory prayer in school while ignoring other faiths and the non-religious, while also encouraging pray at social functions, not to mention limiting or prohibiting diversity and cultural inclusivity (aka "multiculturalism").

The Right, on the other hand, cite the need to recreate a "melting pot" where no one group is better than the other. At the same time, for a society to prosper, they argue that a society must share a set of common values and a common language. "You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything", isn't that the promise of a "anything goes" society? 

They also point out that the religious Right was behind the move by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade, and thus making abortion illegal. The Left sees abortion as a "pro-choice" issue, whether anyone else agrees with it or not. It's their position that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases while the religious oriented Right hold that that option ended the moment she became pregnant. 

Even what constitutes a "unborn child" is disputed! The Right says that at the moment of conception, life has begun and all future decisions must be based on that. Meanwhile, the Left believes the process of life (cell division) may technically begin at conception, but you don't have a "life" until there's a heartbeat and brain activity (the absence of which is near uniformly acknowledged as death by the medical community). 

There are some on the Right who believe that the pregnancy must come to term no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy (ie: rape or accidental) or possible medical disabilities that might bring up to and including those affecting the mother's wellbeing, and will cite cherry picked passages from the scripture of their choice to support their claims. But what if the individual isn't of their faith or culture? What then? 

Other issues which separate the Left and Right along religious lines include the acceptance of homosexuality, the admission of female clergy (or gay clergy), the role of women in church and at home just to name a few. None of these even touch on groups like the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Mormons, and other non-traditional religions which have either in part or in totality rejected aspects of modern society.

As an aside, the Mormons are one of the few Christian sects which has actually maintained their numbers. While the Utah based church hasn't grown, it's numbers haven't dropped off like other Protestant denominations have (in 2020, the growth rate was 0.6%. In 2021 it was 0.85%). It's primary areas of growth has been in Africa despite a significant drop in missionaries (thanks mainly to Covid-19).

So, what religious based groups are doing well?  In the U.S., the fastest growing organized religion is Islam, albeit the numbers themselves are extremely small. Islam makes up less than 1% in the U.S. and it's growth rate has been 0.6% to 1.5% over the past few years. Nothing to write Mecca about! However, Islam is expected to surpass Judaism in the very near future with Islam reaching eventually about 2.8% of the population compared to 1.8% for Jews. Non-organized religions such as pantheism, paganism, Wiccan, Native American, and African faith systems are also growing rapidly as is the more secular Humanism.  

It's also worth noting that since the collapse in the 1980's of Communism in Eastern Europe, churches have made a comeback in a big way. Under Communism, atheism was the defacto "state religion". Nevertheless, efforts to suppress or even outlaw religion under Communism was largely unsuccessful. Growth mainly among Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, and Lutheranism has rapid and sustained.

Even in the former center of Communism, Moscow, President Vladimir Putin is a semi-regular attendee at religious services where 71% openly identify as Orthodox, 10% Muslims and 15% who remain "unaffiliated".  87% of Poland are Catholic. 95% of Romania and Moldavia adhere to some religion. 84% for Croatia, and so the story goes.

Religious freedom was denied the people of Eastern Europe for nearly 50 years. Now it's back with a vengeance. Perhaps you have to lose something to realize its value, which for the people under Communism not only included freedom of religion, but by extension, freedom of expression and speech, association, movement, ownership of property, equality of justice, and control over our own persons.

Religion is not mandatory in the West. Those days of autocracy and official religions have thankfully long passed. Today we have the option to accept or reject it. In other parts of the world the people don't have that choice. The state has made the decision for them as to what's acceptable or not, and the penalty for rejecting that decision can be brutal, if not fatal. Migrants to Europe, who claim to be seeking economic and social freedom, are trying to impose their repressive religious and social values on the very citizens whose nations accepted them.

The Founding Fathers intended to create a new society where we had the freedom of religion (which by definition also includes freedom from religion). This freedom meant you could freely practice your religion but you couldn't impose it on others. It also meant the state was prohibited adopting any religion or from imposing any religious beliefs or penalties in its citizens. For its time, this was huge.

Our Founders bequeath to us a freedom of choice, which implied, among other things, the right to believe as we were so inclined too, as well as freedom of speech and expression, association, the right to a fair trial, and the right to defend ourselves from those who would seek to deprive us of these and other rights, which goes to the Founder's belief in the natural and preeminent rights of the individual.

 

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!  

 

U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority For First Time

How Religious Are Americans?

 

Mainstream Protestants Make Up Shrinking Number of U.S.Adults

"Seven Sisters" of Mainline Protestantism Still Bleed Members

Majority of Hispanics in the U.S. no longer Catholic newstudy finds

The Unlikely Rebound of Mainline Protestantism

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is America Headed For A Divorce? Why Our Loss of Trust in the Government Could Lead To A Breakup

 

Americans no longer trust their government. According to recent Pew poll, just 20% of those surveyed said they trusted the government to do the right thing. That means that 80% of America has little or no confidence in Washington. As bad as that is, a mere 2% said they had complete trust in the government! 

In the rest of the world, those kind of numbers would have officials scurrying to the airport for the next flight out to just about anywhere. Those numbers are typically surefire harbingers that a revolution or coup is imminent. You could probably smell the tar coming to a boil and hear the scaffolding being built.

Some politicians thought one was getting underway on January 6th as they locked doors and hide under their desks (and no doubt, at least one grabbing the closest bottle of booze they could find to ease their nerves. I bet that even the ghost of Edward Kennedy was downing shots!). The truth is that something much worse may in the offering.

Americans are more divided than at any time since the 1850's and the "Great Compromise", which briefly held the nation together thanks to the efforts and genius of the "Great Triumvirate"  that was John C Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster. Unfortunately for our nation at this time, there isn't a Calhoun, Clay, or Webster. It seems that Americans can't agree on anything.

A recent poll by Pew pointed out that 73% of Democrats and Republicans believe that we can't even come together and agree on "basic facts". However, it hasn't always been so. Trust in the government was actually in the upper 70% range under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson's first term. The last time there was an approval plurality was in 1970, under President Richard Nixon, when public trust of government stood at 52%. But that was pre-Watergate days.

Following Nixon's fall, the numbers began a drop from which they've never recovered, though we've briefly come close such as during George W Bush in October 2001 when it reached 60% before declining to 25% by the end of his presidency. Obama peaked at 29% in February 2011, then dropped to 10% in October of the same year.

By the end of Obama's presidency, trust in government was 19%. Under President Trump, trust in government peaked at 27% in April 2020, before dropping to 20% by August. Thus far under the Biden Administration, it hasn't improved by much, standing at roughly 24%.

Of course, partisanship plays a big factor too. Republicans naturally have more trust under a Republican administration while Democrats do the same under a Democrat administration. The real deciding factor are Independents, who are America's voting majority. Other factors come into play, like race, ethnicity, and age.

When it comes to trusting the government, Asians, who comprise about 6% of the population, poll just 29%. Hispanics, who make up 18% of the population, are the highest with 36%. Blacks, with 13% of the overall population, are close behind with 35%, with whites, with 60% of population, at just 18%.

In terms of age, we look at generational groupings. Only 17% of Gen Z and 19% of Millennials have any confidence in government. 21% of Gen X and 25% of the Silent generations do. Meanwhile, Baby Boomers have the highest amount of trust with 28%. It's worth noting that of these groups, regardless of race or age, none do better than just over a 1/3 when it comes to confidence in the government. That means around 2/3 have little or no faith in the government.

As an aside, a 2020 poll by Gallup also showed that the majority of Americans do not have faith in the government when it comes to domestic or foreign policy. The polls shows an approval of 41% on domestic issues and a 48% in international ones, which underscores the poll by Pew.

The Gallup poll also included a few other results which I found interesting, partly because it separated Independents out from the two corporate controlled parties, which it should since Independents are not just a separate voter demographic, but also the nation's largest which Pew doesn't, but also because of the questions themselves.

The poll, which was conducted during the waning months of Trump's Administration, showed that the majority of Republicans (91%) trusted the executive branch compared to 6% of Democrats. Only 37% of Independents did. 82% of Republicans had faith in the Judicial Branch, while 58% of Democrats and 63% of Independents concurred.

When it came to Congress, 38% of Democrats trusted them, along with 33% of Republicans. Only 29% of Independents did.  In terms of those in government (the bureaucrats or "apparatchiks"), 61% of Democrats expressed faith in them. 44% of Republicans felt the same, but only 33% of Independents agreed.

When it came to trusting the American People, 63% of Independents did. So did 62% of Republicans, but, while still a majority, only 57% of Democrats agreed. In what was the most telling of the questions, when it came to trusting the corporate media, almost two thirds (73%) of Democrats said they did. Compare that to 36% of Independents and a mere 10% of Republicans! Could that be because most Republicans believe the corporate media is biased toward the Left?

When it comes to issues such as gun control, taxes, immigration (especially illegal immigration), not to mention the COVID virus or vaccination, Americans are further divided not just along political lines, but even along religious beliefs, gender, and regional lines. We seem unable to find a compromise or common cause. Americans, simply put, don't trust in the government, and its lost faith in pretty every other institution up and including religion.

America used to be a melting pot. People came from all over the world, bringing with them their culture, language, traditions, dress, music, food, and so forth. However, everyone came here for the single purpose of becoming an "American". That was their highest aspiration. As such, they merged with other immigrants, while leaving behind the petty squabbles, hatreds, and restrictions of the Old Country. Here it was possible to remake yourself and become almost anything you wanted if you were willing to work hard enough for it.  This was the land of second chances and opportunities.

However, over time, those aspirations had to be tempered with reality. Starting in the late 1960's, the concept of a melting pot began to change. Immigrants were encouraged to come, but not to blend in. Increasingly they were no longer encouraged to adopt our traditions, values, political system, or even speak the language. They came, not to be "Americans", but simply for jobs; to create little ethnic or religious enclaves throughout the country. America started becoming a defacto balkanized nation.

Employers defy immigration and other laws by hiring illegal immigrants, often forcing them to work for next to nothing, no benefits, or in unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Simultaneously, corporations offshored not just jobs, but entire companies to second or third world countries where people work in sweatshops for pennies a day with no benefits and poor work conditions. 

Meanwhile, the middle class, the economic and social backbone of this country, has taxed and outsourced into virtual nonexistence. The middle class is essentially seen as the upper tier of the working poor. While the upper elites see their wealth grow, the rest continue to see theirs shrink. The top 10% own 73% of all wealth, compared with the bottom 60% which owns just 4.2%.

To put it another way, the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans own 196 x more than the bottom 90%. The ten year period between 2009 and 2019, the wages for the bottom 90% grew at 8.7% while the top 1% saw a growth rate of 20.4% over the same period. The pay rate between CEOs and the average worker is (hang on)...830 to 1. That's $830 dollars for a CEO for every single dollar an average employee earns, meanwhile work productivity has increased by 17% between 1979 and 2019.

21% of all children in America live in poverty, which is higher than any other industrialized nation. Education in America also continues to decline in comparison with other countries, particularly in the areas of math and science. In terms of healthcare, we are rank toward the bottom of all industrial nations, especially in the number of available hospital beds and doctor/patient ratio.

America has become a two tier nation. We have one set of laws for the elites and another set for the rest of us. Politicians serve virtually at will thanks to Citizens United, gerrymandering, and rigged elections. They have benefits that we could only dream of. When they choose to leave office, they take not only those benefits with them, but also their salary...for life.

Over 50% go on to become lobbyists, where they earn triple when they made in office (not to mention perks of their own). Those who don't become lobbyists, usually become paid "consultants" or "advisors". Some make a fortune as commentators on TV or on the book and lecture circuit. 

They all typically live in gated communities, protected by cameras, motion sensors, and security guards. They don't worry about crime. They don't concern themselves with having to choose between buying medicine, paying bills, or buying groceries like the majority of Americans do. Face it folks, we live in two very different Americas.

America is a Corporatocracy. It is governed by a very wealthy oligarchy. This is no America on the road to "socialism" unless you mean Corporate socialism or socialism for the very rich and powerful.  A Corporatocracy is, by their very nature, a form of fascism. The creator of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini even said so. He stated  "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Pretty well sums it up don't you think? By the way, the term "socialism", which is often (and falsely) equated with Nazism or Communism, is now used as a scare word to keep people away from the idea of taking wealth and power back from the elites.

Finally, one last survey. This one is from June 2021 by the YouGov/Bright Line Watch. The survey is about support for some sort of secession. It shows that 39% of those on the West Coast favor a secession. Broken down by political ideology, 47% of Democrats, 33% of Independents, and 27% of Republicans support the idea. 32% of those in the Central Western States, which includes Idaho, Arizona and New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Nebraska among others, support secession.  By registration, it's 43% of Republicans, 35% of Independents, and 17% of Democrats.

In the Midwest, which includes the Dakotas, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and West Virginia, the percentage is 30%. Broken down by registration, 43% Independent, 34% Republican, and 19% Democrat support secession.

In the South, which takes in the Old Confederacy, including Kentucky, Texas, and Florida, 44% support secession. That's 66% of Republicans, 50% of Independents, and 20% of Democrats. Lastly, the Northeast, which includes New York all the way up to Maine and the Eastern Seaboard. 34% would like to leave too. Here, it's 39% of Democrats, 35% of Independents, and 26% of Republicans. 

There is no question that America has embarked down a dark slippery path. Where it will lead, nobody can say. We can only hope for the best. But with the rise of China, as well as India economically, the potential debasement of the U.S. Dollar in favor of, perhaps, the Yuan, the instability of the EU, growing confidence of Russia, not to mention the influx of illegal immigrants, stress on our social safety net, vulnerability of our electrical grid and crumbling infrastructure, viruses like COVID and questionable vaccines, crime and manufactured social instability, the rise in poverty and homelessness, a non-representing government, I wouldn't bank on it. Want to know more? Check out the links below. 

 

Americans Views of Government:  Low Trust but Some Positive Performance Ratings

Pew: Public Trust in Government 1958 - 2021

 

Trust in the Federal Government's Competence Remains Low

 

Income Inequality in the United States

Support for Secession Dramatically Rises in the U.S.Including on the West Coast Poll Finds

"No Go Zones" in America? A Look at the Reality and the Possibility

Following my recent article on "sanctuary cities", I came across an article on "no go zones" here in the United States. Well, that certainly got my attention since these so-called "no go zones" were all Muslim in nature. Some were apparently just a small community centered around a mosque while others were said to be much more sinister in their purpose. Typically these were described as Muslim "terrorist training camps". If true, then that's certainly something I wanted to know more about.

According to the articles (I say "articles" since, in my research, I came across other articles which made similar claims), there are somewhere around nine states which harbor these encampments. These include the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington, along with Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the Mid-West states of Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan were included. Other states, such as New York, Alaska, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina also appear. A few articles mention Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky.

The articles reminded me of the same type of fear generated by claims of neo-Nazi/White Supremacists having similar types of closed off communities in places like Idaho or Montana back in the 70's and early 80's, as well as Black Supremacists living in de-facto sealed off urban neighborhoods in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and elsewhere during the late 60's and early 70's; places where even the cops allegedly feared to tread. Of course, from the late 1960's through the 1990's there were numerous religious or cult communities which were closed to outsiders scattered all the country, though mostly in the Western states.

The idea of wanting to live in a community of like minded individuals isn't new to this country. Almost from the beginning, Quakers, Puritans, and even Catholics segregated off together. Later, as the population grew, we saw Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, Lithuanians, Italians, and others settle in their own ethnic/religious communities. Some groups, like Blacks and Chinese, followed suit, although this was partly the desire to be together (safety in numbers) and partly due to bigotry.

In fact, it's actually only been relatively recent that these type of communities have begun to break up, although newer groups such as Hispanics, Africans, Bosnians, and, yes, Muslims, have tended to cluster together (Hispanics from poorer and less educated countries like Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador) tend to stay close to Spanish speaking Roman Catholic parishes while Muslims may remain close to a particular mosque which has connections to their hometown, sect, family, etc. That's also why small ethnic businesses are usually established nearby; everyone likes familiarity. We are, after all, a tribal species.

So, is there any truth to these articles, particularly that they are engaged in terrorist training? That's hard to say. Certainly, the FBI, ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) along with Homeland Security would want to know (I would imagine the IRS would also have more than a passing interest too). Naturally, we all remember how well the Feds handled Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco (sarcasm intended).

In the past, terrorist acts in this country have tended to be either comprised of a small group (usually two or three individuals, with the exception of the cowardly 9/11 attack), or more often than not, the lone individual. In fact, the majority of these individuals described themselves as "self radicalized"; usually starting with a psychological "kinship" with the terrorist group's cause, and then become increasingly more radicalized through articles, books, and especially the internet; particularly via websites produced by these groups. These websites are usually very well designed with terrific graphics, and typically done in wide range of languages to give them that "personal" touch.

As a rule, the websites are divided into three segments: propaganda, ideology, and the "how to" section. The first two are pretty self explanatory. They are designed to attract those who may have a curiosity (perhaps under the auspices of trying to find out the "other side" of the story). They also present a skewed worldview as you might expect, complete with images of throngs of cheering well-wishers as their conquering heroes march into a newly "liberated" neighborhood or town complete with smiling men and happy children (a surefire tug at the ole heartstrings). They include "correct" religious instruction, especially for those interested in a do-it-yourself religious conversion, along with the proper religious diet and even physical training programs for that jihadi on the go!

The last part is where the newly recruited ideologue comes in. These individuals are typically encouraged to come and join the fight against--insert cause "here"-- where you'll be rewarded with whatever lights your fuse. However, if you are unable to make the trip, no problem! These websites come complete with videos instructing the dumbest of would-be terrorists with information on how they too can be become a mass murderer in just a few easy-to-learn lessons! They can learn everything from simple harassment techniques, improving their shooting skills, to the ever popular improvised bomb making. Perhaps the best thing about these sites are the ease at which they can be setup and accessed at little to no risk to the actual terrorists.

Nevertheless, while these type of sites do exist, they are pretty closely monitored by the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Interpol (and thankfully so). Naturally, there are certain mosques where Imams (religious leaders similar to a minister) of questionable moral character may secretly operate their own illegal terrorist training cells. These rarely ever contain anymore than just a small handful of utterly devout students. The goal is to create as many disconnected and independent cells as possible. That way, if one is compromised, it doesn't affect the others (as expected, these eventually show up on the radar too). As an aside, this technique was used to great success by the various resistance groups in Nazi occupied Europe; India during British colonial rule; Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

However, it's important to point out here that the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. haven't come from Muslim or any other religious groups. They tend to be the loner with their own unique cause, be it being snubbed by students at school or a girl, feeling like an outcast, pissed off at an employer or fellow employees, and so forth. Despite media propaganda, not all mass shooters are "Right Wingers" either. The man who attacked the Congressional Baseball Charity game singled out Republicans. The latest two mass murders were done by individuals who were members of Antifa, the so-called "Anti-Fascist" group which acts more like Hitler's Brownshirts or the Communist "Red Faction" than not. Nevertheless, in terms of voter registration, the majority are Democrats. More importantly, they are also usually young, male, disenchanted with life, and more often than not, mentally ill.

Europe, on the other hand, does have "no go zones" in truest sense where Sharia law is enforced, whether you're a Muslim or not. In fact, there is an active and ongoing attempt to spread its influence beyond the localized Muslim communities. There is little doubt that religious radicalization is alive and well, along with the possibly active terrorist training (we know rape gangs not just exist, but that there is actual training on how to organize rape gangs). Without a question, the attacks which have taken place in Europe have had a strong religious extremist undertone whether the governments there have the courage to admit it or not.

As for the "no go zones" in the U.S., they really don't exist, at least not like they do in Europe. Yes, some are restricted to some religious or some other denominator, but as I've said, that's hardly new nor does it constitute an actual "no go zone" since law enforcement and first responders have access. Historically, the biggest concern has not been keeping out but in preventing people from leaving (the "Moonies" and Jim Jones' "People's Temple" come to mind), which is why it's important for police access. Perhaps the most often overlooked "no go zones" are Native American reservations, which are defacto separate and semi-independent nations within the U.S. though they are freely visited.

Do they stockpile weapons, ammo, or conduct paramilitary training? Perhaps, but so far nothing has surfaced by the Feds, but that doesn't mean that something isn't happening. After all, both the White and Black supremacists groups back in the day conducted paramilitary training. On the other hand, perhaps their training involves is no more than of a matter of providing internal security (reservations have their own police for instance). Unfortunately, until they either act or the Feds find something that's pretty compelling, it's virtually impossible to know for sure. Not very comforting is it?

Personally, I don't really have an issue with a group of like minded individuals deciding to set up their own little community and living a peaceful existence off the grid. During the late 60's and early 70's, there was a proliferation of so-called "Hippie communes" which attempted to do the same thing. Their goal was to self-sufficiency; grow their own food (sell or trade any excess), make their own clothes, and so forth. The vast majority of these failed after a few months or years, but a couple did succeed and lasted for a couple of decades.

Of course, they lacked the defining religious element. If that element is benign, then there should be no problem. If it's not, then it could become a breeding ground for disaster. The treatment of White and Black supremacists communities in the past have tended to be more than a little heavy handed as well. Given how the Federal Government has acted in the past, there is always the possibility that one misstep could trigger another Waco or worse.

The Bill of Rights is perhaps one of Mankind's greatest accomplishments, along with the Constitution. They are also uniquely American. We were born out of a desire to be free from government's interference. That included the right to associate with whom we want, to protect ourselves, and to believe in what we wanted. However, time has tempered those ideals. For instance, felons aren't free to associate with other felons. Perhaps that's a good idea. Perhaps not. We are free, in theory at least, to live with whomever we want, which would include those of like race or faith. But how about practice? Can a neighborhood association specifically say only Chinese or Hispanics are allowed? Nope. What about only Jews or Baptists in a particular neighborhood? Hardly.

Can we buy machine guns, flamethrowers, or landmines to protect ourselves? Not a chance. In fact, while the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments, especially from the perspective of our Founding Fathers, it is also perhaps the most heavily restricted amendment with everything from what you can own, how old you have to be, and where you are allowed to carry it.

In terms of religion, we're free to believe as we choose. We're even allowed to follow certain social and dietary laws without paying a "pew tax" like in some countries. However, what if that religion allowed pedophilia? What about covering covering your face for official identification? What if it allowed so-called "honor killings" (religiously sanctioned murder to "protect" a family's "honor")? How would you feel about the right---and duty---to beat your wife or of restricting her rights under the Bill of Rights? Does their religious laws supplant our secular natural laws (laws bequeath to us simply for being human beings)? What about their religious belief that everyone must conform to their religious laws and traditions regardless of your personal beliefs?

This is what potentially makes these communities different. It's an entirely different culture which follows entirely different laws (in fact, they hold that our secular laws have absolutely no value whatsoever). They believe they have the right to exclude others who do not follow their laws and traditions. They believe in the right and obligation to impose their beliefs on others by any means at their disposal.

Yet, those very things---freedom of association, religion, and even the Second Amendment---are fundamental to America. How are we going to handle this as the Muslim population in America grows and the risk of radicalization increases as we admit those from areas where religious extremism is common along with an anti-West or anti-American sentiment?

Hopefully, it will never become an issue. Hopefully a peaceful coexistence will prevail as it has between others of different races, ethnic groups, and religions. Of course, this worked because we operated under the old "melting pot" concept where immigrants were strongly encouraged to integrate. Today, it's "multiculturalism" where assimilation isn't encouraged or even considered necessary! Obviously this hasn't worked well at all in Europe. Can the American temperament prevail where the European has thus far failed? So far these communities have been peaceful. Let's hope it stays that way.



Muslim Terrorist Training Camp Found In Alabama

Muslim of the Americas: Enclaves in the U.S.

Center for Immigration Studies: No Go Zones and Assimilation

No Go Zones: Alt Right fantasy or a new face of Europe?

The Catholic World Report: Raheem Kassem's No Go Zones is unsettling, necessary reading