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  

And Now A Word From Our Sponsors: War and Economics

The great military strategist, Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, once said, "war is a continuation of politics by other means", and what is politics except trying to secure a better outcome for yourself (or who you represent) than the other person. Of course, it's also supposed to be about compromise, where each side gets at least some of what they want. War is ensuring that your side gets all of what it wants when compromise is unpractical or unnecessary. Let's take the Napoleonic Wars for instance.

What was Napoleon Bonaparte actually attempting to do? Was it the simple conquest of Europe for the sake of grabbing up some great (and not so great) real estate? Was it about tweaking the nose of the British? While certainly a bonus, that wasn't his actual intentions. Nope. Napoleon was about trying to establish a united Europe for the sake of economics. It was all about creating a economic and political union. England's beef was that it would be at the cost of the British Empire. No longer would Britain be the dominant economic power in Europe.

It also didn't take long for many of the other monarchies realized that their hopes of economic success would be affected as well, especially with the French spreading this nonsense about "fraternity, equality, liberty" and all that democracy rot. Beside, not only did it threaten the current economic system, it threatened the existing monarchies and, by creating a more secular society, the power of the Catholic Church as well. Obviously that would not do! And so, Napoleon was eventually defeated and sent off to the Isle of St. Helena to (hopefully) quietly fade away, and with him all the ideals of the revolution.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen and in time, the ideals of the revolution with its "Rights of Man", a secular society, increased democracy, and the growth of the business (and middle class) took hold. Absolute monarchies gave way to constitutional monarchies and democracies grew, and along with it an industrial revolution. In the colonies across the "pond", a sense of personal and economic freedom had also begun to germinate earlier. Eventually, they--that is, "we"---decided that we would like to govern ourselves thank you very much. We also didn't care much for the tariffs and taxes being imposed. So, we too had our revolution, which was as much about taxation as it was over self-governance which, of course, had everything to do economics!

World War I had everything to do with economics. At least as much as it did about Serbian independence and the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sofia. While their murders were the spark, it was the interlocking economic and political system set up in post-Napoleonic Europe, as well the rising economic threat to the British and French empires by the German Empire as anything.

Its outcome resulted in the infamous Versailles Treaty which pinned the blame for the war on Germany while stripping it economically and militarily. Germany lost vast lands to the west, north, east (which also separated Germany from Prussia) and all of it colonies (the majority of which going to Britain and France). It lost its industrial heart---the Ruhr and Saar---while forcing huge reparations on Germany with no means of paying. In total, gone was 13% of its territory in Europe and one-tenth, or 7 million, of its citizens. The German imperial government was toppled, and its military emasculated. No air force. A 100,000 strong army. The surrender of its surface fleet with severe limits on any new ships (including merchant) and no submarines. Its world famous General Staff was disbanded while any research was strictly curtailed.

Germany's fragile new democratic Republic faced repeated social unrest and revolution. Assassinations were almost commonplace. With the hyperinflation of Depression nearly wiping out the upper, middle, and lower middle classes, the stage was all but set for the Second World War. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire had collapsed. The Austro-Hungarian Empire imploded, and Imperial Russia was overthrown by revolution and its ruling family, the Romanovs, were executed. As an aside, France and Britain benefited from the fall of the Ottomans, and divided up its lands in the Middle East, which, based on economics, arbitrarily created the nation-states we have there now not to mention much of our current problems since no respect was paid to tribal alliances, traditional boundaries, or opposing Islamic sects.

The new political, military, and economic realignment completely changed international relationships. Germany's former key trade partner, Russia, was now a Bolshevik nation opposed to the West. The US, thanks to its involvement late in the war, catapulted to the center of the world stage now that both France and Britain was weaker, despite their economic gains, having nearly bled to death on the battlefields of Europe, and Austria-Hungary was no longer a world power. Everything was different.

World War II was also all about economics, albeit along with other factors such as racism. Germany wanted to become a world power again, which meant reclaiming more than lands lost through the Versailles Treaty. Specifically, it was the conquest of western Russia and the Ukraine for "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" for the German People. Britain and France faced increased troubles in their colonies as the locals demanded more independence and share of their country's economic wealth. Japan too wanted a piece of the action. It was rapidly industrializing, however, it was resource poor.

As a result, it sought to form the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", in order to create something of an All-Asian economic alliance of, by, and for Asians with Japan at its center. At least, that was its justification for its military expansion in the Pacific. Even Italy wanted to recreate a version of the Roman Empire. As for the United States, we had been active in Latin America, not so much for actual conquest of land, but for ensuring US corporations could operate freely there and without any undo interference from the pesky locals.

Fast forward 1956, and the war in Europe and Asia is over. Europe was laid waste and the US "Marshall Plan" (along with the Berlin Airlift) had kept the Europeans out of a new Dark Ages. Japan was rapidly rebuilding its economy, turning former planes, tanks, and ships into cars, radios, and VCRs. The Korean War was a draw, despite a massive loss of life on all sides. Independence movements were blossoming everywhere, including the birth or rebirth of new nations. The Age of Empire was quickly fading, and the new kid on the world stage was the US, but we weren't alone. The USSR and Communist China were there too, and each sought to expand their ideological influence, and that meant both arms and money. The Cold War is on. Conflicts, pseudo-wars, and proxy wars spread throughout the world. We now had the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and the Common Market which was to morph into the European Union or EU (ironically, Napoleon's old idea anew). The world also had a defacto single global currency---the US Dollar. However, this wasn't a dollar backed by gold. It was tied to oil and on the "faith and confidence" of the US Government and the strength of the American economy. The one world currency was the Petro-Dollar.

By 1991, the ideology of Marx/Lenin/Mao couldn't compete with the ideology of the "Benjamin's", that is, American led capitalism. The Warsaw Pact broke up and the USSR left with a whimper. In short, instead of outfighting them, we simply outspent them. Sure, China survived, but even it too adopted a limited form of capitalism. Communist Eastern Europe has adopted the economic system of its once hated enemy, and is doing quite well thank you very much. Europe itself is much more integrated than ever and well on its way to a "United States of Europe".

Now, along came Osama Bin Laden. The "chic sheik" of a wealthy Saudi family in the construction business turned terrorist. Of course, before that, he was "our" freedom fighter opposing the Soviets who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his fellow zealots, al Qaeda, had declared war not just on the Soviets, but apparently the US and the West, except no one bothered to notice, and so they embarked on a campaign of ever bolder attacks on US interests in the Middle East; embassies, ships, military barracks, discos, and so forth. Finally came 9/11, and they got our undivided attention and anger.

The prime reason for the attack was revenge for the US and other Western influence in the Middle East, but especially our control over Middle Eastern oil. After all, if it wasn't for the oil and gas, not only would we have little to no interest, but the British and French wouldn't have bothered to interfere the region's politics following the fall of the Ottomans post World War I. Nevertheless, we "interfered" now, and in a big way. Before long, the Taliban in Afghanistan, which had sheltered Bin Laden, was gone and "Arab Dillinger" was on the run.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, an ally in the region, decided to invade neighboring Kuwait. Hussein was a known sadist who had previously attacked the Iranians and the Kurds. He even used chemical weapons. Sure, he was a tyrant, but he was our tyrant. This time he overstepped and his actions affected oil and gas prices worldwide. Soon we were rallying public support and building a coalition to liberate Exxon and BP... err...I mean the Kuwaiti People. He was soon defeated, but left in power and would hopefully resume his preapproved place as a deterrent to the Iranians, and so he did for awhile. He also resumed his attacks on the Kurds for good measure. But, soon he was back to coveting his neighbors oil fields, which I'm sure is a prohibitive commandment somewhere.

With that, his removal started with "shock and awe" and ended with the dull thud of a hangman's noose. At that point, America decided to take a direct hand at running Iraq, albeit with a cast of puppets which would make Jeff Dunham proud. Of course, the having proved to be more difficult than the wanting, and without Saddam's iron glove, the genie of religious fanaticism was released in the form of ISIS/ISIL, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, and dozens more. It wasn't long before most of al Qaeda's leadership and much of its followers had been eliminated, along with its founder, Bin Laden. In the interim, civil war had broken out in Syria, and we were doing more than rooting for the anti-Assad "freedom fighters" (in Iraq and elsewhere, they were terrorists. In Syria, they were freedom fighters). The reason is partly Syria's oil and gas; partly because they're Russia's key regional ally; and partly because it would make for a great staging area to launch an attack against Iran, which has been a thorn in our side since 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah and the US Hostage Crisis.

Despite numerous claims, albeit false, of "chemical attacks" by Assad's forces (they were actually carried out by our pseudo-allies, ISIL, in Syria, public support just wasn't there no matter how much the media spun the story. So, now the war is all but over and Assad is still in power. Iran continues to make threats against "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" (that's us and Israel). Iraq is stable...more or less...though US troops remain despite promises of coming home.

Europe is under invasion from "migrants" from the Middle East and Africa, which has done more than destabilize an economic and social system which has worked well since the end of World War II. It is on track to replace the native populations within the next couple of decades. Gone will be European culture, its social norms, values and traditions, and even its Judeo-Christian based religions.

Europe's politicians have more than proven themselves to be spineless cowards and traitors to European history and culture. They have had the audacity to try and make criminals out of the victims---the European People themselves. Nevertheless, those who wield the real power; the world's ruling Oligarchs couldn't care less as long as the wealth flows. Their interest is in control. Nothing else matters.

In America, we too are under invasions from economic migrants from Latin America. Our ruling Oligarchy could equally care less. To them it means more competition for jobs, which translates to lower salaries and fewer benefits. It's also an opportunity to attack traditional US ideals such as free speech, the 2nd Amendment, traditional family values, secure borders and the very notion of national sovereignty.

Of course, this makes perfect sense. They think and operate in a world made up of economic markets and trade zones. Borders and nations mean nothing to them. They're outdated notions from a bygone era. Their goal is control and compliance. If it means creating short term chaos in order to obtain long term economic stability in order to generate maximum profits, then so be it.

Besides, war is useful. Even the threat of war is profitable, especially if it forces open new markets, accesses new resources, or ensures compliance by governments. If bribery, threats and sanctions don't work and war becomes necessary, the public can easily be convinced of its patriotic duty. Meanwhile, the selling of weapons is a multi-billion dollar business. It artificially stimulates the economy, reduces "excess" population and thus lowers unemployment, and it allows for incursions into freedoms not otherwise tolerated, such a personal privacy. Given enough time, those incursions seem completely normal and acceptable.

Meanwhile, the population is entertained with distractions; distractions about their debt, loss of jobs, lowering of wages, loss of benefits, rising crime, and decline in their quality of life. The corporate media even spins it to make it look all so normal. It tells us what they want us to know, who is to blame...and then a word from our sponsors, we're back to the illusion of our pretend reality.



List of Designated Terrorists Groups

French Revolution

American Revolution

The Muslim Migrant Invasion and the Collapse of Europe

Muslim Invasion of Europe

Trump's Right: It's An Invasion

Does the United States have the Right to Secure its Border?

I'm intrigued by the fact that the presidents of several South American countries have publicly stated that the United States does not have the "right" to prevent migrants, illegal or otherwise, from entering our country at will. They've gone as far as to say that America may not secure its southern borders at any time or for any reason. Now why is that I wonder? The US is a sovereign nation like every other country. We have not just the legal right to secure our borders, wherever they may happen to be, but even a moral reason in order to protect the rights and safety of our citizens and to uphold our laws.

These same countries who believe that the US doesn't have a "right" to secure its borders happen to have among the strictest immigration policies of practically any country anywhere, and how they go about both protecting their national sovereignty and punishing those who violate their immigration laws are downright barbaric. I'm talking about countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Honduras among others.

These are places where illegal immigrates are often robbed, raped, beaten and in some cases, tortured...and that's by the police! Anyone who aids them in any way is subject to arrest and imprisonment for the first offense. In some cases, local police or government law enforcement will ransack their homes and, well, things happen to go missing. In a few cases some individuals are able to bribe their way out of arrest or jail time, but it's always a high price.

Prison in these places are best described as "hell holes" almost in the literal sense. Individuals typically get one very badly and often infested mattress on concrete floor. Their tiny cells are usually either freezing in the winter or unbearably hot in the summer; it's not uncommon that they are open to the elements. Food (if you call it that) is bare minimum. Often not much more than watery soup, stale bread or crackers twice a day. If prisoners want anything more, it's up to their friends or families to provide it. If you're there illegally, that's rather hard to do.

Even if you're a citizen, it can be difficult to make sure you actually receive additional blankets, clothing, food, or even proper medical care. Jail time for illegal immigrants can range from a few months for a first offense to several years for secondary offenses. Same goes for anyone who help you. Is there any wonder some of these individuals, especially criminal gang members, laugh at our prisons? Is it any wonder these people see our border security as a mere inconvenience?

Nevertheless, we're told that we don't have a "right" to impose our immigration laws on those attempting to come here; immigration laws that every single country in the world has and legally applies. So, why is it that America isn't suppose to have this same right? Some like to argue that the original settlers were no different than "illegal immigrants" or that they stole land from the Native Americans. What do you think? Were the first settlers simple land grabbing interlopers or was there something more to it?

Of course we know that when many of the native immigrants arrived in the Americas, there were already other groups who had come here earlier. Also, while Native Americans really didn't have any concept of land ownership per se, they did establish certain areas in which they hunted and grew food. Anyone who impeded on that land faced attack. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for Native Americans throughout the Americas to fight over good crop and hunting land. So, when the first Europeans arrived, there was no usurping of land since there was no ownership of the land. The construct of "ownership" was essentially a European one. As more and more Europeans arrived, they occupied lands held by Native Americans, often at the point of a gun, but also just as often, by trade. But how was this different from how the Native Americans interacted with each other over the use of land?

It wasn't until the US was firmly established, and legal agreements with Native Americans came into being that the notion of "stealing" land came into being. Why? Because both the Native American tribes came to recognize the European concept of legal ownership or possession. It was here that the real problems developed; where the federal government would enter into a signed agreement with the Native Americans, only to ignore the terms and push the Native Americans off of the lands they had agreed to. More often than not, this was done for mining--particularly gold and silver.

Whenever the Native Americans complained or fought back to protect what was legally theirs under the terms of the treaty or agreement, the interlopers would convince the local "Indian Agent" or other federal authority to send in the military, which they routinely did. The result became nothing less than a intentional genocide of a proud people; a national tragedy which remains uncorrected to this day. However, for the sake of our discussion, it addresses the notion the Europeans settlers were in some way "illegal immigrants", which they clearly were not.

In terms of immigration laws, every country on this planet has some form of restrictions and quotas. The United States is not unique in that regard. Anyone wanting to enter this country may, assuming they meet some specific requirements such as age, health, and employability. Once approved, they can then apply for a "Green Card" which would allow them to live and work here (most individuals need a sponsor, a family member or employer). Others can apply for temporary residence under special circumstances such as seeking asylum or as a refugee, provided they meet a very narrow definition of a "asylee" or "refugee". Application for any of these procedures can be obtained at any US Embassy or Consulates office in the world (there are typically multiple offices scattered through a given country, but at least one in the capital or main city)and where US officials can help you through the process.

So, I bet you're wondering what constitutes an "asylee" or a "refugee"? Well, someone seeking asylum is called a "asylee". These are individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their native country out of fear of persecution due to their race, religion, ethnic group, social group, political status, or more recently, their sexual preference according to the US Department of Homeland Security. As a rule, this would Yazidis, Buddhists, or Assyrian Christians fleeing Syria due to persecution by Muslim extremists like ISIS/ISIL or the Syrian military. Recently, white South Africans, many of whom have roots dating back to the 1600's, have been forced from their lands, attacked, beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered by black members of the pro-Communist ANC. Unfortunately, however, the US has been slow in accepting applications for asylum from these white South Africans although some other countries, such as Russia, have. Also, as an aside, the US has also not been particularly pro-active in allowing groups like Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists from the Middle East asylum status as well.

A refugee is typically someone who has been forced to flee their country due to war, violence, or some environmental disaster such as famine. A refugee may start off as a asylee and ultimately be accepted as a refugee once a decision is made regarding their status and reason for leaving. As a rule, international law requires both types to leave the country where they are endangered and seek entry in the next closest country where there is no danger.

There is a third class of individual, which I think we need to pay close attention to since this directly pertains to the current situation on our southern border and to the approximately 8 million illegal immigrants living in the US right now, and that's the "Economic Migrant". These are individuals who are not endangered by their race, religion, political class, or any of the other factors previously mentioned. These are individuals who are simply looking for employment or a better job; they willingly chose to relocate rather than are forced to leave. As such, they are entitled to no protection under international law. This describes those who are currently "demanding" entry into the country right down along our southern border. It also describes the vast majority of the illegal immigrants present in America. Economic migrants often try to claim "refugee" or "asylee" status as a way to gain entry into a particular country which otherwise would be closed to them.

We should also bear in mind that their presence represents a "jump in the line" ahead of those who are trying to enter the US and/or become American citizens legally. In short, they are shoving law abiding potential immigrants aside; those who are trying to enter the country the right way. In addition, 85% of all illegal immigrants receive taxpayers assistance of some sort. That means that ordinary Americans are having to pay their way because they broke the law. Many of those are do work are paid cash and thus pay no taxes. Others find ways to use stolen social security numbers and draw on them. Meanwhile, churches and other religious organizations continue to aid immigrants, pretending that somehow the laws just don't apply to them while hiding behind their tax-exempt status. Why is that?

Here's a couple of interesting statistics for you. According to the Department of Justice, 26% of all federal inmates are illegal immigrants (the Center for Immigration Studies put that number at 32%). The Bureau of Prisons report that 66% of all inmates are illegal aliens, which means that one in five prisoners are in this country illegally. The majority are serving time for various drug offenses, followed by violent assault, robbery (including theft, burglary and armed), and homicide. So-called "sanctuary cities" have provided many illegal immigrants, especially those active in criminal gangs, with a safe haven akin to the "Hole-in-the Wall" and "Robber's Roost" of the Old West or the "safe cities" like Chicago, New York, or Miami during the glory days of organized crime in the 1920's and 1930's.

Lastly we come to another type of "immigrant" key to this discussion, the "Anchor Baby". So, just what is a "anchor baby"? Under current US immigration laws, if a non-citizen woman gives birth in the United States, her child automatically becomes a US Citizen. Thus, by extension, she gets to remain in the country along with her husband and family (that definition has been broadened to include grandparents, aunts and uncles, and in some cases, even cousins have been approved). As an aside, in Canada, this is often referred to as "Passport Baby" and has resulted in a cottage "Baby Tourism" industry worth millions (in the case of Canada, it's allegedly popular with wealthy Asians). How did this come about?

The Citizenship Clause under Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" was adopted on July 9, 1868, just three years following the end of the Civil War. It's intent was to ensure that all freed slaves were given the same rights as any other citizen of the United States. Thus, its intent was reinforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and clarify that all former slaves were citizens, subject to all the rights, privileges, and laws accorded to the ordinary US citizen. It was not envisioned as a means by which individuals could bypass immigration laws. Nevertheless, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 73% of all children of illegal immigrants qualified under this provision.

So what does all this mean? Basically, it means that the US does have a duty and obligation to secure and protect its borders as a sovereign nation; the same right afforded to every other nation without exception. It means that the majority of illegal immigrants now in this country, and the thousands on our southern border "demanding" to be allowed to enter do not qualify under the definitions of "asylee" or refugee", but rather are economic migrants, which entitles them to nothing under international law. It also means that those who protect illegal immigrants do so as the costs of those who are attempting to do the right thing; to follow the law.

It also means those who aid these individuals are defacto criminals as well ("aiding and abetting") while at the same time demonstrates that over 1/4 of prison population is comprised of those who in prison not because of their violation of US immigration law, but because of crimes they willingly committed. All of this totals billions of dollars---approximately $113 billion dollars at the federal, state, and local levels--- imposed upon the average American Taxpayer; money that could be used to improve roads, schools, infrastructure, medical research, and so forth. The only real question remaining to be answered is just how long are we going to allow this? Some cite that "No Human is Illegal" but fail to mention that their actions are. That's why we have laws and a legal system to enforce those laws. Continuing to grant amnesty simple encourages more to come illegally in the hopes that they can wait out the next call for amnesty. Meanwhile, taxpayers are continue to get crushed by mounting increase to cover not just the influx, but for medical claims, education (including tutors), subsidized public housing, food, and utility bills.

Perhaps the worst part, at least from my perspective, is that the majority of these individuals have no interest in becoming citizens, nor do they have any intention of assimilating as other immigrants have done in the past, thus creating a "melting pot". In fact, they seem to want everyone to adapt. Ultimately, this will result in a nation not of mixed cultures, but of mini-nations similar to other nations which have fractured and broken apart as the result of various conflicts, be it ethnic, racial, religious, or whatever. I have to wonder if that's our destiny. It would certainly appear that if we continue along these lines, it most definitely will be.


US Department of Homeland Security: Definition of a Asylee

Amnesty International: Difference between Refugee and Asylum Seeker

Center for Immigration Studies: 32% of Federal Inmates are Aliens