To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[GenesisNemesis]

The top 20 most violent nations and most oppressive nations in the world are also the same nations sending caravans of migrants our way.

It's really annoying to me when people post links that contradict their own point.

The link offered lists out the 13 most violent nations as:

Afghanistan
Yemen
Syria
South Sudan
DR Congo
Russia
Ukraine
Somalia
Sudan
Iraq
Mali
Central African Republic
Ethiopia

None of which countries have ever sent, nor could send, a "caravan" of migrants to the United States. But I would also be happy to offer a safe harbor to anyone who manages to escape any of those places. If you supported the invasion of Iraq but refuse to accept the idea of refugees from Iraq, what the hell is wrong with you? You don't get to just reduce someone's country to rubble and accept no responsibility for the consequences, fuck that noise. We greenlit the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and the dehoming of millions in Iraq. Our victims deserve better than a low-rent apartment in Portland, but you're going to begrudge them even that?

So many Ukranian migrants coming to the border.

 

[bilby]

The top 20 most violent nations and most oppressive nations in the world are also the same nations sending caravans of migrants our way.

It's really annoying to me when people post links that contradict their own point.

The link offered lists out the 13 most violent nations as:

Afghanistan
Yemen
Syria
South Sudan
DR Congo
Russia
Ukraine
Somalia
Sudan
Iraq
Mali
Central African Republic
Ethiopia

None of which countries have ever sent, nor could send, a "caravan" of migrants to the United States. But I would also be happy to offer a safe harbor to anyone who manages to escape any of those places. If you supported the invasion of Iraq but refuse to accept the idea of refugees from Iraq, what the hell is wrong with you? You don't get to just reduce someone's country to rubble and accept no responsibility for the consequences, fuck that noise. We greenlit the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and the dehoming of millions in Iraq. Our victims deserve better than a low-rent apartment in Portland, but you're going to begrudge them even that?

The article in the link refers to the UK, not the US.

Not that either has an "open borders" policy...

The countries "sending" people to the UK in the largest numbers are (in descending order):

India
Poland
Pakistan
Romania
Ireland
Nigeria
Italy
Germany
Bangladesh
South Africa

(source)

Funnily, none of these countries are on the list of 13 "most violent nations"

Also, from the same source, comes the notable observation that:

Compared to people born in the UK, migrants are more likely to be of working age and have a university degree​

The VAST majority of migrants (94%) are not refugees or asylum seekers. They are young professionals, who help supply the UK's shortage of doctors, nurses, teachers, and other professions that the native born British people are too stupid or too lazy to fill.

 

[ZiprHead]

Britain Is Proof: Globalists Plan To Use Migrants as a Mercenary Army Against The West - LewRockwell

Why do western officials insist on gaslighting the public on illegal border crossings? Why do they attempt to destroy anyone that publicly opposes mass immigration from the third world? The laws on the books support the public’s majority position on immigration – Come here legally or don’t come...

www.lewrockwell.com

You would never know it from main stream news but the UK is having many riots over their open border policy right now. We can learn from the experience of the UK. From this article:

"I have mentioned this in previous articles and I continue to believe that one of the main purposes for the establishment to leave borders open and entice illegals to enter is to create a migrant army; a situation in which millions of illegals will be offered easy citizenship in exchange for service. I also believe that this migrant army will be used against the American public (the real citizenry) to impose martial law measures in the wake of a national disaster…

For example, third-world cultures are intrinsically violent and authoritarian. The top 20 most violent nations and most oppressive nations in the world are also the same nations sending caravans of migrants our way. Progressives will claim that’s a good thing and that we need to help these people. It’s not a good thing and most of them can’t be helped because they aren’t coming here to be free, they are coming here to take whatever they can take.

The majority of people from these regions will never be able to coexist peacefully within western communities. They don’t understand freedom, they don’t understand diplomacy, they don’t understand compromise. For them, tolerance is not a virtue, it’s a weakness that can be exploited to their advantage. This is a fact proven time and time again as mass migrations accelerates and I think my theory has recently been vindicated by events in the UK.

British citizens have been victimized for over a decade by migrant attacks and organized crime. The two-tier policing system in the UK continues to protect these migrants from retribution while the government hides statistics that show how much violence is being committed by non-citizens."

But fortunately the prospects for the US may be better than the UK because of our 2nd amendment. More from this article:

"Regardless of the outcome of the US elections in November the illegal immigration crisis will be central to everything we do in the next couple years. If leftists remain in political power then it is likely that we will see a similar attempt at a crackdown on patriots from an arrogant Harris Administration.

I believe Harris will most definitely offer citizenship to every illegal already in the country (many of them in exchange for military service), buying a mercenary force and a progressive voting block at the same time, ending any chance of conservatives ever participating in government again.

In the case of a second Trump Administration the situation changes. The removal of illegal migrants will be the top issue and leftists in the US will try to prevent it. They view the migrants as the key to their kingdom; the way to “destroy capitalism” and bring in woke socialism. Removal of illegals would set them back decades. Leftists will riot rather than lose. It’s a certainty.

The difference is, US patriots are armed (50 million strong with over 400 million guns and hundreds of billions of rounds of ammunition). I’m now receiving a lot of emails these days from UK and European readers who say they are desperate for the same firearms rights we have in the US. They all tell me, “never give up your guns.” Don’t worry, we won’t. We know what’s coming thanks to the events in the UK."

Holy crap. So who will fund this "immigration army"? Where will be their home base? whare will they acquire the weapons needed to take on the entire US military?

This is just plain fucking silly.

You should be embarrassed for posting such stupidity. How many times do you need to be told your sources are shit and they are lying to you before you will listen?

 

[RVonse]

Holy crap. So who will fund this "immigration army"? Where will be their home base? whare will they acquire the weapons needed to take on the entire US military?

In the case of Britain, Britain will fund the immigration army. In the case of the US, the US will fund the immigration army. It will be done exactly how it happened during Rome's last days; when Rome funded their "immigration army" which finally helped to end that society the same way.

The elites of a dying society can not pay outsiders to serve in their military to which their own citizens are not even loyal..... and not expect anything but chaos. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5096...-durbin-make-illegal-immigrants-join-military

 

[Politesse]

Holy crap. So who will fund this "immigration army"? Where will be their home base? whare will they acquire the weapons needed to take on the entire US military?

In the case of Britain, Britain will fund the immigration army. In the case of the US, the US will fund the immigration army. It will be done exactly how it happened during Rome's last days; when Rome funded their "immigration army" which finally helped to end that society the same way.

The elites of a dying society can not pay outsiders to serve in their military to which their own citizens are not even loyal..... and not expect anything but chaos. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5096...-durbin-make-illegal-immigrants-join-military

But you are the one sowing disloyalty against the military. Not immigrants. White nationalist vigilantes with too many guns are not the military. People who take orders from their pastor over orders from their CO are not the military. The military is the military, and it is a citizen-led, multicultural, pluri-religious, politically diverse entity. Your idea, that we should hate and discriminate against some veterans on the basis of their immigrant background and some wild conspiracy theories that unjustifiably impugn their service, is traitorous and unpatriotic.

When was "Rome" at it's height? Whatever year you name, if you think Rome had an all-Italian army and navy during that year, you are dead wrong. Rome was at its height when all of the nations of the Mediterranean felt that they had a stake in keeping Rome in power, and that included mutually beneficial tributary relationships that sent young people to the capital from Africa, Germany, and wherever else.

 

[RVonse]

Senator Durbin will tell you that we need immigrants for the army. It should be noted also the reason our military can no longer reach its quota's is because of liberal diversity constraints in the first place. Young white males are no longer interested in being led by female transvestites. They are no longer interested in serving for military not based on meritocracy and instead based on gender quotas.

I'm not sowing any disloyalty. The Democrats are far superior at sowing disloyalty.

 

[RVonse]

When was "Rome" at it's height? Whatever year you name, if you think Rome had an all-Italian army and navy during that year, you are dead wrong. Rome was at its height when all of the nations of the Mediterranean felt that they had a stake in keeping Rome in power, and that included mutually beneficial tributary relationships that sent young people to the capital from Africa, Germany, and wherever else.

You do not win wars by hiring mercenaries. You win wars by inspiring a cause deep within society believed by everyone.

 

[Swammerdami]

Senator Durbin will tell you that we need immigrants for the army. It should be noted also the reason our military can no longer reach its quota's is because of liberal diversity constraints in the first place. Young white males are no longer interested in being led by female transvestites. They are no longer interested in serving for military not based on meritocracy and instead based on gender quotas.

I'm not sowing any disloyalty. The Democrats are far superior at sowing disloyalty.

Wowww!!!!!!!

I'm afraid to ask for a cite. There may be one, but it would have to come from a corner of the Darkest Web so saturated in stupidity and/or extremist Trumpism lies that it might start a melt-down.

 

[laughing dog]

Senator Durbin will tell you that we need immigrants for the army. It should be noted also the reason our military can no longer reach its quota's is because of liberal diversity constraints in the first place. Young white males are no longer interested in being led by female transvestites. They are no longer interested in serving for military not based on meritocracy and instead based on gender quotas.

My son fought in Afghanistan and he never saw a military transvestite of any gender.

My father, grandfather, and great grandfather fought in wars for this country and the Union. None of them saw the military ad a “meritocracy “. Hell before the Korean War it was officially segregated!

My understanding of the recruitment issue is one part of the problem is a growing economy which hives young men other opportunities. And another issue is that the military is more selective than in the past.

Often, I struggle with your vision of the US because confirms neither with history nor my experience.

 

[Ford]

Senator Durbin will tell you that we need immigrants for the army. It should be noted also the reason our military can no longer reach its quota's is because of liberal diversity constraints in the first place. Young white males are no longer interested in being led by female transvestites. They are no longer interested in serving for military not based on meritocracy and instead based on gender quotas.

I'm not sowing any disloyalty. The Democrats are far superior at sowing disloyalty.

You're sowing drooling conspiracy theories. Apparently you've missed it, but the military isn't some bastion of young conservative white males that has suddenly been overwhelmed by an influx of black and brown people. The crack about "being led by female transvestites" tells me you have utterly lost touch with reality.

Well, that and the fact that you posted something from Lew Rockwell with a straight face.

 

[Politesse]

Senator Durbin will tell you that we need immigrants for the army. It should be noted also the reason our military can no longer reach its quota's is because of liberal diversity constraints in the first place. Young white males are no longer interested in being led by female transvestites. They are no longer interested in serving for military not based on meritocracy and instead based on gender quotas.

I'm not sowing any disloyalty. The Democrats are far superior at sowing disloyalty.

You're saying that you openly oppose the US military as it now exists, then insist that you aren't disloyal to it. You want to undemocratically dismantle it on the basis of racism, sexism, and homophobia, but you aren't disloyal to it. You are, in short, deluded. Wanting to control an institution is not the same thing as being loyal to it. You are a traitor to your nation and should under no circumstances be allowed to serve in its military, for that reason alone.

 

[bilby]

Holy crap. So who will fund this "immigration army"? Where will be their home base? whare will they acquire the weapons needed to take on the entire US military?

In the case of Britain, Britain will fund the immigration army. In the case of the US, the US will fund the immigration army. It will be done exactly how it happened during Rome's last days; when Rome funded their "immigration army" which finally helped to end that society the same way.

The elites of a dying society can not pay outsiders to serve in their military to which their own citizens are not even loyal..... and not expect anything but chaos. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5096...-durbin-make-illegal-immigrants-join-military

But you are the one sowing disloyalty against the military. Not immigrants. White nationalist vigilantes with too many guns are not the military. People who take orders from their pastor over orders from their CO are not the military. The military is the military, and it is a citizen-led, multicultural, pluri-religious, politically diverse entity. Your idea, that we should hate and discriminate against some veterans on the basis of their immigrant background and some wild conspiracy theories that unjustifiably impugn their service, is traitorous and unpatriotic.

When was "Rome" at it's height? Whatever year you name, if you think Rome had an all-Italian army and navy during that year, you are dead wrong. Rome was at its height when all of the nations of the Mediterranean felt that they had a stake in keeping Rome in power, and that included mutually beneficial tributary relationships that sent young people to the capital from Africa, Germany, and wherever else.

Point of order - most "Italians" were just as much foreigners in the Roman Empire (and Republic) as were Gauls or Hispanics or Sicillians or Corsicans.

Rome was a city state; People from other italian cities were as foreign as people from any Roman city other than Rome itself.

Though that's confusing to modern sensibities; Romans saw the citizens of the city of Rome (and later of Constantinople) as the "real" Romans; But they didn't give a hoot where those "real" Romans were born, only that they lived in Rome, and lived like Romans - speaking Latin, and embracing Roman lifestyles and Roman gods.

And anyone (inside the Empire or not) who spoke Latin, and lived like a Roman, was Roman. So an Italian Roman from outside the city of Rome was no more Roman than a Gaulish Roman, or a British Roman, or a German Roman.

The embrace of Rome as an exemplar by modern fascists and ultra-nationalists, depends on an abject failure to grasp that Roman concepts of nationality, ethnicity, and belonging, were utterly alien to modern people. Living as we do in a world of controlled and fixed borders, we have difficulty in understanding how the world was organised and managed when most borders were not fixed, and not controlled.

The Roman Empire was an agreement on how to live, rather than a geography. People could be forced to agree to do things the Roman way (and refusing to agree would get them killed), so if you squint, it looks like a modern expansionist empire taking territory from her neighbours. But Rome didn't take territory; It took people.

Rome was more like a religion or cult than it was like a modern empire. Don't think of Roman expansion into (for example) Gaul as like the German invasions of France in 1914 or in 1940; Think more of how Scientology would expand if it had a large military wing.

Converts to Rome were Romans. The Romans didn't so much recruit foreign soldiers, as convert foreigners into Romans. And what better way to demonstrate your conversion, than to join up to fight for your new ideals?

Perhaps the nearest modern equivalent was the way US citizenship expanded between the Declaration of Independence, and the inception of the US constitution. Americans in that period were mostly born in Europe (Native Americans very definitely did NOT qualify by right of birthplace, nor was being born in the American colonies sufficent to make one American); What separated an American (or as they styled themselves, confusingly, "Patriot") from a patriotic British Colonial Subject, was not geography or ethnicity, but a choice of which authority to obey.

Expanding America in that era didn't entail moving geographical borders, but rather shifting peoples' opinions from loyalty to the empire led by George III, to loyalty to the rebels led by George Washington.

The idea that ones place of birth (or that of ones grandparents) was the measure of ones belonging to a given polity, was absurd both in Imperial Rome and in Revolutionary America*. It's a twentieth century idea, that twenty first century idiots are trying to paste onto a fourth century history that they don't comprehend, in order to justify their insane desire to put themselves, and any other people who look enough like them, above the rest of humanity.






* Although in America the ethnic division of Africans and Native Americans from white "Europeans" was already established - something that would have been incomprehensible to the Romans. I am talking here about the places of birth and the backgrounds of the white folks on either side of the British/Revolutionary divide.