Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘open borders’

Irish Natives Shoved Aside as Government Moves to Buy Homes for Refugees

Posted by M. C. on April 26, 2022

Despite this, the Irish state has shown no sign of attempting to slow the number of arrivals in the country, with many rural towns in the country having already seen their populations double over the past number of weeks as a result of the influx.


Ireland’s open borders government has announced that it wishes for state actors to purchase more homes for refugees, seemingly content to leave native people to rot.

Ireland’s native population once again look like they are being left out in the cold by those who rule them, with their government using emergency powers to allow local councils to purchase homes for the express purposes of housing refugees.

While the power has now been granted in the hopes of housing foreign nationals ostensibly coming to the island in the hopes of escaping the Ukraine war, the government had previously refrained from taking such a measure despite the fact that the country’s own population had already been suffering under a crippling housing crisis.

According to a report by the Irish Examiner, the new powers will be used to help alleviate the country’s massive shortfall in accommodation, the state having already taken in tens of thousands of migrants in recent weeks.

What’s more, the publication notes one government official as saying that “every lever at the disposal of Government is now being pulled” in the hopes of looking after the new arrivals which have been brought in under the country’s open borders approach to dealing with the new migrant crisis.

While the new “expanded acquisition programme” is also set to help those already struggling with homelessness in the country, it is unclear how beneficial such a measure could possibly be for the native population considering the circumstances.

Ireland’s government has already promised that there would be “no cap” on the number of refugees allowed to come to the country, with estimates regarding the total number of arrivals being as high as 200,000, or four per cent of the country’s population.

What’s more, a significant percentage of those already on social housing waiting lists in the Irish capital of Dublin before the crisis appear to be foreign-born, with waiting lists frequently being at least 30 per cent occupied by those born outside Ireland according to data from 2021.

One council, having previously found that around half of their housing list was occupied by those born outside the state back in 2011, has even since claimed to have stopped recording the origins of those on their housing list.

As Ireland’s government pulls out all the stops to house foreign migrants entering the country, those already in the country appear to be becoming less and less satisfied with their nation’s open borders response to the crisis, despite it being lauded by Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheál Martin.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Open Borders’ Biden Is Remaking America

Posted by M. C. on April 19, 2022

What do these endless thousands of migrants at the southern gates of our country bring with them? A desire for a better life, surely, but also a vast dependency on a deeply indebted America for social welfare, housing, health care and education

Their first act on the road to residency and eventual citizenship in this country is to break the laws of the United States by first breaking into our country.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

So reads Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Historically, that constitutional duty — to protect America’s states against invasion — has been the province of the president of the United States, the chief executive, who today is Joe Biden.

How did Biden’s predecessors do in discharging their duty to secure America’s borders?

During the War of 1812, President James Madison assigned the defense of New Orleans against an invading British army that had just burned the Capitol and White House to Gen. Andrew Jackson.

On Jan. 8, 1815, Jackson crushed the battle-hardened and numerically superior British force that had invaded our country.

Jackson was also the chosen instrument of President James Monroe to punish and expel Indian marauders raiding Georgia from Spanish Florida in 1818.

Exceeding his mandate, the resolute Jackson entered Florida, expelled the Spanish governor and annexed the peninsula for the United States after executing two British subjects and almost igniting a war with Great Britain.

In 1845, President James K. Polk sent an American army to Texas to validate our claim to all the land north of the Rio Grande that had belonged to the Lone Star Republic when it seceded from Mexico in 1836 and joined the Union in December of 1845.

President Andrew Johnson sent an army to the Mexican border to effect the removal of a French army and Paris-backed regime that had colonized Mexico while the Union was preoccupied with the Confederacy.

The French departed, leaving behind the hapless Habsburg emperor they had installed to face a firing squad.

When Pancho Villa conducted his murderous raid into Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916, Woodrow Wilson sent Gen. John Pershing with an army of 6,000 into Mexico to run him down. They never caught Villa.

By Dwight Eisenhower’s first term, 1 million illegal immigrants had moved into the United States from Mexico. Ike commissioned his friend and West Point classmate Gen. Joseph Swing to effect their removal.

All of these incidents involved America’s southern border, and each of the presidents of that day took seriously their constitutional duty to defend the nation’s borders against invasion, violent or nonviolent.

And how has President Joe Biden discharged that obligation?

In Biden’s first year as president, some 1.7 million Illegal migrants were intercepted crossing into the United States.

The monthly figure from Fiscal Year 2021 was exceeded by the March 2022 figure of 220,000 migrants crossing over into the USA. If sustained, this rate would translate into an invasion of 2.6 million people, predominantly young and predominantly male, in this fiscal year alone.

“Gotaways,” those who breach our borders without ever being stopped and identified by Border Patrol or other authorities, are now estimated at 30,000 a month. Among these clandestinely crossing our border monthly are cartel members, child molesters, drug traffickers and sex offenders. We don’t know who they are, but we do know where they are. They are now our neighbors inside our homeland.

Biden is now planning in May to lift Title 42, which requires that unvaccinated migrants seeking entry at the border remain in Mexico.

According to ABC, the Department of Homeland Security is bracing for as many as 18,000 migrants per day at the US southern border if Title 42 is revoked.

Most of these migrants still come from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, but growing numbers now come from all over the world. They are of every race, nationality, culture, creed and ethnicity, and they are steadily converting America from a First World Western nation into a predominantly Third World country.

By failing or refusing to do his constitutional duty to defend the nation from invasion, Biden is letting this happen. Through his passivity and inaction, he is remaking America. What we are witnessing is the Third Worldization of the USA.

What do these endless thousands of migrants at the southern gates of our country bring with them? A desire for a better life, surely, but also a vast dependency on a deeply indebted America for social welfare, housing, health care and education

Most come with little in the way of skills and almost nothing in the way of personal wealth or a knowledge of our history, heritage and language.

Their first act on the road to residency and eventual citizenship in this country is to break the laws of the United States by first breaking into our country.

A move is afoot to impeach Biden for his failure to do his constitutional duty and defend the southern border of the United States from the invading millions of illegal migrants.

But that would make impeachment the subject of national debate, not the massive illegal migration and the changes it is producing in the character of our country.

Indeed, who stands first in line to succeed an impeached and convicted Joe Biden? Kamala Harris, Biden’s designee to act as America’s “border czar.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Real Crisis Starts Now in Europe

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

The lockdown of Italy isn’t a temporary thing. Oh, the suspension of free movement is temporary, but it portends something far bigger.

I think it’s safe to say the new crisis just killed the Schengen Treaty. That ridiculous document which guaranteed freedom of movement across the European Union finally hit something it couldn’t bully, COVID-19.

Regardless of whether you believe the pandemic is real or not, the reaction to it is real and is having real consequence far beyond the latest print of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The lockdown of Italy isn’t a temporary thing. Oh, the suspension of free movement is temporary, but it portends something far bigger.

It’s the beginning of the real political balkanization that’s coming to the European Union over the next few years. Old enmities and prejudices have not been stamped out under the boot heel of oppressive legislation coming from a bunch of disconnected technocrats in Brussels.

They have only been suppressed.

Because when there are existential threats there’s no time or desire to virtue signal about how we’re all one big happy dysfunctional family.

For decades Germany refused to lighten up on its fiscal inflexibility believing, rightly, that it shouldn’t subsidize profligacy in places like Italy, Spain and Greece if it didn’t want to.

At the same time, however, Germany transmitted those rules to the single currency regime of the euro. That was the price they forced on the rest of Europe.

This ensured that eventually they would have to do exactly that, subsidize or bailout debts, as the mispricing of labor and capital efficiency inherent in the any single currency applied over multiple economies drove capital to Germany and out from those countries.

Now Germans face the existential threat of COVID-19 imported into Europe mostly through Wuhan textiles workers in Milan’s leather shops/ Their leaders will force them to accept looser spending rules.

And do you think this will engender an outpouring of love and affection towards Italians?

If you do you might be delusional or an open-borders libertarian… but I repeat myself.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has signaled for months she would spend more to satisfy the rising Greens on Germany’s political left.

Her finance minister, Olaf Scholz, unleashed the full force of Germany’s sovereign wealth fund to offer unlimited support to German businesses facing troubles because of this virus.

This is as good a cover story for the gargantuan holes in the balance sheets of zombie German banks as they were likely ever going to get folks.

ECB President Christine Lagarde was brought in to ram through the political changes needed to loosen Germany’s tie. She knew the only way the EU would survive the growing crisis within its non-functional sovereign debt market was to print money to the high heavens.

Or allow the union to break up. But, there is no Door #2 in Europe. All doors lead to Brussels.

Germany stood in the way of that while at the same time Merkel ruthlessly enforced Schengen. She weakened the political center in Germany and inflamed memories of a Germany which rampaged across Europe militarily in the 20th century through enforced austerity hollowing out less-efficient euro-zone economies.

So in the midst of this mess comes COVID-19 and the uncoordinated and inept response to it from the political center of Europe to date. Only now are they coming to the conclusion they need to restrict travel, after sitting on their hands for a few weeks while Italians died by the hundreds.

And do you think that’s engendering waves of love and affection among Italians towards Germans?

If you do then you don’t know Italians… at all.

And this is your signal that this is the beginning of the real crisis. Because while COVID-19 may have been the catalyst for the breakdown of capital markets, capital markets were simply waiting for that spark to occur.

Any other type of spark, a bank failure from a run of bad loans, could have been handled and absorbed. There was no Credit Anstalt the central planners weren’t prepared for.

They’ve been able to keep Deutsche Bank operational for the past few years, for pity’s sake, they could have handled any other single bank failure.

But with COVID-19 being the ultimate form of exogenous shock to the global economy there is no containing the financial contagion. And that’s why we saw a strong unwind of U.S. equities and a sharp rise in both the Japanese yen and the euro when this thing began.

Part of what had been pushing U.S. equities higher was the capital flow from Europe and Japan into the U.S. That reversed for short time as the eurodollar markets seized up and the demand for cash locally rose sharply.

It’s no different than what is happening here.

I went to my bank yesterday to grab some cash and finish our self-quarantine prep (we’d bought extra toilet paper weeks ago). The teller told me she’d moved out a lot more cash than normal and it wasn’t even the end of lunch hour.

Then I told her the bank run on corporate credit began earlier in the week as companies like Boeing maxed their credit revolvers to front run the bank pulling it.

That got her attention.

The same thing on a larger scale was happening in Europe until Lagarde told the world that she wasn’t done blackmailing Germany to loosening its stance on fiscal rules at her presser on Thursday.

And the rally in the euro, which was already sick, died.

Annnnd…. it’s gone!

What we saw to end this week was an epic reversal of that capital outflow as the USDX and U.S. equities rallied while the euro crashed back to $1.11. And now that it’s started I don’t expect it to stop.

The Fed fired major blanks at the dollar-funding crisis in the credit markets this week. What is the ECB going to do to stop rates from rising in Europe as money flees their incompetence?

Fairy dust springs to mind, honestly. But, more likely there will be a very quick move to close the banks and cancel the use of cash while new rules are adopted and Lagarde turns to the IMF to bailout the ECB which can very easily go bankrupt here.

The weakest banking system in Europe serves a country on lockdown over this virus.

So, it doesn’t matter now that Germany has acquiesced, pledging its own savings and lifting fiscal restraints of euro-zone members. All the printing will does is feed the vortex of unpayable debt that is far bigger than their prodigious piggy bank.

The next stage of the crisis is here with the focus finally turning to Europe. The U.S., for all of its faults, is one nation with a unified debt market and an executive who can and has exercise powers necessary to keep the wheels from completely falling off the U.S. economy.

Will Trump spend money he doesn’t actually have? Yes. So what?

That money will go into a logistical pipeline that far outstrips Europe’s to combat a disease over a smaller population spread across larger distances. That limits the damage to the U.S. It ensures political stability that the EU cannot hope to compete with for the trust of spooked capital.

Add the global economy grinding to a halt. We’ll see the crisis emerge in Europe to feed a widening gyre of debt servicing that will look like a global bank run on dollar liquidity.

It will force fundamental reform of the euro and the ECB. They are necessary for the EU to survive this crisis in anything close to its current form.

I’m not laying odds that will work. Instead I expect Schengen’s suspension to hold and more countries go the way of the Brits by exiting the EU itself.

While this crisis is tailor-made to shove the federalization of Europe down the throats of what’s left of the German middle class, I don’t think it succeeds.

Until Germany is willing to bail out Italian banks, there is no solution to this.

And while I think Merkel is willing to fall on her sword to get this done, It may still not work.

How convenient it is that Merkel’s CDU just cancelled their April 22nd leadership vote because of this crisis. This forestalls any possibility of Merkel losing control of her party until after Germany begins its EU Commission Presidency.

Whatever she has planned she has to do soon. Her political capital is just about spent.

There will be no change of leadership during a crisis like this. She’s almost done completing the sell out of Germany to the EU begun by Helmut Kohl.

Just in time for the whole experiment to come crashing down.

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Have we brewed a whirlwind? –

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2020

Now assaulting a fragmenting Western World comes a pandemic whose consequences cannot be known.  Is there enough leadership to overcome the long-inflicted damages and to pull the people together and to reestablish community?  With the Democrats politically weaponizing the coronavirus against President Trump, it does not seem so.

The public sees inaction, disbelieves the feeble reasons given, and takes action to exhaust supplies of protective gear, storable foods, and everything else that disappears in a panic.

Take solice in the fact that government doing nothing is usually a good thing.

Paul Craig Roberts

Dear friends, it is March and time for my quarterly call for your donations.  I am here for you as long as you want me.  PCR

In the United States and throughout the Western World there is public distrust of public authorities and distrust among the public of one another.  Public authorities who do not like “conspiracy theories” do a lot to generate them.

We can see the public’s distrust of public authorities in the negligent response to the coronavirus.  The refusal of public authorities to stop incoming flights from infected countries has brought the dangerous virus into the Western World where inaction has so far prevailed.

Many virologists and other experts have criticized the inaction for seriously endangering the public.  I recently posted some of the expert statements made to public health authorities.  See:


Germany: .

The refusals of public officials to take protective steps partly reside in ideological positions.  In Europe it is the European Union’s commitment to open borders and one Europe.  Closing the borders goes against the ideology that nationalism is the problem.

In other instances, Canada for example, the Prime Minister apparently considers it “racist” to protect Canadians from incoming flights from Iran.  See: .

The public sees inaction, disbelieves the feeble reasons given, and takes action to exhaust supplies of protective gear, storable foods, and everything else that disappears in a panic.

As the inaction of public authorities is not understandable, all sorts of explanations arise.  For example: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute for Health (NIH) want the virus to spread, because the result will be bigger budgets;  the pharmaceutical companies (Big-Pharma) want the virus to spread, because it will bring them profits in mandatory vaccination whether it prevents or aids the spread of the virus;  governments want the virus to spread, because it allows them to impose martial law and abolish civil liberties;  elites are using the virus to reduce the world population;  governments are using the virus to reduce the strain of the elderly on health care systems and save money.  You can add to this list on your own.

One consequence of distrust of public authorities is lack of public cooperation in whatever response effort public authorities eventually mount.  Another consequence is that this lack of public cooperation justifies more coercion by government in order to deal with the threat.  Remember all of the violations of Constitutional protections made by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes in responst to 9/11 and the “terrorist threat.”  A big difference is that then there was no pandemic.

Distrust among the public of one another has been fomented by decades of feminist attacks on men and by decades of attacks on white people as “racists.”  These attacks have been institutionalized in the educational system.  They have been useful to feminist and “racial minorities” for advancement.  But they have atomized the population.  Where there was once community, no matter how unequal, there is the lack of community.

The “sexist” and “racist” offences are more taught than felt and are reaching the point of absurdity.  Every day someone finds a slur in a word that has been part of the language for centuries before the presence in the population of racial minorities. These manufactured “offences” are used to excoriate men and to fire them from jobs and deny them professional careers.

Guillaume Durocher points out that community is also being destroyed by the decline in national community. The core entities that produced national communities or countries are being flooded out by incoming multitudes of immigrants from different cultures and value systems. Many on the left show open contempt for nationhood and national solidarity.  Durocher explains the collapse of national community here: 

Now assaulting a fragmenting Western World comes a pandemic whose consequences cannot be known.  Is there enough leadership to overcome the long-inflicted damages and to pull the people together and to reestablish community?  With the Democrats politically weaponizing the coronavirus against President Trump, it does not seem so.

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Open Borders Between States in America Might Lead to Disaster | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2020

Often unnoticed is the way that disappearing borders between states have helped pave the way for advocates of ever greater consolidation of power in the hands of the central government.

What had once been the responsibility of the member states has been transferred to a newly empowered central government.

This process is now underway in Europe, where the EU government is moving closer to demanding “harmonization” of tax rates and that all states within the open-border zone adopt more stringent gun control laws.

“Open borders” is a phrase usually heard in the context of international borders only.

We hear far less about the issue of open borders between member states within a confederation or union of states.

After all, no one thinks twice of crossing the borders between member states within the United States of America. Increasingly, one is similarly unimpressed when crossing from one EU member state to another in Europe.

Often unnoticed is the way that disappearing borders between states have helped pave the way for advocates of ever greater consolidation of power in the hands of the central government.

It’s a process that has taken decades—or even centuries in some cases—but it is real.

This process of centralization often proceeds in four steps:

One: So long as there are internal border controls, each member state can control the flow of migrants, goods, and services. Thus, if one state has legalized a dangerous substance or device, neighboring states can still stop those substances and devices at the member state’s border. Similarly, if one state is believed to be fostering the inflow of “undesirable” migrants or fugitives, neighboring member states can respond by regulating the flow of persons into their own territories. There is no need for a universal policy, because each member state is able to shield itself from the effects of policies in neighboring member states.

Two: But some activists and lawmakers recognize there are benefits to open borders. So, seeking greater ease in the movement of goods, capital, and workers—and in some cases to transfer the cost of border enforcement to others—member states seek to minimize or abolish member-state borders as functioning borders.

Three: But this does not come without risks and externalities. Without union-wide and uniform laws, it is then feared that “bad actors” and prohibited goods can easily cross from less regulated areas to more regulated ones.

Four: So a solution is proposed: the central government will assume the cost of border control, transferring border control activities to the new union-wide border encompassing all member states. Within this border, lawmakers seek union-wide uniform policies. “Bad actors” are declared to be criminals in all jurisdictions and the “dangerous” substances and devices can now only legally enter by crossing international boundaries. The central government is now expected to provide enforcement to maintain this new status quo. What had once been the responsibility of the member states has been transferred to a newly empowered central government.

This process is now underway in Europe, where the EU government is moving closer to demanding “harmonization” of tax rates and that all states within the open-border zone adopt more stringent gun control laws. But for now, we’ll stick to examples in the United States:

Cross-Border Travel as an Excuse for National Gun Control

In the gun control debate, it has long been argued that the lack of state borders means a greater need for uniform nationwide gun control. In an analysis from National Public Radio, for example, the author concludes that the high homicide rates in Washington, DC, and Chicago are partly to blame on gun laws in neighboring states. According to political scientist Philip Cook, the stringent gun laws in places like Chicago are “only at best partially effective, because the borders are permeable.”

Were there not free movement from state to state, of course, it would be more difficult to argue that Wisconsin is to blame for Chicago’s homicide rate.

The argument by gun control advocates in this case follows a now familiar pattern: the presence of a relatively low amount of regulation in one member state (i.e., Indiana) is viewed as a threat to surrounding member states, who then insist that open borders between states mean that low-regulation states must change their policies to match the high-regulation states.

The Federalization of Immigration

Up until the late nineteenth century, immigration control had been regarded as a state matter. States heavily impacted by immigration—especially New York and Massachusetts—had imposed a variety of laws restricting the movement of immigrant paupers and requiring that bonds be paid on new immigrants to ensure that they did not become a burden on public funds. As late as the 1870s, bills aimed at federalizing immigration policy were killed by majorities in Congress.

Part of the reason that there was a lack of a national consensus was that views of immigrants nationwide were hardly uniform. Some frontier states actively sought immigrants in order to increase the development of farmland and increase state populations. These ongoing regional differences are a reason President Cleveland in 1897 vetoed legislation further restricting immigration because many states and territories of the US—especially those bordering Canada, which provided migrant labor to American farmers—benefited from migrants. Cleveland noted that these parts of the country “have separate and especial interests which in many cases make an interchange of labor between their people and their alien neighbors most important.”

Nevertheless, anti-immigrant forces had increasingly lobbied for greater federal controls in part to counter the assumed threat of free movement of migrants from some states to others.1 No long after, the US Supreme Court in 1876 ruled that it was necessary to provide “a system of laws in this matter applicable to all ports and all vessels” in order to settle a long-standing “matter of contest and complaint.”  By the twentieth century, the autonomy once granted to states on the immigration issue was all but forgotten.

Prohibition and the Drug War

Regulating guns and migrants haven’t been the only excuses given for expanding federal power in the name of national uniformity. Centralized control was also deemed to be necessary in order to control the transport and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. In the years leading up to the adoption of nationwide prohibition, all but sixteen states had adopted their own versions of prohibition. For the moralists, however, this wasn’t enough. Those states where alcohol remained legal—mostly states with large numbers of Catholics and ethnic Germans—offered a haven to residents of “dry” states, who could easily cross over into the “wet” states.  Even worse, people could illegally import alcohol into dry states from wet ones with relative ease. By imposing nationwide prohibition on everyone, however, access to alcohol could be more easily attacked.

We see similar issues today as some states have begun to legalize recreational marijuana much to the dismay of officials in neighboring states. Once again, the answer is alleged to be the federalization of policy and the abolition of local prerogatives. In 2014, two marijuana prohibitionist states, Oklahoma and Nebraska, unsuccessfully sued Colorado in response to its legalization of recreational marijuana. The two states were concerned that the lack of a patrolled border between Colorado and its neighbors was an unacceptable threat to the public in prohibitionist states. Thus, the two states petitioned the court to declare state law null and void and to rule that federal law reigns supreme in matters of drug prohibition. Fortunately, on this particular issue the federal courts have not yet decided to declare federal law supreme, as they have many times before.

How Open Borders Are Used and Abused

Often the ideological motivation behind open borders among member states of a political union is admirable. Among the creators of both the United States and the European Union, for instance, it appears that at least some of them were motivated by a desire to increase the free flow of people and goods for the economic and cultural betterment of all.

There is no danger in individual states lowering trade barriers or border controls unilaterally. The problem only comes in when there is a general government—such as the US federal government or the European Commission—to impose uniformity of law.

Unfortunately, economic integration between member states in the US did not come organically or unilaterally. It was imposed from above, so that low-regulation states would not be an inconvenience to high-regulation states. We have seen this with alcohol, with migrants, and with guns.

In all cases, the removal of internal barriers between member states has provided the impetus for some members to demand more regulation on other members. This can only be carried out, however, when there is a strong enough central government in place. Since at least the late nineteenth century in the US, this has clearly been the case.

Experience now suggests that these sorts of open borders really only work under certain conditions: 1) border controls are decreased unilaterally by each member state in an ad hoc and decentralized manner. 2) The central government is too weak to impose uniform nationwide laws without widespread consensus. 3) Member states bring to the table a significant amount of tolerance for their neighbors, and for the fact that people might do things differently in other places. In decades past, for instance, it was more often accepted that some places have stringent gun laws and other places don’t. In the minds of many policymakers, this created certain risks and externalities, but these were tolerated in light of the ideological notion that not every aspect of daily life ought to be regulated from the center.

It is no longer clear, however, that we live in a political environment where this sort of tolerance or decentralization is still valued. It now appears that a lack of functioning borders between member states—instead of promoting unity and cooperation—may actually be promoting conflict. For example, were there a meaningful border between California and the rest of the United States it is unlikely that the rest of the nation would regard foreign migration as the high-stakes political issue it now is. Similarly, if it were not so easy to travel unobstructed from gun-friendly Indiana to gun prohibitionist Chicago, we wouldn’t be hearing about how we need federal action on gun control.

The result is something similar to what we see from political centralization in general. By ending legal and physical separations between culturally and legally diverse political jurisdictions, opposing sides end up fighting bitterly over who controls the central government. Ironically, the attempt at building unity through erasing borders has increased the stakes of who controls the central government and influences its policymakers. In the long term, this is likely to bring ever greater regional conflict.

  • 1. There is an additional problem of immigrants becoming political actors—i.e., voting—even without moving from state to state. They can affect national politics as voters in the same state that their port of entry is in. It is likely that many would then oppose immigration of this sort even if state-to-state borders were closed, and if all states were part of a single national political jurisdiction. This issue, however, can be addressed through naturalization laws rather than immigration controls. See

Be seeing you

Health Risks Of Obama’s Open Border Policy – Franklin ...



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Author: Sweden is Experiencing a “Small Scale War” – Summit News

Posted by M. C. on July 10, 2019


Swedish author Björn Ranelid warns that the level of crime and violence the previously sedate country is experiencing amounts to a “small scale war”.

Ranelid cites car fires which were previously unknown but have now become commonplace across the country along with an explosion in shootings.

The author said that blaming the “frustrations” of young people for the crime wave was a cop out since his generation had it just as touch but didn’t turn to criminality.

“They lived crowded in outdated apartments and the economy of many families was poor, but none of my hundreds of acquaintances, friends and playmates burned cars, robbed old people or wore weapons,” he wrote.

According to Ranelid, the country is in dire need of a a “spiritual revolution” of ethics, morality and child raising.

“It is a small-scale war that affects all people who live and live in Sweden. The supply of explanations is over,” said Ranelid.

As we previously highlighted, grenade attacks and deadly shootings in Sweden – concerns over which were once derided as a conspiracy theory by the media – now represent a “national emergency” according to a new report.

Deadly shootings in Sweden have also risen by a factor of 10 in one generation, exacerbated by witness intimidation and “a code of silence in the country’s socio-economically weak immigrant areas,” according to Quillette’s Paulina Neuding.

The crime of robberies against children and sexual violence has also risen, with a third of young women reporting they feel unsafe going out at night.

This has all happened under the watch of a “feminist government” that has opened the borders to mass immigration like never before.

A sprawling and generous welfare system has also failed to deter migrants from turning to crime, while light punishments have also incentivized criminal behavior.

Meanwhile, head of the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) Anders Thornberg has told Swedes that they better get used to the current conditions.

Speaking of the current wave of shootings and violent crime across the country, Thornberg warned, “this can continue for five to ten years.”



Bes eeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democrats and the Long Game – by Robert Ringer

Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2019

The question that no open-borders advocate has ever answered is, How many illegals should be allowed into the United States?  100 million?  500 million?  One billion?  Where does it end? 

So long as millions of information-challenged men and women have the right to vote, we are going to move ever closer to that one election that will make America’s fundamental transformation permanent. The only hope is to find a way to educate the walking dead among us.

by Robert Ringer

Most pundits believe that when every Democratic candidate raised his/her hand when asked if they would support healthcare for illegal immigrants, it was the death knell for the Dirty Dems’ chances in 2020.  And they’re probably right.  Even so, from what we’ve witnessed to date, there are certain to be many more excellent reasons not to vote for a Democrat in 2020.

Time to celebrate?  Not so fast.  The sad irony is that the Democrats have already won the illegal immigration battle.  Sure, they’re virtually certain to lose big in 2020, but a foundational strategy of the Marxist movement is to play the long game.  To the Dirty Dems, losing today is nothing more than a speed bump along the way to long-term success.

It’s been nearly 175 years since Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, but even after experiencing one socialist/communist failure after another, the Radical Left continues to move relentlessly forward.  How different the world might be if conservatives possessed such grit and determination.

The ongoing debate over illegal immigration is just one good example of how the Dirty Dems play the long game.  It begins with a false premise, namely, that Congressmen and women were elected to do everything possible to improve the lives of those who come to the United States illegally.  That’s right, to listen to the swamp creatures talk (yes, Republicans included), one would be led to believe that you and I want our representatives to focus not on making our lives better, but on making the lives of illegals better.

While there’s no question that the hateful Democratic presidential hopefuls truly believe this to be their mandate, it’s safe to say that at least 63 million voters do not.  In my October 26, 2018 article, “Fake Caravans and Decision Time for America,” I alluded to what I believe tens of millions of voters really do want, to wit:  Any undocumented person arriving at any border of the United States, regardless of age, sex, or country of origin, should be refused entry into the country, no questions asked.  No debate.  No court rulings.  End of discussion.

Plain and simple, the reason we call them illegals is because they are — Duh! — here illegally!   Meaning they are in violation of U.S. law.  It has nothing to do with age.  Whether someone is seventy or seven, whether they are labeled “DACA” or some other catchy acronym, it doesn’t change the fact that they are in the United States illegally.  If you buy into the argument that children who are here illegally should not be held responsible because it was their parents who brought them here, you are unthinkingly agreeing to open borders.

Think about it.  If you’re allowed to stay in the United States just because someone else brought you here, what it really does is assure an endless flow of illegal immigrants.  It gives too much of an incentive for parents to take whatever risks necessary to get their children onto U.S. soil.

The question that no open-borders advocate has ever answered is, How many illegals should be allowed into the United States?  100 million?  500 million?  One billion?  Where does it end?  When the United States finally becomes one of the most undesirable countries in the world to live in?…

And guess who has bought into this manufactured crisis?  If you guessed unprincipled, weak-kneed Republicans, you’re right.  This is the long game Democrats play in order to get Republicans to give in to what they really want:  Divert attention from the real problem by getting Republicans to accept a false premise — that helping illegals to have better lives is a top priority for most of Americans — then keep moving the goal posts.

The bottom line is that swamp creatures don’t care about the wants and needs of Americans.  For them, the big question is, What can we do to ease the pain of those flouting our immigration laws?  More bedding?  You got it.  Healthier food?  You got it.  More comfortable holding facilities?  You got it.

The need to treat illegals better than Americans, to give them more of everything, to apologize for America’s privilege, knows no bounds.  Because we are a flawed people, there is no limit to what we should be willing to do to atone for our sins.

Thus, the $4.5 billion emergency border-aid bill passed by the House is not intended to make your life better.  Nor is it to stop illegal immigration.  It is to ease the pain of those who are already here illegally and those who continue to come to the United States illegally every day.  It’s for mattresses, diapers, food — whatever our uninvited guests require…

A rational person might say that if voters are that ignorant, they deserve the government they get. Which is true. But what about the millions of Americans like you and me who believe in liberty and reject the politics of division and hate? Do we deserve the government low-information voters elect?

That said, I’m not concerned about the buffoons on the Democratic debate stage. I find it hard to believe that any of them can win the Democratic nomination anyway. What I am concerned about is the millions of Americans who are so uninformed, or misinformed, that they wouldn’t be able to pass the LeBron Literacy Test even if they were allowed to cheat.

So long as millions of information-challenged men and women have the right to vote, we are going to move ever closer to that one election that will make America’s fundamental transformation permanent. The only hope is to find a way to educate the walking dead among us…

Be seeing you





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Soros, EU Taxpayer-Funded NGOs Lobby Brussels for Total Open Borders

Posted by M. C. on May 23, 2019

No borders = no countries = one world government.

The first to be bled dry to support this strategy is US.

by Virginia Hale

Brussels needs a “courageous” migration policy which opens Europe’s borders to everyone fleeing “wars, climate change [and] poverty”, say ‘international experts’ funded by EU taxpayers and globalist billionaire George Soros.

At a forum discussion titled “Europe and migration: Where do we draw the border,” a panel of what were described as politically independent representatives from “established and respected international human rights organisations” concluded that the bloc must dismantle all immigration controls in order to respect the “rights” of illegal immigrants.

Organised by the Centre for Peace Studies (CMS) in Zagreb, panelists from the Croatian NGO, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) — all of which are funded by Soros’s grantmaking foundation — as well as the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, spoke on ‘the current state of migration policy’ in Europe and on changes open borders NGOs ‘expect’ from EU decision makers, reported local media.

Representatives from the CMS, which is funded by European taxpayers through the European Commission and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, said they were hoping to see Brussels bring an end to “violent” protection of the Croatian border.

Last year Breitbart London highlighted how open borders activists from the CMS’s ‘Welcome’ initiative had been threatening Croatian police officers over their defending the border in the face of attacks from third world migrants, the majority of whom were equipped with knives, according to Austrian intelligence.

The group demanded officers either refuse to carry out orders related to securing the country’s frontiers or else face increasing pressure from foreign NGOs, and the subsequent scrutiny that would follow from global media outlets and the so-called international community…

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Open Borders or Not? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 6, 2019


I’m against open borders. I think this self-evidently will destroy the country. The consequences will include cities and states unable to cope with the demands placed upon them in all spheres: policing, education, welfare, disease control, rodent control, proper housing, traffic control, etc. These burdens will be associated with costs being borne by taxpayers.

Open borders will have a negative impact on the country’s politics and political system, moving it to a less libertarian position. This is basically one of the arguments made by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in “A Realistic Libertarianism“.

In deciding questions of policy, I think in terms of 3 general outcomes. First, we have the existing system (position #1) of society and government. Will a proposed change in our current position #1 result in a more libertarian system (position #2) or a less libertarian system (position #3)? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Happy Thanksgiving

Posted by M. C. on November 22, 2018


The guy on the left: Thankful for open borders.

The guy on the right: Not so much.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »