Make the border real again

Liberals are hyperventilating because Trump today advocated simply returning border jumpers to their home country without letting them clog up our judicial system in the process:

Trump - immigration

“But… but… due process!” Trump’s opponents shout.  Here’s the thing: if we’re not going to execute, incarcerate or fine them, exactly what are they “due?”  If caught in the act of crossing our border, what is there to “process?”  I’ve seen people online quoting the Supreme Court ruling that “the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanentZadvydas v. Davis (2001).  Okaythe Fifth Amendment specifically says no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  I fail to see how immediate return of lawbreaking border jumpers to their country of origin runs afoul of that provision.  Detention while awaiting swift deportation is not the same thing as incarceration.  No matter how much Democrats want to treat them as citizens, illegal immigrants aren’t.  Because we believe in the sanctity of God’s creations, we don’t simply shoot on sight.*  Nor do we deprive those in our custody of food, water and shelter.  But beyond that, America owes them nothing.  No day in court.  No welfare subsidies.  Especially no drivers license or voter I.D. card.  Nothing.  I’d even be in favor of making them pay the cost of their “return to sender” transportation (although that admittedly would likely require more “process” than it’s worth).  After all, many of them seem able to come up with money to pay “coyotes” to smuggle them here, so why shouldn’t we get a cut of that for our troubles?  As for repeat offenders, I’ve addressed that before.

The President is correct: our current system is a mockery.  It encourages foreigners to try their luck to see if they can break into America, and there are few real penalties for failure and repeated attempts.  Various well-funded organizations actively abet those who come here in defiance of our laws.  In the process, they have called into question the process of requesting asylum, since that claim is now greatly abused.  Exhausting Americans’ potential sympathy for those truly needing refuge from persecution is hardly “compassionate,” liberals.  We are a generous people, but there are limits to everything when one realizes others are taking advantage of their good nature.

No matter how much leftists muddy the waters with emotion, this is a simple issue.  Either we are a sovereign nation, or we aren’t.  Either we get to decide who comes to live among us, or we don’t.  Either the people are in charge, or unaccountable globalist elites rule our land.

Which is it?

* This restraint alone shows the difference between America and much of the world. Sadly, though,  in the long run it may come to “shoot on sight” in order to restore a proper deterrent and respect for our immigration laws.  If that day comes, globalists and open borders advocates will have only themselves to blame for encouraging a situation requiring such measures to bring back under control.
Advertisements

Seeing through common propaganda

Kurt Schlichter provides brief rebuttals to some of the more asinine liberal “arguments” (which he correctly refers to as “cheats”):

The Cheat: “Jesusplain Those Rubes!”

When in doubt, play the messiah card! It’s always a pleasure to have some atheist hipster explain to you how Christ was a socialist SJW who was ultra-open-minded about what bathroom people should use and who demands you give the government money so it can hand your cash over to deadbeats. I often wonder if this gambit ever works, if anyone ever thinks, “Gosh, I guess if @ImpeachTrumpHillarysHot says my Savior hates AR15s, then I better disarm myself in the face of liberal-enabled crime and liberal-supported tyranny.”

How to Beat It: You could explain the whole Christianity thing, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.

((Preferably, try to explain the faith first, but whenever it becomes clear they’re only interested in twisting scripture to support their agenda, the “pound sand” option is the conclusion.  After all, even Jesus told His disciples to shake the dust off their sandals from towns that would not listen to them.  — Jemison))

The Cheat: “We are better than that!”

They like to try to weaponize our morality against us, which is hilarious since they hate morality almost as much as they hate us. They create some sort of moral test, usually out of thin air, and then announce you have failed it. One of the best was the recent “Splitting up families of undocumented workers is not who we are!” Except it is who we are. We split up the families of criminals all the time and we should – there’s no nursery in San Quentin for a reason.

What they want to do is well up those tears in your eyes so you don’t clearly see the truth – the problem is not the consequence of illegal aliens breaking into our country. The problem is the illegal aliens breaking into our country. The problem is always the misbehavior we are calling out, not the fact we are calling it out.

How to Beat It: Refuse to play this human shield game and tell the liberals to go pound sand.

Read the rest here.  It’s time to stop acting as if these “arguments” have any merit other than emotional sensationalism.

Yes, sometimes we fight — and hard

Kurt Schlichter notes the difference between piousness and passivity:   (H/T Vox Day)

Jesus was not some sort of whiny wimp who refused to confront the establishment and took comfort in his own righteousness while leaving others to do the heavy lifting. Jesus made people angry, because that’s what happens when you defy bad people. Being a Christian does not mean that you have to shrug and let the likes of Hillary Clinton be elected so she and her minions can fire up her anti-faith pogrom against those of us who dare worship God and not the elite she represents. Maybe you didn’t notice, but they do not accept the concept that we have any legitimate interests or rights. They hate us. And, if we are weak and stupid enough to allow them to take power, they will act on their bigotry and prejudices. Baking cakes is only the start.

Resistance is not merely an option. It is a duty. And resistance to evil – because the desire to suppress our faith is evil – is not somehow unchristian because it can be aesthetically displeasing. Fighting back is not always pretty. Jesus cleared the temple of moneychangers. He made a mess and got people angry. He didn’t sit on the sidelines and write ponderous articles lambasting the people tossing over the tables because “We’re better than that.”  …

We don’t care because we are done seeing our morality weaponized against us. The Piouscons keep confusing passivity with morality.

The entire piece is worth your time.  Trump has many faults, but it seems pretty clear he is a patriot and someone who desires the restoration of good governance.  Despite my initial misgivings about him, I’ll take that over Hillary’s faux-Methodist globalism and personal aggrandizement any day.  We are to pray for our leaders, however gifted or flawed they are.  Let’s remember that the same God who can use flawed people to achieve His purposes is more than capable of changing those flawed people as well.  It’s been a pleasant surprise to see how faithful Trump has been to his campaign promises.  How much more of a surprise would it be to find that in seeking to combat the evil in our land, he found the Christ who is best able to defeat it?

Pray hard, Christians!

Photo worth a thousand words

Ponder this:

DcRMjmpX4AEaDme

Conditions are allegedly so bad in Honduras that a person leaves the country, travels over 1,000 miles to the edge of the United States (with no small amount of facilitation by Mexico), where he climbs the shoddy fence denoting the border.

Then waves the flag of the country he fled…

This isn’t about political asylum.  It’s not even about wanting to become an American and wanting to share in the so-called “American dream.”  It’s about raiding the larder of the richest country in the hemisphere, all while flipping the bird at U.S. sovereignty.  It’s about rejecting any adaptation and instead flaunting the cultural trappings of the country he left behind… a country that was supposedly so bad Americans are expected to welcome him without reservation.

I call BS.  This photo doesn’t depict immigration.  Even without visible weapons, it depicts invasion.

…and should be dealt with accordingly.  Seal the border, already!

Saying what many are thinking

Not everybody gets a chance to address Congress this way; even fewer choose to do so.

Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign adviser, delivered this statement to the committee on Tuesday, May 1, 2018:

‘In 2009, my wife and I moved to my hometown of East Aurora, New York to have a family. Making far less money back home, we had a far better quality of life. That is, until the Trump-Russia narrative took off. Today, I can’t possibly pay the attendant legal costs and live near my aging father, raising my kids where I grew up.

‘Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money – more than $125,000 – and making a visceral impact on my children.

‘Now I must to move back to Washington, New York City, Miami or elsewhere, just so I can make enough money to pay off these legal bills. And I know I have you to thank for that.

‘Here’s how I know: how many of you know Daniel Jones, former Senate Intelligence staffer for Senator Dianne Feinstein? Great guy, right? Most of you worked with him. One of you probably just talked to him this morning…

((Read the entire statement for his takedown of Jones and the shady origins of the investigation))

‘What America needs is an investigation of the investigators. I want to know who is paying for the spies’ work and coordinating this attack on President Donald Trump? I want to know who Dan Jones is talking to across the investigations – from the FBI, to the Southern District of New York, to the OSC, to the Department of Justice, to Congress.

‘Forget about all the death threats against my family. I want to know who cost us so much money, who crushed our kids, who forced us out of our home, all because you lost an election.

‘I want to know because G*d Damn you to Hell.’

Looking back 50 years later

Before Britain became knife-ophobic, before it became subsumed into the European Union experiment, there were those who remembered what it meant to be a Briton.  There were those who meant it when they sang (or thought) the words “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

One such man was Enoch Powell, who today is remembered either as a prophet or the personification of bigotry, depending on one’s view of the last half century of unprecedented demographic change.  Today, the 50th anniversary of his most famous address, it’s worth reading and comparing to today’s conditions.  Keep in mind that in 1968, London did not have a murder rate exceeding that of New York.  Nor did the UK regularly suffer from terrorist attacks using vehicles or acid thrown onto passersby. Some links and information are included in the text below to provide further points to ponder.

*****

This is the full text of Enoch Powell’s so-called ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968: 

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.  At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.  After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.  I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.     ((Note: by 2012, children of foreign-born mothers represented one-fourth of the population of the United Kingdom!))

Continue reading