RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Border issues

In a nutshell, the U S. admits 1.1 million LEGAL green-card immigrants a year.

In addition to that, 3 million illegal immigrants enter every year (either slipping across the border, or by arriving on a two week visa and not leaving). Of that 3 million (at least until Obama's presidency) about 1.5 million were caught and deported back to their country of origin. And the number of illegals rises by 1.5 million a year. (Numbers from State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan, published in 2006. )


59% of illegals come from Mexico. About 15% from Central America. Adding the Caribbean and South America, about 81.5% comes from Latin America.

Of the roughly 3 million births in the U.S. annually, 300,000 (10%) are children born to illegals. Many of whom come here pregnant, so on giving birth their children will be entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth. And creates a path toward citizenship, and welfare benefits to the parents as caregivers. And an extended path toward citizenship to the entire extended family (i.e., chain migration).

Drugs, gangs, organized crime, unmonitored diseases, rapes, murders, shoplifting (often also by organized gangs), and many other problems follow illegal immigration. Buchanan cites 10 hospitals in the California area that were forced to close due to unpaid hospital bills of illegals, who cannot be refused care for humanitarian reasons.

In San Francisco, a girl in her late 20's was shot in the face by a Mexican illegal who had previously been reported 5 times, and the national outrage over that is pressing "Jessica's Law" in her name, which would make it a felony to be in the U.S. if previously deported and back a 2nd time, punishable by 10 years in prison, even without the committing of any other crime.

Of the 1.1 million legal immigrants given Visas every year, roughly 600,000 are living in the U.S. illegally and apply for Visas while living with legal-immigrant relatives. Buchanan quotes another author on the subject, saying "Legal immigration is the ocean in which illegal immigrants swim."

The United States is incredibly generous in the amount of LEGAL immigration it permits, and there is absolutely no way illegals should be permitted to stay, or ever be given amnesty or citizenship.

Democrats want illegals to be admitted and given amnesty, because they overwhelmingly register and vote as Democrats. It is out of pandering opportunism that Democrats want illegals to stay, and out of fear of losing voters and being labelled racist that Republicans don't push for greater enforcement.

But to not enforce our borders is rapidly leading us to lose our cultural identity, and to commit national suicide. There is not the same national pressure to assimilate, and as a result many immigrants aren't assimilating, and have a first loyalty to other nations and ideologies than the United States. We are not longer "E pluribus Unum", from many one, no longer the melting pot.
The Balkanization, and cracks forming in our society as a result, are more evident every year. Multiculturalism is a failure. As I said years ago, and as is equally evident in the U.K., Germany, France, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium and elsewhere outside the U.S., there is no such thing as "multiculturalism", there is only the transition period as a nation transforms and is overwhelmed by another culture.

And in particular with muslim immigration in Europe, it seems evident that once they become the majority, they will just slaughter any non-muslim "diversity". All the more reason not to take hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees into the U.S.
Perhaps re-settle them into another muslim country, but not into the United States.

That video was basically just a battle of platitudes. What exactly did Trudeau say that reasoned out the validity of his typical stance of cuckoldry beyond the worship of progressive language? Trump says shit is fucked up and needs to be fixed, whereas Trudeau simply says to ignore the issues and be polite about it.

What does the editing really demonstrate aside from pretension?

The stark difference in tone. Trump turns it into a state of emergency. Trudeau addresses it as a problem worthy of resolution. His approach avoids screeching histrionics.



I have lived in a monogamous culture (Japan) and I think it is the poorer for it. I had an argument in Japan with a white girl from Minnesota ("Land of 1000 Lakes!") who described the US as a "salad bowl", not a "melting pot". I don't understand how that came to be.

Australia is firmly committed to multiculturalism. We definitely have cultural enclaves here as people integrate. But amongst my Australian friends on Facebook, I have a Singaporean Chinese who married an Aussie; an ex-British Army officer who is of Iranian decent and speaks English, Farsi and Arabic and who married an Aussie who did not convert to Islam; a Muslim Palestinian who married an Aussie (he is Greek Orthodox and did not convert: they told their parents to mind their own business when it came to religious instruction of their children); a Sri Lankan Malay who married a fellow Malaysian but whose children have broad Australian accents; a Chinese accountant brought up in Australia who married an Aussie; a Chinese Malaysian who married an Aussie doctor, two South Africans who met here and are planning children in Australia; and so on...

Each of these people have managed to hang onto their cultural backgrounds, but they have transitioned to being Australian at the same time. Some are not Christian and some speak foreign languages at home. Most of them directly integrated through marriage. It is hard for someone who is half-Chinese, plays cricket and supports the Collingwood Magpies in the Australian Football League to be the subject of abuse for non-integration, other abuse of course as a supporter of the Magpies (who are mongrel dogs). I suppose it is worth noting that each of these people are tertiary educated, and I'll return to that, and that in many cases their parents were running away from some bad shit in their home countries and were grateful for a place to raise kids in peace and tolerance.

I have in earlier times never supported compulsory English as a prerequisite to citizenship as there have been many people who have contributed to Australian societal and business success as non-English speaking immigrants.

Also it is hypocritical - I lived in Hong Kong and speak ten words of Cantonese. Yet I paid taxes, gave to charity, caused no civil unrest, and contributed to the profitability of the businesses for whom I worked.

As I get older however I have swung more to the view that English is important to cultural assimilation, especially amongst people who are likely to be disadvantaged in getting jobs.

But in the same breath I also think that free tertiary education (of which I am a beneficiary - my parents were both poor and free university has led to my personal success) should be mandatory for immigrants so as to imprint the importance of free thinking, cultural tolerance, and democracy.

Samuel Huntington (you'll like his book, Pariah, "The Clash of Civilisations and the Re-Making of the World Order", as it will reinforce your world view) notes that it is not first generation immigrants who cause trouble, but second and third generation immigrants who find themselves unable to assimilate and turn back to the morals of their parents or grandparents' homelands in order to understand their own identity. That's where you run into trouble, as most clearly seen in France. Let in tens of thousands of people, but they have to not be stuck in bleak concrete high rises with no hope because of stratification of opportunity.

The issue at hand is the question of urgency. Trump speaks with it whereas Trudeau does not--even in the face of a world-wide terror campaign that targets Western Civilization with attacks that occur month after month if not week after week. And Trudeau invites the demographics that characterize this terror campaign.

Focusing on how people speak is diversionary to the fact of which liberals are scared shitless of discussing: indiscriminate immigration kills nations and their respective cultures. The meaningless platitude of "value in diversity" is finally being tested--and failing to live up to its reputation as a truism.



Homogeneity is the only quality that's going to save the identity of the Japanese. On that subject however, Japan is being overrun with aggressively intrusive Chinese and Korean foreigners that are either draining them of capital through war guilt or performing hostile property grabs through corporate maneuvering. Their younger people are beginning to realize this, and it's pissing them off immensely. With luck, Abe can push through the referendum that allows the Japanese to undo the damage done by the US's imposed post-War restrictions and rebuild their nationalist culture.

The big misconception about the Melting Pot, as it is historically applied to the US, is that it assumes the Founding Fathers operated on the premise of immigrants arriving from any nation intermixing and assimilating into the larger culture. However, people conveniently forget that it wasn't until the early-to-mid 20th century that the US started taking in non-European immigrants en masse. While Europeans hailed from varying cultures, they shared a continental familiarity among each other that allowed them to more or less effectively assimilate into the mother culture of individuals who were already like themselves.

The cultures that enter the US now, and for the the past 40-50 years, are way more alien than the Eurocentric demographics that comprised the main body of immigrants over a hundred years ago and beyond. That's why you have a salad, and not a melting pot.



Then why did the Liberal/National Coalition, the primary critics of unchecked migration, win the elections?



What does that mean? In the US, all you have to do to be considered "American" is be a citizen regardless of your cultural loyalties--which is most certainly the same qualifying factor for "Australians". And if you try to question anyone on it, you're branded a "racist" or a "jingoist". Compare this to Sweden--a country that is irreparably further along the sliding scale of progressive enlightenment than our two nations--where cops don't dare refer to any ethnically non-Swedish criminals as anything other than Swedes lest they get fired, and the average ethnically Swede citizen will be arrested for fuck's sake. Now consider that every other Western nation sits somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, and their respective populations are all coerced in some fashion or another to consider all cohabitants--regardless of ethnicity--as national brethren. It really puts your standards for identifying "Australians" in perspective.

The reality here is that your ilk refuses to acknowledge the concept of nations having specific identities lest their individual cultures fly in the face of a globalist end result where everyone's compartmentalized and consolidated in the name of an abstract, high-minded idealism (political correctness) that doesn't give two shits about the actual people being forced to conform to its morality. It's cultural death and genocide. Plain and simple.



Which doesn't negate the fact that you harmed its culture with your presence as a Caucasian individual. That being said however, Hong Kong is still largely a colonial culture if I'm not mistaken. There still exists a movement there to be re-established as British subjects. Puts a whole new spin on the idea of operating in Hong Kong as a European.



This all assumes that the people who migrate to a given country actually seek to assimilate in the first place. Hispanic nations, Islamic nations, and China are all cabal states. They share respective operational philosophies, as immigrants, that dictate both subversive and separatist behavior upon entry into a given host nation. None of them even bother hiding the fact that they come to the US purely for welfare and birthright citizenship anymore. And all they do is form tight-nit no-go zones where no one speaks English and they keep their own little rule of law, irrespective of the ones that already exist.

Quite frankly, from my experience in California, it's the first generation Mexicans/Chinese/Koreans that actually want to assimilate into US culture that pass along US cultural values to their kids who, in turn, adopt them readily. They are all quite alarmed by the shrinking white majority. I'm not kidding you; they're scared.

This country doesn't have a static culture. We're not even that old. Like it or not it's changing and will keep changing.

If a culture weren't static (in the sense that-that phrase suggests a given culture can have multiple forms without losing its unique identity as a culture), then it couldn't die. But it is.

That's what useful idiots like yourself are incapable of understanding: multiculturalism does not refer to the presence of more than one culture, but rather the process of consolidating the various cultures into a singular national identity under the most aggressive culture's dominance.

It's always instructive to hear a rehashed "like it or not", though. Really paints the picture of your true nature as a coercive agent.

I think in a free country with our constitutional principles there really isn't room for what you want other than finding others like yourself and living in a closed off society like the Amish. And even change occurs there.

There is no constitutional principle supporting the cause of cultural subversion. That document was drafted upon the premise of a particular culture recognized by the Founding Fathers, and as such only accommodates it's original context. The further we've moved away from it, the less integrity we've maintained, and the less free we've become as a result. In other words, the more the culture changes, the more tangent it becomes as a building block of our civilization.

Your lip-smacking tacitly claims that any constitution is compatible with any culture by virtue of the fact that it can be eradicated.

Not being able to own people and opening the vote up to those with a vagina are things that have moved us closer to those principles. All along our way there were people like yourself wanting things not to change.

The document was specifically, and explicitly, designed to maintain the protections of American citizens. Chattel were not citizens. So you can't claim that it was designed to limit the freedoms of people under it's protection. Further, you also can't claim that the Constitution, in its initial form, was inherently supportive of slavery since a portion of its drafters were active Abolitionists, and even the ones who weren't had all contributed to the Abolition movement by the end of their reigns. It wasn't Americans in general that introduced, or even endorsed, the practice of slavery. At any given time, the portion of Americans that adopted slavery as a practice was tiny.

Similarly, the implicit claim that women weren't protected as citizens under the Constitution by token of lacking the ability to vote is tangent to its underlying purpose. There was nothing in it that explicitly stated that women should or should not have been allowed to vote or even work. Females in politics and/or the work place had always been a policy issue, and not an issue of constitutional principles, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The inclusion of amendments after the initial draft was designed to reinforce the principles already established and delineated to the document in its previous form without adding any principles of its own. To profess that it should be "changed" as a principle unto itself demonstrates contempt for its very conception.

The horrible truth here is that principally changing the Constitution in the ways that you espouse (see also: Fourteenth Amendment) has only served to socially engineer the people on the bottom from the top tiers of government, and has not reflected any cultural shifts that began with the people themselves. Thus, any further lawmaking or right-forging have been acts ordained by the politicians seeking to change the culture from positions of power, rather than the will of the people seeking change itself. It's oligarchical serfdom all over again in the form of bureaucracy.

Abraham Lincoln, first candidate of a newly formed Republican party, ended slavery.

And again Republicans with civil rights legislation in 1964, over which many Democrats left the Democrat party because they didn't share the DNC's embracing of it. As I pointed out previously, LBJ only cynically supported it for opportunistic reasons, saying "I'll have niggers voting Democrat for 200 years!"



1921, again under a Republican president.


It would appear that people of your party are the intolerant ones trying to deny others rights.

Maybe you should see Dinesh D'Souza's new documentary to learn about your own party "not wanting things to change".

I'll pass on the propaganda. Your party dropped the ball while dems reformed the party. It actually looks like America. You have Trump

A party that's funded by interests outside of the US "looks like America" to you?

Trump's Russian connections anyone? How about those taxes too

How many times has Paul Ryan made the "That's not who we are" speech btw? Wonder how convincing they think it sounds time after time?

How about those hacked DNC records that actually prove Soros, among others, funds the Democrats? How about all that money Hillary Clinton has received from Saudi Arbia, China, etc. that is most certainly being used in her campaign where she outspends Trump as much as sixty to one?

Trump's campaign, by comparison, has been operating on a shoe string and has, at times, struggled to get donors to go along with him.

It never sounded convincing to anyone. Everyone finds it pretentious that he, Obama, Clinton, McConnel, McCain, etc. keep repeating the phrase as though the American people need to be told who they are by politicians living off their tax money.

It's hilarious that you think that's some kind of weakness monopolized by conservatives simply because it's regurgitated by a Republican.

By the way...

Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta Fails To Disclose His Executive Position With Russian Energy Company

Received $35 Million Dollar Investment From Vladmir Putin and The Russians

TIMELINE: Countdown to John Podesta’s $35 Million Russian Deal

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...n-russian-deal/

https://archive.is/LKd23

The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

https://archive.is/lvruZ

Report raises questions about ‘Clinton Cash’ from Russians during ‘reset’

https://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

https://archive.is/CuKKr

FROM RUSSIA WITH MONEY: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

https://archive.is/MVmRn

NOW you understand why there's been such projection about "IT WAS THE RUSSIANS." The elephant in the room is Clinton funneling foreign money right into her pocket.

CitizenWells: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism

Archive

Executive Summary

• A major technology transfer component of the Russian reset overseen by Hillary Clinton substantially enhanced the Russian military’s technological capabilities, according to both the FBI and the U.S. Army.
  
  Russian government officials and American corporations participated in the technology transfer project overseen by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that funnelled tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
  
  A Putin-connected Russian government fund transferred $35 million to a small company with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta on its executive board, which included senior Russian officials.
  
  John Podesta failed to reveal, as required by law on his federal financial disclosures, his membership on the board of this offshore company.
  
  Podesta also headed up a think tank which wrote favorably about the Russian reset while apparently receiving millions from Kremlin-linked Russian oligarchs via an offshore LLC.

So your just skipping over Trump's Russian ties? Not shocking, lol. Did you read about how he got the GOP to change it's platform on Russia and than lied about it? Do you need me to post a link? You obviously feel strongly about this issue after all

Lol

Ann Coulter said a few years ago that "The best way to tell what Democrats are up to is to look at what they're accusing Republicans of".

The only thing I feel strongly about is how much you shill for Clinton regardless of the fact that she's a liar, a thief, a murderer, and a human trafficker. Furthermore, there's actual proof that she's taken money from the Russians, and yet you try to project that particular crime upon Trump in an effort to pull an epic reverse-McCarthy maneuver and divert attention away from Hilldawg.

You're beyond being a useful idiot at this point. You're complicit in her crimes.

I think you're just showing how batshit crazy you get with your partisan accusations. Not having principles got you guys Trump, enjoy

WHEEEE!

Thank you, Dave.

I've seen and heard nothing substantial.

Likely just like the DNC's half-baaked allegations that "the Russians hacked the DNC's server, to help Trump get elected", it's probably all a made-up cover story to distract from Hillary's undeniable criminal actions.

What's the source?
MediaMatters? Or the Democrat Central Committee itself?

You and the entire DNC party that rallies behind the most FBI-investigated and unquestionably criminal nominee of either party in history, trying to float that about your opposition.