INVASION: Army of Illegal Migrants Is Marching Its Way Through Mexico to U.S. Border


Trump is no “racist.” Not even close. EVERY Republican since Nixon has been accused of being “racist” when it suits some Democrat demagogue to level that charge…usually when they are LOSING a debate with a Republican.


I seem to remember one of his golf caddies from long ago who became the top executive for all of his golf courses worldwide…a black girl. Oh yeah, lets not forget his national spokesperson Katrina Pierson. Mar-a-Lago broke through the South Beach blackballing of Jews and blacks.


In other words, “How can I be racist??? I have black friend!”


BS. Even JESSIE JACKSON lauded him and gave him some sort of an award for his efforts in providing affordable housing for blacks. That “racist” charge is wearing pretty thin, Malerin. MOST people know that it’s as bogus as “I didn’t have sex with that woman…Ms Lewinski.” Blacks comprise 13.5% of the U.S. population and that’s SHRINKING because of the ongoing efforts to eliminate “mud people” by Planned Parenthood. It’s no accident that most PP “clinics” are located in–or in close proximity–to minority neighborhoods. There’s a new one proposed for my hometown…right in the middle of “Little Mexico City.”


Anyone else find it passingly ironic that Planned Parenthood was one of the contributors to the cost of the recent “March for Lives,” stating that it did so in order to “save childrens’ lives and make them ‘safe’?”


First of all, I’d say “stereotypical,” not “typical.” Second, contrary to your stereotype of us (collectively; I personally did not vote for Trump), we have little tolerance for genuine racist nonsense here.


In fact, that was the original purpose of establishing PP.


Their country is falling apart! Let’s bring in the people who embody this dysfunctional culture so our country can more resemble theirs!


Dude, you’re just highlighting my question.

Do you ever let refugees in?

In virtually any refugee crisis, it’s pretty much a given that a societal meltdown has occurred in their place of origin, whether by war, or other means.

So, do you ever let them in?


If we had a system where we let them in for a few months until the region stabilized and then sent them back? Perhaps. However, that’s not we’ve done in the past - so no. I don’t want any lifelong “refugees”.

And it’s generally smarter and cheaper to house them and feed them near their own origin. There’s really no reason to move someone separated by an ocean to the US. There is no entire continent engulfed in violence. Not even Africa. Much less South America.

Mexico and Canada are the only countries that would even make sense for us to physically take refugees, and neither country has ever warranted it.


Why not? We have S. Vietnamese, we have people from the Bosnian wars (and I’m in contact with two such people almost everyday) who cares if they decide to make a new life here?

Einstein was a refugee. The founder of Sikorsky was a refugee. The guy who made this hot sauce was a refugee.

The Jews were refugees from the pogroms. Half our Germans were refugees from being kicked out of the Volga by the “native” Russians. The Irish were refugees from the Potato Famine + British quarantine; escaping a disaster where a million people died.

Somehow, none of these “waves” resulted in societal collapse for us. And it’s not as if they didn’t have difficulties.

There were criminal elements to be sure, there were riots, there was cultural friction. Assimilation apparently has a way of wearing those things down.

For Kurds, Yazidis and Christians? People being persecuted by either an ethnic, religious, or political majority?

Yeah there is. It’s not just an army they’re fleeing; it’s their neighbors. Even after the conflict is over, there may be no true “home” for them to return to, because the “other” will attack them even after the dust has settled.

Reprisals by victors for past slitghts, or resentment by the losers over having lost.

Except, you’re treating them as a group, not as individuals.

There’s a community of Kurds in Nashiville, TN; it thus makes sense for many Kurds to go there, because they’ll have family or other connections there that they can rely on.

It’s not just about what is close by, it’s about what you have connections to.

Equally, where can you find work? Because housing people in one place for years simply to tweedle their thumbs is a recipe for creating cascading failures.

People need to be somewhere, where they can build a life, not just be alive. It’s not the same as housing people in the wake of most natural disasters… though it may be similar to what we had to do for Katrina victims.


You know what would make even more sense? For them to go to Turkey or other countries where there are millions of Kurds instead of making America a dumping ground for the Third World.

A country is nothing more than the people who inhabit it. The more people you take from backwards countries, the more we become like those countries.

America was one of the only countries in the world to ever value individual freedom. Have you perhaps noticed that the more diverse we’ve become, the more and more authoritarian the entire populace has become? That’s a well studied topic in anthropology. Diversity is not our strength. It leads to social mistrust and dysfunction.

That’s just the thing. We no longer have the ethnic centralism to integrate anyone any more. Once a country no longer has a primary ethnic group(and young children are now majority non-white), they lose the ability to integrate anyone - including foreigners of their race

At this point, we can’t even properly integrate French or German people anymore. You can forget about Argentina, much less Zimbabwe.

About half of our adult refugees have not worked at all after being here for five years.


They are welcome to apply for refugee status, and be admitted after proper vetting for criminal backgrounds, gang affiliations and the like. They are not welcome to waltz across the border as if it doesn’t exist.


There are several types of refugees:

  1. People who are personally targeted for their past cooperation with the United States.

  2. Racial, ethnic or religious minorities who are being persecuted because of this.

  3. The GENERAL POPULATION of countries which have become $#!+holes due to natural disasters, rampant crime or economic chaos because of their country’s leadership.

While I have sympathy for Group No. 3, it is potentially hundreds of millions of people around the world. To maintain an open border policy with this group is simply national suicide. It is insane.


That’s what they’re doing.


Which describes Ireland to a “T”. Same to Norway (1/3 of their population came here in the 19th century), which experienced persistent crop failures due to the cold, and people there had to flee to find someplace with food.

It’s also the same with Cubans, and anyone who was fleeing the Eastern Bloc.

It’s also the same with Italians & Greeks who came here during their internal struggles with Communism.

What the Latin American refugees represent, is not new to us.

Not their education level, not their poverty rate, not the language they speak, not their circumstances, and certainly not their religion.


The people fleeing El Salvador are not fleeing communism, they are fleeing crime and economic chaos which their elected leaders cannot deal with.

In TODAY’S world, how many people in the world live in abject poverty, crime infested regions or under government tyranny? 10’s of millions? 100’s of millions? I won’t try to estimate. So you are hunky-dory with letting in any of them who can make it to the banks of the Rio Grande? Yes or No, please.


No they’re NOT, AS. They’re planning on skipping across the border and THEN asking for “refugee” status. They’ve been trained and coached on how to do this by this “open borders” bunch who have NO INTEREST in helping actual refugees, but in flooding our country with 3rd-world, uneducated, potential Democrat voters. Look at the pictures of these people. NONE of the men, or the few women and children appear to be starving…far from it. If they’re fleeing “danger” in their country, they succeeded the second they crossed the Mexican border. but they don’t want “safety.” They want the perks they’ll get by coming HERE.


Uh, no. Kurds are more diverse internally than the people living in the Balklands. “Kurds” is as specific a term as “Eastern European”.

Iraqi Kurd have plenty of divisions with Kurds living in Turkey or Syria. They’ve fought wars with one another. And even the Iraqi Kurds aren’t one people.

Evidence shows the opposite. Assimilation is something of a two-way street; we adopt things from the incoming culture we don’t find threatening.

Hot dogs, Christmas trees, Corn beef & hash, none of these things would have made a lick a sense to the Founders, as they were all brought here by immigrants.

However, a country only becomes more like the incoming culture than itself, if the incoming culture is more developed. E.g., the Volga Germans, or the Hungarians in Romania, or the Russians in Kazakhstan.

Or heck, us, and the influence we had on Native Americans.

American history gives us a better explanation.

The U.S. assuming the mantle of a world power, taking on responsibilities that have to be tended to by a large, expensive Government apparatus, and using said apparatus to intervene in the world (attracting the attention of hostile outsiders). This apparatus will then vouch for itself, and through power creep & its corporate nature, seeks to take on more power, and more roles within society.

Japan went through a similar trend; it had nothing to do with “diversity” (they have none). Same to the British Empire.

Switzerland never had one, they’ve been split statically between 3 cultures & languages, yet they’ve remained integrated for centuries.

… And Singapore, while I think about it. 4 officials languages and a migrant workforce larger than their native population.

We ourselves lost a “central ethnicity” in the 19th century. We had a 25% immigration rate (double of that today), we had more Germans living here than English, and top of that, Irish, who we openly despised more than blacks.

Why? Because the Blacks were Protestant, and the Irish were Catholic.

What you’ve yet to discover Cwolf, is that it’s not about numbers, it’s about development.

We didn’t see all or sections of ourselves become permanent Irish or German colonies (despite them naming a town after the then-ruling German Chancellor), because neither of these populations were as developed as the natives living here.

The culture who is most developed, has the most soft power. Hence why the ancient Egyptians Hellenized, and the Czechs were left reading German textbooks, despite having only tiny populations of the people concerned.

I’ve already brought this up; Hispanic immigrants learn English at the same rate as the Italians, and became better at learning English overtime.

3rd generation, English is the primary language, if not the only one they speak:


Cwolf, you need to read that article:

Long term, assimilation runs its course. This is why nativist uprisings, every time it’s shown up in America, got the consequences of letting people in wrong, even if they were somehow right about the people they were objecting to.

It’s because you don’t know who those people can become. And the fact they’re both less developed than the existing culture, and they and their children will probably want to be middle class, means they’ll have to avail themselves of our culture to get anywhere.

They don’t have a choice, and what long term trends we have show that they are in fact doing this.


? All communism does is create economic chaos. See China and the “Great Leap Forward” , or the Soviets and collectivism starving out the Kulaks, or anything in North Korea.

Your objection just doesn’t follow, and you seem to be unaware that El Savador is in the state it’s in, because of communism.

This is all aftermath of the civil war the central Government fought with the Communists, and how it fragmented everything in the country.

Again, why not? When has letting in refugees, long term, resulted in something that was only a cost to us?

And if you reject them, then when do you let refugees in? You’re not being clear.

In 2004, 50% of our refugees were coming from Somalia and Laos. In 2008 it was Burmese and Bhutanese.

Their circumstances aren’t much different than these Latins. Were they all just “mistakes”?