A Torchy Rant
Yet another so-called “migrant caravan” is making it’s way north to the United States and growing in size along the way. The clear and obvious objective of the “caravan” is to overwhelm border control mechanisms. For all intents and purposes, it is an invasion by definition. So lets dispatch with the shadow language and call it what it is.
This October invasion comprises somewhere between 3,000 and 14,000 Central Americans, reports estimated Tuesday. What began as a group predominantly made of up of Hondurans has now morphed into melting pot of the Middle Americas. The group will no doubt be further diversified by migrants from India as the traveling circus moves through northern Mexico. (A recent study revealed that between 15 and 25 percent of migrants crossing into the United States illegally at the Mexico border are from India.)
On Monday, Trump spoke at a Texas rally and declared himself a nationalist — but clearly there’s an obstructionist contingent of U.S. judges who are not. And it doesn’t seem as though we’re ever going to get that wall — and even if we did, they’d just dig a tunnel under it.
Meanwhile, border crossings have reached an all-time record high for fiscal year 2018 (Oct. 1, 2017, to Sept. 30, 2018). Note the language below as well as the figures.
The Washington Times: The Border Patrol nabbed 396,579 people, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers encountered another 124,511 trying to come into the country through official ports of entry. The combined 521,090 people is 25 percent more than 2017, though fewer than the 553,378 unauthorized migrants snared in 2016. …
Of more than 94,000 Central American families who jumped the border in 2017, more than 98 percent — including tens of thousands of unaccompanied children — remain in the U.S., says the Department of Homeland Security.
Of the more than half a million known people who came to the U.S.-Mexico border, only a quarter of them went through an official port. And of the nearly 400,000 people caught crossing the border illegally, only a quarter of them were from Central America. Um, where are the other 75% from? And if 400,000 were caught, how many got away? Is there any way to know or even estimate?
To combat this latest invasion, Trump reportedly dispatched 2,100 mostly unarmed National Guard troops from Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. That equates to less than one soldier per mile. Clearly, more needs to be done. It’s time to send a loud, clear and ominous message that can be understood in any language.
5 Strategies to End Migrant Invasions
1) Declare National Emergency and Deploy the Military
Big presence, armed, tanks, helicopters, machine guns, dogs, trenches and firing lines along rivers.
2) Shut Down Processing Centers
Simply close them. Put out a sign: Gone to lunch, be back in a month. Put processing staff on border patrol duty.
3) Broadcast Fake Images of People Being Gunned Down While Attempting to Cross into the United States Illegally
Since our government has perfected hoax-craft, why not put it to good use? Create fake scenes of MS-13 types being gunned down by military or by red necks while crossing rivers or running across fields. Distribute faked tapes to news networks worldwide as an insider “leak.”
4) Make it a Punishable Federal Crime to Organize or Fund Border Invasions
Organized invasions of the U.S. border create economic and security crises for U.S. citizens at both a local and national level. Those who fund and coordinate such invasions should be charged with threatening national security. Municipalities near the border should seek financial remedies from organizations and individuals who deliberately create serious resource burdens.
5) Open Asylum Centers and US Jobs Centers in Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico and India
Screen people abroad. It’s easier to assess a person in their own country, including true level of need and criminal history.
If a prospective migrant wants to work in the U.S. and they’re fit for employment, have employer pay for the worker’s transport and documentation fees. A short-term or long-term green card could be issued from abroad. If guest worker doesn’t show up for work, then the employer should be required to report the absence to immigration.
Asylum centers abroad could provide safe temporary housing to asylum candidates while their need is being assessed within their own country, including the conditions in which they live, local gang threats, etc. If qualified for asylum, the person could begin their documentation process abroad and then be given transport to the U.S. and connected with a resource coordinator. A refugee should be given a temporary Visa and clear follow-up process once in the U.S.
Countries that don’t want to cooperate with such a program could be cut off from foreign aid.
Torchy Takeaway: Though I’ve never been a fan of the quota method of immigration and am not a eugenicist, there must be a balance of influence (aka “diversity”) when it comes to migration. Otherwise, couldn’t a country be gradually and passively taken over without ever going to war?
Massive and uncontrolled influxes in recent decade of migrants from Latino and Asian countries coupled with practically non-existent European migration has already created a radical shift in our politics, economy and culture. So perhaps we should revisit the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or Johnson-Reed Act. This NBC article calls the Act “discriminatory” (because it’s pro-northern European), but it explains the tenets of the Act well enough:
[With the act’s passage] … the U.S. used restrictive immigration policies in the 1920s based on the 1890 proportions of foreign-born European nationalities. Since the 1890 census reflected higher numbers of northern Europeans, immigrants from those countries had greater opportunities to emigrate.
The arguments, outlined in Madison Grant’s 1916 book The Passing of a Great Race, held that older immigrants were skilled, thrifty, hardworking like native born Americans and recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were unskilled, ignorant, predominantly Catholic or Jewish and not easily assimilated into American culture.
Madison Grant and Charles Davenport, among other eugenicists, were called in as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe, playing a critical role as Congress debated the Immigration Act of 1924. The act attempted to control the number of “unfit” individuals entering the country by lowering the number of immigrants allowed in to 15 percent of what it had been previously.