Summary: The Democrats plan to open America’s borders (as Merkel did to Germany). It is the next step in their new social engineering project, with us as lab rats. The 2018 and 2020 elections might be a decisive point in American history.
“Weak half-measures do nothing. This is a defining moment of our time – the time to act is now.”
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, star Democratic candidate for Congress.
My guess: the Democrats plan to stage a coup if they retake power in 2020. Not the imaginary kind, as they accuse Trump of planning. They intend to do a “Merkle.” Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Germany’s borders, allowing in 1.1 million migrants in 2015. Without any public consultation, added to the high level of immigration before and after. Merkel and her allies permanently changed Germany. This will become more apparent with each passing year.
I believe that the Democratic Party intends to something similar for America. They boast that since the 1970s they have opened the borders, step by step, and radically changed America’s demographics – more to come! – with probably drastic but unknowable consequences. It would be one of the Left’s largest social engineering projects in history (details here), comparable to their previous largest project: communism.
The next step is to close the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE; Wikipedia). Then they can easily and quickly open the walls. Open the borders. After a year or two, the public policy debate will be about how to accommodate all the new Americans – and how to mold a new America. As in Germany and the other European nations, no public consent is needed for this vast experiment, with us as the lab rats.
Making a new America.
The Democratic Party speaks
Politicians call it “slicing the salami.” Even massive social changes can be made if the groundwork is laid in small steps that do not alarm the sheep. The Democrats are quite open about their larger goal – using demographics to remold America – and their next step, abolish ICE.
“I’m introducing legislation that would abolish ICE and crack down on the agency’s blanket directive to target and round up individuals and families …”
— Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI). It has 8 co-sponsors. See the bill and its status at Congress.gov.
“It’s time we abolish ICE.”
— Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).
Cynthia Nixon is the Democratic Party’s candidate for NY.
ICE is a terrorist organization, and its egomaniacal leader is Donald Trump. Sign our petition to #AbolishICE: https://t.co/sZ3VF6lRhE https://t.co/qsB6XiJUJc
— Cynthia Nixon (@CynthiaNixon) June 22, 2018
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the famous Democratic candidate (previous job: bartender) for a seat in Congress.
New buttons on deck! pic.twitter.com/6Ae3q4q0dn
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) June 12, 2018
See the thousands of tweets about #AbolishICE. Representative Jim McGovern, D-MA) was an early supporter.
The public does not approve. Does it matter?
Harvard – Harris poll on 17 – 19 January 2018.
PowerPoint presentation; full report.
Do you think current border security is adequate or inadequate?
Adequate:…..39%.
Inadequate:..61%.
How to Prioritize Immigrants Coming to U.S.
Should be based on a person’s ability to contribute to America:..79%.
Should be based on a person having relatives in the U.S……………..21%.
How Many Legal Immigrants Should be Admitted to the U.S. Each year?
The US admitted 1.2 legal immigrants in 2016; 81% want fewer legal immigrants than. Other surveys show little public tolerance for the vast numbers of illegal immigrants that have flooded in during the past decade.
None…………………………………………………..09%.
1 to under 250 thousand………………..35%.
250 thousand to under 1.0 million..37%.
1.0 million to under 2.5 million………11%.
2.5 million or more……………………………08%.
Harvard – Harris poll as of 24 – 25 June 2018.
Slide presentation; full report.
Abolish ICE?
Agree:……..31%
Disagree:..69%.
Do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of our immigration laws?
Stricter:..70%.
Looser:…30%.
The Democrats’ plan: don’t tell the voters what they plan to do
The Democrats understand the key to success is to deceive the public in 2018, then implement their plans in 2019. See the NYT: “G.O.P. Finds an Unexpectedly Potent Line of Attack: Immigration.”
“But Republican candidates across the country …{paint} Democrats as the ones pursuing an extreme immigration agenda that would fill the country with ‘sanctuary cities’ where violent criminals roam free. The strategy, in play in a growing number of races, may be working. As a tight battle for control of Congress enters its closing weeks, Democrats have found that in politically competitive states, particularly ones that Mr. Trump carried in 2016, the attacks can easily turn crucial voting blocs against Democrats.
“’Sanctuary attacks pack a punch,’ says a four-page memorandum, prepared by the liberal Center for American Progress and the centrist think tank Third Way, that has been shared at about a dozen briefings for Democrats in recent weeks. The New York Times obtained a copy of the memo, whose findings are based on interviews and surveys conducted over the summer. …
“{The memo says that} they should spend ‘as little time as possible’ talking about immigration itself, and instead pivot to more fruitful issues for Democrats …”
Conclusion
Trust us!
A nation can be irrevocably changed in a brief time. It takes power to implement changes, the will to do so, and the passive acquiescence of the governed. The November 2018 might be a large step to a new future for America.
For discussion on another day: how many Republican officials oppose massive immigration? Until Trump, GOP officials were allies of the Democrats in their great project. Cheap labor, more profits!
For More Information
For a mild (very PC) look at this moment in Sweden, see this at Bloomberg. Also see “They won’t admit it in Stockholm, but Donald Trump is right about immigration in Sweden” by Fraser Nelson in The Telegraph.
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you found this post of use, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also see these posts about immigrants (including similar reports from other nations in Europe), and especially these…
- Essential reading about hidden history: The history of immigration and America, lost amidst the more useful myths.
- Important: The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
- Migration from the south into America: new people, new foods, new political systems.
- Immigration as a reverse election: our leaders get a new people.
- Look at immigration policy to see our government respond to its masters.
- The numbers about immigration that fuel Trump’s campaign.
- The smoke & fire of the new Sweden is our future.
- Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
Europe shows our future. See these books about it.
As so often the case, we can see these political dynamics more clear in other societies. We can learn much from the immigration crisis in Europe. It is our future.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
With a population of 330 million and still growing, the US really needs to re-consider its immigration policies–and then make them much more restrictive. It is a country that demonstrably can’t take care of its current population (poverty, low incomes, no health care for tens of millions). I’m not sure what Merkel had in mind by opening up Germany for such a flood (did they all promise to bring their savings with them or something?). Perhaps she was naive about the extent of the humanitarian crisis that had been created in Syria, with the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan sponsoring a civil war there. Apparently a lot of people are seeking exit from Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, too. What do all of them have in common? The US and its interference, of course (some direct, some through proxies)!
Charles,
We can only guess the answers to your questions. Here are mine.
No, I don’t believe Merkel was naive. Merkel’s business supporters wanted to break the post-WWII social contract giving German workers high wages, strong benefits, job security, and unions to enforce those. They look at the US and asked “why not here.” Massive flood of new workers will work the magic of supply and demand. There are other benefits as well, as rising economic and physical insecurity makes people more obedient to their elites.
In the US, the Left hates our culture, and correctly sees a flood of people from other cultures as an effective tool to destabilize it.
“It is a country that demonstrably can’t take care of its current population (poverty, low incomes, no health care for tens of millions).”
Henry F. Potter, leading banker and first citizen of Potterville, replies to you.
That is, of course, from It’s a Wonderful Life. It has a happy ending in which Mr. Potter was defeated. That might not be true in our America.
Via Politico: “Angela Merkel defends open border migration policy.”
Merkel said she had decided to open borders (in 2015) to migrants fleeing war and turmoil in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan because the situation was “extraordinary.” This was not an “open borders” policy where immigration laws were revoked, but a one time humanitarian act to deal with the problem of refugees that are still inundating Europe. Germany has an economy that can take a 1-2% increase in population that other European nations, such as Spain and Italy, can’t. The point is that the phrase “open borders” has to be defined rigorously, otherwise it’s no better than the phrase “social justice.”
“A nation can be irrevocably changed in a brief time.”
Absolutely. Our nation has been with each major wave of immigration, and some minor ones. The Irish in the 1840s and 1850s, the Scandinavians at the same time and then again in the late 19th and early 20th, the Italians and Slavs in the early 20th, the Hindus and Assyrians in the late 20th (minor, but Hindus are growing), and the Hispanics in 1848 that found the border had moved. That’s just the few and easily recognizable. We also have the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos, as well Grand Turino Hmong. All done under “existing” immigration laws. All have changed our nation. Do you remember when our nation was WASP? How, even in 1960, it tried to stay WASP? But it couldn’t because the nation had changed, and WASPs had lost the struggle to retain power and a pure culture. I shouldn’t have to provide links for any of this, given it’s HS civics and American history
Neither Republicans nor Democrats, both representing minorities of eligible voters (27% and 29% respectively), are monolithic. Of course there are people in each that can be quoted to show either party has an extreme view on any subject. I can easily weave a narrative that Republicans (the party I belonged to for 44 years) want Biology to follow the Bible, whether the creationist or the ID’er version, or that Republicans want almost all forms of birth control banned, or want all ‘unpatriotic’ speech banned. All I have to do is pick the right speakers.
I apologize for how long this was.
Raymond,
(1) “I apologize for how long this was.”
No need to do so! Your well-reasoned and supported comment of 377 words is great. As for length, 250 words is idea – under 500 is great. I often can’t do so.
(2) “This was not an “open borders” policy”
Merkel disagrees with you, saying that the borders were opened as a matter of policy: “Merkel said she had decided to open borders to migrants …”
(3) “This was not an “open borders” policy where immigration laws were revoked, but a one time humanitarian act to deal”
Merkel does not claim that the open borders policy was in accord with the law. She revoked the laws by executive fiat. You confuse the act (“opening the borders”) with a reason (humanitarian). Also, what’s your basis for saying that it was intended to be temporary? None of Merkel’s statements in 2015 that I’ve seen implied that. She throttled back immigration to the previous high levels only in response to loud and rising public opposition.
(4) “Germany has an economy that can take a 1-2% increase in population”
It’s a popular opinion in America that money is everything. It’s not.
(5) “I shouldn’t have to provide links for any of this, given it’s HS civics and American history”
I think you could use a refresher about our history. See The hidden history of immigration into America.
Also, the current wave of immigration is different. First, it is unprecedented in scale in the history of the USA. Second, the cultural distance between us and many of the migrants, making assimilation more difficult. Third, in the previous big wave (ended when FDR closed the borders) public and private institutions strongly (often with a heavy hand) encouraged assimilation. Now multiculturalism is official policy — yet we irrationally expect the same result.
Making superficial comparisons thru hand-waving isn’t helpful.
(6) “Of course there are people in each that can be quoted to show either party has an extreme view on any subject.”
So you believe that keeping the borders open is not policy of the Democratic party. Let’s see your quotes.
Also, the open borders policy is not “extreme” in any sense. It was US policy for decades, and the Democrats want to either continue or expand it.
I, fear that there is a growing polarisation in politics and it is forcing us into a pro or anti immigration stance, the mainly white indigenous population is also failing to see that the immigrants are voting in this debate, as well. You have highlighted this often.
Tutoring at University and I have had Indian students say to me China is a problem they use debt to buy influence, Sri Lankan students said the Government borrowed from China, spent the money and then could not repay, so they signed a 99 year lease on the main Port as payment and a Vietnamese student said they are very worried and prepared to fight for their oil the Chinese are trying to claim is their, as they did the Spratly Isles from the Philippines.
India has built a wall round Bangladesh, to stop immigration when the flooding gets too bad, the mitigation issue is global and coming every where.
London is a wonderfully livable city like San Francisco or Sydney, if you are rich, but be poor and it is over crowded, poorly communicated and very violent. AI and robotisation have only just begun, I think, increasing unemployment is the most likely outcome in the short run and then growth, as happened with enclosure, the Spinning Jenny and so on to the first personal computer in the 1980’s. We need a pan Industrialised country ban on immigration until be get over the technological hiatus we are having now and get the economies growing again, combined with large aid packages.
If our only solution is over crowding and pressure on wages well, I read a Science Fiction story about a global race war when I was young, I fear it may happen, not just white versus Black, but Chinese against Vietnamese, or Indian, Pakistani against Indian and a terrible set of inner city race wars like Los Angeles, Cologne or London, in not too recent history.
That would get the population down to the level the elite would like, just in a terrible way, but to save Mother Earth, is it a price worth paying? I fear too many Greenies might say yes.
Typo in here: “The US admitted 1.2 legal immigrants in 2016” – I assume it was slightly more than that…
As for the greater topic, I would be in favor of less immigration to the USA but I would want the new arrivals to be judged solely on either genuine need or some relatively even-handed assessment of likelihood-to-contribute.
I am dubious that the Republican Party will somehow gain a principled refusal to tolerate flows of cheap immigrant labor, either, but I admit freely to a jaundiced opinion. I have heard of few “demand side” (anti-employer vs. anti-migrant) measures, but to give the Rs their due they may have just been less publicized than the various crackdowns.
Mr. Kummer (I’m old-fashioned so I need permission),
1) Thank you for being gracious.
2) This goes to the problem with the phrase “open borders”. Yes she opened Germany’s borders to those refugees, but if “open borders” were defined rigorously, as some libertarians and anarchists define it, and the definition followed, then Merkel just let in a lot of refugees. So let me clarify, “open borders” to me means no immigration laws interfering with people moving freely across borders, with only Customs maintaining biosecurity and importation laws. Of course, the people advocating “open borders” as I gave it forget that they make latter impossible.
3) You’re right, I should have been more explicit. I should have written “This was not an “open borders” policy where immigration laws were permanently revoked”. I wrote that knowing my definition of “open borders” so it made perfect sense. For you, not so much.
4) I agree about Americans and money, but with a caveat at the end. The comment was about Germany’s ability to absorb versus other European countries such as Italy and Spain who cannot because their economies can’t. The caveat: Americans place as much emphasis on culture as they do on money when it comes to immigrants, legal or illegal.
5) That “Hidden History” is only one aspect, or would that be attribute?, of the whole picture, and is solely economic. The other part not there is cultural and Stephen Gould wrote to that in “The Mismeasure of Man”. We, at each juncture, viewed the other “races” (it also meant nationality) as damaging to our culture, whether the Irish, the Italians, the Slavs, or anyone from Asia. Yet they didn’t damage it because they assimilated, and American culture assimilated what they offered, just as the English language grows from every culture it contacts. It’s our strength. It’s also why Europeans say we have no culture…Multiculturalism means what?
6) “So you believe that keeping the borders open is not policy of the Democratic party. Let’s see your quotes.” First, what you did is “so you are saying”. Second, what I did say, however obliquely, is that you didn’t prove Democrats are for “open borders” by your qoutes, again a phrase you have yet to define rigorously, and “keeping the borders open” is not a definition. You simply quoted some Democrats saying dumb things, and I pointed out that that the same can be done with Republicans. It’s proof of nothing other than people say dumb things. The “open borders” policy is extreme today if defined as meaning “no immigration laws interfering with people moving freely across borders”. That WAS the policy of the USA until sometime in the late 19th Century (the Page Act around 1875, there may have been an earlier one). That’s 143 years ago. Today it is extreme.
Finally, and I’m so over the limit, the greatest wave of immigration was around 1910. Almost a full percentage point above today by population. That was the unprecedented wave, from which my surname comes. And native-born Americans hated them with a passion…the great thing about history is that its so open to interpretation, the lousy thing about it is what Moynihan said about facts and truths.
Raymond,
“the greatest wave of immigration was around 1910. Almost a full percentage point above today by population.”
I doubt that. We are in the middle of this wave. Immigration is continuing to flow, with little support in the GOP for stopping it — and the Dem’s wanting even more. With the economy now running hot, the flood from Mexico (which slowed after the Crash), probably will resume. Also, family reunification creates positive feedback in immigration (each one brought over makes it easier for the rest of the family).
After two years, Trump hasn’t even been able to build his “wall”, let alone make larger structural changes to US immigration policy.
Whereas in 1910 they had been throttling back for 28 years, with several sources plugged.
Plus
Mr. Kummer (I still seek permission)
You can doubt it all you want but you’d be hard-pressed to come up with a cite that would to hold to even cursory scrutiny. 1910 was the greatest year with about 14.5% of the population compared to the greatest wave today at about 13.7%. Moreover, 1910 wasn’t the end, the wave continued into the 1920s. Just read about Ellis Island, the other East points of entry, and then the West Coast. 1910 is the middle of the wave for the early 20th Century. If they had been throttling back for 28 years before 1910, with several sources plugged (whatever that means, does it mean Asians, Jews and Slavs?), 1910 was still the year of unprecedented immigration. BTW, claiming we are in the middle of anything doesn’t make the argument that the years after will be worse or better. It says nothing other than claiming the middle. Ever seen the middle of a bell curve? Really, there’s some logical claims that should best be avoided.
Mexicans move here to take advantage of a first-world economy and government versus their 2nd or 3rd world economy and government. The illegal population of Southerners went down when our economy tanked, duh, but now that our economy is rising the Southerners are coming back. If you want to stop Mexicans, or Central Americans, or the so very less South Americans, from “exploiting” our economy and our freedoms, then put attention on them. The US should build the Americas as a brother, not as an English overlord. These two continents have as much potential as Asia and Europe but it all goes to waste because we can’t lead other as an English overlord. Granted, our past dealings make all the Southerners doubt our attention and intentions.
I live in Arizona, if any politician has stated a truth it was Sinema when she called Trump’s wall a 17th or 18th century (I forget which) solution to a 21st century problem. There is no wall that can stop people from broaching it unless you do what the East Germans did: make a deadman’s line and shoot to kill anyone that crosses it. This is lost to Americans cuz the East Germans were trying to keep people in…Trump’s wall is not a solution, it’s part of the problem of not seeing the solution. Hell, the Chinese failed with a longer wall…
So, how about making the Americas great? So much potential…
“In the US, the Left hates our culture, and correctly sees a flood of people from other cultures as an effective tool to destabilize it.”
So disappointing to see this mischaracterization and hyperbole from you, when you are so often precise in your language. Seeking to improve and change things, being willing to treat people from a different culture with respect, learning from people who are different instead of fearing them, does not make one “hate” our culture. There are plenty of parts of what historically was “our culture” that were rightly constrained to the dustbin of history and needed changing.
Since I’m not on the secret leftist cabal mailing list wanting to destabilize our culture, I’ll just speak for myself. From my perspective, someone you might label a leftist welcomes the experience of learning from other cultures and wants to treat all humans with dignity and respect, feels our country and culture becomes stronger because of the people who come here despite all the hardship involved in immigrating to a new country. And from my perspective someone leaning right sees the same person I would welcome, but instead wants to protect what is theirs, fears the difference/skin tone/language/religion, overlooks the hardship and focuses on how they aren’t like us, labels them lazy, takers, a drain on resources. (even though every American descends from immigrants)… So basically I can’t talk to my younger brother about politics anymore.
I vehemently disagree that the Democrats want “open borders” as you claim. If you mean open as opposed to completely closed, that I will grant you. If some people in the right had their way, as you note in the polling data you include in another answer, we’d just shut the door to everyone. We got ours, now keep everyone else out. Again, even though every American descends from immigrants. Democrats want immigrants who will make our country stronger, and keeping families together is a recognized priority. That isn’t the same as open borders. Accepting refugees from war and persecution isn’t open borders. It is human, it is respectful. We are the richest country in the world. To those who much is given, much is expected. We are better than the Right’s immigration plan.
The nihilist or libertarian in me also wants to point out the obvious: we are all human beings. You and I by accident of birth were born Americans. There are imaginary lines called borders that we all agree to believe in, but they are just manufactured fiction and they can and will change. The person born on the other side of the line is no less human and no less worthy of being anywhere and having a chance to make a living. Wouldn’t it be awesome if anyone could decide to live wherever on Earth without any government telling us we couldn’t, and making it (or not) on our own terms.
Dig,
“Seeking to improve and change things, being willing to treat people from a different culture with respect, learning from people who are different instead of fearing them”
I suggest you read some of the product of our social science and humanities professors. I and a thousand others have amply proven my statement. If you don’t wish to see, that’s ok. The caravan will move on.