William Lind explains how to defend against an invasion

Summary: William Lind explains what might be necessary to defend America’s borders against the coming flow of migrants. The next section explains why such extreme measures might be necessary. Few will accept this today. File it for future reference, when the obvious surprises us by happening.

Question:..“What nation poses the greatest threat to the sovereignty of the US?”
— Briefing circa 1994 by Martin van Creveld to the CIA. They were incredulous then; today they probably understand.

Immigration USA - dreamstime_50442381
© Iqoncept | Dreamstime.



By William S. Lind.

From Traditional Right • 14 November 2018.

Posted with his generous permission.


The column or caravan of Central Americans slowly moving north through Mexico with the intention of crossing into the U.S. is a classic Fourth Generation war invasion. An invasion by immigrants is more, not less, dangerous than an invasion by a hostile army because the army eventually goes home while immigrants stay, permanently altering the cultural landscape. In this case, they would not alter it for the better.

If this country is to survive in a 4GW world, we recognize that this invasion threat is just the flea sitting on the top of the penguin sitting on top of the iceberg. If this invasion is successful, the next caravan will be larger. The one after that will be larger still. A combination of state failure, economic ruin, climate change, and population pressures means millions, tens of millions, ultimately hundreds of millions of people around the world will be trying to move from south to north. If we don’t stop them, our societies, those north of the equator, will be turned into their societies, which is to say the places they are fleeing because they don’t work. That may not be their intention (in the case of Islamics, it is their intention), but it will be the result because it is all they know. Their numbers will be such that they cannot be acculturated by their new societies before those societies are engulfed, overwhelmed, and snuffed out.

President Trump is right that we cannot allow these people to enter the U.S. and apply for asylum or refugee status. In the time it will take for their cases to be evaluated, they will simply disappear among the millions of illegal immigrants already here. They must be stopped at the border or before the border. Again, this is true not just for the current caravan but for the millions who will be following them. The question is how to do it.

An old practice, one that was almost universal up to World War II, would help: requiring visas. To cross a border required not just a passport, which is issued by the country of the person’s origin, but also a visa, which is issued by the country they want to enter. No visa, no crossing the border. Some countries still require visas for entry. Sometimes they can be obtained at the point and time of entry, but more often a would-be border crosser must obtain a visa well beforehand. Crying “refugee” or “asylum” makes no difference: you still have to have a visa.

Visas would help, but as the 21st century unrolls, the numbers of migrants will be such that the borders will still be overwhelmed. When ten million people are all heading for your border at once, only one thing will stop them: deadly force. Again, at least up until World War II, anyone attempting an illegal border crossing was at a substantial risk of getting shot. Border guards everywhere had standing “shoot to kill” orders. Snipers were posted to shoot swimmers. Unless borders are defended by force, they don’t really exist.

Here we quickly run into one of the most confounding aspects of Fourth Generation war, the power of weakness. At the moral level, having border guards shoot down women and children is a disaster. The moral level is more powerful than the physical level, which means states will have great difficulty overcoming public pressure not to shoot. But if they don’t shoot, they will be invaded and, both as states and as cultures, wiped out.

There are at least a couple of partial answers to this problem. The first is to make border defenses automatic. In most cases this should be feasible on land borders. Defend the borders wherever possible not with men, but with automatic machine guns and the like. The power of weakness is diminished because the invaders, knowingly walking into deadly threats, look stupid. Instead of reacting with horror, people will say, “how dumb can you get?”

A second answer is to make the necessary violence invisible. If invaders come by sea, a la The Camp of the Saints {Wikipedia}, automatic defenses are less visible. But if their ships are torpedoed by submarines and spurlos gesenkt {sunk without a trace}, the moral blowback will be less than if the evening news shows a destroyer pumping shells into a ship as desperate people swim for their lives – and are not rescued.

The feminized culture of sentiment that now rules in Western countries makes any defense difficult. The strategic key to the West’s defense is to replace that culture with a more masculine culture that wants to fight. That will happen. Whether it happens in time is the question.


Lind discusses how to stop them. Here is why we need to do so.

All defenses have weaknesses that can be exploited to overcome them. For all our power and wealth, we have no ability to withstand mass migrations. Our bureaucratic systems to process them are easily overwhelmed. Our process to identify people deserving asylum are easily fooled. The systems that forced rapid assimilation in the early 20th century have been dismantled, declared politically incorrect. Welfare gives women an alternative to assimilation (Choose: open borders or the welfare State?). Worse, we are internally divided – with large numbers of influential Americans wanting the borders opened and the nation flooded with migrants from failing or failed states.

Now for the very bad news. America assimilated large numbers of migrants in 1880-1930. We had more rapid per capita economic growth and used coercive measures to assimilate the migrants and their children. None of that is true for us today. We have slow growth: 1.5% per year in real per capita GDP during the past 8 years. Our policy is multiculturalism, giving migrants no reason to assimilate. In sufficiently large numbers, assimilation slows or even stops (America has no magic pixie dust to change people’s values or behavior). Tino Sanandaji explains why (a Kurdish-Swedish economist; Wikipedia).

“At a theoretical level there is an idea proposed by Professor Edward Lazear from the Stanford Business School where integration is a function of group size {e.g., see this paper from 1999. If you have small immigration most people around the new arrivals are going to be natives, and so finding your place in society is just a gradual social process: interacting with your neighbors, working with other people, absorbing their values and learning the language. Once that group becomes very large then you have an issue of critical mass where if you don’t want to integrate you can just live in the immigrant community, working and interacting mostly with other immigrants, not having to learn the language and so on. And you don’t integrate as easily.”

There is much research on this. See this 1999 paper by Lazear and this 2012 paper about migrants in Germany. There is no need to guess about this. The assimilation machinery has broken down in much of America’s southwest, overwhelmed – producing the effects predicted by Lazear two decades ago.

Now Sanadaji gives us even worse news. He is speaking about Sweden, but our high rates of immigration make this true of us as well.

“We are going to have an ethnic class society to some extent. That’s inevitable. I hope somebody solves it but it’s extremely unlikely and to my knowledge when this poverty problem established itself no country has been able to eradicate it.”

We cannot cope with our current underclass, and exacerbate both it and our racial and ethnic divisions. It is a potentially existential threat. Lind’s proposals seem extreme today. They won’t seem so when it is too late for them to be useful.

About the author

William S. Lind’s director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. He has a Master’s Degree in History from Princeton University in 1971. He worked as a legislative aide for armed services for Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 to 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 to 1986. See his bio at Wikipedia.

William Lind

Mr. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook (1985), co-author with Gary Hart of America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform (1986), and co-author with William H. Marshner of Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda (1987).

He’s perhaps best known for his articles about the long war, now published as On War: The Collected Columns of William S. Lind 2003-2009. See his other articles about a broad range of subjects…

  1. His posts at TraditionalRight.
  2. His articles about geopolitics at The American Conservative.
  3. His articles about transportation at The American Conservative.

For More Information

See George Friedman’s (founder of Stratfor) prescient predictions about the American southwest in his 2009 book The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. He describes where we’re going, facts too disturbing for most experts to say in public. This is a useful feature of such writing: since it is just guessing, we allow statements about the obvious that are politically or socially unacceptable (just as are, in a different way, statements by a court jester).

Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See about immigration, about William Lind’s work, and especially these…

  1. Essential readingSee the hidden history of immigration into America (it ruins the narrative).
  2. Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
  3. Timely: The Democrats will open the borders & make a New America.
  4. Trump wants to defend our borders. Democrats protest.
  5. The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
  6. Immigration is the key political battle of our time.
  7. The smoke & fire of the new Sweden is our future.
  8. Prepare for mass migrants, the greatest challenge to America.
  9. The Left goes full open borders, changing America forever.
  10. Choose: open borders or the welfare State?

Two books about immigration, both well worth reading

Europe is our future. We can watch them to avoid their mistakes.

Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West by Christopher Caldwell (2009). See this post about it: About Europe’s historic experiment with open borders.

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglass Murray (2017). See these posts with excerpts from the book: Martin van Creveld’s reaction to Europe’s rape epidemic. Warning of the “Strange Death of Europe”, and Strange perspectives on the challenges facing Europe.

Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
Available at Amazon.
Strange Death of Europe
Available at Amazon.


32 thoughts on “William Lind explains how to defend against an invasion”

  1. As an interesting follow up observation to Lind’s commentary, and to Creveld’s statement from before that, there is a book by Stratfor’s founder, George Friedman entitled The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century, which was essentially a prediction regarding what might happen over then next 50- 100 years based on geopolitical understandings of the world and of history.

    While some of the predictions might be far fetched (and some perhaps not so much) one of the observations regarding the entire US southwest was exactly what is being discussed here. Mexico considered, and still considers, the US southwest their northern province, and has never fully consciously relinquished the belief in or desire to repatriate the entire area.

    What Friedman suggested was exactly what is happening. That slowly but surely, as immigrants and population growth of Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans slowly out-populate the Anglo or non-Mexican population, there will be a progressive relinquishment of governance – more Mexican-Americans running the cities, and eventually the states of the southwest, and even more eventually these areas will at some point revert without a fight to Mexican sovereignty.

    Rather than California seceding into its own country, it seems more likely that it will secede to Mexico. The consequences could be interesting, as the resource rich states of the southwest would alter the landscape substantially both from the US standpoint as well as from the Mexican standpoint.

    What most people likely do not really understand is that Mexico is already near the seventh largest economy in the world at this point. Given that, what happens if you add the Californian economy, with impoverished pockets or not, there is still a huge amount of capital and industry extant there. If the anglo population of California is already to some extent leaving because of costs, etc. imagine what happens next.

    While Stratfor has consistently suggested that the US may someday be competing for immigrants with other aging countries in the world, and also states that we have been substantially better at incorporating them into our culture than anywhere else (to whit- Germany, Sweden, France have all been failing for decades, Asian countries essentially cannot do this at all) the large influx currently being seen here in the southwest has already proven that concept wrong, as large spanish speaking barrios have become self sufficient and have allowed large immigrant groups to reside here and not become assimilated. (While many have, and while many want to, you cannot ignore these facts on the ground).

    Thanks for the interesting thoughts, it is as always much appreciated.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Thank you for flagging this. It’s well worth reading. Here is an excerpt, with sections from throughout the book.


      Excerpt from The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman, founder of Stratfor (2009).

      “At a certain point, the status of the borderland simply becomes a question of military and political power. The borderland belongs to the stronger side, and the question of strength is determined on the ground. Since 1848, the political border has been fixed by the overwhelming power of the United States. Populations might shift. Smuggling might take place. But the political boundaries are fixed by military reality.

      “Later in the century, the current border will have been in place for two hundred years. Mexican national power might reemerge, and the demography of the borderland on the American side may have shifted so dramatically that the political boundaries might not be able to hold. At that time, it’s quite possible that Mexico may no longer be the fifteenth-biggest country economically, but well into the top ten. Stranger things have happened, and free trade with the United States helps. The countries currently ranked ahead of Mexico include many European countries with severe demographic problems. Given the impact of a potential Mexican-American confrontation on the border, there is no question but that this fault line must be taken seriously. …

      “For the United States, on the other hand, it will be merely another fifty year cycle in its history successfully navigated and another wave of immigrants attracted and seduced by the land of opportunity. Whether they come from India or Brazil, their children will be as American in a generation as previous immigration cohorts were throughout America’s history. This applies to everyone except for one group – the Mexicans.

      “The United States occupies land once claimed by Mexico, and its border with that nation is notoriously porous. Population movements between Mexico and the United States differ from the norm, particularly in the borderlands. This region will be the major pool from which manual labor is drawn in the 2030s, and it will cause serious strategic problems for the United States later in the century.

      “But around 2030 an inevitable step will be taken. A labor shortage that destabilizes the American economy will force the United States to formalize a process that will have been in place since around 2015 of intensifying immigration into the United States. Once this is done, the United States will resume the course of its economic development, accelerating in the 2040s as the boomers die and the population structure begins to resemble the normal pyramid once again, rather than a mushroom. The 2040s should see a surge in economic development similar to those of the 1950s or 1990s. And this period will set the stage for the crisis of 2080. But there is a lot of history to come between now and then. …

      “Outside the United States two powers will be thinking about {outer} space. One will be Poland, which will be busy consolidating its land empire and still smarting at its treatment under the peace treaty of the 2050s. But Poland will also still be recovering from the war and surrounded by American allies. It will not be ready for a challenge. The other country thinking about space will be Mexico, which into the late 2060s will be emerging as one of the top economic powers in the world. Mexico will see itself as a rival of the United States …

      “Mexico has never been in a position to attempt to reverse the American conquests. It adopted the view that it had no choice but to live with the loss of its northern land. …This was not because anti-American sentiment wasn’t present in Mexico. It is in fact deeply rooted, as one might expect given the history of Mexican– American relations. However, as we have seen, sentiment has little to do with power. The Mexicans were absorbed by their own fractious regionalism and complex politics. …

      “By the middle of the twenty-first century, as Mexican economic power rises, there will inevitably be a rise in Mexican nationalism, which, given geopolitical reality, will manifest itself not only in pride but in anti-Americanism. …

      “However, as immigration becomes the dominant issue in the United States during the 2070s and the pivot around which the 2080 elections will turn, Mexico will begin to behave in unprecedented ways. The crisis in the United States and the maturation of the Mexican economy and society will coincide, creating unique tensions. …and a dramatic redefinition of the population of the American southwest will combine to create a crisis that will not be easily solved by American technology and power.

      “The crisis will begin as an internal American matter. The United States is a democratic society, and in large regions of the country, the English-speaking culture will no longer be dominant. The United States will have become a bicultural country, like Canada or Belgium. The second culture will not be formally recognized, but it will be real and it will be not merely a cultural phenomenon but a clearly defined geographic reality. Biculturalism tends to become a problem when it is simply ignored when the dominant culture rejects the idea of formalizing it and instead attempts to maintain the status quo. It particularly becomes a problem when the dominant culture begins to take steps that appear designed to destroy the minority culture. And if this minority culture is essentially an extension of a neighboring country that sees its citizens as inhabiting territory stolen from it, the situation can become explosive.

      “By the 2070s, Mexicans and those of Mexican origin will constitute the dominant population along a line running at least two hundred miles from the U.S. – Mexican border through California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and throughout vast areas of the Mexican Cession. The region will not behave as other immigrant-heavy areas have. Rather, as happens in borderlands, it will be culturally and in many ways economically a northward extension of Mexico. In every sense but politically, the border will have moved north. …This group will dominate not only local politics, but the politics of two whole states – Arizona and New Mexico – and much of the politics of California and Texas. Only the sheer size of the latter will prevent immigrants from controlling them outright as well. A subnational bloc, on the order of Quebec in Canada, will be in place in the United States.

      “At a certain critical mass, a geographically contiguous group becomes conscious of itself as a distinct entity within a country. More exactly, it begins to see the region it dominates as distinct, and begins to ask for a range of special concessions based on its status. When it has a natural affinity to a neighboring country, a portion of the group will see itself as native to that country but living under foreign domination. And across the border, in the neighboring country, an annexation movement can arise.”


      Friedman’s book was published in 2009. The trends he described as happening in the late 21st century are already visible. This is a commonplace in prediction. The “s” curve always surprises people. People experience that long slow base as the natural order instead of a phase in a cycle. The invisibly base creates the conditions for the steep middle curve. Complacency and slow recognition prevents not just preparation, but even fast response.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        A follow-up comment on Friedman’s prediction. Even if he is correct, I think annexation of the SW with Mexico is unlikely. Hispanic elites in the US might seek more autonomy in the US, or even independence. I can’t imagine why they would find merging with Mexico advantageous, even if Mexico becomes the great power that Friedman predicts.

  2. Larry Kummer, Editor

    An important paper

    I will be posting more about this.

    From “Culture and Language” by Edward P. Lazear in the Journal of Political Economy, December 1999.


    “Common culture and common language facilitate trade between individuals. Individuals have incentives to learn the other languages and cultures so that they have a larger pool of potential trading partners. The value of assimilation is larger to an individual from a small minority than to one from a large minority group. When a society has a very large majority of individuals from one culture, individuals from minority groups will be assimilated more
    quickly. Assimilation is less likely when an immigrant’s native culture and language are broadly represented in his or her new country. Also, when governments protect minority interests directly, incentives to be assimilated into the majority culture are reduced. …

    “The theory is tested and confirmed by examining U.S. census data, which reveal that the likelihood that an immigrant will learn English is inversely related to the proportion of the local population that speaks his or her native language.”

  3. The Man Who Laughs

    Professor Lind speaks of automated defenses, but a better defense might be to hold Mexico responsible for violations of our border originating from their territory. We could inform them that if a caravan reaches the border, we will begin freezing and confiscating Mexican assets in America, end wire transfers between American and Mexico, and impose a range of economic sanctions. (We’ve sanctioned other countries for less grievous offenses). We could find out who is paying for this (The caravan represents a major financial and logistical commitment on someone’s part) and charge them with human trafficking. None of this would offend the sensibilities of anyone who mattered. Before we call out our military, we should give Mexico an incentive to call out theirs, and make this their problem.

    We could do these things, but we won’t. The agreement on the need for open borders in Washington is universal and crosses party lines. They might go through the motions of securing the border, but that’s done for the benefit of the rubes.

    By the way, the make it someone else’s problem defense can be applied to terrorism as well, but we didn’t do that either, in part because it would have involved being honest about who, exactly supported jihadist terrorism and how chummy we’d been with them, but that’s a topic for another day. I believe it was Tom Friedman who said that 90% of terrorism is what states do, or allow someone else to do. That can apply to immigrant invasions as well, (And I just quoted Tom Friedman approvingly. I feel like I need to wash out my mouth or something.)

    A note about terminology. Barry Newman discusses the possibility of California “seceding” to Mexico. The correct term is “accede”. California would secede from the United States and then accede to Mexico. You may well be right that this result is improbable, but it doesn’t cost Mexico much to play that particular long shot, and maybe they win the lottery. Assuming, of course, that this would constitute a win. (California’s welfare rolls would then become their problem!)

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      The Man,

      “We could do these things, but we won’t.”

      Because stealing is a bad idea, as is starting fights with neighbors.

      “Assuming, of course, that this would constitute a win. (California’s welfare rolls would then become their problem!)”

      You’re listening to too many right-wing cranks. California is one of the largest money machines in the USA, producing vast amounts of income for the nation and the Federal government.

  4. The Man Who Laughs

    “Because stealing is a bad idea, as is starting fights with neighbors. ”

    Whatever, but if you will the end, you will the means. There’s a lot of things that for one reason or another I wouldn’t do here, but giving them some economic incentive to help us out seems a lot nicer than some of the alternatives.

    I’m not a particularly nice guy, and I don’t mind being disliked by people who try to gift me with their problems.

    “California is one of the largest money machines in the USA, producing vast amounts of income for the nation and the Federal government.”

    For the moment, yes. As part of the United States. Turn it into Mexico and make it a part of Mexico however…

  5. Looking at who runs Europe and I expect the US, with the “Swamp”, I fear that there will be very little done if they can help it, it may really be what they want.

    In Australia we are being told that immigration is being diverted to the Regional areas where we need population growth to give Melbourne and Sydney time to digest the huge influx these last ten years.

    I live in the regions and we don’t lack people we lack jobs, I am a trainer and actually work one day a week for a Professional Year Program, the international students (all graduates and post graduates) do one day a week for 32 weeks and then an internship we organise. They pay a lot for this course and they get an extra 5 points and a chance of a job; there are so few jobs they are effectively paying for an internship.

    The government and some industries are now dependent on cheap labour, students in the universities that pay full fees (tied to residency) and a desire to widen the coffin shaped demographic profile.

    We are trapped between a rock and a hard place, popular native culture needs a slow down to assimilate what we have and government just sees the looming welfare and pensions crisis and the desire to increase the young population to spread the tax burden. I don’t think the later will work, but it ticks so many PC objectives.

    My biggest fear is that in another 5 to 10 years, the next gen of AI, robots and computers make the need for most of these immigrants (yesterdays solution) relevant to 2025 /30 and unemployment starts to rise, as interest rates also start to rise. In this case the scenario of Ray Dalio is we are in the 1930’s and popular-ism will be a real issue.


    Among many if it you search his musings and his free e-books.

  6. Pretty Garb opinion considering the Caravans are mostly Central Americans who – actually- don’t live under the equator. Helps to have a basic understanding of geography before you post

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      It’s nice to give some evidence that you’ve read the post before commenting. The only reference to the equator is “our societies, those north of the equator”. That’s quite true. Check the map if you doubt it.

    2. Larry Kummer, Editor

      Bishop’s comment is an indicator of a good review from Leftists.

      When they read a 1600 word article that is not PC – and can’t find anything wrong with it, they pick a trivial phase and attack or mock it. As if those few words discredit the entire article, the full evidence and logic presented. It’s childish, but that’s the best they can do.

      There are similar comments on Facebook about this. My fav is a guy who wrote several hundred words in reply to Lind’s 13 words about passports – screaming that it didn’t provide a full summary of the long and complex history of border patrols.

      People on the far right tend to give very different rebuttals. They rely on the large body of faux information – faux economics, faux history, etc – for rebuttals. No matter how many you debunk, they ignore the rebuttal and just give another false factoid. If you are foolish enough to play long enough, they eventually will return to telling you their first falsehood.

      Debating the far Left and Right today is like tossing pennies into the Mississippi (which I can see from here). It doesn’t accomplish anything.

    3. And you can’t recover your pennies because they are the same color as the river. Besides they sink in the mud.

  7. We definitely need to defend the border. One of the main reasons that I am a Trump supporter is that he gets that. But we do not need to commit mass murder at the border, certainly not automated mass murder.

    A big part of the problem now is the risk reward ratio. Success is likely; with catch and release it is likely even if caught. The consequences of failure are usually small. So there is no real disincentive.

    We should do whatever is needed to make it likely that illegal entrants are caught near the border. Anyone caught crossing illegally should get fingerprinted, summarily convicted of a felony, deported, and permanently denied a visa. Second offense should mean prison. Not detention, not jail; prison. Numbers would likely limit sentences for second offenders to a month or three, but subsequent offenses should start at a year and increase. Any felony committed while entering or by someone here illegally should get 10 years tacked on to the sentence for the felony. Require proof of status to get a job or to wire money to Mexico. Illegal entry an be greatly reduced if we sufficiently reduce the odd of success while increasing the cost of failure.

    And ditch the idiocy of multiculturalism. If you want to live here, learn English and integrate into our society.

    1. I agree good%; however, “…status to get a job” is a bit naive — one can think the culprits are not the illegals, but the employers…
      Multiculturalism is in essence a great idea — as was communism, BTW — the reality is, it may work IF — I’ll defer my final judgment to past the next economic upheaval; but so far, it was working reasonably well in Canada…

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “it was working reasonably well in Canada”

        The conditions in Canada are not remotely similar to those from massive immigration to the US from Latin America. Massive immigration of uneducated and poor people from undeveloped nations – is nothing like Quebec.

        The other multicultural experiment in Canada is with its indigenous people. That’s not working well, and they’re only 4.9% of its population (as of 2016).

  8. In the paragraph: “Lind discusses how to stop them….”
    The following makes no sense or a perfect sense, in a sense — I think it may be a “typo.”
    “Welfare gives women an alternative to assimilation (Choose: open borders or the welfare State?).”

    There I stand for another solution:
    Instead of just kicking out illegal immigrants, gather them (both men and women) and offer them an alternative to deportation — signing a contract as in the French Foreign Legion (that worked well for the French for almost two centuries); give them English lessons, some very basic military training and moral/cultural exposure, then issue them weapons and let them defend the borders! And, as they would be of a special status = not US military, they could defend the border well beyond the US border — even that aspect worked quite well for the French — and, after the prescribed tour of duty, issue them a Green Card.
    I wouldn’t mandate shooting trespassers; however, rounding up a caravan or what-ever, putting these potential immigrants up on buses going home would work just fine…

    And, there is another twist as part of this: remember the unusual “success” Turkey had with the “original” Janissaries?

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “The following makes no sense or a perfect sense, in a sense — I think it may be a “typo.””

      Why do you think that is a typo?

    2. JaKo,

      You are not the only one espousing a US Foreign Legion. I’ve suggested it for years. However, French Foreign Legion was well trained and led by French officers and non-coms.

      Many of these “refugees” claim fear from gangs and love of their native land. At least that’s how the press presents them. They must also have intel on these gangs. You mentioned them operating South of our border. How about sending them home armed and trained to assist in defeating the gangs and cleaning out the corrupt in their governments?

      Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico are full of candidates trying to get into USA.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        That’s a fantasy of people unfamiliar with how armies actually work. Armies like the British pre-WWI army and the French Foreign Legion (pre-WWII) used disciplinary methods unacceptable in the US military for training and maintain order. Brutal discipline and training.

        Other factors – Turning modern weaponry over to troops in the field of uncertain loyalty to the US is …odd. And the US military has high standards for education and IQ. It needs few uneducated people with IQs below 90 (see average IQ scores by nation).

  9. “Welfare gives women an alternative to assimilation…
    Women — didn’t you mean “immigrants”? Or was this a “cut-and-paste” from another indictment???

    Well, we have an “advantage” to you guys — it takes a real character to live through our winters so it would eventually weed out some of the stuff you guys are stuck with…

    Re. First Nations in Canada
    That’s not a clear cut — it’s a mixed bag at the best: Out west it costs a fortune and it is somehow “neutral” in the outcome, in Ontario, it seems to work OK, to a point, but the prairies do not seem to work well and Maritimes are also a bit underwhelming.

    BTW, you mentioned QC — there’s another kind of refugees there you guys do not contend with as much as “you should:” Haiti…

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “didn’t you mean “immigrants”? ”

      No, I meant what I said: women – whether native born or immigrants.

      “it takes a real character to live through our winters”

      Don’t give yourself airs. I grew up in Buffalo (100′ – 200″ inches of snow per year). I live in Iowa, with the cold winds of the Great Plains. I’ve lived in the California desert. None of them produce “real character.” It doesn’t come from the weather.

      “there’s another kind of refugees there you guys”

      What’s with this “you guys” stuff?

      “do not contend with as much as “you should:” Haiti…”

      Why? There are only 200 thousand in Canada, vs. its population of 37 million. You’re not making much sense.

  10. Jakko says that multiculturalism works well in Canada. But Quebec has nearly broken the country in half. Twice. Until fairly recently, most immigration was from Europe and people were expected to integrate into Canadian society. More recently, immigration has become more diverse and the government has adopted multiculturalism. But there are big differences from the U.S. Immigration to Canada is based mostly on merit. No one group is nearly as dominant among immigrants Mexicans are in the U.S. Non-white immigration seems to be mostly from the British Commonwealth and China. The former are already at least somewhat acultured and the latter seem to fit in well wherever they go.

    Even so, strains are beginning to show, especially with regard to Muslim immigrants, and there are indications that support for immigration and muticulturalism is starting to slip.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Why is Acosta “dumb”? His actions in the WH press conferences have made him famous, and probably boosted CNN’s ratings. In our America, sensible behavior is unrewarding.

      IMO Trump is doing the only possible step to restore order – stopping the White House press corps from becoming a total circus – by punishing unprofessional behavior.

      The Courts are doing their usual gig – ossifying America by demanding “due process” for everything. Everything must be a bureaucratic process least America be well-governed.

    2. Larry, Acosta is dumb because he doesn’t see the caravan for what it is. He took issue with the President calling it invasion and then went onto make a statement of opinion and not ask questions. But, I’ll change my word from dumb to jackwagon.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        It’s easy and fun to mock winners. Acosta is part of the winning team in America. His antics have boosted his career. I doubt he cares if you call him names.

  11. Kostas Zangogiannis

    Lind’s arguments seem reasonable enough, but I am afraid the measures he proposes will not solve the problem-they will never be adopted. Delegating the guarding of borders to lethal machines will instantly remind everyone of Terminator. The barest mention of a robot patrolling the US-Mexican border will bring an avalanche of memes with T-800s shooting at children, mothers and other innocent civilians.
    Yes, machines are not humans, but they are designed, built and financed by humans, who can be stopped, lobbied or elected out of office. So I don’t expect to see robots patrolling the Rio Grande any time soon.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “they will never be adopted.”

      I discussed this with Lind before posting this. First, “never” is a big word. The future often brings things unimaginable to people even a decade before. Second, whether we adopt his measures is not his point. He is attempting to force serious consideration of the threat. Problem identification is the first and usually the most difficult step. Only after that can we have a serious discussion of how to respond.

    2. The barest mention of a robot patrolling the US-Mexican border will bring an avalanche of memes with T-800s shooting at children, mothers and other innocent civilians.

      Ahhh…the power of weakness. Any mention of a defense of our borders induces images of “innocent” women and children in cages or being cut in half by .50 cal fire.

      These people are not innocent. They’re desperate, but they’re not innocent. Anyone who crosses international borders without a visa, gets on the public dole as most illegals do, and steals social security numbers to work is a criminal. Far too many are involved in organized crime (ie, the Cartels).

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Also, most of the migrants are young men. Our journalists, loyal servants of the Left, create the false impression that most are families – or even women and children.

  12. Larry,

    I have a lot of links about what’s occurring to our immediate south. MVC was right about Mexico being our biggest threat to national security. I might start blogging again and do a full post about it, but you can put the elements together on your own:
    Cartels now run Mexico.
    A documentary from 2013 on what this is like.
    Official tally of violence in Mexico. You can usually multiply any bad number the government gives you by 2 or 3 or pi.
    People who try to do anythign about it are arrested, possibly because the government works for the cartels.

    Of course, the only way people can arm themselves is illegally. The Mormons concluded that was the answer though they quickly worked to normalize firearm ownership for themselves.

    Most Americans are total strangers to violence of this type. The most they’re exposed to is on TV. I’ve dealt with drug violence on a small-scale and it isn’t pleasant at all. The Cartels are keeping much of their violence discreet in the US, though they’re quickly discovering our once-fearsome institutions are a paper tiger.

    Once civilizations collapse from within, they are conquered from without.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Thanks for the info from the South. In 2007-10 there was intense coverage in US geopol sources of Mexico’s collapse. Then coverage almost disappeared.

      You point to a second stage – still ignored by the media: the US southwest becomes Mexico North, as the cartels move in. As you said, they’re learning that our law enforcement and political systems are hollow — paper tigers. This won’t be pretty.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: