In 1925, an article was published in The Atlantic, titled The Unarmed Invasion.
Ninety-seven years later, we are living the exact same scenario as described by Stuart H. Perry, just scaled up to 21st Century standards and sanctioned by our current ruling body, the Globalist Government of America.
I really recommend clicking the link and reading the article.
To excerpt:
The smuggler of aliens enjoys a further advantage in the fact that he can operate in remote places, and also in the fact that he collects his pay in advance and is quit of his charges as soon as they are landed, in contrast with the smuggler of merchandise, who must incur the trouble and risk incident to its handling and sale. Moreover the new type of smuggler has the aid of a much larger body of abettors and sympathizers than the old, whether he deals in prohibited articles or prohibited persons.
Ninety-seven years ago, booze from all coasts and the Chinese being run from Mexico into San Francisco were the biggest issues.
Today, everything that can be trafficked and sold on the black market is and we’ve still not nailed down that issue with our Southern border with Mexico.
Back then, the American dream was something people not of the worldwide 1% dreamed about the world over.
People were reaching for a life of freedom and opportunity in our rapidly expanding young country.
Those that immigrated from that time through the 1950s came here to BE American.
They wanted to contribute to making this Nation great, willing to work toward home ownership, and building through entrepreneurship, because they understood that doing so would make them great, too.
Something changed after WWII.
By the end of the Vietnam war, not everyone that came here was coming here to contribute to the ideal.
Thanks to the same cabal we’re fighting today, the murder of JFK allowed a President to be installed to allow lucrative industrial entry into Vietnam.
Is it not strange that Lyndon Johnson’s claims to fame were Medicare and The Civil Rights act of 1964?
How curious that today’s Democrats are talking about Medicare for All and campaign on the resurgence of the “Great White Terrorist”.
After WWII, the top Nazi scientists were brought here as part of Operation Paperclip.
Sixteen hundred scientists and their families were integrated into American life to the eternal benefit of the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military Industrial Complex
A 2009 article at ForeignPolicy.com talks about how Eisenhower’s comment, a warning against "the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.", has been misconstrued.
They posit that he wasn’t talking about an all-encompassing pervasion into the Nation’s consciousness nor threat it posed to the world - although he would have seen both if he’d lived to contemporary time - but rather the cost of keeping a permanent defensive force and large arms industry (that had been formed to fight WWII, then expanded due to the Cold War, and which remained open-ended by the end of his term).
What does this have to do with immigration, kate?
Well, simply put, our hubristic and/or selfish interference in the business of other Nations created an immigration crisis that has nothing to do with wanting to live in our country but rather an escape from the conditions we’ve helped create in their own.
This is explained in a piece called How the Vietnam War Shaped US Immigration Policy. It must be said that while the piece does depict the role (or lack thereof) of our state department and intel agencies, as well as the warmongering stance of the cabal, whose aim is global destabilization and wealth redistribution, it is a Liberal piece that aims to convince that we are moving steadily forward toward a total acceptance of immigration.
Trump v. Immigration
Trump knew what Obama was doing. He knew the 16-year plan to destroy America - the one Biden is finishing in Killa Hilla’s stead. He knew that while Obama appeared to have deported many, the reality is he placed nearly as many Muslim emigres as he deported those that wouldn’t serve the globalist’s purpose.
The Refugee Act of 1980 gave increased executive latitude to the corrupt Democrats.
The Refugee Act of 1980 intended to provide Congress with a meaningful role in the process of determining refugee admissions. In the words of former Representative Elizabeth
Holtzman, then Chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law, ``Importantly, for the first time, the bill requires that Congress be consulted before refugees are admitted, and spells out in detail the elements of that consultation.” 55 Additionally, the Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the Refugee Act of 1980 stated the following: \55\ 125 Cong. Rec. H11966, H1167 (daily ed. Dec. 13, 1979) (statement of Rep. Holtzman).The Committee has made every effort to assure that Congress has a proper and substantial role in all decisions on refugee admissions. In the past, the Attorney General’s consultation with this committee regarding admissions has been merely a matter of courtesy or custom. * * * The Committee cannot overemphasize the importance it attaches to consultation. The Congress is charged under the Constitution with the responsibility for the regulation of immigration, and this responsibility continues with respect to refugee admissions.56 \56\ House Report 96-608 at 12-14 (1979).
The above and below are taken from a read of an article found here.
In the past several years, the refugee consultation process has devolved into a single meeting between the Executive Branch and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees near the end of the fiscal year–the very type of process which the 1980 Act expressly rejected. As an example, the refugee consultation for fiscal year 1996 occurred in the middle of September 1995–two weeks prior to the beginning of fiscal year 1996. The failure of the Administration to consult with Congress on the number and allocation of refugee admissions until just prior to the beginning of the fiscal year meant that the series of discussions between the President and Congress called for in section 207(d)(1) of the INA did not take place.
The current process of determining refugee admissions does not provide Congress with a meaningful role in this process, as intended in the Refugee Act of 1980. The number of refugee admissions for a particular fiscal year should not be set unilaterally by the President. As former Chairwoman Holtzman
stated: “* * * there is no substitute for public scrutiny, public disclosure, public debate on an issue of such importance as the admission of refugees to the United States.” 57 The only way to have an adequate public debate on the issue of refugees is to give Congress a more meaningful role in determining number and allocation of refugee admissions. \57\ 125 Cong. Rec. H37203 (daily ed. Dec. 20, 1979).
While this particular Congress is the heart of every problem we face in the Nation, I’d say the only way to have an adequate public debate on the issue of refugees and immigration - is to have an adequate public debate!
The Further Destruction
The Pedotato has dissolved some crucial Trump era rules. A new regulation in effect from January 19, 2022, allows certain immigrant visa holders to be exempt from paying fees. If you applied for an immigrant visa between December 8, 2017, and January 19, 2020, and were denied with the ground of ineligibility based on Presidential Proclamation 9645 and 9983 you are exempt from paying a new application fee or affidavit of support fee if you apply for another immigrant visa.
Presidential Proclamation 9645 and 9983 prohibited individuals from entering the United States if they were traveling from Burma, Eritrea, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, and Yemen. President Biden ended the discriminatory travel restrictions under these proclamations on January 20, 2021.
Ergo, the migrant caravans coming from Venezuela, the rest who are literally our Nation’s enemies.
This is an excellent piece, written by a Leftist, who feels that *everyone* occupying space within our borders, legal or non, has a right to live where they please (ie. where they can afford, find housing, etc.).
Bonnie Kristian argues admirably that allowance of such should be a “fundamental right stemming from humanity, rather than citizenship”.
I counter with the question - how much of our humanity, exchanged for our fundamental rights, is enough for you, exactly?
While this is invariably not a popular Liberal position, I have the right to live around whom I choose. To feel comfortable leaving my house to walk to the store, take my kids to the park. To ensure that my children attend school with peers that spend the day sharing their commonalities rather than being forced to navigate sometimes untenable differences at the expense of their education and childhood experiences.
By this, I most especially mean peers that love this country. Peers to whom they will never be made feel as if they owe them some debt.
How dare anyone expect our children to live in a state of deferential repentance for sins they didn’t commit, nor ever would?
When did forced acceptance begin and our fundamental rights STOP?
Moving Forward
There is no doubt this treasonous fauxministration is doing everything in its power to flood this Nation with so many illegal immigrants, we won’t have time to bring them all to the noose.
But they’re wrong.
We are absolutely beyond a crisis point with millions being allowed to enter our country and being flown to all four corners of the Nation.
Whoever is to be 47, and there is no doubt it will be one of ours, needs to first seal the borders. No travel in unless a citizen.
Whether it takes a year, two, or ten, every immigrant that has entered this Nation illegally in the past ten years must GO BACK.
If they cannot due to reasons declared via individually-judged interviews, as in the case of asylum seekers, they’re placed somewhere until a hearing can be granted.
And not cages.
There is a lot of space in this country.
There is architecture that can go up in less than 24 hours that would save billions over the system that is being used now.
Here is where some can be found.
Would I ever be able to turn away a mother and child? Of course, not.
I also would personally own every single stray animal in my state if my husband weren’t here!
The bad actors have preyed on our inability to not be charitable if within our means.
But we cannot satiate the thirst of someone else if our own cup is empty.
They cannot come into this country, and collect money and resources for as long as they get away with it, only to be sent back home at our additional expense or granted a next hearing or just let go.
This isn’t Disneyworld.
In the time it takes for this triage to be accomplished, we can set about capping the yearly immigrants we take legally, with those entering illegally forfeiting their chance to remain or return for five years.
It’s like bringing your mugger home and inviting him to stay, fercrissakes.
Everyone seems to forget that these people have a country.
While it may be the fault of the US Deep State that it is not a prosperous or safe country, it is not OUR fault. It is not our CHILDREN’S fault.
And we will NOT become Europe.
The Left needs to learn that the majority of America feels just like they do on Martha’s Vinyard - that they’ve earned the right to live with who they choose.
Oh, by the way, my followers can attest that I told them to drop immigrants off where they live and vacation two years ago - #JusSaying
Barbara Jordan, Black stateswoman, patriot, and civil rights pioneer said, “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”
Why is that so hard to do?
kate~
Kate. You're batting 1000%! More than I can say.
great summation and analysis of the events shaped by the elites which made this sorry world what it is,,,ZERO opposition beyond election slogans from the party of record tasked to promote freedom liberty and individual choice in how to bring up and take care of families
your article belongs ft centre of the NYT of some other damn age,,
henry kissinger has nothing of value to add to or in the article,, great work kate,chris bloody great work