The Left Wants America to go Borderless

Image from Infowars

The Left Wants America to go Borderless

By Ilana Mercer

That’s the law. Nothing can be done about it. And that’s the left-liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of uneducated and unruly masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Leftists call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.

Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: unlawful. Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: illegal, immoral, possibly even criminal. Illegal. Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen, Democrats and some Republicans, to stigmatize and end any action to stop and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands and currently  rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, California.

Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all. To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.

Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Ford standard? Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. Hardly a compelling standard. But that’s what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.

No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture. The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate it hopes to colonize is in every American’s head.

Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. That’s the reality! Helped by the American left’s control of the intellectual means of production—the average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and “think”:

“Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.”

Illegal, immoral, un-American: these are all pejoratives reserved not for the chancers making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.

To listen to the left-liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are “seeking a better life.” Moreover, provided that an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.

So, is the Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses? A bit of both. The Center for Immigration Studies provides something of a corrective. The gist of it is simple:

“The Border Patrol has the authority to not only arrest those who enter illegally, but also to dissuade their entry. There is nothing in the law that requires the Border Patrol to allow aliens to enter the United States illegally, and then arrest them. Simply put, aliens do not have a right to illegally enter the United States.”

Essentially, the opportunity to assert “a credible fear” of persecution, as explained by Andrew R. Arthur of the CIS, doesn’t give a scofflaw the right to enter the country and claim asylum. To the contrary: the “credible fear” provision, evidently being misused and misconstrued, doesn’t “exist to facilitate asylum claims.” Rather, “it exists to facilitate the removal from the United States of aliens who have attempted entry through fraud or without proper documents.”

This charitable interpretation struggles to convince. Notwithstanding a defense of lousy and lax law—it nevertheless seems true to state that U.S. laws governing the admission of asylum-seekers and refugees will still process people based on a tale told at a port of entry, and despite disqualifying conduct: the brazen, even criminal, behavior evinced by the Central American caravanners rushing our border. As practiced, the law is worse than an ass. It’s perverse in the extreme.

In the context of law misconstrued or reinvented, the chant about the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act is as telling. It’s the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for a lack of vigorous military action against an en masse breach of the southern border. With their Posse Comitatus chant, the no-borders crowd is claiming that sending the U.S. Military to the border is tantamount to deploying the military for civilian purposes.

If an ongoing, sustained, intentional and international invasion of U.S. territory by foreign nationals is considered a domestic dispute to be handled by civil authorities—then America, plain and simple, is both defenseless and borderless; there is, seemingly, no law that’ll defend American borders.

In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, Posse Comitatus means that “the U.S. military is not to be used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.”

What those commentators colonizing our heads are attempting to convey is that a good America, a just America, a moral America is de facto and de jure a borderless America.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, FacebookGab & YouTube

This entry was posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Left Wants America to go Borderless

  1. David Ashton says:

    “The Guardian” and “Church” of “England” policy for the “UK” too.

    Cecile Kyenge, an MEP of African descent, who experienced some unpleasant racial abuse in Italy, recently addressed a House of Commons conference in honour of her “fight against racism” which she describes as “rampant across Europe”; a fight “against Afrophobia, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred, xenophobia and gender discrimination” in order to “build societies where we can all live in equality, regardless of our race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation or disability” (Guardian, 30 November).

    The problem is that some so-called “hatred” is an adverse reaction to what amounts to a foreign colonial invasion. I do not hate, for example, people living in what was my once solidly “White British” homeland of Waltham Forest, but I am not going to celebrate the displacement of its native families, its 18 mosques, its Somali and Jamaican gangs, or the use of my aunt’s old shop as a focus for an Islamist sky-bomb plot. Ms Kyenge also says that “every individual” should have “equal access to life’s opportunities” and will not “allow Europe to appear impenetrable or alien to minorities” – so open door access, then?

    Why nearly 75 years after WW2 is another Holocaust Education Centre to be built – on a massive and intrusive scale right next to the Houses of Parliament? As a reproach to the “White British” for our hitherto endemic “racism” and a warning that more “refugees” and other poly-ethnic migrants should be welcomed to make our “society vibrantly diverse and more tolerant”. This is fully backed by Old Mother May, the SJW disguised as a “conservative”. And Brexit or no Brexit, Afro-Asians are the immigrants of choice, by capitalists and communists alike.

    Never mind that as many people have died from ethnic and political conflicts since WW2 as perished in it, or that the problems outside Europe (which includes England and Ireland, by the way) cannot be solved by their importation into our continent, the caravans carry on coming. A “Kindertransport” – of millions.

  2. E O Anthropus says:

    If we assume the population of Africa to be 2000 million and that one in three of those 2000 million would like to head for a future to the north of the Mediterranean, the future looks fairly dark. One option would be for all Europeans who want to, to move south into the lands vacated by those who have moved north. Another, perhaps simpler, would be to encourage them to remain where they were by encouraging stability, investment and development while,as the same time destroying the corruption, inefficiency, brutality and poverty that they have to live with at the moment.

  3. David Ashton says:

    Their problems can certainly not be solved or mitigated by their importation into Europe whatever the relative size, density and competence of our own population. A barrier is necessary.

    However, the export of agricultural technology would help. The Malthusian problem will require vasectomy not violence.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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