The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Jeh Johnson: Booker & Castro Immigration Policies Tantamount to Open Borders
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post news section:

At border, grim realities of crisis collide with 2020 campaign politics

By Nick Miroff, Annie Linskey and Josh Dawsey July 2 at 8:21 PM

… Meanwhile, some Democrats are questioning the basic legal underpinnings of U.S. immigration enforcement and challenging the long-held consensus that a robust detention and deportation system is necessary to prevent an even bigger wave of illegal border crossings into the United States.

On Tuesday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he would “virtually eliminate immigration detention” by executive order. During last week’s debate, presidential candidate Julián Castro proposed decriminalizing illegal border crossings — a position other Democrats in the race rapidly adopted.

Others in the party are urging caution, saying the push toward decriminalization risks playing into Trump’s hands.

“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” said Jeh Johnson, who ran the Department of Homeland Security during President Barack Obama’s second term. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”

 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The oligarchs that run and own this nation have decided to do away with us for Woke Capital. People will live on trash heaps. But scream at White men.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Whiskey

    Woke Capital combined with demographic change, social media, and weaponized identity politics makes this revolutionary cycle quite a bit more dangerous than the one which passed through, like a tornado, the late 1960s and early 1970s. The end result of the current cycle may be the deformation of the constitutional system we enjoy. The Bill of Rights viewed as enshrined white privilege. I think we're f*cked. Happy Fourth of July!

  2. I am curious – if all of these candidates believe that the office of the Presidency has unilateral authority to change Immigration Policy in the ways that they have proposed, are they not explicitly giving Trump authority to unilaterally alter Immigration Policy in any way that he proposes? That may not be what they mean, but it is certainly what they are saying.

    Their faith in the Authority of the President to do anything he wants is …… interesting

    In the meantime, Immigration reality continues unabated. De facto open boarders already exist. Trump has talked a hell of a fight and done less than nothing, worsening both Legal and Illegal Immigration. Any Democrat would possibly do even worse. 70+ percent of the American people want the boarder closed, the Government leaves the floodgates open.

    First rule of governance : No government will ever solve a problem it creates.

    • Agree: donut
    • Disagree: IHTG
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @theMann


    De facto open boarders already exist.
     
    Try landing at any international airport in the US without papers, and you will find out if this is true. Actually try to get a boarding pass for any destination in the US at an airport outside the US without a US passport, Green Card, or visa and you will also find out that the US is not open to boarders without papers.

    (You will also find out that boarders and borders are not the same.)

    Replies: @theMann

    , @Lurker
    @theMann


    No government will ever solve a problem it creates.
     
    The people who created the problem don't even see it as a problem. Why would they want to 'fix' something they wanted to occur in the first place?
    , @Corn
    @theMann

    “if all of these candidates believe that the office of the Presidency has unilateral authority to change Immigration Policy in the ways that they have proposed, are they not explicitly giving Trump authority to unilaterally alter Immigration Policy in any way that he proposes?”

    Silly Mann! Executive orders are only good when Democrats issue them!

  3. some Democrats are questioning the basic legal underpinnings of U.S. immigration enforcement and challenging the long-held consensus that a robust detention and deportation system is necessary to prevent an even bigger wave of illegal border crossings into the United States.

    So, two utter morons are challenging what is apparent to anybody wit and IQ above 80.

    Much of Democrat field is a conceptual lesson in the idea of soft bigotry of low expectations. We must not press blacks, latinos or women two strongly for fear that they will crack. Biden and Bernie are the grownups in the room.

  4. Money quote: “…if we had such a policy (open borders), instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.” Completely wrong and mistaken. If the open borders policy, which is consistent with Dem official position in toto if not specifically declared, were operational, there would be no apprehensions at all. It would mean the effective, one way, end of US Sovereignty. It would also mena that the US passport would soon cease to be taken as valid, it would mena the essential end of the USA.

    That is, in fact, what the Dem leadership wants, an end to the USA. And they are going to get it.

    • Replies: @Semperluctor
    @Brian Reilly

    In years to come, if course such analysis is even permitted or possible, open borders and related madnesses will be revealed to have been a long term ‘thought virus’ inserted into the American body politic by its geopolitical enemies, including BUT NOT limited to, Russia and China.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @L Woods

    , @AnotherDad
    @Brian Reilly

    This latest binge seems like minoritarian ideology--brooking no dissent from its righteousness--and minoritarian enthusiams dovetailing to create a mad rush.

    These folks no longer have the patience to wait for the frog to be boiled, and are all at once trying to roast the frog, bash the frog and spear the frog as well.

    The only remaining question: Is the frog going to actually do anything?

    Replies: @Desiderius

  5. “If I were Catholic, I’d have to go to confession.”

    Johnson’s statement as a senior State Department lawyer after watching videos of dozens of women and children killed by a US drone strike in Yemen.

    An honest man is hard to find. Maybe we’ve found one!

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Dan Hayes

    They're more common once out of power. Remember Ike on the military-industrial complex? (Technically he was on his way out...)

    Replies: @anon, @TomSchmidt

    , @nebulafox
    @Dan Hayes

    One of the reasons I suspect Nixon and Kissinger drove a lot of American political commentators nuts, liberal or conservative, is that they were relatively honest about them being the utterly amoral realpolitikers they were. Most American foreign policy teams go through impressive intellectual contortions to tie their work in with human rights, no matter how farcical. I think the last quarter century alone provides enough examples of this that I don't need to elaborate further.

    Nixon and Kissinger never attempted to lie to America like that: they lied about plenty of other stuff, but were always candid about how little they cared about anything other than America's standing in the world and geopolitical stability as they defined it. A lot of intellectuals and politicians steeped in Whiggism just couldn't handle this, and when Watergate struck, this had permanent consequences that our foreign policy is feeling to this day. It short-circuited a crucial process of maturation that should have taken place after Vietnam: on both ends of the political spectrum.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Corn

    , @Redneck farmer
    @Dan Hayes

    We really need to bring back the good old days of 300 bomber raids on population centers. Then we wouldn't care so much about collateral damage.

  6. @Dan Hayes
    "If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession."

    Johnson's statement as a senior State Department lawyer after watching videos of dozens of women and children killed by a US drone strike in Yemen.

    An honest man is hard to find. Maybe we've found one!

    Replies: @SFG, @nebulafox, @Redneck farmer

    They’re more common once out of power. Remember Ike on the military-industrial complex? (Technically he was on his way out…)

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, TTSSYF
    • Replies: @anon
    @SFG

    If only there was someone in power to take on the Militant Immigration Complex. This is not to be confused with the related Militant Immigrant Complex.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @TomSchmidt
    @SFG

    Ike was mostly honest in power. David Stockman, in The Great Deformation, talks about how Ike restored a stable prosperity by cutting the military budget while in office. Only a WW2 General like Ike had the status to do so; maybe, perhaps, a WW2 hero like JFK, who started in office by claiming a missile gap but had come closer to a stand-down before his murder in 1963.

    After JFK, the next 4 Presidents all "served" in WW2, but curiously the first three only in the Naval Reserve, seeing no real action, and the last as a student at the Naval Academy. Ronald Reagan famously made pro-war propaganda films. George HW Bush served as a pilot, seeing actual combat. Then Bill Clinton, Who loathed the military; W Bush who spent the Vietnam War drunk; Barack Obama, from a deep-State family but no military experience; Donald Trump, military fanboy who attended a military academy for high school.

    The point being, with the exception of Bush I, none of these men had the "props" to stand up to the MIC, because none had had any "skin in the game" of the nation's wars. Serving in the reserve in time of war brings all the positive aspects (medals, status) and none of the risks, positively disposing one towards military service. Bush I, rather than cutting back the military and offering a "peace dividend" after the end of the Soviet empire, instead launched the Persian Gulf war (after having his ambassador April Glaspie bait Saddam into it by telling him that the US had no interest in Arab-Arab quarrels), supposedly defeating the "Vietnam syndrome" in the process.

    Clearly, the only man to defang the MIC has to have served in war. right now, the closest thing we have to that is Tulsi Gabbard.

  7. 216 says:

    As bad as the Dems are shifting left, the public may still re-elect Trump but keep the Dems in the House and flip the Senate.

    Where do we go from there?

    Its obvious that either a decentralist solution or an authoritarian solution is going to happen.

    Crazy ideas like a coup that puts a still middle-aged Obama back in power can no longer be called a laughing matter.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    @216

    Settle down.

    , @Ed
    @216

    If that’s the case the Republican senate candidates ran awful campaigns. They should be outperforming Trump against these loony Dems.

    , @Icy Blast
    @216

    If there is going to be fighting in the streets, its objective won't be to put your Daddy back in the White House. (You seem to be taking some powerful drugs.) Political decentralization (secession) seems more likely.

    Replies: @Anon

  8. @SFG
    @Dan Hayes

    They're more common once out of power. Remember Ike on the military-industrial complex? (Technically he was on his way out...)

    Replies: @anon, @TomSchmidt

    If only there was someone in power to take on the Militant Immigration Complex. This is not to be confused with the related Militant Immigrant Complex.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @anon

    We've reached the "vaporware beats malware" stage on that one I'm afraid.

  9. Heh. Jeh, meh.

    Feh.

  10. Trump section term here we come.

    Trump ran on immigration and yet hasn’t done a damn thing. Still, he’s going to win a second term on immigration. How bizarre.

  11. Why is the WaPo reporting wrongthink all of a sudden? The Post staff is hugely black now compared to the NYT. It’s that it?

  12. @216
    As bad as the Dems are shifting left, the public may still re-elect Trump but keep the Dems in the House and flip the Senate.

    Where do we go from there?

    Its obvious that either a decentralist solution or an authoritarian solution is going to happen.

    Crazy ideas like a coup that puts a still middle-aged Obama back in power can no longer be called a laughing matter.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Ed, @Icy Blast

    Settle down.

  13. The basic question is whether a political establishment can execute a coup against the population of a country by simply ignoring immigration. The basic documents of the American government say that the base population is sovereign (We the people), so at the very least such a coup would be “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” (Section 242 of Title 18, https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law). At worst it could be construed as active treason (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381).

    After Trump, or while he’s in office if he ever decides to fight for his life instead of simply hoping for it, the basic question will be asked. As usual, the answer will be settled by conflict, with the surviving group dictating the answer.

    My point here is that the basic question is a serious one, but has not yet been asked seriously. As usual, the Left has assumed that it’s side has already been victorious, and so the question has been answered (the classic “Sit down and shut up” methodology for coups). Nobody has seriously and explicitly raised the question. Entire _cities_ on the Pacific coast have been turned into disease ridden nightmare cities because the basic question has not been seriously asked.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Counterinsurgency

    "The basic question is whether a political establishment can execute a coup against the population of a country by simply ignoring immigration."

    This is a good question, though I would frame it this way: Can the Woke political establishment, financed by Woke Capital, execute the dethroning of white American power by simply ignoring immigration?

    "As usual, the Left has assumed that [its] side has already been victorious ..."

    Regarding immigration, the Left, so far, has been victorious.

    Counterinsurgency

    Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian, @Counterinsurgency

  14. “That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders”

    I wonder what his first clue was? And BTW, here are the old white ladies making it all happen…

    • Agree: Lurker
    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Mr McKenna

    I think we know these delusional old fools aren't making anything happen, they're just window dressing.

  15. @Dan Hayes
    "If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession."

    Johnson's statement as a senior State Department lawyer after watching videos of dozens of women and children killed by a US drone strike in Yemen.

    An honest man is hard to find. Maybe we've found one!

    Replies: @SFG, @nebulafox, @Redneck farmer

    One of the reasons I suspect Nixon and Kissinger drove a lot of American political commentators nuts, liberal or conservative, is that they were relatively honest about them being the utterly amoral realpolitikers they were. Most American foreign policy teams go through impressive intellectual contortions to tie their work in with human rights, no matter how farcical. I think the last quarter century alone provides enough examples of this that I don’t need to elaborate further.

    Nixon and Kissinger never attempted to lie to America like that: they lied about plenty of other stuff, but were always candid about how little they cared about anything other than America’s standing in the world and geopolitical stability as they defined it. A lot of intellectuals and politicians steeped in Whiggism just couldn’t handle this, and when Watergate struck, this had permanent consequences that our foreign policy is feeling to this day. It short-circuited a crucial process of maturation that should have taken place after Vietnam: on both ends of the political spectrum.

    • Agree: Corn
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @nebulafox

    A stable geopolity more often than not minimizes human wrongs.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Corn
    @nebulafox

    Kissinger said years ago that in America liberals view foreign policy as a morality play, conservatives view it as a crusade.

    I agree with you. Americans don’t handle realpolitik or the nitty gritty of diplomacy very well.

  16. @anon
    @SFG

    If only there was someone in power to take on the Militant Immigration Complex. This is not to be confused with the related Militant Immigrant Complex.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    We’ve reached the “vaporware beats malware” stage on that one I’m afraid.

  17. @nebulafox
    @Dan Hayes

    One of the reasons I suspect Nixon and Kissinger drove a lot of American political commentators nuts, liberal or conservative, is that they were relatively honest about them being the utterly amoral realpolitikers they were. Most American foreign policy teams go through impressive intellectual contortions to tie their work in with human rights, no matter how farcical. I think the last quarter century alone provides enough examples of this that I don't need to elaborate further.

    Nixon and Kissinger never attempted to lie to America like that: they lied about plenty of other stuff, but were always candid about how little they cared about anything other than America's standing in the world and geopolitical stability as they defined it. A lot of intellectuals and politicians steeped in Whiggism just couldn't handle this, and when Watergate struck, this had permanent consequences that our foreign policy is feeling to this day. It short-circuited a crucial process of maturation that should have taken place after Vietnam: on both ends of the political spectrum.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Corn

    A stable geopolity more often than not minimizes human wrongs.

    • Agree: nebulafox, PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Desiderius

    My thoughts exactly. The comment timed out and my mother's spaghetti bolognese-with the vermuth and the carrots and all the fixings, none of that jarred crap-timed in before I could put that in there.

    Happy 4th of July, fellow Americans on this thread! Go and spend some time with your families and friends and enjoy the fireworks tomorrow. Politics is ultimately something 99% of us are never going to control: and ultimately, something incredibly stupid to sacrifice personal relationships over. These relationships with kin and friends will be what get most of through whatever lies ahead, not the promises that some two-bit hack makes into what has become more like a soap opera or professional sports-put out by our elites, of course-than anything else.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  18. I guess zero is a multiple of 100,000. If we instituted that policy, wouldn’t apprehensions pretty much go to zero?

  19. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress…” .

    Yes, yes, and yes. Except that people like Mr. Johnson and the “majority of American people” don’t wield the megaphone and call the tune. On the other hand, there will be a price to be paid–in life, all bills have to be paid one way or another– and I’d hate to be the Corey Bookers of America when they are presented with the bill. It is small comfort to know that eventually what goes around comes around, because the damage will have already have been done and might well be irreparable. It’s of little use to complain “if only they had listened” when in fact “they” refused to do so and consequently had to pay a price for their folly that all of us have to bear.

  20. @Desiderius
    @nebulafox

    A stable geopolity more often than not minimizes human wrongs.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    My thoughts exactly. The comment timed out and my mother’s spaghetti bolognese-with the vermuth and the carrots and all the fixings, none of that jarred crap-timed in before I could put that in there.

    Happy 4th of July, fellow Americans on this thread! Go and spend some time with your families and friends and enjoy the fireworks tomorrow. Politics is ultimately something 99% of us are never going to control: and ultimately, something incredibly stupid to sacrifice personal relationships over. These relationships with kin and friends will be what get most of through whatever lies ahead, not the promises that some two-bit hack makes into what has become more like a soap opera or professional sports-put out by our elites, of course-than anything else.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @nebulafox

    My wife skipped the tomatoes, carrots and fixings last night and went straight for the vermouth

  21. “That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,”
    Uh Jeh, that’s exactly what they’re you know like, saying.
    Not much slips past old JJ. Are we sure he wasn’t actually former head of the United States Department of Duhh?!?!? (Primary funder of all research projects and studies devoted to proving things like water is wet, and my second favorite department after the Department of Redundancy Department)

  22. Jah Johnson: Don’t bogart that joint.

  23. Translation: Cool it guys! You’ll let the cat out of the bag. We’re supposed to be pulling off a gradual dispossession of the white majority.

  24. @Dan Hayes
    "If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession."

    Johnson's statement as a senior State Department lawyer after watching videos of dozens of women and children killed by a US drone strike in Yemen.

    An honest man is hard to find. Maybe we've found one!

    Replies: @SFG, @nebulafox, @Redneck farmer

    We really need to bring back the good old days of 300 bomber raids on population centers. Then we wouldn’t care so much about collateral damage.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  25. … if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.

    No, we wouldn’t, because the authorities would simply give up … hell, they’re already bussing illegals across the country to their “temporary” housing, turning more and more red states blue. Cloward-Piven’s thesis seems to have been confirmed in part, and is well on the way to larger-scale, longer-term damage.

  26. Decriminalization would be a green light for terrorist infiltration. Democrats should recommend that Israel experiment with it first.

  27. @216
    As bad as the Dems are shifting left, the public may still re-elect Trump but keep the Dems in the House and flip the Senate.

    Where do we go from there?

    Its obvious that either a decentralist solution or an authoritarian solution is going to happen.

    Crazy ideas like a coup that puts a still middle-aged Obama back in power can no longer be called a laughing matter.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Ed, @Icy Blast

    If that’s the case the Republican senate candidates ran awful campaigns. They should be outperforming Trump against these loony Dems.

  28. Like everything, laws that are devised for one reason may not be optimal when they are applied in different circumstances.

    For example, let us say that a woman from Eastern Europe comes to the US on a tourist visa, but spends her vacation working for an agency as a highly paid model and escort, and then is found out, and arrested, then why should she not be treated as a criminal.

    However, if she is a poor refugee with small children who flees poverty and violence in Central America and asks for asylum, it does not seem that the same legal status should be applied, because there has been no deception, no misuse of a visa, no tax evasion, no breach of employment laws, no nothing.

    There are some precedents in US law. For example in many states men who have served sentences for sexual offenses, often long sentences, reach their end of sentence and are due for release, but are then subject to “civil committment”, which is a further custodial sentence of indefinite length, possibly many years or until death, in treatment facilities which are visually identical to prisons, but not actually prisons in a legal sense, and not under criminal status.

    It would not be impossible to enact legislation so that refugees could be subject to “civil commitment” so that they were noncriminally detained, and placed under the care of suitable authorities where there needs could be met in a humane way.

    This would also relieve the Border and Immigration troops of a huge burden which they cannot handle.

    • Replies: @Paco Wové
    @Jonathan Mason

    Isn't this essentially how things are handled now?

    , @MBlanc46
    @Jonathan Mason

    No one from any country in the world who can reach the US border over land can be considered a refugee. Sure, they might prefer to live in the US rather than the hellhole that they and their countrymen have created, but they aren’t seeking refuge.

  29. @theMann
    I am curious - if all of these candidates believe that the office of the Presidency has unilateral authority to change Immigration Policy in the ways that they have proposed, are they not explicitly giving Trump authority to unilaterally alter Immigration Policy in any way that he proposes? That may not be what they mean, but it is certainly what they are saying.

    Their faith in the Authority of the President to do anything he wants is ...... interesting



    In the meantime, Immigration reality continues unabated. De facto open boarders already exist. Trump has talked a hell of a fight and done less than nothing, worsening both Legal and Illegal Immigration. Any Democrat would possibly do even worse. 70+ percent of the American people want the boarder closed, the Government leaves the floodgates open.


    First rule of governance : No government will ever solve a problem it creates.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Lurker, @Corn

    De facto open boarders already exist.

    Try landing at any international airport in the US without papers, and you will find out if this is true. Actually try to get a boarding pass for any destination in the US at an airport outside the US without a US passport, Green Card, or visa and you will also find out that the US is not open to boarders without papers.

    (You will also find out that boarders and borders are not the same.)

    • Replies: @theMann
    @Jonathan Mason

    Auto correct got me again.


    Just show your tourist Visa and stay - de facto open border.
    Just pay a Coyote to take you over the Rio Grande - de facto open border.
    Just make a completely phony asylum claim to get in, then not bother to show up at the Hearing - de facto open border.
    Just join any particular mob storming the border in California, and then immediately receive aid and comfort from the State of California - de facto open border.
    We can't even begin to get an accurate count of Illegals in the country, and attempts to do so have been stopped by the courts - de facto open border.


    The facts are these:

    1. An unknown number of Illegals in the US, but probably exceeding 20 million.
    2. At least 100,000 apprehensions at the border PER MONTH, probably twice that many undetected.
    3. The Courts, and various State Governments, doing everything they can to hamstring enforcement.
    4. Massive expansion of H1 and H2 Visas.

    That is de facto open border.


    And your throwing out the Straw Man of what may happen at at a US airport, because that is how all the Illegals are arriving, is either stupidity or dishonesty.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  30. Here’s another one, Jeh: If there are no borders, why do I have to pay taxes?

    • LOL: BB753
  31. @SFG
    @Dan Hayes

    They're more common once out of power. Remember Ike on the military-industrial complex? (Technically he was on his way out...)

    Replies: @anon, @TomSchmidt

    Ike was mostly honest in power. David Stockman, in The Great Deformation, talks about how Ike restored a stable prosperity by cutting the military budget while in office. Only a WW2 General like Ike had the status to do so; maybe, perhaps, a WW2 hero like JFK, who started in office by claiming a missile gap but had come closer to a stand-down before his murder in 1963.

    After JFK, the next 4 Presidents all “served” in WW2, but curiously the first three only in the Naval Reserve, seeing no real action, and the last as a student at the Naval Academy. Ronald Reagan famously made pro-war propaganda films. George HW Bush served as a pilot, seeing actual combat. Then Bill Clinton, Who loathed the military; W Bush who spent the Vietnam War drunk; Barack Obama, from a deep-State family but no military experience; Donald Trump, military fanboy who attended a military academy for high school.

    The point being, with the exception of Bush I, none of these men had the “props” to stand up to the MIC, because none had had any “skin in the game” of the nation’s wars. Serving in the reserve in time of war brings all the positive aspects (medals, status) and none of the risks, positively disposing one towards military service. Bush I, rather than cutting back the military and offering a “peace dividend” after the end of the Soviet empire, instead launched the Persian Gulf war (after having his ambassador April Glaspie bait Saddam into it by telling him that the US had no interest in Arab-Arab quarrels), supposedly defeating the “Vietnam syndrome” in the process.

    Clearly, the only man to defang the MIC has to have served in war. right now, the closest thing we have to that is Tulsi Gabbard.

  32. @Jonathan Mason
    @theMann


    De facto open boarders already exist.
     
    Try landing at any international airport in the US without papers, and you will find out if this is true. Actually try to get a boarding pass for any destination in the US at an airport outside the US without a US passport, Green Card, or visa and you will also find out that the US is not open to boarders without papers.

    (You will also find out that boarders and borders are not the same.)

    Replies: @theMann

    Auto correct got me again.

    Just show your tourist Visa and stay – de facto open border.
    Just pay a Coyote to take you over the Rio Grande – de facto open border.
    Just make a completely phony asylum claim to get in, then not bother to show up at the Hearing – de facto open border.
    Just join any particular mob storming the border in California, and then immediately receive aid and comfort from the State of California – de facto open border.
    We can’t even begin to get an accurate count of Illegals in the country, and attempts to do so have been stopped by the courts – de facto open border.

    The facts are these:

    1. An unknown number of Illegals in the US, but probably exceeding 20 million.
    2. At least 100,000 apprehensions at the border PER MONTH, probably twice that many undetected.
    3. The Courts, and various State Governments, doing everything they can to hamstring enforcement.
    4. Massive expansion of H1 and H2 Visas.

    That is de facto open border.

    And your throwing out the Straw Man of what may happen at at a US airport, because that is how all the Illegals are arriving, is either stupidity or dishonesty.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @theMann


    We can’t even begin to get an accurate count of Illegals in the country, and attempts to do so have been stopped by the courts – de facto open border.
     
    LOL!

    Putting a question on the census asking people if they are illegals is unlikely to produce an accurate count, because people will not answer the question truthfully, or will not complete the census at all.

    During an early attempt at a census in the Roman empire to enumerate the Jews, it is reported that King Herod ordered the execution of all boy Jews under the age of 2 within 16km of Bethlehem to prevent the fulfillment of a prophecy that the King of the Jews would be born that Christmas, but even this reasonable and moderate measure failed spectacularly as the Holy Family jumped on a flight to Egypt.
  33. @theMann
    I am curious - if all of these candidates believe that the office of the Presidency has unilateral authority to change Immigration Policy in the ways that they have proposed, are they not explicitly giving Trump authority to unilaterally alter Immigration Policy in any way that he proposes? That may not be what they mean, but it is certainly what they are saying.

    Their faith in the Authority of the President to do anything he wants is ...... interesting



    In the meantime, Immigration reality continues unabated. De facto open boarders already exist. Trump has talked a hell of a fight and done less than nothing, worsening both Legal and Illegal Immigration. Any Democrat would possibly do even worse. 70+ percent of the American people want the boarder closed, the Government leaves the floodgates open.


    First rule of governance : No government will ever solve a problem it creates.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Lurker, @Corn

    No government will ever solve a problem it creates.

    The people who created the problem don’t even see it as a problem. Why would they want to ‘fix’ something they wanted to occur in the first place?

    • Agree: ben tillman
  34. @Mr McKenna

    “That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders”
     
    I wonder what his first clue was? And BTW, here are the old white ladies making it all happen...

    https://i0.mail.com/mcom/068/9261068%2Cpd=1%2Cf=teaser-card-xl-tall/.jpg

    Replies: @Lurker

    I think we know these delusional old fools aren’t making anything happen, they’re just window dressing.

  35. Corn says:
    @theMann
    I am curious - if all of these candidates believe that the office of the Presidency has unilateral authority to change Immigration Policy in the ways that they have proposed, are they not explicitly giving Trump authority to unilaterally alter Immigration Policy in any way that he proposes? That may not be what they mean, but it is certainly what they are saying.

    Their faith in the Authority of the President to do anything he wants is ...... interesting



    In the meantime, Immigration reality continues unabated. De facto open boarders already exist. Trump has talked a hell of a fight and done less than nothing, worsening both Legal and Illegal Immigration. Any Democrat would possibly do even worse. 70+ percent of the American people want the boarder closed, the Government leaves the floodgates open.


    First rule of governance : No government will ever solve a problem it creates.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Lurker, @Corn

    “if all of these candidates believe that the office of the Presidency has unilateral authority to change Immigration Policy in the ways that they have proposed, are they not explicitly giving Trump authority to unilaterally alter Immigration Policy in any way that he proposes?”

    Silly Mann! Executive orders are only good when Democrats issue them!

  36. @nebulafox
    @Dan Hayes

    One of the reasons I suspect Nixon and Kissinger drove a lot of American political commentators nuts, liberal or conservative, is that they were relatively honest about them being the utterly amoral realpolitikers they were. Most American foreign policy teams go through impressive intellectual contortions to tie their work in with human rights, no matter how farcical. I think the last quarter century alone provides enough examples of this that I don't need to elaborate further.

    Nixon and Kissinger never attempted to lie to America like that: they lied about plenty of other stuff, but were always candid about how little they cared about anything other than America's standing in the world and geopolitical stability as they defined it. A lot of intellectuals and politicians steeped in Whiggism just couldn't handle this, and when Watergate struck, this had permanent consequences that our foreign policy is feeling to this day. It short-circuited a crucial process of maturation that should have taken place after Vietnam: on both ends of the political spectrum.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Corn

    Kissinger said years ago that in America liberals view foreign policy as a morality play, conservatives view it as a crusade.

    I agree with you. Americans don’t handle realpolitik or the nitty gritty of diplomacy very well.

  37. @nebulafox
    @Desiderius

    My thoughts exactly. The comment timed out and my mother's spaghetti bolognese-with the vermuth and the carrots and all the fixings, none of that jarred crap-timed in before I could put that in there.

    Happy 4th of July, fellow Americans on this thread! Go and spend some time with your families and friends and enjoy the fireworks tomorrow. Politics is ultimately something 99% of us are never going to control: and ultimately, something incredibly stupid to sacrifice personal relationships over. These relationships with kin and friends will be what get most of through whatever lies ahead, not the promises that some two-bit hack makes into what has become more like a soap opera or professional sports-put out by our elites, of course-than anything else.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    My wife skipped the tomatoes, carrots and fixings last night and went straight for the vermouth

  38. A1 says:

    Consider that the influx is tied to a kind of Cloward and Piven-like strategy to flood the system so as to overwhelm it. If the government is forced ultimately to give medical and other care to millions of illegals, who are given sanctuary here, then ‘logical’ development would be to make the same ‘free’ care available to all Americans in order to ‘be fair.’

    I think this was the part of the strategy in the Affordable Care Act: set up a system that raised the cost of private insurance while expanding the public option. As private costs went up, and general taxes with it, the ‘logical’ choice would be for those with private insurance to drop it and go with a public option.

    None of what is happening seems to be happening without movers making it happen. And they are not Divine movers. Who are they?

  39. @Jonathan Mason
    Like everything, laws that are devised for one reason may not be optimal when they are applied in different circumstances.

    For example, let us say that a woman from Eastern Europe comes to the US on a tourist visa, but spends her vacation working for an agency as a highly paid model and escort, and then is found out, and arrested, then why should she not be treated as a criminal.

    However, if she is a poor refugee with small children who flees poverty and violence in Central America and asks for asylum, it does not seem that the same legal status should be applied, because there has been no deception, no misuse of a visa, no tax evasion, no breach of employment laws, no nothing.

    There are some precedents in US law. For example in many states men who have served sentences for sexual offenses, often long sentences, reach their end of sentence and are due for release, but are then subject to "civil committment", which is a further custodial sentence of indefinite length, possibly many years or until death, in treatment facilities which are visually identical to prisons, but not actually prisons in a legal sense, and not under criminal status.

    It would not be impossible to enact legislation so that refugees could be subject to "civil commitment" so that they were noncriminally detained, and placed under the care of suitable authorities where there needs could be met in a humane way.

    This would also relieve the Border and Immigration troops of a huge burden which they cannot handle.

    Replies: @Paco Wové, @MBlanc46

    Isn’t this essentially how things are handled now?

  40. Top secret electoral math for the Democrats:

    Woke policies will definitely get you votes in California and New York, which you already have. They won’t get you votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which you need to win.

  41. @Brian Reilly
    Money quote: "...if we had such a policy (open borders), instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.” Completely wrong and mistaken. If the open borders policy, which is consistent with Dem official position in toto if not specifically declared, were operational, there would be no apprehensions at all. It would mean the effective, one way, end of US Sovereignty. It would also mena that the US passport would soon cease to be taken as valid, it would mena the essential end of the USA.

    That is, in fact, what the Dem leadership wants, an end to the USA. And they are going to get it.

    Replies: @Semperluctor, @AnotherDad

    In years to come, if course such analysis is even permitted or possible, open borders and related madnesses will be revealed to have been a long term ‘thought virus’ inserted into the American body politic by its geopolitical enemies, including BUT NOT limited to, Russia and China.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Semperluctor

    The "virus" came from a different nation, one that has traditionally transcended borders.

    , @L Woods
    @Semperluctor

    The US as we know it today, and “our values” that go along with it, are indeed possibly a factual counterpart to the semi-fictional “Russian subversion” of today. The Serious People that carp on about the latter denied the very conceptual existence of the former.

  42. @theMann
    @Jonathan Mason

    Auto correct got me again.


    Just show your tourist Visa and stay - de facto open border.
    Just pay a Coyote to take you over the Rio Grande - de facto open border.
    Just make a completely phony asylum claim to get in, then not bother to show up at the Hearing - de facto open border.
    Just join any particular mob storming the border in California, and then immediately receive aid and comfort from the State of California - de facto open border.
    We can't even begin to get an accurate count of Illegals in the country, and attempts to do so have been stopped by the courts - de facto open border.


    The facts are these:

    1. An unknown number of Illegals in the US, but probably exceeding 20 million.
    2. At least 100,000 apprehensions at the border PER MONTH, probably twice that many undetected.
    3. The Courts, and various State Governments, doing everything they can to hamstring enforcement.
    4. Massive expansion of H1 and H2 Visas.

    That is de facto open border.


    And your throwing out the Straw Man of what may happen at at a US airport, because that is how all the Illegals are arriving, is either stupidity or dishonesty.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    We can’t even begin to get an accurate count of Illegals in the country, and attempts to do so have been stopped by the courts – de facto open border.

    LOL!

    Putting a question on the census asking people if they are illegals is unlikely to produce an accurate count, because people will not answer the question truthfully, or will not complete the census at all.

    During an early attempt at a census in the Roman empire to enumerate the Jews, it is reported that King Herod ordered the execution of all boy Jews under the age of 2 within 16km of Bethlehem to prevent the fulfillment of a prophecy that the King of the Jews would be born that Christmas, but even this reasonable and moderate measure failed spectacularly as the Holy Family jumped on a flight to Egypt.

  43. @Whiskey
    The oligarchs that run and own this nation have decided to do away with us for Woke Capital. People will live on trash heaps. But scream at White men.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    Woke Capital combined with demographic change, social media, and weaponized identity politics makes this revolutionary cycle quite a bit more dangerous than the one which passed through, like a tornado, the late 1960s and early 1970s. The end result of the current cycle may be the deformation of the constitutional system we enjoy. The Bill of Rights viewed as enshrined white privilege. I think we’re f*cked. Happy Fourth of July!

  44. @Semperluctor
    @Brian Reilly

    In years to come, if course such analysis is even permitted or possible, open borders and related madnesses will be revealed to have been a long term ‘thought virus’ inserted into the American body politic by its geopolitical enemies, including BUT NOT limited to, Russia and China.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @L Woods

    The “virus” came from a different nation, one that has traditionally transcended borders.

  45. @Counterinsurgency
    The basic question is whether a political establishment can execute a coup against the population of a country by simply ignoring immigration. The basic documents of the American government say that the base population is sovereign (We the people), so at the very least such a coup would be "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" (Section 242 of Title 18, https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law). At worst it could be construed as active treason (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381).

    After Trump, or while he's in office if he ever decides to fight for his life instead of simply hoping for it, the basic question will be asked. As usual, the answer will be settled by conflict, with the surviving group dictating the answer.

    My point here is that the basic question is a serious one, but has not yet been asked seriously. As usual, the Left has assumed that it's side has already been victorious, and so the question has been answered (the classic "Sit down and shut up" methodology for coups). Nobody has seriously and explicitly raised the question. Entire _cities_ on the Pacific coast have been turned into disease ridden nightmare cities because the basic question has not been seriously asked.

    Counterinsurgency

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “The basic question is whether a political establishment can execute a coup against the population of a country by simply ignoring immigration.”

    This is a good question, though I would frame it this way: Can the Woke political establishment, financed by Woke Capital, execute the dethroning of white American power by simply ignoring immigration?

    “As usual, the Left has assumed that [its] side has already been victorious …”

    Regarding immigration, the Left, so far, has been victorious.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Lol, sock account detected.

    SunBakedSuburb = CounterInsurgency.

    Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @SunBakedSuburb

    , @Counterinsurgency
    @SunBakedSuburb

    The basic problem I'm trying to address is that of propaganda, of "framing the question" so that (a) the framing is clearly correct and (b) the answer is clearly correct.

    So, to break things down:
    a) Coups are bad because they do not represent the population of a country.
    b) Importing foreigners or welfare populations solely to win elections is a form of coup, obvious because tax money must be spent in massive amounts to import the foreigners and support the welfare populations. Other than the political influence conferred by the increased number of representatives resulting from the imported or supported communities, there is no reason for government to support them. Even humanitarian arguments do not apply, as living conditions amount welfare populations are not consistent with humanitarian considerations.
    c) Therefore, importing foreigners or welfare populations solely to win elections is bad.
    d) Moreover, it is worse than "Russian Meddling" because very much more money is spent on importing foreigners or welfare populations solely to win elections than the Russians spent.

    So, there you are. An argument that bypasses all of the Left's counters.

    The left says: You're just saying that because you're racist. Reply: See, it's a coup, he's trying to silence me, he's against democracy.

    The classic in this was from Kruschev's biography. At one point a women he'd never seen before pointed at him in a crowd and said 'I don't know that man, but he looks like a capitalist!'. NK realized he was minutes away from being mobbed and sent to the police station by people afraid not to show zeal. He said 'I don't know that women, but to me she looks like a w****!' and that was that NK was clear. When you're playing games with accusations, remember to play games with accusations, not try to play logic games. Logic games don't work in that context.

    Counterinsurgency

  46. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Counterinsurgency

    "The basic question is whether a political establishment can execute a coup against the population of a country by simply ignoring immigration."

    This is a good question, though I would frame it this way: Can the Woke political establishment, financed by Woke Capital, execute the dethroning of white American power by simply ignoring immigration?

    "As usual, the Left has assumed that [its] side has already been victorious ..."

    Regarding immigration, the Left, so far, has been victorious.

    Counterinsurgency

    Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian, @Counterinsurgency

    Lol, sock account detected.

    SunBakedSuburb = CounterInsurgency.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian


    sock account
     
    Esso Si! Que es!

    If you look at the style of recorded comments for each poster name, you might find it hard to imagine one person being responsible for both bodies of work.

    Q: What comes after stress?
    A: Quatro! Uno, dos, tres, Quatro!

    Counterinsurgency

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    And here I've been implying that Steve Sailer is Tiny Duck. My hijinks have backfired.

  47. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Counterinsurgency

    "The basic question is whether a political establishment can execute a coup against the population of a country by simply ignoring immigration."

    This is a good question, though I would frame it this way: Can the Woke political establishment, financed by Woke Capital, execute the dethroning of white American power by simply ignoring immigration?

    "As usual, the Left has assumed that [its] side has already been victorious ..."

    Regarding immigration, the Left, so far, has been victorious.

    Counterinsurgency

    Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian, @Counterinsurgency

    The basic problem I’m trying to address is that of propaganda, of “framing the question” so that (a) the framing is clearly correct and (b) the answer is clearly correct.

    So, to break things down:
    a) Coups are bad because they do not represent the population of a country.
    b) Importing foreigners or welfare populations solely to win elections is a form of coup, obvious because tax money must be spent in massive amounts to import the foreigners and support the welfare populations. Other than the political influence conferred by the increased number of representatives resulting from the imported or supported communities, there is no reason for government to support them. Even humanitarian arguments do not apply, as living conditions amount welfare populations are not consistent with humanitarian considerations.
    c) Therefore, importing foreigners or welfare populations solely to win elections is bad.
    d) Moreover, it is worse than “Russian Meddling” because very much more money is spent on importing foreigners or welfare populations solely to win elections than the Russians spent.

    So, there you are. An argument that bypasses all of the Left’s counters.

    The left says: You’re just saying that because you’re racist. Reply: See, it’s a coup, he’s trying to silence me, he’s against democracy.

    The classic in this was from Kruschev’s biography. At one point a women he’d never seen before pointed at him in a crowd and said ‘I don’t know that man, but he looks like a capitalist!’. NK realized he was minutes away from being mobbed and sent to the police station by people afraid not to show zeal. He said ‘I don’t know that women, but to me she looks like a w****!’ and that was that NK was clear. When you’re playing games with accusations, remember to play games with accusations, not try to play logic games. Logic games don’t work in that context.

    Counterinsurgency

  48. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Lol, sock account detected.

    SunBakedSuburb = CounterInsurgency.

    Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @SunBakedSuburb

    sock account

    Esso Si! Que es!

    If you look at the style of recorded comments for each poster name, you might find it hard to imagine one person being responsible for both bodies of work.

    Q: What comes after stress?
    A: Quatro! Uno, dos, tres, Quatro!

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Counterinsurgency

    "... you might find it hard to imagine one person being responsible for both bodies of work."

    Or it could be that you have DID, also known as multiple personality disorder.

    SunBakedSuburb

  49. @Semperluctor
    @Brian Reilly

    In years to come, if course such analysis is even permitted or possible, open borders and related madnesses will be revealed to have been a long term ‘thought virus’ inserted into the American body politic by its geopolitical enemies, including BUT NOT limited to, Russia and China.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @L Woods

    The US as we know it today, and “our values” that go along with it, are indeed possibly a factual counterpart to the semi-fictional “Russian subversion” of today. The Serious People that carp on about the latter denied the very conceptual existence of the former.

  50. @216
    As bad as the Dems are shifting left, the public may still re-elect Trump but keep the Dems in the House and flip the Senate.

    Where do we go from there?

    Its obvious that either a decentralist solution or an authoritarian solution is going to happen.

    Crazy ideas like a coup that puts a still middle-aged Obama back in power can no longer be called a laughing matter.

    Replies: @dr kill, @Ed, @Icy Blast

    If there is going to be fighting in the streets, its objective won’t be to put your Daddy back in the White House. (You seem to be taking some powerful drugs.) Political decentralization (secession) seems more likely.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Icy Blast

    Gee what a surprise, a leftist acting like a total obnoxious d***hole. Never thought I'd see the day. Aren't there some people in wheelchairs or 100 pound Asian twinks you could be beating up on?

  51. @Icy Blast
    @216

    If there is going to be fighting in the streets, its objective won't be to put your Daddy back in the White House. (You seem to be taking some powerful drugs.) Political decentralization (secession) seems more likely.

    Replies: @Anon

    Gee what a surprise, a leftist acting like a total obnoxious d***hole. Never thought I’d see the day. Aren’t there some people in wheelchairs or 100 pound Asian twinks you could be beating up on?

  52. @Brian Reilly
    Money quote: "...if we had such a policy (open borders), instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.” Completely wrong and mistaken. If the open borders policy, which is consistent with Dem official position in toto if not specifically declared, were operational, there would be no apprehensions at all. It would mean the effective, one way, end of US Sovereignty. It would also mena that the US passport would soon cease to be taken as valid, it would mena the essential end of the USA.

    That is, in fact, what the Dem leadership wants, an end to the USA. And they are going to get it.

    Replies: @Semperluctor, @AnotherDad

    This latest binge seems like minoritarian ideology–brooking no dissent from its righteousness–and minoritarian enthusiams dovetailing to create a mad rush.

    These folks no longer have the patience to wait for the frog to be boiled, and are all at once trying to roast the frog, bash the frog and spear the frog as well.

    The only remaining question: Is the frog going to actually do anything?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad


    Is the frog going to actually do anything?

     

    Depends on the frog...

    https://binged.it/32c0YhS
  53. @AnotherDad
    @Brian Reilly

    This latest binge seems like minoritarian ideology--brooking no dissent from its righteousness--and minoritarian enthusiams dovetailing to create a mad rush.

    These folks no longer have the patience to wait for the frog to be boiled, and are all at once trying to roast the frog, bash the frog and spear the frog as well.

    The only remaining question: Is the frog going to actually do anything?

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Is the frog going to actually do anything?

    Depends on the frog…

    https://binged.it/32c0YhS

  54. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Lol, sock account detected.

    SunBakedSuburb = CounterInsurgency.

    Replies: @Counterinsurgency, @SunBakedSuburb

    And here I’ve been implying that Steve Sailer is Tiny Duck. My hijinks have backfired.

  55. @Counterinsurgency
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian


    sock account
     
    Esso Si! Que es!

    If you look at the style of recorded comments for each poster name, you might find it hard to imagine one person being responsible for both bodies of work.

    Q: What comes after stress?
    A: Quatro! Uno, dos, tres, Quatro!

    Counterinsurgency

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “… you might find it hard to imagine one person being responsible for both bodies of work.”

    Or it could be that you have DID, also known as multiple personality disorder.

    SunBakedSuburb

  56. Given a choice between open borders and the welfare state, I’ll take the former.

    We’ve long had the worst of both worlds.

  57. @Jonathan Mason
    Like everything, laws that are devised for one reason may not be optimal when they are applied in different circumstances.

    For example, let us say that a woman from Eastern Europe comes to the US on a tourist visa, but spends her vacation working for an agency as a highly paid model and escort, and then is found out, and arrested, then why should she not be treated as a criminal.

    However, if she is a poor refugee with small children who flees poverty and violence in Central America and asks for asylum, it does not seem that the same legal status should be applied, because there has been no deception, no misuse of a visa, no tax evasion, no breach of employment laws, no nothing.

    There are some precedents in US law. For example in many states men who have served sentences for sexual offenses, often long sentences, reach their end of sentence and are due for release, but are then subject to "civil committment", which is a further custodial sentence of indefinite length, possibly many years or until death, in treatment facilities which are visually identical to prisons, but not actually prisons in a legal sense, and not under criminal status.

    It would not be impossible to enact legislation so that refugees could be subject to "civil commitment" so that they were noncriminally detained, and placed under the care of suitable authorities where there needs could be met in a humane way.

    This would also relieve the Border and Immigration troops of a huge burden which they cannot handle.

    Replies: @Paco Wové, @MBlanc46

    No one from any country in the world who can reach the US border over land can be considered a refugee. Sure, they might prefer to live in the US rather than the hellhole that they and their countrymen have created, but they aren’t seeking refuge.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS