Borders of Necessity: Migration, Crime & The Wall

The U.S.-Mexico border wall is a complex issue for American politics that extends well beyond the illicit drugs being trafficked across the southern stretch. An issue greater than the cartels and other violent gangs inflicting terror and violence on American citizens. Other issues such as amnesty, child and human trafficking, or crime and terrorism are all vitally important symptoms of an insecure border, and deserve exclusive attention. The focus must be shifted to some of the undercurrents of those opposed to a border wall that are rarely discussed in any faction. 

The repulsive side of illegal immigration includes documented evidence that children and adults are being trafficked in BOTH directions across the southern border. It includes violent gangs and savage criminals who seek to rape, steal, and kill Americans in addition to each other. The grotesque side of illegal immigration also includes drug trafficking. The amount of fentanyl stopped at the southern border earlier this summer was enough to kill every single person in the United States, TWICE. Let that sink in. That was just one instance of successful drug confiscation at the border by agents, there are countless others. The crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border is much more than a “humanitarian crisis,” it involves those who commit the most heinous crimes, and they all want to expand into our country to continue to carry out said crimes against legal, law-abiding, taxpaying Americans. As an American, why would you not be interested in solutions to strongly reduce such activity from ever crossing into our country?

There is a stark contrast between authentic dangers that would cause someone to flee their home countries and those willing to claim asylum under false pretenses. A recent Gallup poll showed that around one in five potential migrants (approximately 147 million adults worldwide) name the United States as their most desired place to live as a future residence. Not because of a push based on fear/imminent danger from their native land, but many times it’s the pull of the American welfare state that is intriguing enough for migrants to attempt the perilous journey across the border.

Liberal politicians rely on emotions over logic, and their actions often reflect this rationale. This is nothing new to anyone who has been paying attention to the intense radicalization of the left since President Trump won the election in 2016. The left still can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that WE THE PEOPLE voted him into office, fair and square. See, the left is used to using dirty tricks, financial persuasion, even tampering with voting booths as viable tactics to use in order to achieve political offices. The right just shows up to cast their ballot, standing on their values and their rights provided to us by the U.S. Constitution. Emotion is applied to all things liberal, including their argument for loose, if not totally open borders. Ideally, the left would like to see President Trump shut his mouth and fall into the United Nation's agenda of having “free and open” borders throughout the world. In the past, they’ve had politicians voted into the office of President of the United States who were willing to allow the UN to be the marionettist, and they the marionette. When the argument is so polar, you have to dig deeper than surface issues to understand who is fighting so hard against protecting our nation from the extensive aforementioned issues along with others not mentioned, and why. What is their end game?

Mass immigration depresses workers wages in America, which is only profitable to large corporations and their virtue signaling owners. This is not an issue exclusively for America, but for other countries throughout the world as well. They use illegal immigrants to cushion their pockets by the immigrants taking less desirable positions in the workforce, and voluntarily becoming the “useful idiots of Big Business” (essentially exploiting imported illegal laborers who are willing to work for less). Is exploitation of others also considered a human right?

Let’s take a harder look at what the fundamental agenda is with those who oppose building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Protecting the sovereignty of any nation is paramount. That being said, it’s one of the most difficult things to actually obtain when you’re fighting against an anti-American Globalist agenda. The United Nations (UN) agency International Organization for Migration (IOM) states they are dedicated “to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society,” but who does this actually apply to? I ask, Cui Bono?

A 'migrant' is defined by the UN as "any person who lives temporarily or permanently in a country where he or she was not born, and has acquired some significant social ties to this country." However, after joining the United Nations in 2016 with an operating budget of $1.6 billion, ION adopted a new definition for the term 'migrant' which reads: “Any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary, (3) what the causes for the movement are; or (4) what the length of the stay is.” The UN defines 'refugee' as "someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Refugees and migrants are not the same thing, even based on the UN’s own definitions, but that’s a line the UN seeks to blur.

The UN’s dream of a utopia with free and open borders has a much darker unuttered goal that aims to rob nations of their sovereignty. Guided by lobbies and special interest groups, the UN is pushing the idea of open borders globally under the guise of sustainable development and economic advancement around the world. This is a misnomer, as a recorded $138.165 billion is lost in remittances flowing outwardly from the United States each year, and on average $625 billion lost around the world to migrant’s native countries, which obviously is a huge problem for the U.S. and world economies. $138 billion lost that could have been used to benefit legal Americans who may find themselves in economic hardships or facing underemployment.

In December 2017, President Trump withdrew from the 2016 proposed Global Compact for “Safe, Orderly and Regular” Migration or GCM, saying the 2016 New York Declaration establishing the GCM process included “numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles.” In addition to the U.S., Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Hungary also pulled out of the pact.

We’re supposed to buy the idea that it is a human right to move to a different country and drain it’s economy and resources? How exactly does that work? The GCM states that migration is all just part of the “human experience” and something that’s been happening since the beginning of time. Though historically, migrating into countries against the will of that country’s domestic population may have been part of the human experience, whether or not in hindsight it would be considered a profitable, or beneficial detail of the human experience is debatable.

Just this past April, southern border apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing the border from Mexico into the United States hit one-hundred thousand, the highest recorded number of apprehensions at the border in twelve years. That number is based solely on those who were physically caught trying to cross, imagine the number that actually make it across. Others simply walk directly over the border, immediately turning themselves in to Border Patrol under the guise of asylum. It should be noted that seeking reunification with family or employment opportunities in America are NOT considered grounds for asylum under U.S. laws, but they also don’t qualify as an international obligation. 

Proving an actual need for asylum takes time and resources, both of which illegal migrants don’t mind wasting. With less than 10% of migrants from Central America actually qualifying for asylum, the other 90% continue to tie up immigration courts and other resources for years under false claims. When ICE releases illegal immigrants into our community with pending court dates, some never show back up for court. Of those who do return to court, but lose their cases, they don’t return to their native countries, instead they simply weave into the American population, undocumented. Illegal border crossings are only part of the problem, since one-third of the illegal population we see in America today never jumped the border, rather having come in legally, but never leaving.

Congress provided $292 million in 2017 to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall and replace operationally ineffective and outdated barriers in the Border Patrol’s highest priority locations (which at the time were the El Centro, El Paso, and San Diego Sectors). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began construction on the border wall shortly after funding was provided. $1.4 billion was provided by Congress in 2018 to complete approximately 84 miles of border wall along the Southwest border including the El Centro, Rio Grande, Tucson and Yuma Sectors. The Yuma Sector, in particular, has seen border crossings decrease by 90%. We have conclusive evidence that suggests walls are effective in keeping illegal immigrants from crossing into our country, which in turn, also includes potential cases of child and human trafficking, violent criminals, and drugs from crossing over the southern border. In short, walls work. 

Using walls to protect national security is not a new idea, in fact several other countries already have walls in place, or are currently in the process of completing walls. Saudi Arabia is building a wall at the Iraqi border, Turkey at the Iranian border. Russia has a 660-foot-long steel fence to block out refugees, while Kenya is building a 435-foot wall to keep out Somali militants. Ukraine is building a wall to cut off aid being sent to Pro-Russian forces. A 40-mile-long underground barrier in Israel to block Hamas militants is near completion, Thai and Malaysian officials have plans to build a wall to help reduce crime, Hungary and Serbia are building a “massive structure” to deter migrants, and other countries have some form of barrier along their borders including Spain, Morocco and Norway. In contrast, ask the EU how open borders is working out for them. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has inadvertently become the poster child for why NOT to implement open borders. With Merkel leading the migration crisis the EU now faces, they’ve unwittingly become the perfect case study for how ineffective the UN’s goal of open and free borders truly are.  

We finally have a president in office who can’t be bought. One that truly puts our nation’s interests before the interests of those who want a one world government, one world religion and one world currency, which has been the UN’s proposed end game for decades. While the left is busy pandering to illegal immigrants and trying to diminish any resemblance of the Constitution by trying to destroy the First and Second Amendments, Trump is working tirelessly to preserve our constitutional republic and our national sovereignty. President Trump’s border wall is a significant deterrent to those who want to take advantage of our jobs, our resources, or to commit crimes on our land, leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill. 

Protecting American citizens from foreign invaders IS a priority, and President Donald J. Trump understands the critical attention the U.S-Mexico border requires. He was elected into office in 2016, to protect and defend this nation and in continuing to make our southern border security a priority, he will undoubtedly be reelected in 2020 to serve his second term as the President of the United States. 

Rebuttal by: Jeremiah Harding

Click here to read Jeremiah's article as well as Haley's rebuttal

US Border Walls: A Solution In Search of A Problem

Reaction and Recursion: “Our Borders”

Ah, conservatives and the border. So many times when asked to find proof for claims they make they balk and claim self-evidence. As for my opponent, most of my criticism of her piece could come easily down to a large [citation needed] stamp. How can one use the internet as a medium, and also insist upon many things, while only using one singular reference for the entire article?

My opponent dismisses her dissenters as relying on emotions and not logic, and then relies heavily upon a negative image of the border they themselves painted. Haley’s claims on issues like crime and gangs are unsupported when you rely on logic.

I mean, I get it. Fox News makes things look scary. But sex trafficking right out the gate? That happens everywhere. So here's a source – the National Foster Youth Institute—who says that, according to the FBI, 60% of the over 100,000 child sex trafficking victims were from domestic foster care. This means a majority of child trafficking is being done BY those with whom the US government entrusts the care of the very same children this person claims would be protected by an ineffective barrier (not a wall, mind you).

Then Haley jumps to emotion, saying migrants include “violent gangs and savage criminals who seek to rape, steal, and kill Americans in addition to each other.” Yes, except so do actual Americans, and in greater numbers. And her claims of drugs? Maybe if this country didn't have a moratorium on consumption freedom, drug gangs wouldn't have a foothold. Maybe government is not the solution to our problems. Maybe government IS the problem. Especially in my successful attempt to show that wherever the US has tried to tackle “The Drug Problem™”, it has only succeeded in making things dramatically worse for the common person.

Mrs. Kennington also goes on to claim that Gallup agrees with her claims about migrants and social programs...while not actually citing Gallup. She should have already been aware that the anarchist would oppose the welfare state. So I have to wonder exactly what they hoped to achieve with the unsourced claim that immigrants want welfare monies more than safety. I mean weren't we just talking about the “evil” Mexican gangs coming in droves to the US? Only a few gang members are coming across, and somehow they're responsible for enough violence that you use “rape, steal, and kill” as your descriptors? Imagine actually living in Mexico instead of taking a purely nationalist perspective.

Haley then goes on a rant which has precisely zero to do with the borders, and has zero citations, to complain (with the emotion she decries) that people are just upset that Donald Trump was voted in “fair and square”. Only to jump into a rant next paragraph about how illegal immigration is good for big business, bad for Americans, and bad for migrants, by claiming they're “exploited” from all angles. I thought they were rapey, stealy, kill-y scum? Why do you care what happens to them? Seems it'd be fine with you if they did get exploited, if they're just gonna come burden our tax system.

She then launches into another diatribe about the UN and their definitions and claims they are “pushing the idea of open borders globally under the guise of sustainable development and economic advancement around the world” in order to “rob nations of their sovereignty”. Which is why they go on to ask “We’re supposed to buy the idea that it is a human right to move to a different country and drain it’s economy and resources?” That is a question that nobody serious is actually asking. No, “we” aren't, but that's not all “they” do. Especially since, in order to “steal” pennies at all (before the five year mark) they have to be a taxpayer, using a real SSN for Social Security they'll never collect. Especially since they buy stuff, and use services. Again we are left without a citation.

Finally we have “The Wall”. A fence. Not a wall. Mexico's not paying for it, Trump is siphoning defense funds to push it through, and worse still...It's ineffective. Click that link and see a couple people scale it in less than thirty seconds. Hell, a wall would have actually done the job, but this fence? Might as well be a tree to climb. And while it might keep out the sickly children and the elderly, it won't keep out gangs drugs and anything else presented as dangerous.

Trump will definitely win another term, but it's just another 4 years for people to realize how artificial this alleged “conservative reasoning” truly is.

Someday, Haleys perspective, much like all walls inevitably do, will fall.

© 2018 by Zink Publishing Inc.

  • Patreon
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon
  • Reddit