Recently President Donald Trump made headlines (again) in regards to another decision to improve border security. The President plans to send National Guard units to the border to help Border Patrol agents guard the the Southern border. The decision come in the wake of the impending caravan of asylum seekers—nearly all of whom will be turned away and just try to sneak into the country.
President Trump has received tremendous criticism from the left, much of which points to the actions as unprecedented and illegal. But is it? No, according to a Fox News article past presidents and governors have done the same (calling for the National Guard to reinforce the border). In fact the past three presidents, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, have sent agents to the border to help agents patrol, conduct surveillance, and help stem the flow of drugs. President Clinton even sent United States Marines to the border—though that one backfired.
The impending caravan is a yearly phenomenon organized by a group called “people without borders,” as reported by CNN. According to the article the caravan contains 1100 migrants, the largest ever for the group, which will splinter into groups in Mexico City, Mexico. Around 200 say they seek to sneak into the United States despite the National Guard presence. Others seek to stay in Mexico, which has much stricter immigration laws than the United States, and a wall on its southern border.
The people seeking to come to America illegally from Central and South America are looking for a better life. One without the constant fear of gang violence, and a jobless economy. Even Mexico is run by the Cartels. It is human to feel for these people. However, no matter what the circumstance we cannot make exceptions to the law because we as a nation feel bad for these people. It simply is not how a country works. Rome was a republic before it became an empire. Roman citizenship was a prized possession of the ancient world at the time, much like American citizenship is today. What it meant to be a Roman was also like what it means to be an American: ambiguous because of the founding by people from different walks of life and areas of the known world. During the later years of the empire hordes of immigrants flooded into Roman territory. They were a contributing factor to Rome’s demise, not just because they took up resources and caused problems for the Roman government and population, but also because they exposed just how weak the Roman border was. That weakness lead to armies marching in and attacking Roman provinces and even sacking the city itself. Bad things happen when people can just walk across the border. The people coming to America illegally have this sense of entitlement. They feel that they should be here and damn the American people if they disagree. According to the aforementioned CNN article one of the caravan members said in reference to sneaking across the border, “if I’m arrested, I will be deported to my country and then I will try again.” There is no sense that he feel it is wrong.
Personally advocate for a wall as a security measure for immigration, drug and human trafficking, arms smuggling, and invasion. It is no wounded that Germany sent the famous Zimmerman Letter to Mexico during the First World War, and why terrorists sneak across the border. There is nothing to stop them. Even today there is just a crappy fence made of Vietnam Era landing strips.
So how should we help these people? There probably will never be a consensus as to what to do with illegal immigration so long as the leftist propaganda exists. Simply allowing people to flood into the United States is not a solution. Eventually the system will fail along with the US economy. The problem that those seeking to enter the US from nations south of the border lie in their countries, therefore answer lies not in domestic policy and pacifism, but in aggressive foreign policy and military force. The best solution is to destroy the vile gangs that control Mexico, and Central and South America. They need to be wiped off the face of the planet. Luckily the gangs are not ideological in nature like Islamic terrorists, and the people are generally not brainwashed by them. Only when the horrible creatures are no longer powerful enough to control the governments and terrorize the people with absolute power and no consequence will there truly be a better life for the people’s south of the US border.

The immigration crisis that is taking place in Europe and the United States is a much broader issue than allowing to people to enter the country legally or illegally, as refugees or migrants, to work and go home or start a new life. The great floods of migrants that have left their homes fornEuropenand the United States put a big strain on their home countries’ manpower, for example. The more relate to issue in recent times is boarders. Can a nation have them or not?
President Donald J. Trump ran on three main issues: the economy, the military—including a promise to defeat ISIS—and being tough on immigration, particularly through a border wall. The president’s argument is that in order to secure the United States’ southern border a wall must be built. The wall will keep drugs, guns, slavery, prostitution, gangs, illegal immigrants, et cetera. Trump often argues that in order for a nation to exist, it must control its own borders—not have open ones. This is the complete opposite policy than that of the previous Obama Administration, which tried its hardest to have open borders that people and crime could flood across. But with a border policy such as this, can a nation exist?
Some may argue that a nation is not defined by its borders, but by its values. This is false. A nation’s people, a civilization is defined by its values. A nation is defined by its borders. If the United States people were to replace the government with a communist dictatorship, or if they were to reinstate slavery, the values of the American people clearly would have changed. But if the new United States stays within the same area as the prior government it is still the United States, but a different stage of American civilization. However, by the same token if Russia, China, Britain, and France were to invade, conquer, and divide up the United States, it would I longer be the United States. The American people would still exist, but the nation would not because they to was broken into a million pieces.
Now this is not just an issue in the United States. Shortly after Donald Trump’s election in 2016, the United Kingdom left the European Union with the now famous Brexit Vote. Britain had some much the same issue with the European Union that the American people had with the progressive left: an inability to control their own borders, and to a very large degree their immigration policy. The European Union forced its member states to accept immigrants and refugees in massive quantities—mainly from the Middle East and Africa. While some nations simply refuse to take them in, most have to because they are too indebted to the European Union to have the ability to say no. And so the United Kingdom held a referendum that was supposed to be a failure, but instead became a success.
Is it human nature to want to control one’s own territory, or is it a product of Western Civilization? Considering that even tribal societies around the world—including Native Americans—often fought over land it is probably a product of human nature. So then why would anyone advocate for a borderless world? It is not about a new world order, at least not for the common people (though I would keep an eye on Obama’s, think he may be a lizard person in the Illuminati). I think that for most people they think that it’s a humanitarian issue and the right thing to do. This is due to the lies that come streaming out of leftist media. It is detrimental to the poorest nations for their best and brightest to flee to more prosperous areas. Even though they seek a better life elsewhere, they create a worse life for those who stay behind. The home country loses manpower and talent to draw from leading to less innovation, good governance, and revenue. It is much harder to stay and fix a broken nation. However, if those who flee would stay and try, they would eventually succeed. Rome was not built in a day. It took hundreds of ears for it to reach the height of its power. It is important to encourage the advancement of civilization, even if it is not our civilization. That is the best way to help those people.
So should we have open borders or no? Why? What are the benefits other benefits and downfalls of each, and most importantly how will that affect Western Civilization?

Build that wall! Build that wall! Build that wall! The popular chant could be heard at every one of Donald Trump’s campaign rallies. It stands for America’s desire for stronger immigration policies and enforcement. This is a dramatic change from the Obama Administration’s policy that was a few steps short of open borders. So why such a departure from the nations previous stance, and what is the Trump Administration doing about it?

When looking at how Americans generally feel about immigration, the sights are mostly positive, for legal immigration at least. While there are most certainly some xenophobes out in the world and in the United States, they are a minority–just like racists. The problem most Americans–and legal immigrants–have is illegal immigration. They are a “yuge” strain on the economy, costing American taxpayers $134.9 billion according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The numbers are the conclusion of a 2017 study conducted by fair. These costs are largely due to medical care costs, education, law enforcement, court fee, and other welfare programs. A big problem with illegals having any government benefits is that they are essentially stealing those valuable benefits from citizens and legal immigrants who may also need them.

Legal immigrants are extremely fed up with illegal immigration. Why should they do things honorably and lawfully, and have to rip the hair from their heads and emptying their wallets dealing with the government, when they could have just walked in or had a child in this country. My mother is from the European nation of Slovenia, my friend and his mother are from Peru, and two family friends, a husband and wife, are from Trinidad and Tobago and Moldova respectively. They all detest illegal immigration. I know, you all must be thinking, well if they are friends, they must think the same politically. Nope. There is a range in political views in the field, but none-the-less they all feel slighted and cheated by illegals and the Liberal agenda.

So what is the new administration doing about the problem? Very recently DACA was a main point of contention in the federal budget with Democrats wanting a deal on DACA, and Republicans insisting on border wall funding in exchange. The administration has even begun testing prototypes and taking bids for contracts. The current plan is for the wall to be adaptable. The sheer immensity of the United States’ southern border results in a variety of terrain features that one style of wall will not satisfy. According to a Fox News article, “According to those familiar with the tests, the walls withstood cutting torches, jackhammers and concrete saws better than anything currently on the border, and were almost impossible to climb, thanks to anti-climbing and anti-perching features.” The tests we so successful that only one man could reach the top, but then could not get down, and had to be helped by a cherry picker. The same article mentions that the agents prefer the wall type that is see through and has no concrete base–they are worried the concrete can be blown through on the Mexican side without their knowledge as concrete is not see through.

Aside from prevention, the Trump Administration is also working on enforcement. President Trump constantly talks about how America is a nation of laws. He says that if people are not willing to respect these laws they should not be here taking advantage of government programs. A  recent change in the mission statement for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services reflects upon the desire to crack down on illegal immigration and protect the American homeland. The USCIS website lists the mission statement as follows: “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.” A CNN article on the matter lists the former mission statement: “’USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.’” The major departure is the change from “secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants,” to “administering the nation’s lawful immigration system….and….securing the homeland.” The law and order theme of Trump’s is once again prevalent here. This is only just scratching the surface of what the new administration is doing to combat illegal immigration and enforce the laws of the United States–especially against violent gang members.

What should happen next? Should the Democrats give way and provide funding for the needed and desired wall, or should they let more drugs, violence, economic ruin, and constituencies pour in?

Even though most of the Western World is dealing with a migrant crisis, Germany has been hit the hardest. This is due to policy that was created and directed by German Prime Minister Angela Merkel back in 2015. Publically, Merkel’s main goal in allowing floods of migrants–many of whom were mainly refugees from the war torn nation of Syria–was to be a good humanitarian and open up her rich and prosperous nation to those less fortunate.

The year Merkel opened the borders saw an astounding 890,000 migrants swarm the German Fatherland. Since the 2015 crisis, the German Office of Migrants and Refugees has seen drastic decreases in the official numbers of those entering the country. The official numbers for 2016 are approximately 280,000 people, a massive decrease of nearly seventy percent. Last year (2017) saw another decrease to 186,644 asylum seekers. On the surface it seems that Germany is slowly solving their immigration problem. However, much like the United States, it is not only the number of documented peoples entering the country, it is also those who enter illegally and remain under the radar–this is particularly dangerous for Germany as the EU leader has been the target of terrorist attacks. Similarly to the United States’ illegal immigration problem, it is nearly impossible to ever determine the true number of migrants that enter Germany. This particular problem has profound economic, social, and political impacts on a nation. Politicians in the US Congress always stress the “economic impact” that deporting and supporting mass numbers of illegal immigrants can have–both are said to cost lots of money and harm businesses by losing employees. The question of what to do with all the people is a social issue that raises questions such as should they assimilate? Should they be forced to work? Should they be eligible for government benefits? Even though the last one seems to be more of a political question, it is not for the simple reasoning that it is a reflection of how society feels about the migrants–are they one of them, or are they useless burdens? The answers to many of the questions are political because the solutions require government action.

BBC reported statistics from Lower Saxony in Germany that show a 10.4% increase in violent crimes in 2015 and 2016, with 92.1% of this increase being attributed to migrants. The article states that researches found that “integration” through language courses, sports, and apprenticeships will reduce violent crimes committed by the migrants. The key word is “integration.” Apparently assimilation and integration are dirty words to today’s left wingers. In the United States and Western Europe requiring immigrants to learn the native tongue and integrate into society is racist, and proves ignorance to the foreigners’ culture and xenophobia. This is the opposite of true. Not assimilating is culturally insensitive to the host country, and shows a disregard for its citizens. Unintegrated migrants do harm to their children in a way as well. Without being able to fit into some clique other then other migrants, migrant children will not be able to make friends and participate in society effectively as adults.

Terrorism is the boogie man that hangs over all European nations to take in the influx of refugees from the Middle East. Germany, being the number one destination, is at the largest risk. An important question the German Interior Ministry faces at present is how to create an efficient way to check asylum seekers for possible terrorists, while at the same time speeding up the process. The advocacy group Pro Asyl stated that “speeding up asylum proceedings has come at the cost of thoroughness, and the burden has been transferred to the courts.” The tricky aspect of terrorism is that it is asymmetric warfare, meaning it uses guerrilla tactics, not large scale armies. When combatants are out of uniform it can be very difficult to identify them, especially in the case of Germany which has enormous amounts of suspects; sadly more are likely to slip through the cracks.

So, how should Germany be approaching the issue? They are favoring integrating those already there, but what about the ones that still want to come? Most importantly, what should be done about the terror threat? Should Germany do the smart thing and stop the tide, or do the humanitarian thing and allow more to come? For the later a better system must be put in place. This also comes with border security to prevent illegal aliens from entering.

Since German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, opened Germany’s borders to Syrian refugees in 2015, the entire European continent has been racked by an immigration crisis. The most affected and influential nations being Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Poland, and the United Kingdom. When the waves of migrants initially began flooding into Europe, the European Union was welcoming to all, regardless of status or origin. However, many problems began to develop. Aside from difficulties with finding where to put the migrants, the host nations began seeing drastic increases in crime—particularly sexual assault, rape, and assault—and terrorism, as well as sections of their own cities being completely taken over. Countries such as Poland and Hungary have avoided these issues by taking in not a single soul.

With this in mind, it is important to consider the implications the immigration crisis will have on European politics. The 2016 election of Donald J. Trump, and the United Kingdom’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union began the wave of populism and right leaning government practices. What will happen to Europe’s immigration policy? According to the Fox News article, “European leaders, facing growing public unease, toughen up on immigration,” Europe has already begun to see a shift to the right in its immigration policies and governments altogether. The article states that after tanking poll numbers Merkel was forced to push for a “burqa ban” barely a year after the immigration began. The border fence along the Hungarian border, along with other measures to keep migrants out, is also mentioned in the article. The article even mentions French President Macron’s hard stance on immigration. Italy has certainly already pushed back on immigration, striking some “controversial” deals with Libya to help the Coast Guard. The Fox News article mentions the likelihood of Italy’s moderate right wing party, Forza Italia, to become the next party in power in Italy’s government. Even Greece is beginning to send strong messages to warn other migrants to stay out—in example, the Greek government keeping the immigrants awaiting processing on the island of Lesbos in horrible conditions as a warning.

The issue is far more than a political issue. It is also a social issue. The people of Europe are doing more than taking to the polls to express their displeasure, they are taking to the streets , and in some cases matters into their own hands. As no-go zones and ghettos became ever prevalent in German cities so did protests and outrage by the German people. The massive wave of sexual assault in Cologne, Germany resulted in massive protests. “We are the people!” A slogan that could be easily heard throughout the streets of Berlin as a result of the disastrous immigration policy of Chancellor Merkel. The German people clearly felt that the government was not listening to them. They are the people, not the government. The people did not want the immigrants, nor the culture of abuse and intolerance that accompanied them. The culture of the immigrants is in direct contrast to that of the European host nations. This has lead to directly to the problems of sexual assault and terrorism.

The social and civil unrest is not restricted solely to Germany. In Italy in 2016, on the island of Sicily—the stronghold of the Italian mob—a war broke out between the mafia and the immigrants. Due to a dramatic rise in crime caused by migrants the Italian government was pumping onto the island, the people of Sicily started to fear for their safety in a way they had not for many decades. With law enforcement tied by the red tape of government the mafia took matters into their own hands and began a war with the immigrants by killing them if found. While highly illegal and unethical, the action had popular support. The Sicilians hated the immigrants forced into them by the national government and the European Union that killing was acceptable. That would be as if killing facials or communists in the United States were justified.
The sheer number of problems caused by the floods of migrants from the Middle East, most of whom have no documentation, have caused extreme social unrest throughout Europe. So much so that political change is beginning to line up with Donald Trump and Brexit—which itself was a large result of immigration policy. European nations that once proudly welcomed waves of refugees now deport and push them away. Is the shift toward the more right wing attitude in immigration and border security the beginning of the end for liberalism in Europe, at least for the current political cycle? Or will European nations continue to allow immigrants to enter and run rampant in their own nations? If so how will the people react? Upcoming elections in Italy and other powerhouses within the Europe Union—particularly Germany—will decide the fate of Europe which will inevitably affect the United States and the rest of the world.

Welcome to Sites At Penn State. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!