Anti-Wall Equals Pro-Globalism
A wall is both a symbolic and substantive rejection of the globalists’ open-border agenda.
Hollywood now makes more money from international box office revenues than domestic ones. Google shelved its Dragonfly Project to build a censored search engine for Communist China, but CEO Sundar Pichai refused to rule out implementing it in the future. Over the last 30-plus years, the income gap in America has reached unconscionable levels, especially over the last decade. In 2016, 52% of British voters opted to leave the EU. That vote is on the verge of being negated by a series of duplicitous negotiations. Meanwhile, Germany and France will sign a “twinning” pact aimed at sharing defense, foreign, and economic policies, viewed as a prototype for a “more sovereign, united” Europe.
What does any or all of this have to do with building a wall on our southern border? Everything.
For as long as Americans can remember, the political divide in this nation has been termed Left vs. Right, conservative vs. liberal, or Republican vs. Democrat. For at least a decade, those terms have been little more than orchestrated distractions aimed at obscuring the real and most debilitating divide that has ever afflicted this nation: globalism vs. nationalism.
In 2016, the globalist agenda was suddenly and shockingly rejected by the American electorate, who had been assured the ascension of Hillary Clinton was a done deal, and that the “fundamental transformation” envisioned by Barack Obama — and supported by media, academia, Hollywood, Wall Street, Corporate America, Democrats, Establishment Republicans, and the legions of useful idiots convinced this nation is irredeemably flawed — would continue unabated.
A wall is both a symbolic and substantive rejection of the globalists’ open-border, national sovereignty-despising agenda.
Aided by their corrupt media lackeys, (who do the bidding of the multinational corporations that employ them), globalists insist a wall is ineffective. Yet politicians have them around their homes, the Vatican is surrounded by a wall, and Israel built one to keep terrorists at bay. Moreover, the number of countries who have constructed, or are constructing border barriers, has increased from 16 in 1989, to 65 today.
Globalist arguments against building a wall?
It’s “immoral.” Note that this bankrupt assertion is made by the same people who make the most morally bankrupt assertion of all: Illegal aliens commit crimes at “lesser rates” than native Americans. In the last two years alone, ICE arrested 266,000 illegal aliens with criminal records that included 100,000 violent assaults 4,000 murders, and 30,000 sex crimes. In 2016, more Americans died from drug overdoses than the total numbers of deaths recorded in Vietnam — over the course of 20 years. Drugs that include heroin smuggled from Mexico and fentanyl manufactured in Chinese labs and smuggled through Mexico and Canada.
Those would countenance any number of such wholly avoidable crimes because it serves their ideological agenda are utterly despicable.
It’s “too expensive.” Illegal immigration costs America more than $100 billion per year. Reduce that by only 10% and The Wall pays for itself in two-and-a-half years. Greater reductions equal quicker payback. It’s “racist.” As is anything that doesn’t align with globalist dogma.
If we must have a wall, some or all illegals should get a “pathway to citizenship.” In 1986, America granted unambiguous amnesty to 2.7 million illegals — in exchange for a secure border and a crackdown on businesses who hired illegals. The border wasn’t secured and businesses still hire illegals. And after 30 more years of border-busting, 11-22 million illegals live here. Globalists would have you believe this time will be different.
It won’t, and once again America will signal the world that coming here is worth the risk. Moreover, the idea that national security should be used a bargaining chip for anything else is absurd.
“High-tech” surveillance makes a wall unnecessary. High-tech precipitates more arrests … of illegals well-rehearsed by leftist immigration lawyers to exploit our nation’s “catch and release” policy that transmits the exact same risk/reward message. A wall would partially undermine this contemptible policy.
Open-border supporters deflect this reality by insisting more people overstay their visas. That’s true. So why not address both problems? Congress could make illegally crossing the border or overstaying one’s visa a felony that also makes one automatically ineligible for asylum. They could fully institute the E-Verify system and make it a felony to hire illegal workers. Congress could also write a law holding government officials who support sanctuary cities criminally and civilly liable for crimes committed by illegals they harbor, a clear violation of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling reiterating that immigration laws are regulated by the federal government.
That they’ve done none of this reveals how blatantly our lawmakers have capitulated to the globalist agenda.
Lawmakers from both parties. In 2010, Democrats had complete control of Congress and the presidency for two years. In 2016, the GOP was granted the same two years of control. Yet as recently as December, Border Patrol agents apprehended 27,518 members of family units, the highest monthly total on record. Last year they apprehended more than 500,000 people trying to enter the country illegally. While DHS claims their apprehension rate is 80%, other studies put it at 50% — meaning a minimum of 100,000 illegals successfully entered the country last year alone.
In other words, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, members of both parties have amply demonstrated they are fine with this contemptible status quo.
A status quo that reeks of hypocrisy. “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress,” said Chuck Schumer in 2009. “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked,” declared Barack Obama in 2005. “I voted numerous times … to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders,” insisted Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Why the about-face? Because the Democrat Party’s only “core value” is the acquisition and maintenance of power — by any means necessary, all the hypocrisy in the world notwithstanding. They are joined by the other aforementioned globalist-supporting factions, all of whom derive either power, or historically unprecedented levels of wealth from fostering — and enhancing — the globalist status quo. The one where millions of Americans in “flyover country” are too stupid, fearful, racist, religious, gun-clinging, nativist, and “deplorable” to know what’s good for them.
Even when it’s demonstrably not true.
Very soon, Americans will learn if Britain will negate democracy itself in service to the globalist agenda. On this side of the Atlantic, another caravan is being organized in Honduras for the purpose of testing U.S. immigration policy — again.
The current standoff is a “make or break” moment for the nation. Either we remain a country with definable borders beholden to the Rule of Law, or we become an interchangeable cog in the globalist machine. One that wholly accommodates a globalist agenda — Liberty and self-determination be damned.
A wall? The cornerstone of a constitutional republic is more like it.
Start a conversation using these share links: