Are They Nuts?

No matter how they deny it, our liberals know how well "open borders" worked out for the original inhabitants of the New World - they were all but exterminated.

Given the heightened sensitivities of today and the possibility of gaining political advantage by rewriting history, they'd like to cast this as a murderous genocide.  There certainly was murder, but that was never the primary cause.  The small bands of invading Spaniards and English had better weapons than the natives, but what really defeated the original inhabitants was disease.

The Europeans had been living much closer to domesticated creatures than the Indians and had grown immune to most of the diseases that pass from those animals to humans.  Diseases that jump back and forth between animals and humans were a real threat back in the "good 'ol days."  Even today, we worry about such maladies as "swine flu" or "bird flu" which are dangerous precisely because so many people live near so many animals.  The Indians were nearly wiped out by sicknesses which were new to their immune systems.

We face the same problem of open borders bringing disease today.  Back in 2015, Walt Disney World suffered an outbreak of measles.  The CDC reports:

The source of the initial Disney theme park exposure has not been identified. Specimens from 30 California patients were genotyped; all were measles genotype B3, which has caused a large outbreak recently in the Philippines, but has also been detected in at least 14 countries and at least six U.S. states in the last 6 months.

The fact that diseases could spread through contagion has been known for 150 years.  This knowledge came long after the original colonization, so no blame of germ warfare can fairly be laid on pioneers who'd never even heard of germs.  We know better now, though, and that is why immigrants desiring to enter the US had to pass a medical inspection - we didn't let in anyone who was likely to "become a public charge" for reasons of illness, or cause anyone else to become one.

This is not an imaginary problem.  Michelle Malkin reports:

And in Germany, federal epidemiologists reported that since opening the floodgates to migrants in 2015, data show "increased incidences in Germany of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough."

Such diseases spread unexpectedly easily in populations where health care workers haven't ever seen them and don't always diagnose exotic diseases as rapidly as they should.  As the Venezuelan health care system falls apart due to gross mismanagement of the economy, people who're fleeing Venezuela are spreading malaria, yellow fever, dyptheria, dengue, tuberculosis, and the virus that causes AIDS to neighboring countries.

Follow the Money

We Americans are seeing the effect of illegal immigration on public health as illegals bring their diseases along with their illiteracy, but there are also economic effects.  Most liberals agree that most of the illegals who sneak across our Mexican border are poverty-stricken individuals who deserve our sympathy and charity as part of our obligation to uplift humanity at large - that's a large part of their argument that we should allow anyone who can reach the border to march in and sign up for welfare.

That most illegal immigrants are indeed dirt-poor and uneducated is self-evidently true, but the idea that this should automatically entitle them to American largess is as bogus as anything else the MSM has ever said. This You Tube video points out that the US has absorbed on the order of a million immigrants per year.  That may let liberals feel good about helping the poor, but as the video makes clear, it's futile.

In Africa alone, there are 650 million people who make less than $2 per day.  That's twice the population of the entire US.  China and India have millions more.

Latin America, from which numerous foot-borne caravans are converging on our border since they don't need to cross an ocean, has 105 million desperately poor people.  Should they all be encouraged to stroll into the US?

We get a lot of illegals from Mexico.  These people leave because Mexico is a poor country, but by world standards they're somewhere in the middle - 5.6 billion people live in nations whose average income is less than the Mexican average.  Do our liberals want us to accept them all in addition to the masses of Mexicans?

The problem is not merely academic, and is worse than usually portrayed.  Yale University recently released a study which claimed that the current generally-used estimate of around 11 million illegals in America is a grossly low - Yale believes the real number is closer to 22 million.  Even so, that's a minuscule fraction of the numbers that would come here if they could.

Whatever the number is, these illegals impost huge costs on us, both now and in the future.  All those liberal cries about abolishing the ICE which tries to enforce our border, all those liberals crying to turn their cities and states into sanctuaries for illegals are foolish beyond belief - the economic costs are enormous, and the public health risks are getting worse.

Illegals tend to hide so they aren't easy to count, but studies in Texas show that illegals cost Texas taxpayers $12.1 billion per year.  A different study showed that 11 million illegals cost $134 billion nationwide, but if there are in fact 22 million illegals instead of "only" 11 million, this cost estimate is too low by far.

It's the same in Europe if not worse.  New Observer Online reports:

More than 95 percent of all the Third World invaders claiming to be refugees in Germany remain unemployed and drawing welfare, while most of those who are "employed" are in state-subsidized apprenticeships or attending integration classes, new official figures have revealed.

Democrats think illegals are "undocumented Democrats" who can be counted on to vote for more spending for two generations or more - and for good reason: they do.  Wealthy businessmen tend to like illegals who will work off the books for less money.  Ordinary workers tend to be opposed to immigrants who take their jobs and have no intention of adapting to American ideals.

Wanting to keep your culture is by no means bigotry, particularly if your culture has become the envy of the world to the extent that thousands of people are willing to risk everything they have and start marching toward the US in the hopes of being able to stay.

If This Be Treason.....

Politicians routinely draw voting district boundaries to clump opposition voters into as few districts as possible and spread their own voters over as many winning districts as possible.  This is known as gerrymandering, named after the Governor of Massachusetts who made the tactic famous, Elbridge Gerry.  He was a Democratic-Republican, so it's fitting that both the Democrats and the Republicans follow in his footsteps in different ways.

Democrats complain that districts in Texas deprive Democrat voters of legislative victory and Republicans make the same complaint about Maryland and New York.  That is simple politics as it has been practiced since the days of the lightly-populated "rotten boroughs" in England which sent members of the same families to Parliament for generations until laws were changed in the 1860's.

It's a different matter for a political group to dilute opposition voters by bringing in hordes of immigrants who can be counted on to vote their way.  We've explained how Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, deliberately sought to allow as many low-skilled immigrants into England as he could in order to dilute Conservative voting power.

Gaining electoral power at the expense of our current citizens is the entire purpose of the Democrat "sanctuary cities" movement which seeks to hide illegals from our customs and border patrol agents.  It's also why Democrats try to route public money to "community service" groups which try to get as many illegals onto the voting rolls, or at least on the census in a Democrat city, as possible.

Conspiring to help illegals violate federal law is a crime which can be punished by jail time of "not more than 10 years," not that you'll ever see this prosecuted.  But given the mass numbers of illegals, and the stated goal of fundamental transformation of this country and its citizenry, is it really a stretch to call it treason?

"Treason" is defined as "giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States."   Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution spells it out in detail:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Corruption of Blood" refers to descendants of a traitor.  Our Constitution declares that a traitor's children won't be "tainted" by the fact that a parent committed treason - and rightly not.

Who are our enemies who should neither be aided nor comforted?  Consider the caravans of young men from Guatemala and Honduras who've smashed through barriers at the borders between their countries and Mexico and are marching across Mexico with the intention of getting into the United States.  They're proudly carrying their countries' flags; they clearly have no intention of adapting to American ways.

As we see it, this places the marchers in the same category as the many Mexicans who claim that large parts of Texas and California are part of Mexico - they're invading armies instead of just being lawbreakers as earlier waves of illegals were.  That makes them enemies of the United States.  Any American citizen who gives them aid and comfort, which includes encouragement, is guilty of treason.

Many of our politicians have either encouraged illegals to come or discouraged government agencies which try to stop them by enforcing American laws.  Many politicians have supported the "abolish ICE" movement which seeks to eliminate the agency which is charged with enforcing our border controls.

In urging that our borders be opened to these invaders, these politicians are committing treason, no less.

The Atlantic quoted two of them:

Those calls [to abolish ICE] grew louder after the 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran and won on the issue in her primary victory in New York. Its time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, potential 2020 presidential contender, hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, I believe that ICE has become a deportation force & and that's why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works.  [emphasis added]

It's pretty clear that "by something that actually works," Sen. Gillibrand means letting in anyone who wants to stroll across the border.  The White House pointed out that "During fiscal year (FY) 2017, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested more than 127,000 aliens with criminal convictions or charges."

Illegals bring crime along with disease, depressed wages of ill-educated Americans, welfare costs, more poverty, and votes for more spending.  Aiding or abetting invading armies of illegals is pure treason, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Let's start by punishing traitors at the ballot box next week!