Sunday, November 25, 2018

MEXICO DECLARES WAR ON AMERICA'S OPEN BORDERS

MEXICO DECLARES WAR ON THE UNITED STATES
 THE INVASION:
“The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.” Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno
"Mexican president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free medical in the United States."

"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed ranting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."

COST to AMERICANS of the LA RAZA MEXICAN OCCUPATION in CALIFORNIA ALONE: $2,370 per legal.
All that “cheap” labor is staggeringly expensive!
"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein.

Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S WAR ON AMERICA’S LEGAL WORKERS, BORDERS AND LAWS as they build the LA RAZA welfare state on our backs.

*
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM


"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/assault-on-american-worker-college-grad.html


Should We Invade Mexico?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/07/05/should-we-invade-mexico-n2497140?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
  
One fact a lot of Americans forget is that our country is located right up against a socialist failed state that is promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one. And the Mexicans, having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just chose to keep digging by electing a new leftist presidente who wants to surrender to the cartels and who thinks that Mexicans have some sort of hitherto unknown “human right” to sneak into the United States and demographically reconquer it. There’s a Spanish phrase that describes his ideology, and one of the words is toro.
Mexico is already a failed state, crippled by a poisoned, stratified culture and a corrupt government that have somehow managed to turn a nation so blessed with resources and hardworking people into such a basket case that millions of its citizens see their best option as putting themselves in the hands of gangsters to cross a burning desert to get cut-rate jobs in el Norte. It is a country dominated by bloody drug/human trafficking cartels that like to circulate videos of their members carving up living people. They hang mutilated corpses from overpasses and hijack busloads of citizens to rape and slaughter for fun. Whole police agencies are owned by the cartels. Political candidates live in fear of murder. The people are scared. And this chaos will inevitably grow and spread north.
The gangs are already here, importing the meth and fentanyl that are slaughtering tens of thousands of Americans a year after coming across the border the Democrats refuse to defend. Let’s not even think about the other foreigners, like Islamic terrorists, who might exploit this vulnerability. “Abolish ICE,” the liberals screech, yet what they really mean is “Erase that line on the map.” But that line is all that is keeping the bloodshed in Mexico at bay for now. You can stand on US soil, look south, and see places where the rates of killing dwarf those of the Middle Eastern killing fields you see on TV.
The chaos in Mexico will spill over the theoretical border. It is just a matter of time. Normal Americans know it. As my book upcoming book Militant Normals explains, the establishment willfully ignoring their legitimate concerns about border security is a big part of why Normals are getting militant. The Democrats, and the GOP donor class stooges, have a vested interest in ignoring the issue, and they will insure that both the political class and the hack media will continue to play ostrich. Already there are Americans, on American soil, living near the border who cannot venture outside at night on their own property for fear of being murdered because of foreigners invading out territory. This is intolerable for any sovereign country. Yet there is a huge liberal constituency, abetted by GOPe fellow travelers, not merely willing to tolerate the invasion but who actively want to increase the flow.
When the 125-million-man criminal conspiracy that is Mexico falls apart completely, as it will, we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Watch the flood of illegals become a tsunami, a real refugee crisis instead of today’s fake one. Watch the criminal gangs and pathologies of the Third World socialist culture they bring along turn our country into Mexico II: Gringo Boogaloo. And importing a huge mass of foreigners, loyal to a foreign country and potentially susceptible to the reconquista de Aztlan rhetoric of leftists, both among them and among our treacherous liberal elite, would create a cauldron for brewing up violent civil upheaval right here at home.
So, what do we do? We defend ourselves, obviously. But how?
Should we be reactive? Should we continue the fake defense of our border we’re pretending to conduct today? Or should we seriously defend ourselves by building a wall and truly guarding it, and by deporting all illegals we catch inside. But would that even be enough when Mexico collapses?
It’s time to ask: Should we be proactive?
Should we invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there, and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from the failing state next door.
Militarily, there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
One is the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
This is doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover, there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being nieces and nephews of Tio Sam.
The second is Operation Mexican Freedom, a much more ambitious campaign that would recognize what liberals already think – that Mexico and America are one country. Our forces would conquer the nation by driving all the way south, perhaps with an amphibious landing at Veracruz for old times sake and because the Marines would insist, then seal the Mexican-Guatemalan border. We would annex the whole country, making it a colony like Puerto Rico (A dozen new senators from Old Mexico? Nogracias). We would kill every terrorist drug gang member and take or torch everything they own, while simultaneously deporting every illegal from the US-Canada border to the Mexican-Guatemalan border.
Of course, that would take up pretty much our entire military and certainly spark some sort of endless guerilla conflict. We would be stuck in another bloody, expensive fight to make a Third World country cease sucking despite itself. It would make the Iraq War seem cheap. But, on the plus side, Bill Kristol and his bombs away pals would probably be excited.
Oh, in both cases the Europeans would be outraged, which is a powerful argument for these options.
Still, no. Invading Mexico is a bad idea. It would convert the problems of Mexico, created and perpetuated by Mexicans, into our problems. We tried that in the Middle East. It doesn’t work. Making Mexico better for Mexicans is not worth the life of one First Infantry Division grenadier.
But the consequences in America are our problem, and we must solve it. That brings us to the third option – Forward Defense. Think Syria in Sinaloa. We secure the border, with a wall of concrete and a wall of troops, perhaps imposing a no-fly/no-sail zone (excepting our surveillance and attack aircraft), and then conduct operations inside Mexico using special operations forces combined with airpower to target and eliminate the cartels. We would also identify friendly local Mexican police and military officials and support their counter-cartel operations outside of our relationship with the central government – they would be the face of the fight. We would channel Hernán Cortés and, in essence, we would allow friendly Mexican allies, with our substantial direct and indirect support, to create our buffer zone for us.
This avoids the problem of buying Mexico’s problems and making them ours. It’s somewhat deniable; everyone could save face by denying the Yankees have intervened. But the cartels would not just sit there and take it. They would target Americans and probably do so inside the United States. Yet that’s going to happen anyway eventually. This course of action risks the lowest number of US casualties, but perhaps the highest number of Mexican losses.
So no, we should not invade Mexico. There are no good military options, and none are necessary or wise today, but we may eventually have to choose between bad options. Mexico is failing more and more every day. We are not yet at the point of a military solution, but anyone who says that day can never come is lying to himself and to you. We need a wall, but more than that, we need the commitment to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent. The issue is very clear, and we need to be very, very clear about it when we are campaigning in November. Border security. Period.
Are we going to prioritize the interests of liberals who want to replace our militant Normal voters with pliable foreigners and establishment stooges who want to please rich donors by importing countless cheap foreign laborers, or are we going to prioritize the economic security and the physical safety of American citizens by securing our border no matter what it takes?
Come on, open borders mafia, let’s have that discussion. Bueno suerte with that at the ballot box.

One new Mexican president. Dozens of new reasons to build the wall.

 


In Mexico, it is often impolite to tell someone "No."  If you want to spare someone's feelings, many people say "Maybe."
Everyone knows that means "No."
Mexico stopped worrying about American feelings long ago.  Among the fashionable public officials and academics, scorn has been the ruling emotion for decades.  We see that more recently in the last week's elections.
Pretending otherwise is just too much work in Mexico today.  The new president declares he is a socialist, but he will be hard pressed to show how his new socialist policies are at all different from the old socialist policies that govern so many parts of Mexican life.  That's what we said about Venezuela, come to think of it.
Those who predict that their "Fill in Blank" Latin American country has finally bottomed out and is now turning around are often, even invariably, wrong.
But at least admitting they are socialists has the added benefit of sticking a finger in the eye of their terrible neighbors to the north – who everyone knows ruined Mexico by stealing a good chunk of the country in 1848.
Anyone who reads the daily papers in Mexico is reminded of that 157-year-old treaty every day: for most of the country, the national slogan and curse remains "Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States."  We can even hear it today from Mexican nationals and their descendants in the U.S. who glorify La Raza at the expense of their adopted country.
Oh, and by the way, Americans are still waiting for any kind of public display of support for those who died on 9-11.  Mexicans largely ignored it, when they were not supporting it behind closed doors at their local universities.
The truly troubling pronouncements out of Mexico City are even easier to find.  The newly elected president, Andrés López-Obrador, was gleeful during the election when he told his compadres they should all move to America, illegally.  His encouragement along with his pro-poverty policies will set the stage for another tsunami of illegal immigration.
Then members of López-Obrador's Cabinet-in-waiting started talking about the war on drug cartels, and why should Mexico do America's dirty work?
The first statement does not need much interpretation, other than the obvious but often ignored: the new president of Mexico is encouraging his countrymen to invade the United States.  Not with guns and soldiers, but with campesinos and huaraches.
It's a bitter and hostile act that we should treat as such.
The new talk about amnesty for drug-dealers is even crazier.  This is just an admission of what anyone who cares to already knows: Mexico is run by a collection of drug cartels and other violent outlaws.  This collection of criminals has killed thousands of public officials, policemen, and reporters – all in the name of preserving a criminal status quo that no one even feels like pretending does not exist anymore.  They even write songs glorifying them.
They get what they want when they want it.
That is why we cannot build the Coulter-Trump Border Wall fast enough, tall enough, and proudly enough.
In addition to writing scintillating bestsellers about black violence in America, good ol' Colin Flaherty also covered Mexico for several newspapers and radio stations in San Diego, back in the day.

How to Humanely Reduce Unlawful Immigration and Shut Down Open-Borders Democrats


Today's lesson on morality and human rights comes from the probable (according to polls) next president of our crime-infested and corrupt neighbor to the south (emphases added):
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States[,] ...declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans.
"[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these unwanted, by their own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to serve as Mexico's social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.
Did you know that "chutzpah" is the same in Hebrew and Spanish?  On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on a large cohort of Democrats, who share his view:
The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.
Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say "the," they mean "all."  Today, it's "family separations"; tomorrow, who knows?  But whatever the Dems'démagogie du jour, most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally, eliminated.  The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream.  But not only can the former be done.  It can be done using methods already tried and proven.
First, yes, we need a wall.  If the tooth-and-nail opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel's wall.  Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:
The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.
One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed to the decrease.  But there can be no doubt that the wall was the primary, and a major, factor.
So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful immigration.  But there is one more thing government can do.
Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee, in 1948, to elucidate:
When the writer's dad got off the boat, he did not simply disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll streets paved with gold and buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  First, he had to stop here:
In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around South Street.  On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant Landing Depot[.] ... [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island facility on January 2, 1892 ... because immigrants were known to carry diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.
The key word in the above quote is "isolated," as in no physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.
Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox.  Today, the dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.  In both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign immigration.  And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland U.S. lawfully.
The writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis Island was still there, repurposed as a museum.  So how about making so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate families?
On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is.  Alcatraz Island is not.  What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to that of Mexico and Central America?  The specific location is less important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.
Or even tents, as the Navy is already planning:
The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border[.] ...
[T]he draft document ... also says that a Navy base in California could house up to a further 47,000 people.
Problem solved...almost.  It's a good plan, but with one major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S.  Again, the locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the mainland.  There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233 million for six months (so $466 billion per year); one company has a $162-million contract "to fly immigrant children to shelters across the United States."
There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution.  It's staring the Navy right in the face.
Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or "mothball," fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts of the country, including California.
Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000 sailors.  But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight deck.  Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed thousands of people.
America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned ships.  Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the mainland?  Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all over the country.
Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country farthest from the U.S.
Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually mention, preferably publicly, that American sailors lived on those same ships, for much longer, and make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done nothing for America and who have no legal right even to be here.
Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of America they can see from the deck of a ship before being transported on a slow boat back to their home countries, and unlawful immigration will drop.  Like a rock.

Gene Schwimmer is a New York- and New Jersey-licensed real estate broker and author of The Christian State.

PAUL KRUGMAN

The disintegration of California, a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/04/paul-krugman-look-at-california-under.html

 

Mexico: Lopez-Obrador's bizarre statement

 

Down in Mexico, the voters are getting ready to cast a ballot in the next two weeks.  In other words, the rhetoric is getting a little crazy.
Andrés Manuel López-Obrador's latest rant is about as crazy as it gets:
This is what AMLO said:
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans.  "And soon, very soon – after the victory of our movement – we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
He then declared it as "a human right we will defend," eluniversal.com reports.  While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner.
Now, let's analyze what he said.
First, how would any of this help Mexico?  My serious Mexican friends tell me they'd rather find prosperity and jobs in their country.  Telling people to go north is another way of saying that AMLO's policies will not help Mexico keep Mexicans.  Believe it or not, most Mexicans would rather stay home, or at least that's what they tell me.
Second, is AMLO proposing to change Mexico's rigid immigration laws?  Is he going to open Mexico's southern border and allow people in?  How does AMLO define a "migrant"?
Third, does he believe that the U.S. is just going to sit back and watch Mexicans cross the border?
The bad news is that AMLO's remarks are irresponsible and not helpful.  The good news is that he may be getting desperate, sensing that Mr. Anaya is gaining on him.
PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!

Billions of dollars are sucked out of America from Mexico’s looting!


1) Mexico ended legal immigration 100 years ago, except for Spanish blood.
2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation but pays the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their subjects to invade the USA. The expands territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish language, and culture and genotypes, while earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as Foreign Remittance Income.

DEATH OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS AND THE STAGGERING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE ON AMERICAN BACKS.

The man likely to be the next president of Mexico just called for mass migration to the US



I don't think this fellow and Donald Trump are going to get along very well, do you?
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.
“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.
While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner. 
Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.
The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.
Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.
To be sure, AMLO is only saying out loud what every other Mexican president believed in his heart; that America is Mexico's "social safety net" and that it's up to the US taxpayer to take care of Mexico's unemployable, destitute millions.
Unsaid by AMLO is the implication of a mass migration of Mexicans to the US. The not-so-secret dream of every Mexican government that illegals flooding into America will eventually allow for a "return" of California and much of the American southwest to Mexico. 
What makes this socialist different, however, is his novel argument that entering the US illegally is actually a "human right." That's an opinion we could have a lot of fun with. One would assume if it was a "human right" to illegally enter the US, that it would then be a human right to enter Mexico - or any other country, for that matter.
Of course, AMLO is  just pushing leftist buttons by proclaiming this brand spanking new human right. He can't be serious, can he? It hardly matters. Trump will, I'm sure, have something to say about a mass migration of Mexicans to the US and if this socialist nutjob actually believes he can encourage that kind of invasion and not suffer any consequences, he doesn't know our president.



No comments: