The Times’ December 14 front page featured a sob-story style [...]]]> The New York Times correctly envisions a Biden administration as having a far more forgiving border, unlike the illiberal sovereignty enforcement of the current president. In fact, the cartels are “telling migrants ‘border will be open’ when Biden takes over” according to Rep. Henry Cuellar.

The Times’ December 14 front page featured a sob-story style photo of a sniffling illegal alien about to be returned to his actual country of citizenship.

We wouldn’t expect him to work with his fellow citizens to improve their home societies, as was the case in years past: Latin America had many freedom fighters who worked for positive change in earlier centuries. But that was before it became easy to invade the US, steal jobs and obtain free stuff from the welfare office.

Interestingly, the article quotes one foreigner early on that “We are not bad people. We come to work.” But there is no mention that millions of Americans are still jobless because of the China virus shutdown of businesses. The press ignores that there is no need for more workers during this time of high unemployment among citizens. Nevertheless, adding more immigrants remains a top task for scribblers.

Once again, the media pursues its Diversity First agenda rather than supporting law and order. The press evidently believes that the United States should be welfare office to the world, or as the Times remarks “a safe haven for people fleeing persecution.”

Remember that the Third World population continues to grow by millions every year, so the pressure to invade the US will only increase.

As Biden Prepares to Take Office, a New Rush at the Border, New York Times, December 13, 2020

SASABE, Ariz. — By the time the Border Patrol spotted the two migrants in a tangle of shrubs on a frigid December morning, they had been meandering aimlessly in the desert for six days. They had lost their way on the final leg of a monthlong journey from Guatemala, encountering only herds of javelinas, lone coyotes and skin-piercing cactuses as they staggered north. Exhausted, thirsty and cold, they did not resist arrest.

Less than two hours later, agents had already processed them and deposited them back across the border in Mexico. Alfonso Mena, his jeans ripped at the knee, shivered with his companion on a bench less than 300 yards from Arizona and sobbed uncontrollably.

“What wouldn’t you do to help your children get ahead?” he said. A landscaping job in Houston awaited him, he said, and his family was counting on him. “We are not bad people. We come to work.”

It was not the first time he had tried to enter the United States. And it was unlikely to be the last.

Unauthorized entries are swelling in defiance of the lockdown President Trump imposed on the border during the pandemic and shaping up as the first significant challenge to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s pledge to adopt a more compassionate policy along America’s 1,100-mile border with Mexico.

After a steep decline in border crossings through much of this year, interceptions of unauthorized migrants along the Arizona-Mexico border are climbing again: Detentions in October were up 30 percent over September, and .the figure in coming months is expected be even higher, despite the biting cold in the Sonoran desert.

The rising numbers suggest that the Trump administration’s expulsion policy, an emergency measure to halt spread of the coronavirus, is encouraging migrants to make repeated tries, in ever-more-remote locations, until they succeed in crossing the frontier undetected.

And they are likely the leading edge of a much more substantial surge toward the border, immigration analysts say, as a worsening economy in Central America, the disaster wrought by Hurricanes Eta and Iota and expectations of a more lenient U.S. border policy drive ever-larger numbers toward the United States.

New migrant caravans formed in Honduras in recent weeks, defying that country’s coronavirus-related lockdown in a bid to head toward the United States but were prevented from leaving the country. And the pandemic has decimated livelihoods in Mexico, prompting a rise in migration from that country after a 15-year decline.

“The pressures that have caused flows in the past have not abated and, in fact, have gotten worse because of the pandemic. If there is a perception of more-humane policies, you are likely to see an increase of arrivals at the border,” said T. Alexander Aleinikoff, director of the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at the New School in New York.

“That doesn’t mean that those flows cannot be adequately handled with a comprehensive set of policies that are quite different from Trump’s,” said Mr. Aleinikoff, “but you need a well-functioning bureaucracy to handle it.”

Mr. Biden has vowed to begin undoing the “damage” inflicted by the Trump administration’s border policies. He has said he will end a program that has returned tens of thousands of asylum seekers to Mexico and restore the country’s historical role as a safe haven for people fleeing persecution. (Continues)

Old Joe wants [...]]]> Sometimes it seems extreme to accuse the left of supporting crazy Open Borders. But then some major figure will put his foot right in it, as candidate Joe Biden did recently when he said he would import two million poor foreigners immediately if elected — because America is a sanctuary or something.

Old Joe wants to give something away that doesn’t belong to him — residence in the United States — and the American people’s choice of Donald Trump as president in 2016 shows how many are sick of being the world’s welfare office.

Plus, the world has changed enormously in recent decades. There are billions of poor people in the Third World who would benefit from access to the goodies in America or Europe, but the number of needy people is prohibitive.

What’s also changed is the ease of getting here — from cheapie flights to leftist-organized caravans from Central America to invade this country.

The best thing for all concerned would be to end the immigration rescue mission entirely, because even saving millions as candidate Biden desires would only be a drop in the bucket and would further damage America with still more poor foreigners. It would be better to promote microlending and similar programs that help foreigners stay home and fix their own homelands.

Because they can’t all come here.

Tucker Carlson was unimpressed with Joe Biden’s generosity, as well as the continuing anarchy on the border.

TUCKER CARLSON: Here in Washington our leaders spent the week focused on the Middle East, on Iran, but out there in the rest of the country there are plenty of more pressing tangible concerns. For example, many of our cities are starting to fail. infrastructure is aging, both crime and the cost of living are surging, and left-wing prosecutors have stopped enforcing the law. We will have more on all of that in Part Four of our America Dystopia series in just a moment.

But for the leading presidential candidate, candidate Joe Biden of Delaware, none of these problems matches what he believes is the greatest crisis at all: America isn’t importing enough desperately poor people. That’s his position.

In a tweet on January 5th, Biden lashed out at the president for immigration policy, quote: “Our Statue of Liberty invites in the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. But Donald Trump has slammed the door in the face of families fleeing persecution and violence.” End quote.

What a moralizer, that Joe Biden. Then just a few months ago, Biden vowed if he becomes president, he will admit two million poor immigrants overnight, and then increase that number from there. Watch.

JOE BIDEN: We can afford to take in a heartbeat another two million people. The idea that a country of 330 million people cannot absorb people who are in desperate need and who are justifiably fleeing oppression is absolutely bizarre. Absolutely bizarre. I would also move to increase the total number of immigrants able to come to the United States.

CARLSON: How many of those immigrants will be staying at Joe Biden’s house, at Joe Biden’s expense? Hmm, zero, of course.

Biden’s view is our chief mission as a nation is to admit as many poor people as we possibly can. The less impressive their country of origin, the less they are able to contribute to this country, the more we want them. You are rich, they are poor, therefore you must give them money, the right to vote, a permanent home. And once have you done that, repeat.

Biden claims that’s our moral duty, that Donald Trump and anyone else who shirks that duty is a racist.

But, is Trump shirking that duty? Is the basic claim even true? It’s worth assessing — there’s so much lying.

So once again we go to the numbers. Here’s what they are. From October 2018 to September of 2019, the Border Patrol apprehended 977,000 people at the US-Mexico border. That’s the highest total in more than a decade and more than the previous two years combined.

Now, keep in mind, that’s just people being caught at the southern border. many more getting through without getting caught of course. And then there are the tens or hundreds of thousands of others who enter legally but then overstay visas.

These illegal immigrants tethering themselves here with millions of anchor babies. That’s not a talking point, that’s a fact.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, for example, 372,000 children of illegal aliens were born in this country just last year. Every one of them is now an American citizen, and their parents are benefiting from a whole suite of benefits — food stamps, medicaid, other programs.

Of course they won’t be deported now. Wonder how we got 22 million illegal immigrants? That’s how.

So, by any actual measure, by the data, illegal immigration is worse than it has been in a long time. But for Joe Biden, it’s still not enough — 22 million illegals? Why not thirty million or fifty million? And every one of them gets free healthcare paid for by you. That’s his promise.

Is your country really so spectacularly rich that we can afford this? And, of course you know the answer. We are not a rich country. We are more than $20 trillion in debt. Our middle class is dying, in part because immigrants willing to work for less have driven down wages.

It doesn’t make the immigrants bad. They are coming from incredibly poor places with totally different standards of living. It’s economic fact when you flood the labor pool with people willing to work for less, wages go down, and that’s been going on for decades.

Not surprisingly, America’s most immigrant-heavy state, California, is also the most impoverished. Many people born in California can’t leave quickly enough — ask Idaho and Texas.

But Joe Biden says we need more. According to Biden, our country is a sanctuary, must be a sanctuary for those fleeing violence. But because Joe Biden knows nothing, he is not aware that some of America’s cities are deadlier than the places those people are fleeing from.

For example, El Salvador. One-third of all living Salvadorans live in this country now. But here are the numbers. Salvador has 50 murders per 100,000 people. Last year Baltimore — not a country, the city in Maryland — Baltimore had 51 per 100,000. In other words, it’s more dangerous than El Salvador.

Baltimore clearly hasn’t benefited at all from America’s policy of unlimited immigration. None of this matters because for people like Joe Biden and the rest of this country’s ruling class, helping American citizens, stopping being the point a long time ago. The point is getting re-elected and feeling virtuous.

Well, speaking of, in 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf got national attention by warning illegal aliens in her city about impending federal ICE raid.

MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF: It is a continued perpetuation of a racist lie that immigrants are not valued members of our society. We in Oakland know better. We in Oakland have a community that welcomes and honors all people, no matter where they came from or how they got here.

CARLSON: Oh, she is an incredibly good person, unlike you, racist. Thanks to Libby Schaaf’s efforts, several wanted criminals eluded ICE’s grasp and Oakland became a top haven for illegal immigrants running from the law.

One of those immigrants has now taken a life. According to police, Madisyn Alandra Suzanne White-Carroll, was murdered by Roberto Martinez in a road rage incident last month. By the time police had identified Martinez as the killer, he had already fled the country.

It’s a popular proposal, according to a Rasmussen poll published May 20, titled, Voters Still See Skills-Based Legal Entry As Immigration Fix:

Voters [...]]]> President Trump has called for a fundament change in the government’s immigration system to require skills of entrants, rather than continue the current family-based system concocted by Sen Ted Kennedy in 1965.

It’s a popular proposal, according to a Rasmussen poll published May 20, titled, Voters Still See Skills-Based Legal Entry As Immigration Fix:

Voters continue to believe the U.S. immigration system is broken and still tend to favor shifting to the skills-based system that President Trump is proposing.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with Senator Lindsey Graham’s assessment last week that “we have a perfect storm brewing at the border because of a series of broken and outdated laws related to asylum and children.”

Tucker Carlson recently presented some observations about “merit” as a value in immigration after the Democrats had the predictable reaction of squawking “Racist!” at the president for common sense. Rep. Maxine Waters reflexively described the Trump immigration policy as “very racist” last week for requiring knowledge of English among newbies.

Some noticed that the Trump plan contained no overall reduction of immigrant numbers — something strongly indicated by the anemic wage growth among US workers. NumbersUSA released a video on May 6 expressing the worker viewpoint:

Another reason to decrease immigration is the increased use of worker-replacing robots. For example, Walmart (America’s largest company by revenue) is turning to automation to save money and increase efficiency:

Plus there is no discussion anywhere of the enormous factor of world population growth — now over 7.7 billion persons, more than double the 3.7 billion residents of the planet on the first Earth Day in 1970. Nearly all of that growth has occurred in the Third World which is now happy to send its excess people to America’s open border — remittances to follow, bringing billions of dollars to alien-sending countries south of the border and beyond.

Heres’s Tucker on the argument for merit-based immigration:

TUCKER CARLSON: Good evening, and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” This week, the Trump administration revealed its proposal to overhaul America’s immigration system. The proposal would not by itself build the often promised wall on our southern border, nor would it cut current levels of immigration despite the fact that most Americans would like to see that happen.

The one big thing the administration’s proposal would do is give priority to immigrants who might actually help America — skilled workers with English proficiency. It’s hard to see an argument against a system like that — there isn’t really an argument against that system.

For years, Democrats have argued that immigrants make vital additions to our economy. They’re smarter than we are, they’re harder working, they do better in school. They found more companies.

Well, the President has decided to take Democrats at their word; he says he wants all of those good things that immigrants bring. Watch:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We want immigrants coming in, we cherish the open door that we want to create for our country. But a big proportion of those immigrants must come in through merit and skill.

CARLSON: Well, much of the world would move here if they could — hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. So why wouldn’t we pick the absolute best immigrants with skills in English who would fit in better here, their kids would do better in school, they’d be more likely to contribute to social programs instead of draining them.

So are Democrats rejoicing in this change? Of course not. They’re outraged. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke for the party when she declared that really merit is a bad word because everybody has merit:

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I want to just say something about the word that they use, “merit.” It is really a condescending word. Are they saying family is without merit? Are they saying most of the people who have ever come to the United States in the history of our country are without merit, because they don’t have an engineering degree?

Certainly, we want to attract the best to our country and that includes many people from many parts of society.

CARLSON: What a shame we can’t staff the Democratic Caucus in the Congress using the same criteria the Speaker would like to fill our country. “We want to attract the best for many parts of the world,” she says. But of course by that, Pelosi doesn’t mean what she says. She means just the opposite because what exactly is best about immigrants who have criminal records or middle school education, or no ability to hold a job?

The answer is, there’s nothing “best” about that. Immigrants like that might be nice people, but they’re much more likely to burden the United States than to benefit, at least economically. Harvard doesn’t admit students who can’t speak English. It says so right on their website, so why should our country?

The left doesn’t want to answer questions like that or even have the conversation. “Shut up racist.” It is said and is declared that the current system is great. No evidence necessary. Watch this former Obama official make her fact-free case on MSNBC yesterday:

RUTGERS ECONOMICS PROFESSOR JENNIFER HUNT: What’s less obvious is that medium and even the least-skilled immigrants also contribute to the U.S. economy. They come in and they do different things for natives and they allow everyone to specialize more in what they’re doing best.

It’s that contribution of the unskilled immigrants that I think people overlook when they really push the so-called merit-based or as it is called in other countries, the point system.

CARLSON: So what Professor Hunt and so many on the left, including the Speaker of the House are arguing for is a feudal system where foreign-born worker bees toil to support a smug and pampered managerial class, of which they of course are part.

There’s no other explanation for our current policies. We don’t need more low-skilled workers in the United States, we have plenty of low skilled workers. Their unemployment rate is higher than the national average. Their wage growth has been abysmal for decades — generations. So how do those workers benefit from having more competition? Of course they don’t.

How does the country benefit by having more low-skilled workers when technological changes may soon render millions of them permanently jobless? The answer, of course is that we won’t benefit.

But for the left, whether the country benefits is not the point. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar herself a symbol of America’s failed immigration system, if there ever was one; someone who hates this country coming here at public expense, spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself and an end to all deportation programs.

She demands open borders, the unlimited arrival of anyone who wants to come to America whether they have anything to contribute or not. And by the way, you get to pay for it. And if you don’t want to, you’re a bigot.

You know what this is really about, of course, it’s not about civil rights. It’s a joke. It’s about money and power — their money, their power.

The left has aligned with business interests that profit from cheap, obedient workers. Low-skilled immigrants have a harder time assimilating into the American mainstream. They stay poor. They learn English more slowly. They’re more likely to remain an ethnic underclass, all of which makes them much more likely to vote Democratic long term. That’s the point, obviously.

Skilled immigrants might assimilate and become less reliable Democratic voters. They might even compete with the children of our ruling class. That’s not allowed. It’s safer to import serfs, and that’s exactly what they’re doing. Don’t let them tell you, it’s about civil rights, it’s not; it’s about their convenience and their power.

In particular, extreme population growth fueled by foreigners (what’s [...]]]> So much of TV commentary concerns news-of-the-day trivia that it’s nice occasionally to have reflections on the Big Picture. Tucker Carlson did just that during his opening monologue on Thursday about the ways that immigration anarchy is changing America’s future — and not for the better.

In particular, extreme population growth fueled by foreigners (what’s happening now) will change the culture, since the newbies come only for the dollars, not to become Americans.

Assimilation is generally expected by citizens of new residents, but the topic is little discussed by the current crop of Democrats vying for a White House slot. In fact some, like Julian Castro, embrace invasion via open borders even though traditional citizens once took pride in America as a “nation of laws.” Now, the left demands Diversity above all else, more than any other value.

The United States used to value educated immigrants who could help with the work that needed done. Instead, we are now helpless to stop a million uneducated Hondurans and other Central Americans from illegally entering the country this year. They will supply cheap, simple labor for a while to insatiable business owners, but that will end soon when the smart machines take their jobs, as described on this blog for years and observed by Tucker in his remarks.

Experts agree: fundamental technological change is coming to all sorts of workplaces, and official Washington would be wise to pay attention.

You could slide over to 3:05 minutes in the video below to avoid a couple nonsense clips from AOC delivered from the floor for some odd reason:

Spare Audio:

TUCKER CARLSON (3:05): Negativity. That’s what the activist left now calls disagreement. They are not interested at all in what anyone outside their tiny little world has to say. Every day, you see Democratic presidential candidates endorsing some new policy that has pretty much zero public support, but it sounds like something woke baristas in Brooklyn would be excited about.

Banning ICE, ignoring federal immigration law, giving amnesty to millions. Decriminalizing illegal border crossings which is to say totally open borders. Anyone can come. When they get here, give them free stuff. Nobody really wants any of this even most of the people saying know, it wouldn’t work.

The public would revolt if you tried it. If half of Guatemala moved here tomorrow, which is exactly what would happen, it wouldn’t help anyone. This is all fantasy.

Countries have borders. That’s what makes them countries. Someday, the AOC moment will pass. It’s too stupid to continue. And at that point, sober Democrats will wake up and rejoin the adult conversation and progress. What do we want from our immigration system?

Well, here are some of the questions they should have to answer when that happens. First and most obvious, how many immigrants should we admit every year? What’s the ideal number? We currently take a little over a million every year, legally. Should we double that to over two million? How about 10 million immigrants a year? How about 20 million? Is there any number that’s too high? And if so, why?

While we are at it, what’s the ideal population of the United States? Immigration effects population size more than any other factor. We’re at about 325 million people in the United States today and that’s a lot.

Our highways are crumbling, many of our cities are painfully overcrowded. How big should we get? Four hundred million? Six hundred million? A billion people? And if you are pushing to increase the size of our population and they are, what’s your plan for keeping our natural environment pristine?

Crowded countries are polluted. Every single one of them. Tell us why we should want that here? What sort of skills and education should we look for in immigrants? Not all immigrants are the same? Some start wildly successful companies. Many others go on food stamps. They are not interchangeable widgets, they are human beings. Who should we prefer? What’s the ideal level of education an immigrant to this country should have?

Big business doesn’t want you to ask this question, they like their immigrants low-skilled and cheap. Ocasio-Cortez does, too. But what happens when technology kills their jobs? And it will. All the major Democrats running for president take money from the technology barons, many of them support self-driving cars. So what do you do with hundreds of thousands of unemployment immigrant cab drivers? Do they all go on welfare?

And speaking of, what sort of government services are immigrants entitled to exactly? Democrats promise universal healthcare. Do immigrants get that, too? Who pays for it? How many immigrants can our system support? Do we have enough doctors and nurses and hospitals to treat the number of immigrants we want to admit? Same question for schools.

The real answer is, of course, nobody knows. Because as of today, we have no idea how many immigrants live illegally in the United States. Shouldn’t we find out before we make more plans? And once we do find out, what do we do with them? Who gets deported? Anyone? Or do all of them get to stay? What if the real number of people living here illegally is north of 25 million? And that’s entirely possible. That’s bigger than the population of 48 out of 50 states. It’s enough to change this country completely and forever.

Do all of them get citizenship and voting rights? What about gun rights? And do they immediately start paying into the Reparations for Slavery Fund that Democrats are now promoting? How do you explain that to them? Can we watch that conversation?

And finally what about America’s ideals? Democrats are always talking about values when the subject of immigration comes up. They quote from the poem on the Statue of Liberty and tell you about their grandparents.

Well, previous waves of immigrants were asked to buy into this country’s most basic ideals — religious pluralism, free speech, political freedom, equality under the law. Our schools made them learn English and tried to instill patriotism. We called it assimilation. We thought it was critical to our social cohesion. Are we still for that? Do we still think we have values to impart or do we imagine that huge groups of people with nothing in common can share the same country without fighting each other?

It’s an important question — maybe the most important question of all. We never hear anyone ask it. Anyone who dares ask it is banned from Twitter. Instead, you hear the endless drone of self-righteous children barking about racism. That’s not enough. The decisions we make today about immigration are irreversible. It will help determine the health of the country we leave to our grandchildren. We should be a lot more serious than we are.

One memorable example of overpopulation was the government’s reallocation of Beijing-area water for the 2008 Summer Olympics [...]]]> Introduced in 1979, China’s one-child policy was seen abroad as an overreach of communist government controlling the people, even though that nation has basic resource problems that should have brought environmental limits more gently into the public conversation.

One memorable example of overpopulation was the government’s reallocation of Beijing-area water for the 2008 Summer Olympics from agriculture and general use to the sports events and guests — since nothing screams “third world” like insufficient water for a big international celebration.

Beijing is known for its polluted air, but water supply may be a more pressing environmental problem.

Yet shrinking demographics may have persuaded Beijing to not only trash the one-child policy but to mandate two-kid families for economic reasons — it’s being seriously considered. Good luck with that.

Tucker Carlson recently analyzed the complicated China situation with expert Gordon Chang:

Spare Audio:

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, every day China edges closer to overtaking the United States as the world’s richest country, but just because they are getting stronger economically doesn’t mean the Chinese people are more free. They are not. China is still imprisoning its Muslim population in the west. Ordinary Chinese still lose access to travel or education if the government says they have poor social credit and now a hacker has discovered a bizarre Chinese database that evaluated millions of Chinese women on whether they were quote, “breed ready.”

Gordon Chang is a columnist and author of “The Coming Collapse of China,” can’t come too soon. He joins us tonight. Gordon, thanks very much for coming on. What does “breed-ready” mean, and why would the Chinese government be assessing that?

GORDON CHANG: Well, breed-ready means they are able to breed children. And the reason why is because China has declining demography.

You know, if you start to look at some of the statistics, they are really frightening. So for instance, last year, their birth rate fell about 12%. Perhaps to the lowest rate in the history of the People’s Republic going back to 1949.

And we are seeing that the workforce has already topped out. The population as a whole will top out soon. China’s officials are just in a panic.

CARLSON: So they are identifying women who are breed-ready but then what do they do with that information? Is there going to be a coercive breeding program in China?

CHANG: There very possibly could be because some Chinese officials are now talking about having a two-child policy which is not a maximum two children, but they are talking about requiring couples to have two children.

Now, of course, China is not there yet. But you can see where they are going largely because they have been taken by surprise by a collapsing demography. They shouldn’t have been. People have been warning Chinese officials about this for the last 15 years. But they have sort of sloughed off the warnings but, you know, a couple of years ago they really started to see the consequences of declining demography.

CARLSON: But I mean, I have been hearing from Democrats in this country who are very concerned about having any kids because of global warming, it sounds like the Chinese aren’t as concerned about global warming as we are.

CHANG: No, and largely because every social problem, every economic problem they have, almost all of them are made worse by declining demography and the Chinese leaders start to notice and that’s starting with their economy because, you know, they grew during what was called the demographic dividend years. That was expanding workforce. Now, the workforce since 2011 has started to get smaller and it’s gotten smaller fast.

CARLSON: So we have the same demographic problems here, obviously and so does Western Europe declining below replacement rate. We just import new people from the developing world. Has it occurred to the Chinese to do that?

CHANG: No, you know, the Chinese don’t want to do that because they have a system and then basically, it’s based on racial superiority where they do view the rest of the world in inferior terms.

And you know, Tucker, on demography, within maybe three years, for the first time in at least 300 years, maybe all of recorded history, China is not going to be the world’s most populous society.

The world’s most populous society will be India and the Chinese both disdain the Indians because of this racial superiority view but also, they fear India. So people are concerned that China is seeing a closing window of opportunity and will lash out on that Himalayan border.

CARLSON: So, very quick, you just said something that almost nobody ever says which is that China may be the most racist country in the world, maybe after North Korea, but certainly, it is right up there.

The country is based on racial superiority and yet liberals in this country suck up to China constantly. Why does no one ever point that out?

CHANG: You know, that, to me, is a mystery because this nation of Han superiority is bred into the Chinese political system and you see it, for instance, they put on a skit on the China Central Television’s program, 900 million people saw it that depicted Africans as primates and it is just incredible, Tucker.

CARLSON: It’s unbelievable. But Jerry Brown is happy to call them wonderful, and so is Dianne Feinstein. Unbelievable. Gordon Chang, it is great to see you. I hope we will see you again soon, thanks.

Unfortunately, the explosive population growth of Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World is rarely mentioned as a [...]]]> Lists can be very revealing, and Tucker Carlson compiled a good one on Thursday’s show, indicating a troubling instability among several of America’s national neighbors to the south, specifically Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Venezuela.

Unfortunately, the explosive population growth of Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World is rarely mentioned as a major push factor for illegal immigration. For example, the number of Hondurans has quadrupled since 1960, which is not a plus in a backward country where 40 percent of the population works in agriculture.

The Gallup pollsters wrote last fall that:

In Gallup’s most recent global estimate, between 2015 and 2017, 15% of the world’s adults — more than 750 million people — said they would like to move to another country permanently if they could. In Central America, this percentage is one in three (33%), or about 10 million adults.

Three percent of the world’s adults — or nearly 160 million people — say they would like to move to the U.S. This includes 16% of adults from Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama and Costa Rica, which translates into nearly 5 million people.

World population growth should be a major part of the immigration debate, but it is rarely even mentioned.

Tucker noted the many lies from Democrats about border security: like other servants of the globalist elites, they really prefer open borders to keep those future voters and cheap workers coming.

TUCKER CARLSON: So, what exactly is the Democratic Border Security proposal? Would it actually secure the border? Well we had some time today, so we checked. And in a word, no, it would not.

The Democratic bill, in the Senate that Ed was just telling you about, simply restores previous funding levels for the Border Patrol and other existing programs. So, you have to ask yourself, when you consider that, was the border secure in December before the shutdown?

Well, no, it wasn’t. And that’s why we’re having this debate right now. Then, how would it be more secure after a bill that doesn’t change anything passes? Well, it wouldn’t be more secure, and that’s the point of the legislation, to maintain the broken status quo, let’s be honest about that.

Meanwhile, in the House, Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Bennie Thompson says he plans to introduce a bill that contains billions for border security, but nothing for a wall.

Thompson has a brand-new idea, he’s telling us. He says he can secure the border with the marvels of technology. He recently told PBS that cutting-edge machines can help us, quote, identify those vulnerabilities on the border.

Thompson’s plan can expect enthusiastic support from the Congresswoman from Tech-Land, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Here’s her most recent suggestion for the border. Watch.

SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing.

Technology to scan the cars coming through the ports of entry, and that is to detect guns. It’s like an electronic dog almost to detect drugs, guns and other contraband.

CARLSON: It’s really like an electronic dog that can detect contraband. On one level, that’s hilarious. We’ve laughed about it before. But it’s also patronizing, really. You’d have to be totally ignorant of what’s happening on our southern border to believe that more surveillance is going to solve the problem.

We have an awful lot of surveillance technology there already. We’ve got drones, cameras, sensors, radar, dirigibles. We have it there, in part, because the Bush Administration put it there. That administration spent more than a billion dollars on something called the Secure Border Initiative Network.

They use technology to watch about 50 miles of our Southern border. Congressman Bennie Thompson himself called that program “Grave and expensive disappointment.” Well Thompson was right about that.

What’s changed is that Democrats now support grave and expensive disappointments. They specialize in grave and expensive disappointments. They’re pushing one now. And that’s short-sighted.

Leaving the politics aside, it’s not a good idea because our southern border is one of America’s most dangerous vulnerabilities. That’s not a talking point. It’s literally true, and here’s why.

As of tonight, Mexico is an intact country. Will it remain an intact country? Maybe but maybe not. Mexico is a deeply unstable place, not an attack on the Mexican people. It’s an acknowledgment of what anyone who knows anything about the country will tell you.

The national murder rate in Mexico is five times ours. Since 2006, more than 250,000, a quarter million people have been murdered in Mexico. That includes hundreds of politicians and judges. There is a war going on there, and it’s spurred by drug cartels that reach into the highest levels of the Mexican government, not an exaggeration.

The Attorney General of an entire Mexican state recently pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges. The governor of a state on the U.S. border took bribes to let cartels operate freely, which they did.

And then, just the other day, Mexico’s previous President was credibly accused at trial in court by a witness of taking a $100 million bribe from “El Chapo” Guzman. In effect, Mexico has become a narco-state.

But it’s not even the most volatile country in the region. Nicaragua is in severe turmoil right now. That gets no coverage but it’s real. Parts of El Salvador are largely controlled by gangs. Venezuela, meanwhile, is literally falling apart.

A recent Brookings Institution report predicted that a total collapse of Venezuela, which could happen any day, might create eight million refugees. For perspective, that’s more refugees than fled the entire Syrian Civil War. And keep in mind that that flood of humanity upended all of Europe.

Something similar could easily happen here, to us, and it likely will, if we ignore the problem, which we are doing. And yet, the position of Democrats in the Congress is that everything is fine, and you’re nuts if you disagree. Nothing needs to be done.

Well that’s the definition of recklessness. In fact, it’s worse than recklessness. It’s like letting your kids play in traffic. You wouldn’t do that to people you cared about. You prevent it from happening.

Democrats have become extremists on the question of borders. But you never know that from watching television or reading the paper. The media won’t say it, and nor will most Republicans, by the way.

Even in the Trump Administration, some officials seem intent on making Nancy Pelosi’s case for her. The Republicans are the real extremists here.

Here’s what Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross said today when he was asked about workers who aren’t being paid during the shutdown.

SECRETARY WILBUR ROSS: The people might have to pay a little bit of interest, but the idea that it’s paycheck or zero is not a really valid idea.

There have been ads run by a number of the public-sector credit unions.

Those have announced very, very low interest-rate loans to bridge people over the gap.

CARLSON: So, more debt, more interest payments, that’s the solution? No, it’s not. Those are the last things that most Americans need. That was an idiotic thing to say. Look for Wilbur Ross’ words to be aired every day for the next three years on CNN. They know a propaganda win when they see one, and it’s a shame.

And it’s also a distraction because it doesn’t change the nature, the fundamental nature of this crisis.

Our borders remain vulnerable, and the stakes are higher than they have ever been, thanks to the chaos just south of them. Leaders who cared about this country would be staying up late, trying to fix that problem. Democratic leaders are trying to make it worse. That’s the bottom line truth.

For example, California’s severe five-year drought from 2011 [...]]]> It once was the case that at least some liberals supported immigration limits because of the harmful effects of excess population on the environment as a primary reason. But many have forgotten because politics have become more important than preserving the nation’s natural resources that support life.

For example, California’s severe five-year drought from 2011 to 2017 was a brutal reminder that nature still rules, and states that are part desert shouldn’t engage in endless growth: most residents had to observe water consumption limits which meant shorter showers and investing in efficient plumbing devices. At the extreme, some residents in Porterville, California ran out of water and needed to have it trucked in. California’s growing population, long on the brink of 40 million, means that the limited water supply must be divided into ever smaller shares. And civilization cannot survive without water.

Below, drought is a major concern in overpopulated California.

But the Open Borders urge is strong within Democrat politicians since diverse foreign voters tend to be the biggest supporters of the big government policies D-pols enact.

Tucker Carlson recently interviewed a rare liberal who thinks immigration should be limited, Prof. Phil Cafaro, author of the 2015 book How Many Is Too Many.

As it happens, I reviewed that book in The Social Contract: see ‘How Many Is Too Many?’ – A progressive considers limiting immigration.

I found the book acceptable in some ways, but not all. Regarding the important issue of the Sierra Club’s perfidy where it secretly sold out the environment for a $100 million bribe, Cafaro is squirrelly at best. As I wrote in my review:

However, the treatment of the struggle for reform in the Sierra Club starting in 1998 leaves out vital elements, and they are important. Were any of the reformers interviewed? Apparently not. The book quotes Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope as saying that he had once believed that immigration should be reduced for environmental reasons, but that the issue could not be debated in the organization “without stirring up racial passions.”

That’s an odd thing for a professional defender of the environment to say: Well, we wanted to protect America’s environment, but people got angry so we won’t talk about immigration any more. In fact, the Sierra Club supported the terrible 2013 Senate Gang of Eight bill that would have doubled legal immigration in perpetuity.

So it’s not David Brower’s Sierra Club any more, and the reason was leftist politics combined with big money—over $100 million secretly donated by Wall Street investor David Gelbaum over the years 2000 and 2001. But the gift came with strings attached: “I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.” (“The Man Behind the Land,” Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2004)

But that secret bribe was not known to the grassroots reformers (and I was one of them) who worked for eight years within the Sierra Club’s democratic structures to return the issue of excessive immigration to its proper place as being understood as a negative force on the environment. Had we known that the fix was in, we would not have wasted so much time trying to fix a deeply corrupt organization.

So Cafaro blew off the most contentious environmental issue in decades apparently because he didn’t want to remind environmentalists about how rotten the top organization is. It would have been nice if Tucker Carlson had been more informed — he mentioned the Sierra Club but only in reference to the recent destructive wildfires.

Tucker Carlson Tonight Transcript, Fox News, December 6, 2018

TUCKER CARLSON: So, there are a lot of divisions on the Left, not often aired in public. They do disagree with each other. If there’s one issue that unites almost everybody on that side though, it’s immigration.

And the principle they’ve united behind is that anybody from anywhere on the globe should be allowed to come into the United States, no questions asked. If you don’t believe that pay attention. For example, look at the theater surrounding the recent migrant Caravan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE LEIGH RUHLE, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT, ANCHOR, MSNBC LIVE: All of this for a group of people, a lot of whom are mothers and children, who pose no imminent threat.

VAN JONES, AMERICAN NEWS COMMENTATOR, AUTHOR, NON-PRACTICING ATTORNEY, DREAM CORPS CO-FOUNDER: The President of the United States has decided that a couple thousand scared, sick, you know, people fleeing violence are a bigger threat to the United States than ISIS.

MARIA CARDONA, LATINOVATIONS FOUNDER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CNN/CNN EN ESPANOL POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Guess what, Ben? It’s in our laws that people are allowed to come to our borders and ask for asylum.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, this is a new thing. It seems like they’ve always had this view, but no. Many on the lift — Left, used to be skeptical of mass immigration, partly for economic reasons because it undermined the wages of workers. But there were others, many others, who had environmental concerns too about letting a lot more people into the country.

Phil Cafaro is the Author of How Many Is Too Many?: The Progressive Argument to Reducing Immigration into the United States. And he joins us tonight.

Mr. Cafaro, thank you very much for coming on. Having you is the result of a long nationwide search to find someone with your views, because I remember so well as a kid that Democrats were really concerned, some were, Liberals, about overpopulation and the effects on the natural environment.

And I always kind of agreed with that. Tell me your concerns about mass immigration and its effect on the environment.

PHILIP CAFARO, HOW MANY IS TOO MANY AUTHOR, PHILOSOPHER, PROFESSOR: Well, Tucker, I’m not sure I’m the last Liberal in — in the country who’s concerned about immigration-driven population growth. But we are a minority–

CARLSON: Good.

CAFARO: –among environmentalists. I — I’ll give you that.

CARLSON: Yes. So, I see like the Sierra Club, which used to care about the Sierras. Huge fire breaks out in the Sierras last summer, started inadvertently by an illegal immigrant or the — the degradation of marijuana farming in Northern California, which really does poison the soil, and they say literally nothing because their concern for open borders overrides their concern for the environment.

What is that about?

CAFARO: Well, I think you’re absolutely right. If you go back to the — the birth of the Environmental Movement 50, 60 years ago, there was so much concern and — and focus on population issues because people saw the connections between–

CARLSON: Yes.

CAFARO: –overuse of resources, between too much pollution, and — and the sheer numbers of people. And — and environmentalists used to talk about that. I think what happened between then and now is back then most of our population growth was coming from the number of children we were having–

CARLSON: Right.

CAFARO: –native Americans. Whereas today, population growth in the U.S. is primarily driven by high levels of immigration. So, people, for whatever reason, weren’t as comfortable saying we needed to limit immigration, as they were saying we need to limit how many — how many kids we have.

CARLSON: So–

CAFARO: I think that’s a mistake though because either way–

CARLSON: I agree with that.

CAFARO: –you’re — you’re driving population growth and that has environmental consequences.

CARLSON: So quickly, and I wish we had more time for this, because I think it’s fascinating and I would urge people to buy your book on this, what’s the response you get from your fellow Liberals when you — when you say, “Wait a second. You know, there are environmental effects of letting all these people in,” what do they say to you?

CAFARO: Well, mostly what I get are — are people who — most people say, “Well, I didn’t realize that. I — I hadn’t thought about that.”

CARLSON: Yes.

CAFARO: Because, as you say, environmentalists have stopped talking about it. But the — the responses really run the gamut from, you know, how long have you been a racist to–

CARLSON: Yes.

CAFARO: –oh, thank you so much for talking about that. I’ve — I’ve been thinking that myself, and — and I’m just not comfortable talking about it.

CARLSON: Exactly.

CAFARO: So, it’s an interesting thing to talk and write about because you do get such a wide range of responses.

CARLSON: Yes. I mean, spend a week in a crowded, dirty country, and you’ll find that you don’t want to live in a place like that, I think. Phil Cafaro, thank you very much for your positions and for explaining them to us.

CAFARO: Thanks for having me, Tucker. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Naturally, these spots are a target for invasive Africans hoping to arrive in the freebie paradise on the mainland. Spain has [...]]]> One of the oddities of European geography is that a tiny bit of Spain exists on the African continent in the small communities of Melilla and Ceuta, as shown in the map below.

Naturally, these spots are a target for invasive Africans hoping to arrive in the freebie paradise on the mainland. Spain has unwisely been friendly to the aliens or, as Reuters reported in July, Spain emerges as EU’s new weak link for Africa migration.

Spain is seen by muslims as their territory because there was an Islamic presence there in the past. So some of the Africans who are muslims may well regard their illegal presence in Spain as a righteous jihad to reclaim Al Andalus for allah.

In fact, the process of re-Islamization is well underway in some communities, according to a 2012 report from Dale Hurd.

On Monday, the New York Times front-paged a story about the stresses on the little Spanish enclaves from illegal alien Africans seeking to mooch a better life in Europe.

That article was reprinted elsewhere, so click away to read the whole thing:

‘All of Africa Is Here’: Where Europe’s Southern Border Is Just a Fence, LiveNewsCity.com, August 19, 2018

CEUTA, Spain — For most migrants from Africa, the last stage of their trip to Europe involves some sort of perilous sea crossing. At the border in Ceuta, there is just a fence.

Ceuta (pronounced say-YOU-tah) is one of the two Spanish communities on the north coast of what otherwise would be Morocco, the only places where Europe has land borders with Africa. The other enclave is Melilla, farther east along the same coast.

Here, all that separates Europe from migrants is a double fence, 20 feet high and topped with barbed wire, stretching the four miles across the peninsula and dividing tiny Ceuta from Morocco — plus 1,100 Spanish federal police and Guardia Civil officers, a paramilitary police force.

They patrol a crossing point that has come under growing pressure.

After Italy’s new government closed the door to migrants, efforts to cross into Spain have more than quadrupled in 2018, making it the No. 1 European destination for migrants from Africa.

In the week ending Aug. 12, according to the International Organization for Migration, 1,419 migrants reached Spain, compared with 359 to Italy and 527 to Greece.

But the sea crossing to Spain, through the narrow straits of Gibraltar, is more dangerous than other passages, because of strong currents where the Mediterranean Sea meets the Atlantic.

Through June, 294 migrants drowned in the western Mediterranean, compared with 224 in all of 2017 in that area.

That has made trying to breach Ceuta’s heavily guarded fence an increasingly attractive proposition, a way to enter Spain without crossing the water. On any given day, young migrant men can be seen prowling on the Moroccan side, looking for an opportunity.

Some swim around the fences where they go down into the sea. Others take short, illicit boat trips from Morocco to Ceuta. But mostly they run and climb the fence, or use bolt-cutters to cut holes in it, where they are quickly spotted by motion detectors and guards in observation towers, and usually beaten back by policemen using sticks and fists.

Salif, 20, from Cameroon, said he tried 10 times to cross the fence in the past year, until he finally made it over on his 11th effort.

As often happens, successful tries are made by what locals call “mobbing,” when hundreds of migrants surge over the fence in a large group. Salif’s group came on June 6, when 400 young men began climbing the fence at sunrise.

Two were seriously injured on the barbed wire, and hospitalized in Ceuta. Eight, including Salif, managed to get over, and were then allowed to stay in a reception center in Ceuta, awaiting transfer to the mainland.

There, they can apply for asylum, a process that can take many months or even years. Most will be turned down, and the deportation process is slow and difficult.

While people often do get hurt trying to pierce the fence, deaths are rare.

“All of Africa is here,” said Salif, ticking off migrants he has met from Angola, Nigeria, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Benin — and even some from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And they keep coming.

“Trying to stop migrants coming from Africa with a fence alone is as fanciful as the little Dutch boy who saves his country by putting his finger in a leaking dike,” said Leonard Doyle, the spokesman for the International Organization for Migration. (Continues)

Europe better figure out how to keep Africans out or else it will become a very different place for tomorrow’s generations.

The foreigners have turned the walkway into a filthy homeless camp, although the Times tried to describe the chaos more delicately:

Sleeping on [...]]]> Tuesday’s New York Times front page included a photo of an illegal alien kid plunked down on a Mexico/US border bridge while waiting for the familia to push an asylum claim.

The foreigners have turned the walkway into a filthy homeless camp, although the Times tried to describe the chaos more delicately:

Sleeping on America’s Doorstep: A Dispatch From the Border, WRAL.com (NYTimes article), June 26, 2018

NOGALES, Mexico — It was dinner time at the door to the United States, and on a spit of floor separating Mexico from Arizona, several families set out their plates, ripping tortillas and spooning rice and trying to ignore the indignities of life on the move.

“It’s weird,” said Brenda Aguirre, 23, who was planning to sleep that night with her children on a pink mat, curled around her belongings. Nobody, she pointed out, expects to end up here.

As the debate over the border rages in Washington, the flow of migrants has not stopped, and crossing points like this one are growing into informal bedrooms, washrooms, schools, kitchens and playgrounds for families waiting to request asylum in the United States. (Continues)

That scene is taking place in Nogales which borders on Arizona. But the situation is not a one off: the flood of foreigners has squeezed them to camp out elsewhere, one example being northwest of Brownsville, as chronicled in the Los Angeles Times on June 7.

Caught in limbo, Central American asylum-seekers are left waiting on a bridge over the Rio Grande, Los Angeles Times, June 7, 2018

A simple two-lane bridge spans the Rio Grande between Ciudad Miguel Aleman, Mexico, and Roma, Texas, sleepy sister cities that have long accommodated a steady flow of traffic back and forth across the border.

Regulars still cross daily, but lately they have encountered something new and disturbing.

Dozens of families from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Peru, some with babies only a few months old, have spent weeks living on the Mexican side of the bridge, waiting to be admitted to the United States as asylum seekers.

By Tuesday, nearly 50 people had camped on the bridge sidewalk coming from Mexico, half of them children. There was little shade, and in the afternoon, temperatures climbed above 100 degrees.

Bridge crossers weaved among sleeping babies, stepping over a Peppa Pig lunch box, a Moana coloring book, and dwindling stacks of bread and diapers. Fathers doled out powdered milk mixed with water in bottles to whining toddlers. Mothers strung underwear up on the cyclone fence sides of the bridge to dry in the strong wind blowing off the Rio Grande. (Continues)

What a mess. Everybody with a sad story (like a mean boyfriend) thinks they are entitled to “asylum” and a free ride in Flophouse America where the welfare office is like a second home.

Interestingly, the government can and does limit refugees: President Trump instituted a cap of 45,000 refugees per year.

However, there is NO cap on asylum claims which can be accepted — why is that?? Why can’t asylum be limited to a reasonable number? A look at Third World population growth shows the push factor will only get much worse, and something needs to be done policy-wise.