Immigration, Migration, Invasion, and the Colonization of America - Part 4: Shipwreck Rules

In previous parts, we looked at why current levels of immigration are a problem, which immigrants we might want to allow to stay, and which ones present serious hazards.

A nation is a lot like a lifeboat. If too many try to get aboard, the lifeboat itself might sink. It may sound cruel, but some must be denied boarding that the rest might survive. While it might seem that our country has a near infinite capacity to take on more people, the reality is that just as with a lifeboat, trying to take on too many at once places the nation at risk. We are beyond that point now—the lifeboat is overfull and in danger of sinking.

The question becomes: What do we do about it?

Immigration, Migration, Invasion, and the Colonization of America

Part 1: Why It's A problem
Part 2: Who Should Stay
Part 3: Stranger Danger
Part 4: Shipwreck Rules

Reversing the process

A recent CBS poll found that 62% of the US population favors deportation. Send them back to their home countries and let them fix their own problems there. Let them deal with their Marxist failures, their intolerant seventh century religions and cultures that promote poverty, crime, and misery. It may sound cruel, but is it any less cruel than the destruction of our own country—exposing our own citizens to the same levels of crime, corruption, terrorism, and poverty that these invaders came from?

We have had mass deportations in the past, as well as halts in immigration when the numbers became too large. The Chinese Exclusion Act stopped mass immigration from China in the late 1800s. Eisenhower conducted "Operation #" to remove large numbers of people who had illegally crossed our southern borders. Those numbers were tiny, though, compared to what we face today.

What would it cost?

Some point to the high cost of actually deporting the millions who came here illegally. Numbers range as high as $150B. But is that number prohibitive? In the past three years the Biden regime has given Ukraine over $170B in aid, according to some sources.

In January, the Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement projected that federal and state governments have spent nearly $151 billion on illegal aliens in the past year, be it welfare payments or incarcerating migrants.

It would appear that the costs of deportation are well within range, and by reducing support costs could even result in a net gain.

Do we have what it takes?

The real question, though, is do we have the will? Many of these invaders are good, decent people who came to escape desperate, even dire circumstances. Many of them have useful skills and would happily work for survival wages, but those undercut the legal wages of citizens who would do the same jobs.

Compassion says let them stay. Reason says they must go if we are to survive. We are in a lifeboat situation.

There would be many here who would oppose deportation. They offer many excuses ranging from the idea that America has been unjustly exploiting them for decades and it is only right that we should repay them. Some hold that deportation is a violation of human rights—that there should be no borders and people should be able to move freely wherever they wish—except for Martha's Vineyard, that is.

Others claim that we need them to provide valuable services doing the jobs Americans don't want to do—or can't legally afford to do. Do we really have a shortage of domestic servants, child sex workers, and drug distributors? Where will all the pedophiles find raw material if we stem the flow of unaccompanied minors? What about Democrat voters? Do we need more of those? What will the Left do if there are no more vulnerable populations to exploit?

Even if we wanted to keep them, where would we get the funds to support them? We are already spending over $150B a year on them. How much is that contributing to our current inflation, especially if those funds are new money from debt? If we don't want to increase debt, do we take money from Defense? From Social Security? From education, or welfare, or public works, or do we just raise taxes more and take it from everybody?

After all, don't we have a humanitarian obligation? Hasn't the Left been telling us for years that we have too much and if we won't give voluntarily, they will have to take it by force or threat of force if necessary?

Can it even be done?

There are many practical problems associated with mass deportation. The sheer numbers involved are daunting. Imagine trying to relocate the entire population of one of our most populous states—California, Florida, New York. The number of invaders exceeds the total population of any of those.

Given that we would remove them, where would we send them? In many cases their home countries are happily rid of them. We have already discussed the export of criminal populations, and it is hard to imagine anyone would want to take them back.

What would we do if their home countries refuse to take them back? Do we fly over and air drop them? Do we use our military to create export zones for the ones we deport? Maybe we can bribe them with foreign aid if they will take them in. Is there someone else who wants them? Could we send them to Cuba? Maybe we could rent space on Greenland. Is Madagascar available?

Sarcasm aside, finding a destination for relocation is one of the biggest problems we face in deportation, and we are not alone in that. Globalist support for mass migration has put the entirety of Western Civilization in an untenable position. It is Cloward-Piven on a global scale. Are the globalist schemes for depopulation really intended as solutions to the problems of mass migration? Certainly, global famine and mass die-off would make lots of room available for the survivors.

The ideal situation would be to have their home countries take them back. We might even offer them some assistance if they do. Trying to place them in another country would lead to the same sort of disruption there that we enjoy here. During the Empire days of the British, they exported their undesirables to an isolated continent where they could fend for themselves. I doubt, though, that Australia wants to take on several million troublesome migrants.

Perhaps the Chinese would be willing to use some of their empty belt and road cities to house them. There would still be the problem of feeding them and providing some sort of employment. An island would be good, but we are a bit short on ones big enough. None of the Aleutians are big enough, even if we covered the largest ones with high-rise apartments. Even if the Big Island of Hawaii were built up fully, it would barely provide enough room for them all, especially if they had to grow their own food. Cuba might be a serious option. The magnitude of the problem is staggering.

What to do now?

Although finding good solutions is a daunting task, there are things that we can and should do immediately. The first thing is to stop the inflow immediately. Close the borders now! No more fake closures where we "close" a border after a few thousand have crossed in a day. Two thousand a day is over 60,000 a month, or three-quarter million per year. That is gaslighting the citizenry as a national policy.

Increase deportations whenever possible. Any illegal committing a crime should be immediately deported. Prosecutors and judges who release illegals guilty of crimes should be prosecuted themselves for violation of immigration laws and endangerment of our communities.

Stop funding the problem. If NGOs and government agencies have funds available for providing food, shelter, medical assistance, cell phones, legal assistance, spending money—that should go to Americans first. We need to stop subsidizing invaders to compete with struggling Americans who receive no subsidies. At a minimum put our fellow citizens on par with illegals. We could solve homelessness overnight.

Eliminate "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states". If these people want to support non-citizens, let them do it on their own dime. No Federal or State assistance should be provided to them so long as they want to use public funds to support criminal aliens. That would include using public money to pay for things that would enable funds to be diverted to support of illegals, such as using highway funds that would allow local road repair funds to be redirected.

Empower law enforcement to participate in deportation efforts. Officials who work to block cooperation between police and sheriffs in remanding captured illegals to ICE should themselves be charged with criminal acts.

Recently, our Pretender in Chief cancelled immigration hearings for millions of illegals. However, included in a requirement to attend a hearing was parole from immigration law prosecution until the time of the hearing. Removal of the hearing requirement could also be construed as removal of the parole. That would mean that all who had their hearings cancelled are now here without parole and can be captured, detained, and deported on sight. Seems that ought to be investigated.

Cars, boats, and other property used in commission of a crime can be confiscated and sold. The administration is flying thousands of illegals into the country each day. While the individuals being transported may have some thin cover that protects them from apprehension, it would appear that the aircraft are being used for illegal transport. Can sheriffs confiscate and sell those aircraft? The operators may protest innocence, but that hasn't stopped confiscations in other circumstances.

Accountability

Finally, we need to hold our officials accountable. All of them, from the President on down, have sworn an oath to the Constitution which includes an obligation to support, defend, and uphold the laws of the land—all of them! Not just the ones they like or agree with. We have immigration laws that are being blatantly violated under the thin cover of "Executive Orders" and other questionable legal authorities.

Our Constitution also makes provision for a charge of Treason. While that is generally interpreted as only applicable in times of war, are we not at war now? Did we not declare War on Terrorism? Even if that is only symbolic, there are many others around the world who have declared war on us. Do we have to agree to a war before the Treason provision applies?

Perhaps our Congress should be looking into charges of Treason rather than impeachment. Certainly the current immigration policies are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, including with likely intent to betray our country. We tried others for treason in the past during periods when we had no active declared war. Do we need to do so now?

We are in the midst of a period of uncontrolled immigration beyond anything we have seen before at any time in our past, far exceeding even the time of our Westward Expansion. We already know how that worked out for the ones who were here before. Is it our turn now?