The Open Borders Argument: Life Isn’t Fair, Give Us Your Stuff

… and locking your home at night just shows your privilege. 

Borders aren't fair give us your stuff

Immigration Lies and Hypocrisy

Walter E. Williams

President Donald Trump reportedly asked why the U.S. is “having all these people from shithole countries come here.” I think he could have used better language, but it’s a question that should be asked and answered. I have a few questions for my fellow Americans to consider. How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders. The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems. A large number of immigrants who are here illegally — perhaps the majority are law-abiding in other respects — have fled oppressive, brutal and corrupt regimes to seek a better life in America.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border? The reason those questions are not asked is that one would be deemed an idiot for saying that everyone in the world has a right to live in our country, that Americans don’t have a right to decide who lives in our country and that foreigners landing at our airports have a right to just ignore U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents.

Immigration today, even when legal, is different from the immigration of yesteryear. People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism. As a result, some immigrant groups seek to bring to our country the cultural values whose failures have led to the poverty, corruption and human rights violations in their home countries that caused them to flee. As the fallout from President Trump’s indelicate remarks demonstrates, too many Americans are afraid and unwilling to ask which immigrant groups have become a burden to our nation and which have made a contribution to the greatness of America.

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws. The whole concept of sanctuary cities is to give aid, comfort and sympathy to people who have broken our laws. Supporters want to prevent them from having to hide and live in fear of discovery. I’d ask whether, for the sake of equality before the law, we should apply the sanctuary concept to Americans who have broken other laws, such as robbers and tax evaders.

We should not fall prey to people who criticize our efforts to combat illegal immigration and who pompously say, “We’re a nation of immigrants!” The debate is not over immigration. The debate is over illegal immigration. My sentiments on immigrants who are here legally and who want to become Americans are expressed by the sentiments in Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” which is on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty and in part says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Read More: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/01/immigration-lies-and-hypocrisy.html

Wall Street and the City of London Financed the Rise of the Bolsheviks and Communism.

marx and the globalist oligarchs
The Oligarchs have been trying to get a collectivist, centrally-controlled, global system going for a while.
One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore we shall see, that the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.
Read More:
 

Zionism & The Gatekeepers EXPOSED — Adam Green

So, who really pulls the strings in Washington DC and in many governments around the world?

To a large degree, its a cabal of dual citizens of Israel and Zionists who are beholden to the Rothschilds, and yet some of the biggest names in the alt-media refuse to discuss this subject or name the bad guys.

By the way, when you research who was really behind 9/11, some of the very same names in the Zionist cabal come up time and time again.

Adam’s You Tube channel is Know More News: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaRj…

https://qanonposts.com/

The Reese Committee Investigations: Tax-Free Foundations are part of Billionaires’ Societal Control Agenda

Do you really think that the foundations established by billionaires are meant to help anyone but themselves?  DON’T BE SO NAIVE!

George Soros Quote: The US is the main obstacle to world order.

Tax free Foundations conspiring to Soviet-ize AmeriKa?

Have you wondered what those ‘catch phrase’ words “CHANGE” and “fundamentally transform” we heard so much about from Obama and the Liberal Democrats really mean and front for in their sinister worldview perspective? Consider this:

In 1953 and 1954, the United States House of Representatives conducted an investigation of Tax Exempt Foundations to see why these Foundations should enjoy an exemption from paying taxes that are exacted from American citizens.

The Chairman of this House committee was Congressman Carrol Reese of Tennessee, after whose name this Congressional investigating committee is known (Reese Committee Investigations). Congressman Reese’s chief investigator was a man named Norman Dodd (a former banker) who held the title “Director of Research”.

In 1978 the Illinois Legislature established a commission to study “regionalism” (the American version of “soviet”- ism) in that State. The following is taken, for the most part, from a transcript of a public hearing conducted by The Illinois Joint Committee on Regional Government on September 26, 1978 at Edwardsville, Illinois. There Mr. Norman Dodd was interviewed and questioned about his experiences and findings as an investigator with the Reese Committee.

In 1953 Mr. Dodd was extended an invitation to meet with the then President of the Ford Foundation, a Mr. Rowan Gaither, who proceeded to tell him that these Tax-Exempt Foundations operate under orders emanating from the White House, the essence of which is that these Foundations are to use their grant making powers to contribute to altering(”CHANGING”) life in the United States so that it could some day be comfortably merged with the Soviet UnionGOT THAT?

Ford Foundation, Regional Governments

Mr. Dodd was of course shocked and dismayed at hearing this. The Ford Foundation was the largest aggregate of privately directed wealth in the United States. Its grants were responsible for the development of what is known as “regional government” which is surreptitiously replacing lawful constitutional government in the United States.

Mr. Dodd testified that he told Mr. Gaither that he thought that legally the Ford Foundation could make such grants, but did not think it is entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country to whom it is indebted for its tax exemption, and asked why the American people weren’t informed of this Foundation policy and agenda?  Mr. Gaither is said to have replied: “We would not even think of doing such a thing”. Incredible as it sounds, this Foundation agenda seems to have become our official federal “public policy” .

Is it the official “public policy” of the United States(of the federal government) to abolish the United States (our Constitutional Republic)? How else can one translate this? How can such a thing be described as anything but treason?

By granting these seditious Foundations tax free status, are we Americans being duped into financing, subsidizing, and enabling the orchestrated destruction of our own freedom by oligarchic elites?

In response to a letter Mr. Dodd had written to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace seeking an inquiry into and the clarifying of questions the House Committee sought answers to, he received an invitation to send a member of his staff to review the minute books of the organization from its inception in 1908.

Norman Dodd had an attorney, one Kathryn Casey, assigned to his staff to ensure that all Congressional rules and procedures were complied with who was the ideal candidate for this assignment. After two weeks of diligently examining the minutes of the Carnegie Foundation, she returned with her analysis recorded on Dictaphone belts.

In the year 1908, when the Carnegie Foundation began operations, the Trustees discussed – as recorded in their minutes – the question of whether there is a more effective means than war to alter (”CHANGE”) the life of an entire people. The conclusion reached was that there was no known better means to that end.

The next question to be raised was how to involve the United States in a war?The answer to that question was a need to control the State Department,which was to be done by controlling the diplomatic machinery of the country.

We eventually became involved in WW 1, at which time their minutes show that they had dispatched a telegram to President Wilson cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. After WW 1 – as their minutes also show – their interests shifted to preventing what they referred to as “a reversion of life in the United States back to what it was prior to 1914” when WW 1 broke out.

The conclusion arrived at here was that they must control the education system in the United States. This task was thought too big for them to handle alone so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation for assistance.

They decided that the best way to succeed in this operation was toalter the teaching of American History. They approached four of the most prominent history teachers in the country with the suggestion that they alter the manner in
which they present their subject and got turned down flat. They discuss in the minutes, the necessity of having to “build our own stable of historians”.

They then approached the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, with the proposal of finding influenceable young men in the process of studying for Doctorates in the field of American History who could be induced into prostituting their academic integrity by distorting the teaching of history and grant them fellowships on their (Carnegie Foundation’s) recommendation, to which they agreed.

Eventually they recruited some twenty individuals and took them to London where they were briefed on what was to be expected of them, as a condition of keeping the Doctorates they would be assisted in acquiring.

This group of twenty historians ultimately became the nucleus of the American Historical Association. It received a grant of $400,000 from the Carnegie Endowment in the late 1920’s which provided funding for revisionist research that produced a 7 volume study of our history, presented in a manner consistent with the way the Endowment wished it to be taught here in the future.

This policy diverted away from support of the “out dated” and “no longer practical” principles and “self evident truths” embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and insinuated instead one of “collectivism” (communism), the so called wave of the future, and how this country should be, as they wished to have it be.

Norman Dodd’s testimony stated that the impact of the shock of learning the content of the Carnegie Endowment’s foundational minutes was too much for attorney Kathryn Casey. She was never able to return to her law practice, and eventually suffered an emotional breakdown as a result of it.

In a later subsequent interview, Mr. Dodd was asked why these Foundations (of capitalist interests) so generously support communist causes in the United States. His answer was: to them, communism represents a means of developing an organized monopoly of large scale industries into a manageable, administrable unit. Communism has been best described as the consolidation and control of the world’s resource wealth into the hands of a select elite few. This is what the “redistribution of wealth” scam is really all about—a forced transfer from the money “makers” to the money “getters”.

The Reese Committee Investigation has painted us a clear picture of what our federal government’s “public policy” is, and what its goals are. It also shows who dictates the terms and agenda of this policy to those whom we have naively entrusted the administration of our government. Though political party dominance trades positions occasionally, no significant meaningful reform ever seems to happen.

Future series of articles will examine and expose the nature and make up of the “beast” itself. The proof is in the pudding and the pieces eventually will all come together and fall into place.

This thing we call communism, also known as socialism, or liberalism, is of course Marxism. The next article in this series will begin by examining the Marxist manifesto, and go on to expose, piece by piece, the Liberal’s mantra and agenda, a literal blueprint for the overthrowing of the free societies of the world, in particular, the United States of America.

Once one has learned what to look for, it is thereafter impossible not to see the pattern and understand what is going on in government.

Read More: https://canadafreepress.com/article/tax-free-foundations-conspiring-to-soviet-ize-amerika

Total Control: UN-elected One-World Government: UN Agenda 2030

UN Agenda 2030

The United Nations 2030 Agenda decoded: It’s a blueprint for the global enslavement of humanity under the boot of corporate masters

(NaturalNews) This week, Michael Snyder published an important article entitled The 2030 Agenda: This Month The UN Launches A Blueprint For A New World Order With The Help Of The Pope.

That article references this UN “2030 Agenda” document that pushes a blueprint for so-called “sustainable development” around the world.

This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet. The “goals” of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.

In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I’ve decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for. To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in “feel good” language.

Here’s the point-by-point translation. Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that “achieving human freedom” is one of its goals. Nor does it explain HOW these goals are to be achieved. As you’ll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism.

More: https://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_Agenda_United_Nations_global_enslavement.html

Nothing More Effective than War for Changing People [Carnegie Foundation]

“In [1908], the [Carnegie Foundation] trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: ‘Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?’ And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: ‘How do we involve the United States in a war?’…

“[Finally, they answered that question as follows: ‘We must control the State Department.’ That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: ‘We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.’ …they resolve to aim at that…

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.”

-Katherine Casey’s report on the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1908-1910.

Elana Freeland | The Space Fence, Planetary Lockdown, & The Ionized Sky

Join The Higherside Chats podcast as host, Greg Carlwood, talks the space fence, planetary lockdown, & the ionized sky with guest, Elana Freeland.

Weather modification, HAARP, geo-engineering, 5G, nanoparticulates, cell towers and the space fence- this is just a short list of elements in the black ops programs being weaponized against us at this very moment. As our democracy and consciousness slowly erode, they are being replaced by a corporate controlled technocracy, imposing genetic modification and more.

Fortunately, today’s guest, Elana Freeland, joins The Higherside to help illuminate our spirits in these, the darkest of hours. As an author of books such as “Chemtrails, HAARP and the ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ of Planet Earth”, Freeland has studied the alphabet agencies war on the masses through the weaponization of technology and the dynastic families who have a stranglehold on the economy and politics of this world. A scholar of technical tyranny, specialized surveillance, and remote management mastery, Elana helps thread the needle and weave together conspiracies darkest claims that effect nearly all aspects pf life.

A few valuable resources from the interview:

Bernard Eastlund Patent for Weather Modification: https://www.google.com/patents/US4686605

All of Bernard J. Eastlund’s Patents: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/b…

Clifford Carnicom’s “Carnicom Institute”: https://www.carnicominstitute.org/

Nick Begich’s “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP”: https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Dont-Pl…

Level 9 News’ Jade Helm Stories: https://www.level9news.com/?s=jade+helm

Dr. Robert O. Becker’s “The Body Electric”: https://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-…

Billy Hayes “The HAARP Man’s” Blog: http://billysupdate.blogspot.com/

“Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television” by Jerry Manders: https://www.amazon.com/Arguments-Elim…

National Security Act of 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa…

Palantir: https://www.palantir.com/

Want more Elana Freeland? Check out her website: https://www.elanafreeland.com/

The Mess in the Middle East was Planned Long Ago…

Plan for the New Middle East with Yinon Plan for Greater Israel Superimposed

Newsbud Exclusive- The Balkanization of Syria & Iraq: The Roadmap to US-Israeli Hegemony in the Middle East

We are often told that the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the war in Syria are disastrous failures of Western foreign policy. This article, however, argues that the architects of these wars were, and are, well aware of the destabilising consequences of their military efforts, and in fact, had always regarded the breakup of Iraq and Syria along sectarian lines as a desirable outcome. The millions of deaths and injuries resulting from these horrific wars, as well as the displacement of several more millions, then, are nothing more than “collateral damage” to achieve US-Israeli hegemony in the region. Viewed from this perspective, post-9/11 Western Middle East policy in retrospect is not a failure, but a success.

Part I: Partition, the only solution?

“Let’s look at the reality on the ground in the Middle East: Iraq and Syria are effectively partitioned along sectarian lines. […] In the current, chaotic moment, we see two post-imperial systems collapsing at once: the state boundaries drawn by the Versailles Treaty in 1919 to replace the Ottoman Empire […], and a U.S.-led system that kept the region in a rough balance [which has been shattered] by America’s failed intervention in Iraq. The ‘line in the sand’, as author James Barr called the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement to partition the region, is dissolving before our eyes, and the primary beneficiaries are ruthless Islamic terrorists.”[1]-David Ignatius, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a 2014 article in the Washington Post

In early 2016, then US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that “it may be too late to keep [Syria] as a whole,” and that “I know that [partition] is the best way to try to end the war and it is the only alternative available to us if indeed we are going to have a political settlement.”[2] Kerry coined the possible breaking up of Syria as “plan B,” making it sound like the proposal was a desperate move to save the peace. Both the Syrian government and the armed opposition rejected federalism, let alone partition, however,[3] and even the Kurdish National Council strongly denounced the federalism declaration of its PYD rivals in the wake of Kerry’s statement.[4] In addition, Maram Susli has pointed out that partitioning Syria would happen along sectarian lines instead on whether or not any particular state would be able to sustain its population. Therefore, as Syria’s scare water resources, as well as its agriculture and oil, would end up in the hands of only a small percentage of the population, perpetual war between divided Syrians would be the likely result.[5] So, if breaking up Syria is a recipe for endless conflict between weakened enclaves and is opposed by almost all Syrians, why did Kerry brought it up? Was it just a hastily mistake in his otherwise brave humanitarian endeavour to save the Syrian populace, or are there other agendas at play?

Actually, Kerry’s plan B sounds an awful lot like the plan A of various Anglo-American policy makers, strategists, think tanks and imperialist organs. Six months prior to Kerry’s statement, the Brookings Institute argued for the establishment of Western-backed “safe zones” that would eventually develop into more or less autonomous areas.[6] In October 2015, the author of the Brookings article, Michael O’Hanlon, specified his vision of Syrian balkanisation in an op-ed for Reuters as follows:

“One largely Alawite (Assad’s own sect) [sector], spread along the Mediterranean coast; another Kurdish, along the north and northeast corridors near the Turkish border; a third primarily Druse, in the southwest; a fourth largely made up of Sunni Muslims; and then a central zone of intermixed groups in the country’s main population belt from Damascus to Aleppo.”[7]

From 2013 onwards, variations to this plan have repeatedly been proposed by US establishment figures, such as Henry Kissinger for instance, who in June 2013 contended that he preferred “an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions.” Interestingly, he also claimed that although he supported the expulsion of Assad, he prioritised balkanising Syria.[8] John Bolton, another neocon war-hawk, advocated for the creation of an American-backed Sunni state, which he admitted would be “unlikely to be a Jeffersonian democracy for many years,” in an op-ed for the New York Times. This would counteract “the vision of the Russian-Iranian axis and its proxies,” he asserted, because “their aim of restoring [the] Iraqi and Syrian governments to their former borders is a goal fundamentally contrary to American, Israeli and friendly Arab state interests.”[9]

Most proponents of balkanisation imagine a threefold partition into an Alawitestan – perhaps ruled by Assad, but perhaps not – and Kurdistan aside from a Sunni heartland.[10] A year before ISIS declared its caliphate, Robin Wright, scholar at two Washington-based think tanks, even proposed a Sunni state crossing the Sykes-Picot border into Iraq:

“Syria has crumbled into three identifiable regions, each with its own flag and security forces. A different future is taking shape: a narrow statelet along a corridor from the south through Damascus, Homs and Hama to the northern Mediterranean coast controlled by the Assads’ minority Alawite sect. In the north, a small Kurdistan, largely autonomous since mid-2012. The biggest chunk is the Sunni-dominated heartland. Syria’s unraveling would set precedents for the region, beginning next door. Until now, Iraq resisted falling apart because of foreign pressure, regional fear of going it alone and oil wealth that bought loyalty, at least on paper. But Syria is now sucking Iraq into its maelstrom. […] Over time, Iraq’s Sunni minority – notably in western Anbar Province, site of anti-governments protests – may feel more commonality with eastern Syria’s Sunni majority. Tribal ties and smuggling span the border. Together, they could form a de facto or formal Sunnistan.”[11]

Barak Mendelsohn, in an article in Foreign Affairs – the quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – bluntly called “Divide and conquer in Syria and Iraq: why the West should plan for a partition,” also argued for a US-backed “independent Sunni state that would link Sunni-dominated territories on both sides of the border.”[12] Although most of the time this dramatic measure is promoted as a solution to the only recent threat posed by ISIS, disclosed DIA documents reveal that the US and their allies desired a Sunnistan based on the principles of Salafi Islam at least since 2012, prior to ISIS’s emergence. “If the situation unravels,” the documents obtained by Judicial Watch show, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality [aka Islamic State] in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition [defined elsewhere in the document as the West, the Gulf countries and Turkey] want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”[13]

For Iraq, division was of course already longer on the table. Plans to split the country into three parts have often been advocated by US officials since the 2003 invasion of the country. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the CFR, was the first to officially propose a three-state solution – “Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south” – in an op-ed for the New York Times a mere eight months after the US and Britain had entered Iraq.[14] Three years later he adjusted his plan to try to get all parties on board, reformulating it as “unity through autonomy” by way of decentralisation in an article published in the same newspaper, which he co-authored with Joe Biden, future Vice President under Obama and likewise a CFR member.[15] Also in 2006, retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters outlined a map comprising a divided Iraq that circulated widely in US and NATO military circles,[16] and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice provisioned the rise of a “new Middle East” out of the ashes of Israel’s aggressive assault on Lebanon.[17] By 2007, amid rising sectarian violence, many Anglo-American strategists and think tanks that would years later push for the balkanisation of Syria began to argue that breaking up Iraq into three statelets would be the only viable solution to the conflict their governments had created. Indeed, in January 2007, John Bolton, one of the leading architects of the 2003 invasion, stated that the US had no strategic interests in keeping Iraq united,[18] and later that year, the Brookings Institute’s Saban Center produced a paper calling for the “soft partition” of Iraq.[19] Interestingly, the report was co-authored by Michael O’Hanlon, who in 2015 was one of the first to call for the establishment of “safe zones” in Syria, which essentially is just a stepping stone towards partition.

Although officially the above-mentioned map for a “new Middle East” envisaged only the loss of Syria’s upper northeastern part in favour of a “Free Kurdistan,” leaked Wikileaks cables show that the US was as far back as 2006 already working on fomenting a civil war in the country. William Roebuck, at the time chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus, clearly expressed hostility towards the Syrian leadership, focusing an entire briefing assigned to both Washington and Tel Aviv to possible actions to destabilise the Assad government. Aside from highlighting Kurdish complaints, he advised his superiors to coordinate more closely with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fan the flames of sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims inside the country.[20]

Although plans to break up Iraq and Syria into microstates based on religion or ethnicity are always presented as humanitarian efforts, they completely ignore the fact that it is Western post-9/11 policy that created much of the problems to which NATO strategists and officials are now offering self-serving solutions. In Syria, balkanisation proponents suggest that their ideas are the only solution to a civil war that has naturally unfolded after the Syrian people rose up against the dictatorial and tyrannical Assad government in the wake of the “Arab Spring” protests in northern Africa. They fail to mention, however, that rather than a civil war, the six-year debacle is actually an artificial proxy war on Syria; a war that likely would not have happened – or at least would not have raged on for so many years and killed so many people – absent 1) the financial, logistical, ideological and armaments-support that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO provided from the very onset of the conflict to the armed insurgency, and 2) the influx of foreign jihadis from all around the world from 2012 onwards, who were allowed to cross the borders into Syria by the Turkish and Jordanian governments and were often trained by the CIA in advance.[21]

….

Read More:
https://www.newsbud.com/2017/04/23/newsbud-exclusive-the-balkanization-of-syria-iraq-the-roadmap-to-us-israeli-hegemony-in-the-middle-east/#comments

Notes

PART I
[1] David Ignatius, “Piecing together the shattering Middle East,” Washington Post, 17.06.2014, http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-piecing-together-the-shattering-middle-east/2014/06/17/e73812f8-f63a-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.336d6cf999ef.

[2] Patrick Wintour, “John Kerry says partition of Syria could be part of ‘plan B’ if peace talks fail,” Guardian, 23.02.2016, http://theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/23/john-kerry-partition-syria-peace-talks.

[3] Sharif Nashashibi, “Is a federal Syria desirable or feasible?”, Al-Jazeera, 17.03.2016, http://aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/federal-syria-desirable-feasible-160315051734382.html; “Syria government, opposition reject federal system: de Mistura,” Press TV, 17.03.2016, http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/03/17/456328/Syria-UN-Mistura-Daesh.

[4] Wladimir van Wilgenburg, “Kurdish National Council in Syria condemns federalism declaration by Kurdish rival,” ARA News, 19.03.2016, http://aranews.net/2016/03/kurdish-national-council-syria-condemns-federalism-declaration-kurdish-rival/.

[5] Maram Susli, “Kerry’s plan at balkanizing Syria,” New Eastern Outlook, 29.03.2016, http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/29/kerry-s-plan-at-balkanising-syria/.

[6] Michael O’Hanlon, “Deconstructing Syria: a new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” The Brookings Institute, 30.06.2015, http://brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/06/30/deconstructing-syria-a-new-strategy-for-americas-most-hopeless-war/.

[7] Michael O’Hanlon, “Syria’s one hope may be as dim as Bosnia’s once was,” Reuters, 06.10.2015, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/06/syrias-one-hope-may-be-as-dim-as-bosnias-once-was/.

[8] Paul O’Neill, interview with Henry Kissinger, Ford School (interview, New York, 13.06.2013), 26m00 to 29m05, http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZVasCE1uOf4#t=1232.

[9] John Bolton, “To defeat ISIS, create a Sunni state,” New York Times, 24.11.2015, http://nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/john-bolton-to-defeat-isis-create-a-sunni-state.html?_r=0.

[10] E.g. James Stavridis, “It’s time to seriously consider partitioning Syria,” Foreign Policy, 09.03.2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/09/its-time-to-seriously-consider-partitioning-syria/; James Dobbins, Philip Gordon and Jeffrey Martini, A Peace Plan for Syria (RAND Corporation, 2015), http://rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE182.html.

[11] Robin Wright, “Imagining a remapped Middle East,” New York Times, 28.09.2013, http://nytimes.com/2013/09/29/opinion/sunday/imagining-a-remapped-middle-east.html?pagewanted=1.

[12] Barak Mendelsohn, “Divide and conquer in Syria and Iraq: why the West should plan for a partition,” Foreign Affairs, 29.11.2015, http://foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2015-11-29/divide-and-conquer-syria-and-iraq.

[13] Defence Intelligence Agency, “Pgs. 287-293 (291) JW v DOD and State 14-812,” Judicial Watch, 18.05.2015, http://judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf.

[14] Leslie Gelb, “The three-state solution,” New York Times, 25.11.2003, http://nytimes.com/2003/11/25/opinion/the-three-state-solution.html.

[15] Joseph Biden and Leslie Gelb, “Unity through autonomy in Iraq,” New York Times, 01.05.2006, http://nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&.

[16] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Plans for redrawing the Middle East: the project of a ‘new Middle East’,” Global Research, 18.11.2006, http://globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882.

[17] Toby Harnden, “Death and despair amid US pursuit of ‘new Middle East’,” Telegraph, 30.07.2006, http://telegraph.co.uk/news/1525200/Death-and-despair-amid-US-pursuit-of-new-Middle-East.html.

[18] “French report: former U.N. envoy Bolton says U.S. has ‘no strategic interest’ in united Iraq,” International Herald Tribune, 29.01.2007, as cited in Jonathan Cook, Israel and the clash of civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the plan to remake the Middle East (London: Pluto Press, 2008), 138.

[19] Edward Joseph and Michael O’Hanlon, The case for soft partition in Iraq (Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, analysis paper no. 12, June 2007), http://brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06iraq_joseph.pdf.

[20] William Roebuck, “Influencing the SARG in the end of 2006,” 13.12.2006 (Wikileaks, Cable 06 Damascus 5399 a), http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html.

[21] Bas Spliet, “The proxy war on Syria,” Scrutinised Minds, 03.01.2017, http://scrutinisedminds.com/category/the-proxy-war-on-syria/.

 

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

migrants in Germany

  • “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” — Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley.
  • It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall — five and a half times more, and every year.
  • “Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes…” — John R. Lott.
  • In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. Many of these drugs [were] smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels.”

In his State of the Union address on January 30, US President Donald J. Trump referred to the brutal murder of two 16-year-old girls from Long Island in December 2016 by members of the “savage MS-13 gang,” responsible for a spate of other gruesome killings in the area, as well.

Many of these gang members, he explained, had entered the United States illegally. “For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities,” he said.

Calling on Congress “to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed… criminal gangs to break into our country,” he listed the four pillars of his immigration-reform proposal:

  • A path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents.
  • The construction of a “great wall on the southern border” and enforcement by agents patrolling and securing the border.
  • Ending the visa lottery, “a program that randomly plans out green cards without regard for skill, merit, for the safety of American people.”
  • Ending the “current, broken system” of chain migration of distant relatives, and limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.

Although he did not specify this in his speech, Trump reportedly is seeking $25 billion from Congress to fund the wall. Opponents of the wall have been arguing that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than legal immigrants or native-born Americans; that illegal immigration has been a boon to the economy, rather than a drain on it; and that the cost both of deportation and a wall far exceeds the benefits of both. These claims are repeatedly voiced by the Trump administration’s detractors, as part of their campaign to accuse the president of racism; but what are the facts?

To set the record straight, let us take a look at a number of those that have been obscured or ignored by the media.

As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reveals that, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall – five and a half times more, and every year.

The same goes for the cost of deporting illegal immigrants. According to Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies,

“…The average cost of a deportation is much smaller than the net fiscal drain created by the average illegal immigrant,” in part due to the fact that “illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education…creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.”

The question of the rates of criminality among illegal aliens vs. those of legal immigrants and American-born citizens has been examined by John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, using Arizona’s prison population as a microcosm for study. According to Lott, the ability to measure the crime-rate among illegal immigrants in the U.S. has been difficult, due to many factors, including the lack of a national data base and “primitive” methodology – such as “simple, cross-sectional analysis to see whether areas with higher immigrant populations have higher crime rates,” and “a purely time series approach… look at the United States as a whole and note that crime has decreased since 1990 as immigration has increased.” The advantage of the Arizona Department of Corrections study, Lott says, is that

“over our 32.5-year period, we know each prisoner who entered the prison system, their criminal convictions history, and whether he is a documented or undocumented immigrant. The only mystery is why this type of data has not been utilized until now.”

Peter Kirsanow wryly solved the mystery in National Review, writing:

“Unfortunately, almost every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure of illegal-immigrant crime data more tenaciously than disclosure of nuclear launch codes.”

According to Lott, whose research spans 1985-2017:

“Arizona’s prison population data allow us to compare undocumented immigrants’ share of the prison population with their estimated share of the state population…For the first time, we break down the data to examine differences between US citizens, undocumented immigrants, and legal permanent residents. One advantage of using convictions rather than just reported crimes is that convictions depend on a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of evidence and thus are much less likely to count innocent people.”

The findings are unequivocal, as the following summary illustrates:

“Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens…There are dramatic differences between in the criminal histories of convicts who are U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants…

“[Y]oung undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes. If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.”

These numbers do not even include the cost to American taxpayers of the toll taken on America’s children by illegally imported drugs. Although available information on this is at best spotty, the key finding from the DEA’s 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment is that the “most commonly reported greatest drug threat was heroin, at 44.1 percent of law enforcement responses… This was followed by 29.8 percent of respondents indicating methamphetamine was their greatest drug threat, 9.3 percent reporting controlled prescription drugs…”

This tells us something about the extent of the problem, but not enough. The 2010 drug-threat assessment, released a year after the previous administration took office, revealed that,

“From January through November 2009, U.S. seizures of illegal drugs in transit exceeded 1,626 metric tons, indicating that DTOs succeed in moving several thousand tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA into the United States annually. There are unique smuggling and transportation methods…”

In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. As was noted by the BBC at the time, “Many of these drugs are smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels…”

The late Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” His successors in Congress would do well to remember this while debating the issue of illegal immigration. They certainly need to keep it in mind when voting on the administration’s proposed plan.

Ruthie Blum is the author of “To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.'”

Read More: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11829/illegal-immigration-cost