If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


April 5, 2019

Photo: The White House, April 5, 2019

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

Among the questions that relate to illegal immigration across our porous southern border which need to be asked of our friends on the left — but never are – is, “How many are enough?”  “How many are too many?”  “What do you do when you exceed your upper limit?”  And, “How did you come up with those answers?”

Perhaps a real-time, contemporary example of a runaway immigration system can help illustrate the problem.  Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized that native Germans weren’t producing enough children to fill the jobs needed to pay the taxes to meet German welfare and retirement payment obligations.  Her solution was to open Germany to millions of Muslim immigrants from Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq and Syria, and even from North Africa.  Sweden did much the same and for similar reasons.  But, neither government considered the major differences in customs, education, and religious beliefs and taboos.

They soon found that the newcomers were not going to fill the job vacancies created by the retirement of native Germans and Swedes.  In most cases they simply lacked the skills, training, and inclination to do so.  Plus, they brought with them strong prejudices, not just against Jews and Christians, but against women, too: refusing to be seen by a female doctor, refusing to shake hands with a female colleague, and mistakenly believing that all Western women were round-heeled, vulnerable targets for their sexual pleasure.

So today, throughout Europe, there are no-go zones, where Muslims attack police and firemen responding to reported crimes or fires in the Muslim neighborhoods.  Many of the newcomers reject the authority and laws of their hosts and insist on Sharia law to cover marriage, divorce, domestic abuse, arranged marriages, honor killings, and even female genital mutilation.  As a result, crime rates have risen sharply and Sweden has become the rape capital of the world.  And rather than assimilate and become good German, Swedish, French or British citizens, the newcomers insist on bringing (imposing) their own non-Western “cultures” to Europe.  Surely, Germans, Swedes, Frenchmen, and Brits could survive without kebobs.

Sadly, in retrospect, we see that the Europeans had set no upper limits and thus had no plan on how to repatriate large numbers of often recalcitrant Muslim immigrants.  They never figured out “How much is too much?”  “How many are too many?” and what the impact of large-scale immigration might have on their European culture; or, as of yet, how to correct the problems they brought upon themselves.

Now here at home, it is crystal clear that we have a major crisis at our southern border.  Over 100,000 folks a month, demanding or forcing entry and overwhelming the staff and physical resources needed to process and care for so many at a time.  Of course, without a border barrier, there is virtually no way to stop this peaceful invasion.  Meanwhile, almost beyond belief, and certainly beyond reason, the Democrat Party refuses to acknowledge the truth and claims that there is no crisis or emergency.  They repeatedly refuse to provide the funding necessary for a barrier needed to control the flow, to separate the wheat from the chaff — to make certain that criminals, gang-bangers, and those with contagious illnesses are not merely passed on to the states and local communities who often lack the planning, facilities, and wherewithal to handle the influx.

Worse, some liberal groups are encouraging more illegal immigration and even helping illegals to avoid detection and removal.  There are other groups among us who talk down the idea of the newcomers assimilating to our American culture.  Some brazenly waive Mexican or Central American flags in front of the TV cameras.

Photo: The White House, Border roundtable, April 5, 2019

Worst of all, the media refuse to cover the border crisis truthfully.  They are biased in favor of the open-borders position of the Democrat Party.  They do a disservice to our nation, and especially to the brave men and women who try to cope with the peaceful invasion from the south.  The media abet the Democrats’ efforts to stymie President Trump from dealing effectively with this genuine and tragic, human crisis – so that they both can blame him later for failing to protect us.

Finally, nobody ever mentions that walls have DOORS.  People and vehicles can and should be funneled through those doors, gates, openings, etc. where they can be inspected, verified and either admitted or denied entry.  Such is precisely the practice followed at all of our international airports, where Customs and Immigration officials check passports and visas, where required, and periodically inspect baggage and hand-carried items for contraband.  Just try to fly into the US, even as a US citizen, without a passport!  Without proper documentation, the airlines wouldn’t even allow you to board the flight heading to the US.  So, why should this practice not be needed at our southern border?  Are air passengers more dangerous than those on foot?  If the Democrats and the media believe so, they should be required to explain how and why.

Old Frank

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. There’s no philosophy about immigration, legal and illegal. We’re saturated. STOP illegal immigration, POSTPONE legal immigration with a 10 year moratorium, DEPORT all illegals, BUILD the wall. Debate is counter productive, a diversion, and a waste of time. Acting to end this blood sucking infiltration of America is the only solution. Everything else is merely an excuse not to.

  2. How many is too many? Basically, too many is reached when those who have already arrived haven’t assimilated; thus, the rate of immigration must necessarily be adjusted. And, frankly, I don’t think anyone has, for a very long time, seriously considered the assimilation factor when projecting an acceptable number of immigrants. How the researchers–whoever they may be–determine who has and who hasn’t assimilated is a mystery to me. Any suggestion as to reliable sources for such info? In any event, I see no evidence that assimilation rates determined the number of immigrants/refugees. Until Trump’s cutback, it was a floodgate which was dictated by politics alone. Glad the gates have been better regulated, but would still like to see some solid data on assimilation so I can know how many immigrants and refugees the USA should be admitting.