Category: Immigration

Vigilance

Gypsies Tramps & Thieves, Immigration, Resistance

So let’s be charitable and say that of the 450,00-odd dangerous scumbags of foreign origin that are roaming around the country (thanks to FJB and Heels-Up Harris), maybe half are still in Texas.  (As if we don’t have enough domestic dangerous scumbags already in situ.)

Now ask me again why I don’t ever leave the house without at least one gun close to hand… or why I’m seldom more than arm’s reach from another gun in the house.

Or why all my guns are somewhat more than the double-barrel shotgun (capacity: 2 rounds) as once suggested as “sufficient” by said FJB.

Fuck him and his gun-confiscating VP, and woe betide the scumbags foreign and domestic — the latter to include any official who wants to deny me my self-protection.  I’m in no mood to be charitable, if anything the opposite.

Enough, already.

Well, Well, Well

Immigration

…now lookee here:

In line with the insurgence of far-right parties elsewhere in Europe, the Freedom Party has seen its popularity soar, fed by voter anger over migration, inflation and Covid restrictions. Its leader Herbert Kickl, 55, has vowed to transform the country into ‘Fortress Austria’, slamming the current government’s ‘failed migration policy’ as being to blame for the Islamist terror plot on a Taylor Swift concert. Mr Kickl and his party have promoted ‘remigration’, the controversial* concept which promotes the expulsion of immigrants of non-European ethnic backgrounds who are deemed to have failed to integrate.

Based on current projections, the conservative People’s Party, led by current Chancellor Karl Nehammer, is on course to become the second largest group, with 26.3 per cent of votes.

It’s about time some kind of reality slammed home — not for the people themselves, but for the “ruling class” who have perpetrated this nonsense on their people.

Of course, the Left reacted in the usual way:

…not that anyone cares.  In this case, at least, loudness does not equate to the popular will.

*doesn’t sound that “controversial” to me nor, I suspect, to many of my Readers and more than a few more million others in the United States.

Straining The Influx, Flushing The Excess

Immigration

When it comes to immigration policy, there are a few options available to you as the host country if the floodgates have been opened too far and the influx starts to threaten the fabric of the settled society.

You can strain the influx of future immigration — not putting stress on — by tightening the restrictions, or setting higher standards for what constitutes an “acceptable” immigrant.  Many countries have done this in the past, whether the sieve was academic (minimum education standards such as eighth-grade-, twelfth-grade- or even graduate levels), skills (tradespeople or industry-savvy applicants such as carpenters, steelworkers, forestry specialists or computer programmers), and finally financial:  people who have been successful in their home countries and raised their standard of living to the point where their arrival into the host country will not require financial assistance from the government or charity organizations and may in fact become employment creators.  (One more is military service for younger men and perhaps women, too, but this approach is fraught with potential problems, which is why the .dotmil generally has fairly strict standards for foreign recruits, or else has a savage, no-nonsense approach to assimilation like the French Foreign Legion.)

When a nation like the Netherlands decides to apply tighter standards or even close entry altogether, you have to realize that even for the famously-tolerant Dutch, immigration has put too much of a stress on their society, both financial and more especially to their culture.  Which is what is happening over there:

Prime Minister Dick Schoof has promised to take a tougher line against illegal immigration. The Dutch four-party cabinet has pledged to establish ‘the strictest asylum regime ever known’ to curb immigration.”

The surge in the number of immigrants seeking asylum in the Netherlands, estimated at around 40,000 a year, has put severe pressure on public services from housing to healthcare, fueling growing concerns about the country’s ability to manage the influx.

The ruling coalition in the Netherlands, which includes Geert Wilders-led Freedom Party, has taken a tough stance on immigration. The party is known for its controlled immigration stances, and has been one of the key drivers behind proposals to tighten asylum laws in the country.

Measures on the table include limiting applications for international protection, speeding up deportations and restricting family reunification for refugees under much stricter conditions.

The Dutch government, by the way, is not doing this voluntarily.  Whereas the neo-socialist political parties had pretty much universal control of the polity in the past, the election of hardliners like the party of Geert Wilders has changed the political landscape, and government ministers now say things like “a clear mandate from the voters” when framing a tougher immigration policy.

The depth of feeling on this topic is that the Dutch, always the most quiescent of members of the European Union, are now stating quite bluntly that in order for them to enact these new immigration controls, they have to have control of their own borders — ditto the Germans, by the way — but the Dutch are even showing open willingness to leave the EU altogether if such control is denied them.

Note too that the Dutch government is framing this issue purely in terms of financial necessity, and are not touching the issue of non-assimilation.  But the Dutch, always cosmopolitan a nation, are undoubtedly looking northward to see what the (also famously-tolerant) Swedes are doing:

Sweden’s migration policy is undergoing a paradigm shift. The Government is intensifying its efforts to reduce… the number of migrants coming irregularly to Sweden. Labour immigration fraud and abuses must be stopped and the ‘shadow society’ combated. Sweden will continue to have dignified reception standards, and those who have no grounds for protection or other legal right to stay in Sweden must be expelled.

And that’s not a news organization speaking:  it’s from the Swedish government itself.

By “shadow society” they mean Muslim enclaves, who insist on setting up their own little state-within-a-state pretty much wherever they arrive, and whose establishment was made easy by Sweden’s traditional tolerance.  Ditto the many crime organizations and drug cartels, who up until now have had it relatively easy.

Well, it appears that this tolerance has reached its limits, and because the Swedes prefer orderliness over chaos, they’re prepared to do what has to be done:  reduce the influx, and expel the unwanted (being Swedes, they’ll pay these assholes over $30,000 each to leave, which gives you an idea of how much the unwanted immigrants are costing the government in terms of aid and policing).

It is in this light that we should look homeward, and think about Donald Trump’s promise that upon election, we’ll see the largest domestic deportation in history.

Let’s hope, and hope still more that when he reaches the Oval Office, this promise doesn’t suffer the fate of that “big, beautiful wall” from his last presidential campaign.

My Problem With Immigrants

Immigration

When I told people back in South Africa that I was planning to emigrate to the U.S., there were many comments made — “You’ll be increasing the average IQ in both countries, then” was a popular one.  But the most perceptive one was actually made by my ex-wife, who said:

“Well, Kim was born an American.  He just happened to be in the wrong country at the time.”

Actually, that was very close to the truth.  Before I was born, my parents had made plans to emigrate to Canada, and my dad had actually been granted a work permit.  Then my mother discovered she was pregnant (with me), and she couldn’t bear to leave her family, so that was the end of it.  (So I came thisclose  to saying “eh” at the end of my sentences, and pronouncing boat  as “boot”.  Small mercies.)

Anyway, I ended up here, and while living with Longtime Friend Trevor in Austin in 1986, I was invited to a party of South African expats.  I went, and it was a nightmare.  Back in South Africa, we used to call Rhodesian immigrants “when-wees” because almost all their sentences began with the words “When we still lived in Bulawayo…” etc.

Well, the South African party in Austin was full of South African when-wees, all bitching and moaning about how much better they had it back in the old Racist Republic.  And when I got sick of this shit, and asked of one particular whiner, “If it was so much better back there, why don’t you just fuck off home?”

The atmosphere became distinctly unpleasant after that little comment, and I didn’t stay long at the party.  I never went to another one ever again, wherever I lived.

Look, I understand this situation as well as anyone.  It’s a hell of a thing to change countries, to leave family and friends behind, and all the comforts of home as well.  All the customs and mores are different — and I didn’t have the same language issues as someone from, say, Serbia even.  The whole attitude to life is different in a new country, and it can be terribly lonely.

The natural instinct, then, is to gather with other people from the Old Country, so that you can commiserate with like souls, also lonely in this strange new land.  I don’t agree with it myself, but I acknowledge that it’s understandable.  (I made a conscious effort to fit into my adopted country.  I failed miserably in terms of speech — changing my fake-British accent has been physiologically impossible — but in all other aspects, I have been largely successful except for a love of cricket and biltong, which are even more ingrained than my accent.)

What gets up my nose — and I cannot stress this enough — is when someone moves to a new country, and then sets about trying to change things to fit in with their former country’s ethos and their own background.

It would be like me moving here, and then starting a pro-apartheid movement to keep the races segregated, and trying to change the laws of the country accordingly.

And if that sounds ridiculous, then I invite you to consider efforts to create a parallel legal system of Islamic shari’a in Western countries like France, the U.K. and, yes, the United States.  But because Islam is a religion and not a loathsome artificial system like apartheid, we are supposed to defer to this effort because of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or because of a long-time reputation for tolerance (in the case of Western European countries).

The problem is that despite being based upon a set of religious beliefs, shari’a is not just a behavioral discipline, but a socio-political one.  Nowhere in Catholicism (at least, anymore) is it written that Catholics should (or even must) wage a holy war against non-Catholics without fear of reprisal at the hands of a Catholic court system.

Yet that is what shari’a not only implies, but demands.

And I’m not interested in hearing about “moderate” Muslims, either.  (The old not-so-funny joke about Muslims is that radical Muslims want to murder non-Muslims, while moderate Muslims won’t murder non-Muslims, but won’t mind if radical Muslims do.)

I have no problem whatsoever with immigrants congregating into neighborhoods of like background or ethnicity.  Like I said earlier, I understand that (even if I don’t agree with it).  What I won’t stand for is when these ghetto-dwellers somehow think that their little enclaves are somehow immune from the laws of the parent country, and are free to impose their own (transplanted) laws and customs on everyone who lives there, or even just passes through.

Think I’m kidding?  I invite young American (or British) women to walk through a predominantly-Muslim area wearing a tube top, no bra and a miniskirt, and see how they’re treated.  What would get admiring glances or even wolf-whistles in their own community will get a far harsher response in, say, downtown Bradford in England or even parts of Dearborn in Michigan.  The same clothing choice, by the way, would get disapproving looks and even a muttered comment in an Orthodox Jewish area in Chicago or New York, but it would be unlikely to result in screamed insults, assault or even worse, attempted rape, as it would in the Muslim areas.  (And further:  in Islamic countries, a woman claiming to have been raped is more likely to result in the arrest of the woman — for “temptation”.)

And this is my problem with immigrants.  (I have mentioned Islamic adherents above because it is simply the most modern manifestation of this, but I see absolutely no difference between Muslims and the Communists who came over from Eastern- and Western Europe, who set about trying to spread their foul ideology into their host country’s body politic.  We used to deny Communists entry to the U.S., but are unwilling to do so with Muslims because “religion”.)

It’s all very well to afford comfort and sanctuary to the “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” (an inscription on a statue, by the way, and not official State policy).  It is another thing altogether to allow the huddled masses into your country, only for said huddled masses to set about changing all the good things about your country into something not only alien, but repugnant,

And for those who take issue with the word “repugnant”, allow me to offer but two words in rebuttal:  honor killings.

When it comes to immigration, I’ve always believed in the FIFO (fit in or fuck off) principle.  I’ve lived by that precept ever since I arrived here, and I see no reason why anyone else should refuse to do so — even if by doing so, your “sacred religion” is offended.  If your new country is all that offensive to you, fuck off home.

And by the way:  I can say things like the above because of the freedom of speech afforded to me by the Constitution of my adopted country, in the shape of its First Amendment.  If what I say is that offensive to you and you feel obliged to resort to other ways to demonstrate your disapproval, allow me to remind you of the existence of its Second Amendment.  I may have left behind a lot of Africa, but a response of violence to counter violence was not one of them.

Dealing With Mutti’s Legacy

Immigration

All the chickens implicit in The Great Cultural Assimilation Project© are coming home to roost, in ever-increasing numbers and with ever-increasing frequency.  Here’s the latest (at time of writing, anyway):

A major manhunt is underway in Germany after an attacker stabbed to death three people at a festival on Friday evening in the western city of Solingen but police say they are yet to identify the suspect.

Those killed in the attack have been revealed as two men aged 67 and 56, and a woman aged 56. Eight others were injured, including four with life-threatening injuries.

A motivation for the attack, which has sent shockwaves through the country, has not yet been determined and terrorism has not been ruled out. While Islamic State claimed responsibility, it offered no evidence to back up its claim.

Uh huh.

Indeedy, yes.  From a later report:

The Syrian asylum seeker suspected of killing three and injuring several others at a “festival of diversity” in Germany on Friday reportedly had a deportation order last year, but authorities failed to remove him from the country.

Anybody surprised by this?  No?  Then we may continue, this time looking at the response:

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz talked tough on a visit to the scene of the knife attack.

How tough?

“We must do everything to ensure that such things never happen in our country, if possible,” Scholz said of the attack. He predicted a toughening knife laws in particular “and this should and will happen very quickly.”

You see, this is where the true effects of Angela Merkel’s legacy come into play.  The Germans are affording immigrants the same kind of legal protections they grant German citizens, instead of, say, reintroducing the death penalty for any non-German citizen found guilty of a capital crime in the country.  Noooooo! or rather Neeeiiiiiinnnn! that would be ummm discriminatory, wouldn’t it? 

At least they could deport these assholes super-quickly — not to their “home countries”, but to some other shithole like, say, Somalia or a similar Muslim stronghold.

And here’s a perfect example of the German government’s blinkered attitude:

Green Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck also called for a tightening of knife laws, saying there must be “more weapon ban zones and stricter weapon laws.”

“No one has to carry stabbing or cutting weapons in public spaces in Germany,” said the Green politician. “We no longer live in the Middle Ages.”

You stupid shit.  You may not be living in the Middle Ages, but these fucking Islamic assholes certainly are.

Thanks to previous German immigration policies (Mutti Merkel, danke ), you’ve imported the Middle Ages into the 21st century.

And what a Middle-Ages mindset needs is appropriate (i.e. medieval) punishments, but there’s no way the oh-so-civilized German government is going to open that little door, thanks to their ummmm earlier behavior less than a century ago.

You might as well surrender now, unless you’re prepared to get serious.