No products in the cart.

News

‘Caravan’ a Deliberate Attempt to Exploit U.S. Laws and Undermine National Sovereignty

‘Caravan’ a Deliberate Attempt to Exploit U.S. Laws and Undermine National Sovereignty
If they’ve already been permitted by government authorities to enter and freely traverse Mexico, they’ve already escaped the danger and oppression they claim to need asylum from. (Pueblo sin Fronteras/Twitter)

“Some people ‘associated with’ Central American caravan have entered U.S. illegally, federal officials say,” the Los Angeles Times “reports” in an agenda piece designed to elicit requisite sympathy for political advantage. “A pregnant woman and some children as young as 4 were detected entering the U.S. through a canyon that authorities described in a statement as dark, treacherous and ‘notorious for human and drug smuggling.’”

The first question one might ask is how the hell border security is so lax that this can happen. We know the “caravan” is coming and the canyon is a well-known route. If a pregnant woman (whose child will be a “birthright citizen” if allowed to stay) and children (who will all become wards of the U.S. taxpayers if they are) can make it through to our side under such conditions, it’s fair to ask how many blind eyes are deliberate, especially with recent reports of U.S. federal and local oath-breakers turning a profit off human smuggling.

What’s the reason we have government again?

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the caravan ‘a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system,’ pledging to send more immigration judges to the border to resolve cases if needed,” the Associated Press reports.

Why? If they enter the country illegally, if their first act is one of in-your-face criminality, why would it be in the interests of “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” to spend untold millions deciding which of the lawbreakers are to be admitted and then caring for them after they are?

It’s not like all options for lawful entry have been closed off to “asylum seekers” – they’re just being manipulated by open borders subversives to create an incident at the expense of both exploited foreigners and national sovereignty.

“Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said asylum claims will be resolved ‘efficiently and expeditiously’ but said the asylum-seekers should seek it in the first safe country they reach, including Mexico,” the AP report notes.

Yeah. Once they’re in Mexico, which chose to admit them, they can go to the consulate and make their case. Not that once they’re in a “safe” country they really have one.  Trying to pressure and embarrass us, Mexico created this problem. They should be made to own it.

There are other dynamics in play here as well.  If simply being impoverished and living in primitive squalor and tyranny qualifies someone to come here, we need to open our doors to billions from around the world, just to be logically consistent. That’ll suit just fine “no-brainers” Blair Overstreet and Matt Dunn (quoted in the LA Times report), who are eager to open their apartment to a “refugee.”.

Not that most of the transplants will have private accommodations offered. And that, of course, will swamp the lifeboat and we’ll soon all be one big Third World hell hole — with the exception of our elite globalist rulers (no surprise, major funding comes from Soros and leftist foundations).

And wait ‘til you get a load of their “commonsense guns safety laws.”

That will be OK for those with an alien understanding of the relationship between people and government. Having demonstrated their utter inability at self rule in their native land, they’re here to overwhelm us with their “diverse” ways. And those of us who resist will be branded intolerant, xenophobes, haters…

Which makes it fair to ask if we’re so evil, why are they running toward us rather than away from us?

It’s also fair to ask if “refugees” won’t stand fight for their country, what makes anyone think they’ll stand and fight for ours? In truth, they don’t have to. The oath for naturalized citizens was changed three years ago to where they no longer be expected to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” or “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.”

Let the country continue to be swarmed and Balkanized, and we may find no such aversion to bearing arms against the United States.

Also see: How Will Mass ‘Migrant’ Crossing Not Be an Unprovoked Foreign Attack?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

3 comments

      1. aaaah ok, was curious if maybe something deep got through.

        also noticed it seems you have a constant DDoS as the page is always slow to load.

Leave a Reply