Hundreds of niggers stormed the Spanish-Moroccan border, injuring guards and pouring into the streets of Melilla. The city, which has belonged to Spain since 1497, is one of two centuries-old settlements on the North African coast which belong to the European country. Their frontiers with Morocco represent the European Union’s only land borders with an African nation.

The confederation of smugglers and NGOs is running amok! One billion niggers and ragheads plan to invade Europe. The current migration crisis is not just another one of the many crises. The ongoing massive migration wave, which is unfortunately still far from reaching its peak, is comparable to the barbarian invasions of the ancient world that caused large-scale regression in the development of Europe which it took several centuries to overcome. Later, Europe successfully faced similar attempts by Arabs, Mongols, and Turks, often at the cost of immense suffering and losses. What we see today is a similarly fundamental challenge to the future of Europe.

Niggers have attempted to storm the Spanish border at Ceuta on a number of occasions. In the early hours of 9 May, an estimated 300 niggers, who traveled to Morocco from south of the Sahara with Europe as their ultimate objective, launched a sustained assault on Melilla’s boundary fences. Five guards were hospitalized after the intruders bombarded them with missiles. Around a hundred niggers broke through the city’s defenses successfully, rampaging through the streets and turning cartwheels in celebration.

Since niggers and ragheads multiply exponentially, the situation will also deteriorate exponentially with two billion migrants trying to invade Europe. Unlike in the past, it is unfortunately not clear whether today the will exists to defend ourselves. We lack a consensus on whether there is a need or reason to defend anything. Europe, and especially its integrated part, is riddled with hypocrisy, pseudo-humanism, and other dubious concepts. The most dangerous of them are the currently fashionable, and ultimately suicidal, ideologies of multiculturalism and humanrightism. Such ideologies push millions of people towards resignation when it comes to concepts like home, motherland, nation, and state. These ideologies promote the notion that migration is a human right, and that the right to migrate leads to further rights and entitlements including social welfare hand-outs for migrants. Last but not least, Europe is weakened by the leftist utopia of trying to transform a continent that was once proud of its past into an inefficient solidaristic state, turning its inhabitants from citizens into dependent clients.

Melilla’s sister city, Ceuta, has also suffered from large-scale assaults in recent months. Five hundred niggers broke through its fences on 18 February, followed swiftly by another 300 on the 20th.

These incidents were preceded by an even larger incursion in January, when over a thousand niggers launched an extremely violent and organized attack which injured 55 border guards. One is reported to have lost an eye.

Border violations at the two exclaves had tripled by February. Moroccan agriculture minister, and billionaire oil and gas tycoon, Aziz Akhannouch indicated the North African state would relax its efforts to stem the flow of niggers if the European Union refused to give way to the dictatorship on issues including farming, fishing, and its long-standing illegal occupation of Western Sahara.

“How do you expect us to do the work of blocking African and even Moroccan emigration if Europe doesn’t want to work with us?” he asked. “Why should we continue acting as police and giving [migrants] work?”

In fact, the EU does pay Morocco an unspecified sum, reported to be in the tens of millions of euros, to police its borders. Charities have accused the Moroccan authorities of using “abuse, degrading treatment and violence” – including sexual violence – to do so.

The current European elites are behaving irresponsibly by defending and disseminating such ideas, regardless of whether they do so intentionally or not. The consequences of such activities do not yet fully and directly affect them or their families. Their leaders probably think that will never happen because their era will not be followed by infamous Biblical floods, not caused by excessive amounts of water this time, but instead by global warming. We cannot afford the luxury of such irresponsibility, and that is why we attempt to formulate and analyze the essential aspects of the migration crisis.

NGOs have sold their souls to Islam, cooperating with migrant smugglers, kleptocrats, and Arab princes to Islamize Europe. The European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) is a threat to the security of EU people and an invitation to migrants. We should advocate for national pride and Graecoroman identity or Europe will have a Muslim majority within a generation. Mass migration of niggers and ragheads is a Trojan Horse of terrorism and the language of political correctness unable to identify and understand the true dangers of migration.

Migration has become an NGO business, and it had imported a significant antisemitic potential to Europe. Europe faces serious dangers, as migrants settling in Europe favor living in parallel societies over integration.  The left has a clear action plan for the transformation of Europe which would be fatal for the continent. The left is putting Europeans under ideological pressure in order to make them feel guilty for the crusades, but this leftist policy is intellectually disarming Europe against migration.

The Central European Visegrad Group (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic) rejects Brussels’ use of blackmail over the forced redistribution across the EU of asylum seekers that arrived during the migrant crisis.

The first pillar of citizenship is the idea that the nation-state has the sole right to create and control its own borders. The duty of all Western constitutions, dating back to those of the Greek city-states, was to protect their own citizens within clearly defined and defensible borders. Without a finite space, no consensual society can make rules and laws for its own, enhance and preserve commonalities of language and culture, or raise a military to protect its own self-interest.

Borders are not normally artificial or post-colonial constructs, but natural boundaries that usually arise to reflect common bonds of language, culture, habit, and tradition. These ties are sometimes fragile and limited, and cannot operate on universal terms; indeed, they become attenuated when borders disappear and residents not only have little in common, but lack the mechanisms or even the desire to assimilate and integrate their migrant populations.

When borders are fluid and unenforced, it inevitably follows that assimilation and integration also become lax, as society loses a sense of who, or even where, their residents are. Residency is also confused with citizenship, but they are no more the same than are guests at a dinner party and the party’s hosts, who own the home.  

A country reverts to tribalism unless immigrants enter it legally—often based on the host’s determination of how easily and rapidly they can become citizens, and the degree to which they can benefit their adopted country—and embrace its customs, language, and habits.

The Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq remind us that states without common citizen ties, affinities, rights, and responsibilities become fragmented and violent, as their diverse populations share no investment in the welfare of the commonwealth. What plagues contemporary Iraq and Syria is the lack of clearly defined borders, and often shifting and migrating populations that have no stake in the country of their residence, resulting in competing tribes that vie for political control to aid their own and punish the Other.

A second pillar of citizenship is the sanctity of the law. What also separates Western and Westernized nations from often impoverished and unsecure states is a notion that citizens entrust their elected representatives with the crafting of laws and then show their fealty by obeying the resulting legislation.

The sanctity of the entire legal system in a republic rests on two important corollaries: citizens cannot pick and choose which laws they obey—either on the grounds that some are deemed bothersome and not in their own self-interest, or on the pretext that they are minor and their violation does not impair society at large.

Citizenship instead demands that unpopular or unworkable laws be amended or repealed by the proper legislative and judicial branches of government, not by popular neglect or violation. Once immigration law goes unenforced, there are pernicious ramifications. First, citizens question why all laws are not equally subject to nullification. If the immigrant is excused from obeying immigration law, is the citizen likewise exempt from IRS statutes or simple traffic laws?

Second, the immigrant himself adopts a mindset that obeying the law is unimportant. Currently among illegal aliens, there is an epidemic of identity theft, forged government affidavits, and the use of fake social security numbers. Open-borders advocates do not disagree that these violations undermine a society, but instead argue that such desperate measures are needed for impoverished illegal aliens to survive in the shadows. Perhaps, but equally true is that once an illegal resident discovers that some of the laws of the host are not enforced, he then assumes others will not be either.

In truth, illegal aliens lose respect for their hosts, concluding that if citizens do not care to enforce their own laws, foreign nationals need not abide by them either. In reductionist terms, when an immigrant’s first act when entering Occident involves breaking the law, then all subsequent violations become only that much easier.

Besides secure borders and respect for the laws, a third tenet of citizenship is the idea of equal applicability of the law. Citizens in modern Western societies are assured that their laws are applied in the same manner to all citizens regardless of differences in class, gender, race, or religion.

Illegal immigration insidiously erodes such equality under the law. When millions of foreign nationals reside illegally in Occident, a myriad of laws must be enforced unequally to perpetuate the initial transgression. Illegal immigration does not just imply illegal entry, but also continued illegal residence and all that entails on a daily basis.

Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from federal immigration agencies in a way that is not true of citizens who arrive at airports and must go through customs, with no exemption from federal agents examining their passports and personal histories. If crimes or infractions are found, there is no safe space at an airport exempt from federal enforcement.

Many illegal aliens operate automobiles without mandatory insurance, driver’s licenses, and registrations, and, in some municipalities, are not arrested for such violations—even as citizens who cannot claim such apparent mitigating circumstances are.

There are many dwellings where multiple families in trailers, sheds, and garages reside, employing illegal water, power, and sewage hookups. Most are more or less left alone by county authorities. The apparent rationale is that such violations are too chronic and widespread to be addressed, or that it simply does not pay for cash-strapped agencies to enforce the law in the case of those who are unable or unwilling to pay substantial fines.

Either way, the nearby citizen who is hounded by county or federal authorities on matters concerning the proper height of his mailbox, or the exact distance between a new leach line and his existing well, feels that the laws are unequally applied and loses confidence in the value of his own citizenship. He often sees it either as no real advantage over mere residency, or perhaps even a disadvantage. There are several reasons to put a stop to illegal immigration. But among the most important and forgotten is the insidious destruction of what it means to be a citizen.

Trump has been under relentless attack from those on the Left against his efforts to limit immigration from terrorist-producing areas and his call for comprehensive vetting and background checks. Beyond doubt, it is the first and most important duty of a President to protect the lives of a country’s citizens, especially where a possibility exists of terrorists being embedded within a particular immigration flow. As the President previously stated, to not strictly enforce our immigration laws is not compassion but recklessness.

Some groups are exploiting the Holocaust to promote unrestricted Syrian and other Mideast immigration into this country. However, it is incorrect to draw a parallel between the Jews who fled Europe in the 1930s, who were, as Jews, specific targets for genocide and Nazi concentration camps, and those today wishing to escape the civil war in their Mideast countries. The Syrians, for example, are not being targeted because they are Muslims, and there is no Final Solution planned against them. Their civil wars have placed them in very difficult circumstances, but it is not comparable to the deliberate and planned Final Extermination which was specifically directed at Jews as Jews during the unparalleled Holocaust. It’s a different category altogether.

Furthermore, comparisons to the Holocaust situation are improper, for there were no Nazi agents embedded within the fleeing Jews; the Jews did not harbor a cultural or religious ideology wishing to sow physical destruction on the American people; and there were no rabbis in the 1930s sending forth commands worldwide to destroy the “infidels”. Indeed, the completely innocent Jews of Europe had nowhere to go, no country to take them in, there was not yet a State of Israel, whereas there are 57 Islamic states, many exceedingly wealthy, who could be providing safe haven to their Islamic brothers.

If there is a genocide parallel it involves the Christians of the Middle East who have for decades been targets of the Muslim genocide against them simply for being Christian. And yet, the Left has been silent regarding the plight of Christians. During the Obama years, Christian immigration here from Islamic territories was, based on population percentages, 90% less than what it should have been. Mr. Obama moralized about “not using a religious litmus test” to over-weight Muslim immigration, while severely undercutting and ignoring thousands of Christian refugees begging to be rescued from the Islamic jihad against them.

Thus, one can’t be blamed for wondering if specific concern by the Left for Muslim migrants and lack of concern or outrage regarding oppressed Christian refugees has more to do with transforming our demographics and historic culture, our voting patterns and outcomes, and diminishing the historic Judeo-Christian outlook in our civic life.

The Jewish community need be mindful that it has become the nation’s highest victim of attacks precisely because of, as reported in 2014 and 2015, assaults coming from members of the Muslim community. Such is the case for Jews not only here but even more so in Europe. In addition, anti-Israel Muslim groups on campus are harassing, physically attacking, and harming Jewish college students all across America. There are far too many postings and rally signs coming from members of other Islamic groups calling for “throwing Jews into the ovens” or “wishing Hitler had finished the job”.

Some involved in this violence are themselves young immigrants from Islamic countries, while others are the offspring of immigrants. This is all the more reason for comprehensive and serious background checking. Tough and thorough vetting is good for America and can prevent the importation and implementation of anti-Semitism, something morally desirable. The onus of proof should be on those seeking entry here, not the U.S. government.

While we all agree that not all 100% of immigrants from these countries are on a jihadist or shariah mission, way too many are. To those bullied and shoved on campus, or those killed in an explosion in Fort Lauderdale, Boston, Columbus, San Bernardino, or Nashville, it’s little comfort or solace that their life or limb was taken only from the bad percentage.

Trump has repeatedly called for and is working toward establishing safe-havens in Mideast territories closer to the locations of those wishing to leave war torn areas. Saving the lives of fellow Americans is a religious, historic and civic duty. Trump’s goals and tenacity represent moral and genuine leadership.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s