Border Crisis: It Won’t Get Better, You’ll Just Get Used To It

Kamala Harris flew into El Paso the 25th of June because of the growing political pressure over the southern border migrant crisis. Her trip was mostly responsive to members within her party like Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar who was concerned that “the administration is making Democrats look weak.”

The growing crisis may reflect a level of comeuppance where, during the Trump administration, the democrats in the House aggressively played the role of obstructionist. Now, even beneficial measures that would have mitigated the border chaos over the past four years, necessitate the attention of the Biden administration who is now tasked with providing solutions.

However, there is very little historical evidence that a solution aimed at maintaining the border and promoting a softer flow of southern immigration will taper under Biden’s initiatives. Not because of the open exhibitions of ignorance or expressed euphemisms that stream out of Jen Psaki when questioned on the administration’s approach, but because the crisis is by design, and it is aimed at eroding away the lines that separate nations.

A quick scan of the mid-afternoon talking heads or the presented notifications of one’s cellphone news feeds would not even provide the insinuation that this crisis has been intentionally constructed beyond the promotion of party interests. But if a historically comparable framework is provided, the weakening of the U.S. southern border is not simply the leveraging of a crisis in the pursuit of power; it is making the sovereignty of nations irrelevant in the name of a new emerging global order.

The undermining of governmental control of a geographic area through foreign immigration is not new or nuanced. In 1845, the US annexed Texas from Mexico after Mexico, in 1821, encouraged organized immigration from US settlers. Still, in addition to expansionist competition, immigration has been used as a colonialist tool to allow foreign nations to influence or interlope into the politics of a separate sovereignty. One of the best examples is demonstrated by Britain’s interference into South Africa’s domestic affairs which, inevitably, lead up to the two Boer Wars.

In the 1830s, South Africa was settled by Dutch farmers known as either Boers or Afrikaners. They remained under British rule until 1850 when the provinces of the Orange Free State and Transvaal were granted independence. The two states increasingly began to clash with their British overseers because of continual British intrusion into South African domestic affairs. Additionally, economic friction among the colonies was fueling isolationist sentiment in the Transvaal, and Britain feared that South Africa was dissolving into groupings hostile to British control.

To assuage its decline in governance, Britain realized that the promotion of British immigration to South Africa would shift an environment of economic prosperity and political security that would lead to a new British populace in South Africa. This new populace would pursue “new immigrant” incentives and interest that would prove favorable for Britain and unfavorable for the established South African authority.

By changing the voting population’s interest through immigration, democratic methods could be appropriated for the new foreign, global interest. As Sir Percy Fitzpatrick put it, “The future, as I see it, lies this way: both races hope for prosperity, prosperity means expansion, expansion means immigration, and immigration means British!”

Britain concluded that to strengthen British influence in South Africa, economic stability would be crucial to attracting a continuous stream of British immigrants. An increase of British immigrants would ensure a British political majority in South Africa. Such a majority demonstrated that the best way to limit the growth of an oppositional middling power structure is by instilling hostility between races and classes and through the immediate changes to demographics. The strategy worked, and a new, nascent Commonwealth started to form.

Britain in South Africa is just another historical example in which the benefits of democratic processes can be turned against itself for a more suzerain agenda that erodes at the inalienable rights that made America too powerful in the eyes of the old European system. The Biden administration understands elite benefits that such practices bring into effect, so if the immigratory model worked in the past for a populace that is meant to be forcibly hollowed, then why shift the strategy?

So, when Kamala Harris flies back to meet with the administration, when she tell them of the crisis that is occurring at the border, when the descriptions of migrant children in duress are retold, and the full migrant transport buses continue to flow through the interstate veins of a known country now turning to a terra incognita, she will be able to confidently assert that the new design is taking shape, and the erosion of the nation of a United States is progressing as planned.

3 thoughts on “Border Crisis: It Won’t Get Better, You’ll Just Get Used To It”

  1. Avatar
    Sir Cumference

    So the farmers and ranchers along the border are suppose to just “get used” to the seillegal alien invaders invading their private property, stealing, breaking into houses and destroying? These farmers and ranchers should be meeting these scum illegal invaders with shotgun and shovel in hand.

  2. of course it was… don’t think bezos, or pichai, or zuckerberg, or and of the major media or beg press, or entertainment industries care about the american market any more do ya? They are selling you out and wil continue to sell you out to get to the global market. BREAK THEM ALL UP INTO LITTLE PIECES AND MAME THEM COMPETE AGAIN. Nobody warhes cnn……but there they are!

Leave a Comment

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