Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Uncontrolled Migration

Published by

Clarissa

on

“Released” means “released into our country.” This is the inevitable consequence of processing immigration cases of illegal migrants on the territory of the US. There is simply no money and space to keep all border crossers locked up while their applications get processed. So they are allowed to roam around freely while they wait in line for their case to be heard.

We hear about immigration a lot these days but one thing we never hear is that this problem could be solved cheaply and immediately by simply not processing any of these immigration applications inside the country. Let’s take a break from the joys of political partisanship that are costing us everything and ask, “why does nobody even mention this possibility?”

The election is a month away. If there is ever a time for us to get something we want is now. But we’ll get nothing whatsoever besides the feeling of being part of a team. These teams are an utter and complete fiction used as a pacifier to keep us on mute while we are being dispossessed. But we embrace the lie, so whose fault is it? The politicians simply pursue their rational self-interest. We are the ones who don’t.

15 responses to “Uncontrolled Migration”

  1. methylethyl Avatar
    methylethyl

    Because our entire system of government funding is built on perpetual growth. Population growth, market growth, GDP growth, laborforce growth.

    Everybody in federal office, left right and other, knows that the whole thing collapses if the growth stops. Whatever the price of continuing growth, they are willing for us to pay it.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      We don’t have to choose people with criminal records to ensure growth, though. The immigration system is set to benefit the disordered and preclude the orderly from coming. We could go for growth based on the productive instead of the irreparably unproductive underclasses.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. methylethyl Avatar
        methylethyl

        Perpetual growth is unsustainable anyway. All of modern prosperity depends on fossil fuels and other nonrenewable resources, which *will* run out, eventually. Everybody, eventually, will end up with a lower standard of living. We *could* actually talk about this, but we won’t.

        On the right, this looks like: total denial. We have a *right* to keep driving huge trucks and air-conditioning our homes to 74 degrees year-round, and anybody who even hints otherwise is a commie anti-American enemy of the people.

        On the left, this looks like: stoke panic, use this to funnel money to “green” shell companies owned by friends and family, and support policies that strip the bottom-80% of wealth. This at least shows an awareness of the declining-resources future: disempower and forcibly lower the living standards of the masses in all the developed world, in order to hoard those same resources for the globetrotting classes. They can fly their private jets and air-condition their 4 mansions forever, as long as they can deny resource access to most everybody else.

        A sane solution (there is no solution, this is a predicament not a problem) might look something like: focus on using some of those still-plentiful-but-limited resources to reinforce long-lasting infrastructure while we still can, look for the systems most vulnerable to resource depletion, and start shifting those to more resilient, lower-tech systems. It might include stripping out some regulation and tax burden for small agricultural producers, to encourage their proliferation, as large, centralized systems are less resilient. Domestic food supply should be resilient, and it is not. We are woefully unprepared for supply chain disruptions.

        None of those things are sexy on the political stage. You can’t win an election by saying: Hey, it looks like things are going to be tight in the future, let’s figure out how to make our city/county/state/country more resilient… not when your inevitable opponent is like “things are great, my opponent wants to make you poor. Hey, free stuff!”

        It’s one of the stupid things about democracy. The only way you might, possibly, pull it off is in an environment where the populace is literate, the culture is homogenous and patriotic, and there’s some obvious outside threat that can be leveraged to get everybody onboard. And, you know, a lack of corruption.

        So… not gonna happen. We are gonna have to do the hard crash version.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply
        1. Doomer Avatar
          Doomer

          I couldn’t agree with you more.

          “None of those things are sexy on the political stage. You can’t win an election by saying: Hey, it looks like things are going to be tight in the future, let’s figure out how to make our city/county/state/country more resilient… not when your inevitable opponent is like “things are great, my opponent wants to make you poor. Hey, free stuff!”

          Or the opponent says “yes, things are bad, but my opponent’s solution is a lie that is aimed at enriching them. Really, the solution is simple! <proposes something their base likes>”.

          We elect politicians for 4 or 6 years, and proper long-term solutions don’t show benefits in those time frames.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
        2. oldcowboy3 Avatar
          oldcowboy3

          Hmmm, my late wife and mysrlf were green before there was such a thing, but being a retired scientist, do rather tend to naturally have more faith in science and technology. But despite the nonsense from the 70’s Club of Rome down to the idiot saint Greta the Scold’s hysteria, the @@#$$%% greedy grift continues. We should remember: the major alterations in the world temperatures are due to changes in the tilt and rotation of our globe and the differing amounts of solar output from the nuclear engine of our sun, we are not all that important ;-D

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply
          1. oldcowboy3 Avatar
            oldcowboy3

            Sorry, should have been clear about the orbital changes, our rotaion around the sun, rather than our spin…what can I say, I do tend to over think ;-D

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
          2. methylethyl Avatar
            methylethyl

            Sure, and science and tech are great, but I’m not convinced there is any reason beyond handwaving magic to think that things like limited natural reservoirs of silicon, cobalt, phosphorus, fossil fuels, etc. will definitely be replaced by (insert future scientific advance here). Maybe. But should we 100% pin our whole future on that? We are not setting up our education options to produce future scientists, but we are counting on them to save us?

            And, yeah, topsoil grows back, but not at the rate we use it up.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
            1. oldcowboy3 Avatar
              oldcowboy3

              LOL, have some faith: it took us millions of years out of the trees to even get from cracking pebbles to fabricate a stone hand axe, and maybe a couple of million years from that to create fine stone and bone knives and spears, and look at our tools now. We will get ‘er done, unless some damn fool blows us all up ;-D

              Like

              Reply
              1. methylethyl Avatar
                methylethyl

                I don’t trust it. Humans have lost technology before, and we can certainly do it again.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. oldcowboy3 Avatar
                oldcowboy3

                Yeah, there is good and bad in most groups and many ideas. We are going to have to disagree, I believe that we are going to need technology even more in the future.

                I don’t disagree about topsoil, the only study I encountered indicating a natural increase was where cattle were left to pasture for several years. Our topsoil was developed by the addition of natural amendments over many years and my wife’s garden practices. Other than the grafting of fruit trees and installing/repairing irrigation, my contributions were largely limited to tote that load and lift that bale ;-D

                Liked by 1 person

              3. methylethyl Avatar
                methylethyl

                Closely-managed rotational grazing can build topsoil at an astonishing rate: the best results I’ve seen have been with cattle but it can also be done with sheep at a bit slower rate. Maybe as much as an inch of soil per year in a non-arid climate: that’s about 100x faster than what happens in an undisturbed forest.

                We know this, it’s been proven out in practice by innovative, curious, and science-and-ecology minded farmers like Greg Judy, Joel Salatin, and Allan Nation.

                Do we encourage this on a policy level? Hell no. The globalists want us all to become vegetarians. At the federal level, USDA regulations put mighty hurdles in the way of any small-scale farmer bringing meat to market, because those regs are written by the likes of Smithfield and Purdue, and they don’t want any upstart competition. We actively subsidize the raising of cattle in ways that destroy topsoil, use more fossil resources, and give us poorer-quality food.

                If we could *have* that national conversation about resources, we’d be finding ways to make it easier for farmers who are out there building topsoil, to access markets. Right now it’s a labor of love, and the only way they make money is by spending 90% of their time marketing like circus hucksters. There are lots of people who could be out there tending the topsoil for future generations. Vanishingly few of them have Salatin’s energy, keen business sense, and revival-preacher personality. That guy probably spends more time on the lecture circuit these days than on the farm. That right there is not a sustainable model. We’re going to continue losing topsoil, not because we have to, but because the top 1% won’t let go of the regulations that funnel most of the profits to them. Mob grazing doesn’t scale. You can’t do it with minimal labor and maximum stock density. We need thousands more farmers, and we won’t get them because putting labor back into it, instead of fossil resources, doesn’t maximize profits. Massie’s PRIME act is a first step in that direction, and has been sitting, untouched, in congress, forever.

                Left right and center, everybody would rather continue burning resources full tilt for the benefit of the obscenely rich, than grease the skids for other models.

                Away from agriculture, look at steel manufacture. We have, *in the last 40 years* lost the ability to make high-quality stainless steel. I can see it in my silverware drawer. Why is a spoon or butter knife made in Japan in the 70s, for the ordinary middle-class market, so much nicer than a spoon made in the 90s or 00s in Oneida, for the same market? The more recent ones are thicker, heavier, and bendier. Why can’t you buy the amazingly thin, springy egg-spatulas that my grandparents had in the 60s, anymore? They don’t exist. You can sometimes find them in vintage lots of kitchenware on ebay, or at estate sales, but nobody manufactures them, and that’s not for lack of demand. Everything currently available *new* is fat and clunky by comparison. That didn’t happen because *the market demanded* lower-quality tools. I have heard the same thing happened with metal quality for ordinary tools such as wrenches and screwdrivers, over the same timespan.

                That is either a loss of access to high-quality steel, or a loss of know-how in the manufacturing process. And that has happened *in my lifetime*. Science didn’t come up with a snap fix. We just have lower-quality stuff. It will happen with other things, both because we are depleting all the accessible, high-quality raw materials like there’s no tomorrow, and because we refuse to recognize anything has *limits* so the idea of conserving anything is anathema.

                Continuing as we are now, we will see, I think, accelerating decline in quality of manufacture of nearly everything. We will be told it’s because “the market demanded cheaper stuff” (i.e. “It’s your fault peon” gaslighting) but it will be because we have used all the easily-accessible resources. Why did manufacture move to China? Because we already mined all our most easily-accessed coal. China’s where the coal is now, and when they deplete theirs… ?

                It seems very much a religious belief, the insistence that “Advances in Science will allow us to continue our current lifestyle indefinitely, and yea, things will even keep getting better!” Everything Must Get Better Forever, and Science Will Save Us, are key tenets of the Religion of Progress. I am not a member of that church, so I feel no obligation to defend its theology.

                Liked by 1 person

              4. oldcowboy3 Avatar
                oldcowboy3

                Well, at least we agree on the need to manage topsoil, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree on many natural resources and the proper technology to manage them. But, we can also agree on the modern poor quality equipment, your cutlery, and my handtools. By the way, guys refer to the weak inferior metal as “chinesium” ;-D

                However, the problem is not a shortage of natural resources, we simply shipped the manufacturing overseas to avoid our labour costs. It is the same as the basically wide open immigration, we are not short of labour, we want cheaper vegetables, nannies, and construction workers. And we are simply too bloody selfish to pay our own citizens a living wage.

                Liked by 1 person

              5. methylethyl Avatar
                methylethyl

                I get the China problem, but that still doesn’t explain the cutlery. How’d we go so far downhill from Japan to New York State?

                Like

              6. oldcowboy3 Avatar
                oldcowboy3

                Not certain, but suspect that your poor quality cutlery is a matter of cost, both China and Japan have relatively poor quality iron, and the mines in China at least are largely played out. I believe that my country, Canada, and Australia ship iron and coal to both.

                Our inherited silverware was British, perhaps my wife might have known where our 50 year old stainless cutlery came from. Our carvingsteak knives are German, our hunting and pocket knives American, our fishing knives Swedish. Her fine bone china is the same pattern as Clarissa’s, the beautiful “Old Country Roses”, some inherited but most collected over more than 40 years of birthday and Christmas presents, It is now made in Indonesia and China to reduce the cost of labour. What can I say, at least her long johns made from baby wool is still made in Canada ;-D

                Like

  2. oldcowboy3 Avatar
    oldcowboy3

    Hmmm, I have a little more hope than you but am still worried. If Trump wins and carries both the congress and the senate, you have a chance of salvaging your nation. Sure he may still be a bit of a flamboyant circus carnie or barker, but his supporters like RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk and several ex political opponents are definitely not.

    But he faces difficult problems; some of the corrupt federal civil service must obviously be terminated, and tens of millions of illegal aliens must be deported. Some will certainly be disturbed by the sight of weeping women and children, but I am far, far more concerned with the possible behavior of the enormous number of military aged men involved. Hungary and Poland have managed to protect their nations with walls; but Poland had to issue and use live ammunition, and we know that unfortunately Israel’s did not hold.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts