Crowd sourcing the question: How recent are open borders?

Cathedral sources say that open borders, resettle them in green leafy suburbs on generous welfare, has been the law of the land since forever, and only recently have evil racists started to protest, but the way I recall it, worldwide, borders to white countries received some reasonable degree of enforcement until enforcement quietly but abruptly stopped world wide in 2011.  This led to a ginormous flood of illegal immigrants, increasing many fold each year, resulting in public resistance in numerous white countries starting in 2013.

Which resistance is on the one hand increasing with the flood, and is on the other hand collapsing under the impact of pious moralizing.

The way I recall it, before 2012, they were legally letting in lots of low IQ layabouts and petty criminals, to live on welfare and crime, with a small but significant number of rapists, serious criminals, and terrorists in the mix, but illegal entry was not a problem.  Then enforcement abruptly stops in 2011, huge numbers of illegals show up unopposed in 2012, and even larger numbers in 2013, with a corresponding rise in the proportion of rapists, murderers, and terrorists – who also live on welfare and crime.

One day even Obama opposes gay marriage.  The next day, no one opposes gay marriage, and no one remembers that they ever opposed gay marriage.   The same thing is now happening with illegal immigration.  Not only is it policy, it always has been policy and all decent people always have supported it.

Theoretically the Roman Catholic Church still opposes gay marriage – like it theoretically still supports the husband’s authority in marriage, theoretically opposes divorce, and theoretically has a male only priesthood.

But in fact, if you go to Roman Catholic Church you will see a woman doing stuff that looks very like the stuff a priest does, remarried women taking communion, and at a Roman Catholic marriage the priest will ad lib some feminist talking points.

We have abruptly moved from guarded borders, and border guards, being an uncontroversial fact that every single person takes for granted, to them being a crime equal in seriousness to being the first person to stop applauding at a gay wedding.  This does not look to me like “decades of kindergarten to hospice propaganda” but more like hate week in Orwell’s 1984.

35 Responses to “Crowd sourcing the question: How recent are open borders?”

  1. Sorry Jim, late to your question. Stefan Zweig (Austrian) wrte that before WWI he could travel from Vienna to London or India without even as much as a passport. In the literal sense, borders very open.

    However factor in that only the wealthy could afford to travel. The cost of travelling automatically filtered people so there was no need for much in the way of border controls.

    Besides, as most people were poor everywhere, there was hardly a point in, say, an Indian guy trying to live in London. America is different because there was this certain Dream of homesteading your own farm. (The AD was mostly about independence, not working for another man but for yourself, and not about social mobility as such, this gets forgotten today.)

    So the problem 100 years ago simply did not exist in this form as today.

  2. […] Jim requests participation on the question: How recent are open borders? He’s thinking 2011-12 time frame. Maybe in Australia. It was a lot earlier in The States I […]

  3. Dave says:

    I have a prediction regarding open borders. One day, the USG will have no choice but to cut off benefits to millions of jobless Americans. These desperate, hungry men will then march to the nearest worksite and tell the boss, “Fire all your Mexicans and hire us!”, and if he doesn’t comply, he’ll soon find a smoking cellar hole where his business used to be.

    Whose side will the police take? Draw a map, and wherever police support the Mexicans, label it “Mexico”.

  4. Toddy Cat says:

    “An Englishman in 1900 did not need a passport, and could travel anywhere”

    Hilarious, and totally inapplicable to the situation today. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been in the Britain of 1900 to hundreds of thousands of Africans and Arabs pouring in? I can guarantee you, it wouldn’t have been pretty…

    • Epimetheus says:

      Truly. The one hundred-year anniversary of the Battle of Jutland is coming up, and the difference of a century could not be more tragic. now a nation of faggots and cucks, back then, every Brit salivated at the thought of driving a fifteen-inch shell through German deck-armor. What the fuck happened?

      • Epimetheus says:

        Nelson would keel-haul all Parliament. Their corpses’d be gibbetted for a decade.

      • Rathamnus says:

        Simple natural selection. Being a coward was strongly selected for in the 20th century. So people of the 21st century are disproportionately the descendants of cowards.

  5. bob k. mando says:

    if you view the International Proletariat as the origin of the ‘Open Borders’ movement ( and it is ), then it becomes clear that this change may have only been enacted *recently* but the philosophical and pedagogical groundwork was laid more well more than a century ago when Marx called for the murder of the Bourgeois.

    from a Marxist perspective, these are Proletarian armies swarming in to destroy the upper classes. and, of course, the Intelligentsia always pretend that they are somehow apart from the Bourgeois who will be crushed …

    Workers Of The World, Unite!

  6. Going solely by impressions. We’ve had about the same number of short, brownish (Salvadoran/Guatemalan) Day Laborers down around, and across from, the Train Station every morning since we moved here in ’99.

    Another impression, the Reagan Amnesty really opened the floodgates.

  7. Alrenous says:

    Not impressed by the crowd you summoned. Try fixing your runes? Maybe you didn’t get the circle quite circular enough?

    Anyway, here’s the least-corrupted data.

    I’m aware that e.g. GDP numbers are fudged to an exemplary degree. These may also be. It’s probably a good idea to find some kind of hint to that effect, though.

    • jim says:

      Not impressed by this data, which defines people anchored by anchor babies as not illegal immigrants.

      Thereby guaranteeing that the number of illegal immigrants can never grow very much and that an ever growing population living on welfare and crime can never possibly be a problem.

      • Alrenous says:

        It’s got the rates, though. Sure the official data is trying to say, ‘Naw, we don’t have a bunch of Mexicans’ but since it has the rates you can work out how many Mexicans there are. Answer: there’s a fuckton of Mexicans, and many, many more keep coming. However, it’s growing more slowly, not more quickly.

        • jim says:

          It’s got the rates, though.

          Footnote six renders those rates entirely unbelievable.

          • Alrenous says:

            How so? It prevents double-counting of those illegally immigrating twice. There’s also the issue of how they know illegals were in the country for six months. They’re not sometimes called ‘undocumented’ for kicks. Self-reports?

            Legal immigration is also plateauing, though still enormous. (Scroll up.)

            Remittances are tracking the illegal data, as they should be since illegals are counted partly by remittances.

            Again, there’s a fuckton of Mexicans, and a fuckton more on the way. However, it looks like as America declines (e.g. Bic Mac index) even the poorest Mexicans are finding it less desirable. Either that or Mexico is running out of underclass, I suppose. Alternatively, the pushback hasn’t been entirely ineffective.

            Admittedly all this data looks weird. Something is definitely going on.

            • jim says:

              Cross the border illegally, get a green card instead of deportation. Supposedly, this huge change in financial incentives (it is much better to migrate illegally than legally, because you get automatic welfare) causes no change in illegal immigration.

  8. Thrasymachus says:

    The concept of non-enforcement of immigration laws I believe started with LAPD Chief Ed Davis, a conservative Republican and Catholic. Davis took the position the cooperation of illegal aliens was needed by the police to enforce local laws, they must not be afraid of deportation when dealing with the police, and that immigration laws were federal so they were not the duty of the LAPD to enforce in any case.

    Davis was a *white, conservative Republican* when it was not only not odd for such a person to live in LA, but one could be a city official. It was people like this who got the whole amnesty ball rolling, not the pinkos.

    The funny thing is Davis is not a saint or hero of the left, but has been completely forgotten. I had pretty much forgotten he existed, but there is a sign on Interstate 5 just north of the LA city limits for Ed Davis Park.

  9. Stephen W says:

    Maybe you could cross borders without a Visa, but you could not settle in a village without the permission of the parrish:
    Freedom of migration between countries was not an issue when you did not have freedom of migration between villages.

  10. Robert says:

    I think the phenomenon that we are discussing here is what I call social titration. A society will absorb certain ideas a little at a time until a certain concentration in the collective mind is reached and then all of a sudden everything flips. Its like slowly filling a bucket on a swivel, you have drop after drop filling the bucket until it reaches a certain point, then the whole thing comes pouring down.

  11. viking says:

    Thats not how i remember it it took decades but things tend to fall apart slowly then all at once and maybe if youre a suburbanite you only got the all at once.
    Im sure a quick google of will show you a graph of whites declining to 60% od population over more than three years 64 immigration act was probably a good strting point.
    gay worship wow I once saw a documentary about gays in hollywood going back before talkies but off the top of my head I remember jagger and richards tonguing on don kirshners rock concert, the ilm kiss of the spider women half the cast of the hollywood squares Im positive a good researcher could make a mind blowing documentary of hollywoods propaganda campaign going back to the twenties. candace bergens out of wedlock motherhood was harly a watershed only perhaps the first time it was noted outloud

  12. Bruce says:

    I noticed a couple years ago that almost everyone, left and right, stopped saying “illegal immigrants” and started using “immigrants.” The left won this one.

    • peppermint says:

      Undocumented was the ploy, and it didn’t really work.

      The preferred word is migrants. Since they’re not immigrants, the question of legality is sidestepped. Being migrants also suggests that they’ll go back, which they often do, and also often don’t. It also suggests that they’re as unstoppable as migrant geese.

  13. Bo says:

    People seem to think that successful Mexican doctors and Engineers are uprooting their lives and swimming the Rio Grande to work as fruit pickers and landscapers.

    The reality. Lowlife Mexican scumbags facing multiple counts of whatever have the option for a clean slate (which they will inevitably abuse) across the border. Welfare, also.

    This creates both a serious issue of criminality and a false impression that Mexico is nothing but a viperous third world den of thieves.

  14. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” – Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking to the Senate regarding the introduction of the Immigration Act of 1965

  15. Orthodox says:

    It is more like the subprime housing crisis. The amount of debt soared at the end and the first defaults were the last debts, not the earlier ones. Conservatives were seriously debating illegal immigration and mass immigration in the 1990s. Most of the people coming in then were probably doing landscaping, fruit picking, home construction, janitorial services, etc. September 11 should have shut the borders on natl security grounds and didn’t, anti-immigrant parties started rising in Europe, but migration kept rising. Then after 2011 or so, then it’s a free-for-all, the U.S. is flying in illegals, murderers, rapists, drug mules, medieval narco-cartels flood in, African and Muslim barbarian rape hordes pour into Europe. This is the blowoff top.

    Never let a crisis go to waste.

  16. peppermint says:

    I was taught in college that the most immoral thing and biggest global crisis was the brown people who were excluded from rich countries for no apparent reason, while their homes get global warminged and water crisis and whatever.

    Of course, 2011 wasn’t that long out of college for me.

  17. […] All things being equal, this should still hold, with only the question of lag being a variable, which should provide an answer to Jim’s question -> […]

  18. Ncsarstylcople says:

    Another thing these open borders types seem to say alot – “An Englishman in 1900 did not need a passport, and could travel anywhere”. This way only due to the power of the British Empire, and you still needed proper letters when traveling.

    • jim says:

      An affluent person from a wealthy country with connections could travel anywhere. A poor guy from nowhere would likely find himself in deep trouble.

  19. Ncsarstylcople says:

    In medieval times there was no way to guard the borders, but many cities and towns had gates and moats. If people were not wanted, they were kicked out and not let back in.

  20. Steve Johnson says:

    “One day even Obama opposes gay marriage. The next day, no one opposes gay marriage, and no one remembers that they ever opposed gay marriage. ”

    Not only does no one remember that no one supported it – they forget that it was literally a joke to everyone. It was absurd to think about.

    • Bo says:

      “One day even Obama opposes gay marriage. The next day, no one opposes gay marriage, and no one remembers that they ever opposed gay marriage.”

      No need to attribute this quote, I hope.

      “He accepted everything. The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford were guilty of the crimes they were charged with. He had never seen the photograph that disproved their guilt. It had never existed, he had invented it. He remembered remembering contrary things, but those were false memories, products of self-deception. How easy it all was! Only surrender, and everything else followed.”

    • A Pint Thereof says:

      There is a book which deserves to be more widely known about in this debate, but which is virtually unheard of. It was written by two homosexuals, a Madison Avenue ad executive, and a neuro-scientist. It is called “After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s”. Some links discussing its significance further:

Leave a Reply