TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I think the issue of using violence to guard borders is the tip of an iceberg. It's a bandaid to cover a gangrenous wound. Even if you apply it perfectly, that still won't solve the bigger problem underneath, just scale it down a little.
The core problem is how a combination of political inertia and ass covering, bureaucratic inertia, media pressure, and legal activism under poorly defined limits of "human rights" create a situations where illegal immigrants are encouraged to come and try their luck, and if caught, continue to try their luck in increasingly more ridiculous legal and PR manipulations. If they succeed, good for them, if they fail, at worst, after some stay in conditions no worse than the poor of their homelands normally endure (often better, in particular if they have major health problems that are expensive but possible and considered non-elective to address, yet their homeland's healthcare has no will or resources to do so), they get deported and can try again in the future at little cost, at least compared to the potential benefits in case of success.
And then everyone is surprised that so many keep trying.
It's like a lottery ticket. Except it's pretty cheap, and the chances of winning are higher than any actual lottery ticket provides. Harsher enforcement would help a bit by increasing the cost in form of risk, but it would not address the fact that there is still a reward pool and there is a way too high chance for a cheeky migrant to reach it. Harsher legal and administrative treatment of cheeky migrants is what's necessary, and if that's done, lethal violence may not even be needed.
In case of Israel the main difference is that most of the border crossers are motivated more by being part of a national-religious war they are waging on Israel rather than economic benefit, but to a surprising degree the point about being free to try again and again still applies (also local terrorist organizations outright compensate them and\or their families for taking the riskier actions and getting harmed in turn).
First and foremost, apologies if I didn't reply you to the other thread, but real life commitments (looking for a job primarily) and my mother's chemotherapy have taken precendence. If I ever have time and chance and remember to reply, I will respond exhaustively to it.
Returning to the topic :
I personally disagree with that article on "Christian" defense, because with the exception of Balkan countries, Central Europe and few others, West of the Order is a mixed bag at best. Germany might as well be 100% atheist by how the CDU behaved thanks to Merkel, and the Germans will continue to get buttfucked on immigration, I wouldn't mind Germany getting this treatment because I see Germany the same as @ATP does but since Italy and to a lesser degree Spain have been the bridgeheads'handlers of their human waves I rather have not my homelands getting buttfucked as well, compared to Germany, we have much less of immigrants (yours included) both documented (yours truly again) and undocumented ; granted we have more than Poland and they are not as say, the Vietnamese community in Poland and Czechia. I think it should be argued for a national defence.
Israel right to defend itself is a bit controversial : had they not supported unconventionally Syrian rebels (which very likely has included Wahabists and Salafists ) against Damascus the argument could (barely) stand....
Report: Israel armed rebels in south Syria for years, in effort to block Iran
Fighters tell Foreign Policy the Jewish state provided them with funding and weapons from 2013, but pulled support as Assad's troops regained control of border area
www.timesofisrael.com
Last edited: