One of the most persistent myths propagated by open borders enthusiasts is the notion that America’s approach to border security, despite not existing in many places along our southern border, is both unique and quintessentially inhumane. The predominant narrative usually takes the form of American Border Patrol agents callously impeding the free flow of brown-skinned, impoverished workers migrating to this country from Mexico and Central America. In their minds, this is merely an arbitrary and capricious decision made by heartless bureaucrats administering a border that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Left unmentioned is the extensive help rendered to Mexicans who find themselves abandoned to die  by venal coyotes, as well as the medical care administered to these individuals, elements that are chronicled extensively in Darrell Ankarlo’s great book Illegals, which I intend to review later this month. 

Also absent from this discussion is any attempt to compare and contrast how we deal with border security and the approaches of other nations with borders of comparable length and complexity. That’s why a recent report by Human Rights Watch is a welcome relief to those of us who wish to debunk the pernicious mythology that’s been erected around illegal immigration to the United States. India’s Border Security Force is a far cry from the U.S. Border Patrol, but not because of its innate humanity. To the contrary, it has been credibly accused of “killings, torture and other abuses”of Bangladeshis apprehended in the border region that lies between their nation and India. 

We border a country that’s been consumed by narco-fueled violence, which is responsible for sending hundreds of thousands of people here without authorization, and which exhibits little to no cooperation in helping to curtail the problems that stem from our unsecured border. In fact, more often than not Mexican government officials facilitate the process by which our laws are broken. Yet almost all Mexican nationals detained by American law enforcement are treated with decency, respect, and professionalism, as is evident to anyone who’s watched a single episode of Nat. Geo’s compelling documentary series Border Wars. 

And the violence perpetrated against foreigners who trespass on Indian territory is not an isolated manifestation of extreme xenophobia. In fact, the benign way illegal aliens are treated by law enforcement in the United States is the exception rather than the rule throughout the globe. Whether it’s Zimbabweans and other Southern African refugees being hunted down in South Africa or the brutality that Central American migrants endure at the hands of corrupt Mexican authorities, the norm throughout much of the world is one of inhumanity and degradation, in sharp contrast to the experiences of Mexicans who come here illegally.

By no means am I suggesting that we emulate the worst practices of these nations; I’m simply trying to expose the absurdity of assertions made by open borders fanatics that modest, woefully inadequate in most cases, immigration enforcement is something ordinary Americans should be ashamed of. No American should feel ashamed of his or her citizenship, notwithstanding the campaign by those who want to negate it entirely.

There are a number of lessons to be gleaned from the rapidly imploding criminal case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Beyond the usual, insincere breast-beating and lamentation over the media’s predictable rush to judgement, as well as questions of whether the traditional perp walk is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights, there is a much broader discussion that has yet to be broached. And that discussion entails the morass of fraud that lies at the heart of our country’s immigration system, especially the application process for potential asylum-seekers. 

The New York Post had an extensive analysis of why the credibility of DSK’s accuser has been called into question in yesterday’s edition. Although there are numerous accusations being leveled against the Guinean maid, including charges of tax evasion and lying about the aftermath of the alleged sexual assault by Khan, the allegations that I’d like to explore involve the deception she employed in order to get into this country in the first place.

One of ugly truths that the rah-rah, open borders at any cost crowd refuses to admit-but which is acknowledged by almost anyone else with a shred of integrity-is that political asylees and foreigners applying for refugee status in Western countries, including the United States, lie. They lie in order to gain access to the bounty that is Western Europe, or Australia, or North America-Mexico excluded-and they lie in order to protect their status within these very special places once they have arrived there. So the fact that this woman created an elaborate patchwork of lies, starting with a fictitious gang-rape that allegedly took place within her home country of Guinea, in order to gain political asylum  is not surprising in the least. In fact, those of you with good memories might recall the case of Adelaide Abankwah, a phony Nigerian “princess” whose story of  a potential clitoridectomy gained her the favor of our own esteemed, open borders pinheads, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Senator Chuck Schumer. Interestingly enough, Mr. Strauss-Khan’s accuser also maintains that she was the victim of genital mutilation-and that her daughter in Guinea is under threat of FGM-a claim that might or might not withstand increased media scrutiny in the coming days. The similarities between these two examples of West African immigration scams might strike some as uncanny, until, that is, you remember that this sort of deception is par for the course.

Misrepresenting your circumstances in order to remain in a wealthy, industrialized nation is such a common occurrence that women’s rights activist and Islamic apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali devotes an entire chapter to her own asylum case in her engrossing memoir, Nomad. She readily admits that she lied during the application process in order to avoid an arranged marriage and remain in The Netherlands, and that most asylum-seekers also fudge the facts in their cases, for better or worse. The mendacity of asylum-seekers is so widespread-it can be said to be almost universal-that it was satirized in a Steven Spielberg-directed film called The Terminal, a tedious comedy starring Tom Hanks as a wholesome immigrant who is forced to live inside of an airport because of overly officious Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureaucrats.

And if you think immigration fraud is limited to the United States, then you obviously haven’t been an avid reader of UK tabloids and broadsheets, or a follower of the BBC, which recount cases of fraudulent asylum-seekers gaming the system on a daily basis. The only surprising part of this case, in my opinion, is the shockingly long time it took the mainstream media to investigate the claims lodged by the accuser in this case. Unfortunately, I doubt this will lead the same journalists to question the wisdom of our government’s endorsement of unfettered immigration. To the contrary, the revelation that many of her initial claims were falsehoods was accompanied-at least in the New York Times-by a series of soft focus stories lamenting the potential negative repercussions these new developments will have on Guinean immigrants living in New York City. Leave it to the drive-by media to miss the point yet again. That is why this website exists, my friends.

When the subject of illegal Palestinians living inside of Israel is broached, we more often than not view it through the prism of  terrorism directed against the Jewish state. Considering the collaboration between Israeli Arabs and Islamic terrorist organizations in the region, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, that’s not an altogether baseless concern.

We’ve also been told countless times of the alleged plight of Palestinians working inside of Israel illegally, often within the context of a broader condemnation of Israel’s construction of homes for citizens living on the West Bank.

What’s less frequently discussed are the problems posed by the large sub-population of Palestinian illegal aliens living within Israel on a daily basis. The gravity of this problem though was made apparent recently when an eleven year-old Israeli boy was habitually raped and tortured at the hands of four Palestinian men. As gruesome as this crime is, it reflects the enormous problems you invite into your country when you sanction the presence of hundreds of thousands-or in our country’s case, millions-of illegal aliens. Peruse New York tabloids from the past decade and you will find hundreds of criminal incidents that illegal aliens lie at the heart of, including one of the most notable cases, the brutal murder of acclaimed actress/director Adrienne Shelly by a nineteen year-old IA from Ecuador.

Nations can continue to ignore this problem-in order to reap the dubious benefits of access to a cheap supply of labor-or they can grapple with the enormous human cost of illegal immigration. As last week’s horrific revelations in Israel demonstrate, this is a problem that all Western nations must face, even if they are reluctant to do so.

It seems that the furor over unfettered immigration from third world nations has finally reached the shores of Albion, at least, if recent news to come out of the United Kingdom is any barometer. There are any number of reasons to be skeptical about the proposed migrant cap aimed at limiting non-EU member state immigration, not least because of Mr. Cameron’s coalition partners, who are just as rigidly committed to a policy of open borders as Labor and the Conservatives. 

There’s also the inescapable fact that while Cameron enjoys making publicity-generating speeches decrying the worst aspects of unfettered immigration, his resolve to take the hard steps necessary to address these problems is open to question. The notion that the primary problem posed by non-European immigrants to the UK is economic displacement, rather something much more disturbing, and ultimately irreparable, reinforces my impression that Cameron doesn’t quite grasp the reason behind British anger which often translates into support for groups like the English Defense League and BNP.

That being said, the fact that he’s at least recognized that the scale of immigration to the UK is unsustainable is a step in the right direction, and is a welcome respite from the Blairite/New Labor immigration policy, and therefore, something to be cheered.