Several decades ago, a spat developed between the Border Patrol and the Investigations Division, both of which were part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The spat was over whether one of those divisions should be stuck processing, on a routine basis, aliens who were apprehended by the other, thus being forced to expend innumerable productive hours for which they would accrue no statistical credit. I won't say which was the aggrieved party; it's irrelevant to the story.
I thought of Hal Ezell and his statement this morning when watching a BBC World News item announcing that European Union (EU) ministers were having another of their interminable meetings to set rules requiring registration in the first country of arrival for the unabated massive flow of illegal migrants. They were also to discuss distribution arrangements to more equitably share out among the EU countries the arrivals, both past and present. (More than a million came in 2015 by land and sea.) Germany is apparently pushing hard for this redistribution of the wealth.
Imagine the other nations reacting to that proposal in light of the shocking New Year's Eve assaults of women by the hundreds in Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, and Dusseldorf, Germany, and even in Malmo, Karlstad, and Kalmar, Sweden.
They have to be thinking something along the lines of Ezell's famous dictum, given that Angela Merkel (Time Magazine's 2015 Woman of the Year — "Chancellor of the Free World") was so instrumental in precipitating the flood with her assertions that Germany would accept them without limit. It appears she's having second thoughts.
And in other news fronts, Austria has announced that it will be sharply curtailing its asylum and refugee program while Norway has announced that it will begin deporting illicit migrant arrivals to Russia. Sweden has declared that it has reached its breaking point where acceptance of migrants and refugees is concerned. Other nations are also shoring up their borders and taking measures to limit arrival — all of them seem disinclined to agree with the notion of "equitable sharing". Does anyone seriously wonder why?
Click HERE to read more