The mostly-Honduran group calls itself , People Without Borders, and they are purported to number a good strong or more. Their slogan is “,” or “Migrants in the fight,” and they have released a which perfectly demonstrates leftist weaponization of human rights in an attack on the West:
The thing I find fascinating about this statement is the way in which it exploits the language of human rights. Look at how these Central Americans describe themselves:
“We are a group of people from different nations, religions, genders, gender expressions, and sexual orientations migrating and seeking refuge.”
You have to love how this is calculated to appeal to every weak-minded SJW and cat lady imaginable. Notice the clever use of “genders,” “gender expressions,” and of course “sexual orientations.” This could not possibly be better calibrated to the tastes of leftists, who are ever-ready to be compassionate with other people’s resources.
And refuge from what, exactly? Not to worry, we’re getting there.
“We seek to become one collective, supporting each other shoulder to shoulder and demonstrating that by uniting we can abolish borders.”
Uniting to abolish borders? Sounds suspiciously like John Lennon. Whose interests does abolishing borders serve, anyway? Is it good for the people of developed nations to abolish borders with their “developing” neighbors?
These people are the equivalent of that person who crashes the potluck empty-handed and talks about how important it is for everyone to share.
“Abolishing borders” is the kind of empty-headed and stupid platitude that appeals to hippies and other empty-headed idealists, and to illegal alien invaders seeking to take advantage of a society that is not theirs, a society they have no right to.
It is a neo-Marxist attack on the West, an attack on the integrity of nations and the right of their peoples to be protected from invaders and freeloaders of all kinds. In a saner (and less globalist) world, this would go entirely without saying.
This particular line is also a good reminder of something I have talked about before, in reference to a point made by : the Left uses mass migration from the Third World to recruit new voters who are more favorable to their agenda of expanding government.
Is there a human right to cross the borders into a country that does not belong to one? Should countries have borders at all? Should foreigners with no legal right to be in a country have equal rights with legal immigrants? What about with native-born citizens?
In a saner world, the answers would be obvious:
No, of course illegal alien invaders should not have the right to cross into a country that does not belong to them.
This entire incident is testament to the pervasiveness of the Universalist doctrine of “” and ideas of “universal human rights” that the Left have weaponized against the West. Equality and human rights in this context amount to nothing more than a demand for unearned status, consideration, and resources.
The press release goes on to blather about “struggle” and “solidarity,” but when you cut through the platitudes and the buzzwords, all that is left is a towering sense of entitlement. What the neo-Marxist clap-trap boils down to is nothing more and nothing less than a naked desire to take advantage of the generosity and resources of a more civilized country.
There are two sets of demands, and they are interesting. The first set of demands is directed at the Central American countries these invaders are leaving behind. Isn’t that funny? What point do these people think they are making, exactly?
Given that they’re leaving the (something-that-rhymes-with spit-hole) countries they came from… why, exactly, do their demands matter?
What they’re saying, in effect, is “We’re leaving, but we demand that you reform your ways.”
Or could it be that they are not at all concerned with what their home countries’ governments think or will do, and are instead trying to build sympathy for their leftist project to weaponize “human rights” against the West?
Finally, if these are the conditions in Central American countries, do we really want mass migration from them? After all, if this caravan has the “right” to enter the U.S., what about the next 10,000 or 20,000? And if we import all those Central Americans, what guarantee do we have that they won’t re-create their societies here?
They demand a right to work. No such right exists: there cannot be a right to participation someone else’s business, not unless we disregard all notions of private property.
In any case, how is it in the interests of the U.S. to grant them that right? Incidentally, Google tells me the unemployment rate is 4.1%:
That’s pretty low, all things considered, but still, why do we need to be adding another 1,000 or more people simply because they demand we do?
The second demand, which reads like something straight from Soros, is to open the borders “because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel.”
This is the perfect object lesson in the entitlement of the leftist mentality: I have a right to access your country; because feelings.
All indicators are that the group has been able to breeze through Mexico, receiving support from along the way. President Trump, who issues , has to the news with condemnations of Democratic “Catch & Release” laws, and calls for a “Nuclear Option” of tougher laws and no DACA deal.
As has been , these illegal alien invaders would not, of course, be eligible for DACA. The real concern, however, is that they will be able to slip into Democrat-controlled sanctuary cities and states that will provide them with refuge from being deported back to where they belong.
With President Trump now apparently claiming that the military will be to secure the border until the Wall can be built, perhaps sufficient resolve will be found to protect not only the territorial integrity of the United States, but also the rights of American citizens to not have illegal aliens foisted upon them and their communities.