Thousands of Nonwhite Invaders Mass for New Invasion of America through Mexico

US President Donald Trump has threatened to call in the military and close the US-Mexico border as thousands of nonwhite invaders mass for a frontal attack on America’s southern border.

According to reports, Hondurans and Salvadorans have joined in a mass caravan of invaders already in Guatemala who are travelling north hoping to parasite off whites in  America.

“I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught — and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Several thousand Hondurans moved this week through Guatemala, and some were trying to cross into Mexico on Thursday, according to local media. SAll hope to invade the United States in an attempt to “escape” their own self-created violence and poverty—which of course they will only bring with them to the US.

Reuters images showed the nonwhites hiking from Honduras through muddy jungle and residential streets, some toting babies along with backpacks.

In Guatemala City, where “migrant shelters” filled with people, waves of nonwhites departed at daybreak on roads leading to Mexico. The nearest border is about 110 miles (177 km) away.

“If we don’t get across, we’re going to try the same thing again,” said Gustavo Perez, a would-be invader from Honduras, told media.

“We hope that in this big caravan group, they let us in,” he added, referring to the United States.





Trump also this week threatened to halt aid if Central American governments did not act.

In a string of tweets on Thursday, Trump also said the border issue was more important to him than the new trade deal with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement pact.

“The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border,” Trump wrote.

The caravan has been growing steadily since it left the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Saturday. There are no official estimates of the size of the group.

The repeated “migrant caravans” demonstrate once again that the so-called “migration crisis” is not a “crisis” at all, but simply part of the ongoing mass invasion of white nations by nonwhites. The latter, unable to create sustainable social structures of their own, seek out what they correctly perceive to be white-created areas of stability and economic progress, hoping to parasite off those systems.

In this plan they are aided and abetted by race-denying liberals, who bizarrely believe that if these nonwhites can only “live in America” then they will suddenly be transformed into model First World white people, and all will be well. Of course, all that really happens is that the chaos and misery endemic in the Third World gets transplanted into the areas in which the invaders move–and will, if left unstopped, utterly destroy what is left of white, First World, America.


Recommended For You

4 Comments

  1. You mean, the pedophile party (see dennis hastert) can’t stop an invasion of our country.? You mean, the holocaust wailers are helping the whineorities.? You mean, when military spending is proportional, blacks and hispanics run a 800 billion dollar budget deficit every year when they are 30% of our population. (Google fiscal impacts of whites, blacks, and hispanics.) Over 80% of the gang members.? (national gang center)
    Ill go over some sanctuary law, some bills that have not been implemented, “refugees”, and wall solutions.
    No legal right of sanctuary exists within the United States. Sanctuary is not recognized by common or statutory law. “The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a legal opinion, rejecting sanctuary as a legal right in the United States under federal, state, or common law.” Sanctuary participants who knowingly harbor an illegal alien could violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324. In U.S. v. Costello the 7th circuit discussed the scope and stated that ” 8 U.S.C. §1324 (a)(1)(A)(iii), which provides that anyone who knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the U.S. in violation of law, conceals, harbors or shields from detection [or attempts to do any of these things], such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation,” is punishable by a prison term and a fine.” The court also reasoned that harboring is “deliberately safeguarding members of a specified group from authorities” and in the immigration setting, meant ” materially to assist an alien to remain illegally in the U.S. without publicly advertising his presence but without needing or bother to conceal it.” This also could include those who publicly advertise, i.e. a Church.
    The power to regulate immigration resides exclusively with the federal government and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution “bars or preempts state and local governments from taking serious actions that frustrate federal laws and regulatory schemes established in relation to immigration.” The Supreme Court has also consistently stated that the need to have uniformity in immigration is best accomplished by maintaining the federal government’s exclusive control over immigration. Put even simpler, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government must have control over immigration law. Sanctuary policies which restrict the exchange of information regarding a person’s immigration status between the federal and state/local government on their face violate the Immigration Reform Act and Welfare Reform Act.

    SEC. 642. (Immigration Reform Act) COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
    (a) IN GENERAL —Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, OR IN ANY WAY RESTRICT , any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
    (b) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT ENTITIES .—Not-withstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, law- ful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
    (c) OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO INQUIRIES .—The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

    SEC. 434 (Welfare Reform Act). COMMUNICATION BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
    *A local policy that prohibits or restricts officials and employees from sharing immigration information with federal authorities will likely conflict with 642 and 434 and thus would be a nullity. So, sanctuary policies that obstruct the “Accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” in the field of immigration law may be preempted by federal law.
    If they want to require non-dissemination of immigration information for minors who are arrested for felony crimes, it would also be preempted.
    If they have “Don’t Tell”, federal law bars the city from preventing voluntary dissemination of immigrant status information. In the Second Circuit in New York, the Court struck down an executive order which prohibited New York City employees from voluntarily reporting immigration information to federal officials. “In ruling against the city’s Tenth Amendment claim, the court held that the city did not have the untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs.” The court also outlined how the city would have to present evidence on how its illegal juvenile non-reporting policy is integral to the operation of the government. So, despite New York losing on a constitutional challenge, they are still recognized as a sanctuary city.

    BILLS>*So, the Republicans, despite having majorities everywhere, apparently have not authorized an across-the-board stripping of federal dollars from state and local governments that do not fully comply to the full extent of the federal governments immigration enforcement programs. “The House passed H.R. 3009 on July 23, 2015. That bill would have penalized states and localities that restrict information gathering or communication with federal immigration enforcement agencies regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status by withholding funding for three Department of Justice grant programs.”
    “2016 ( H.R. 2578) would have prohibited federal funds from going to jurisdictions that restrict their law enforcement agents from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens.” ”
    S. 3100 and S. 2193, would have restricted federal funding to cities that decline to honor detainers; and increase penalties (i.e., prison sentence) for migrants who illegally renter.” Sessions: The Interior Enforcement Order failed to even define “Sanctuary” jurisdictions . Clear Act, which states that federal funds will be reallocated only upon the dismissal of any sanctuary policy currently in place.

    WALL> tax the remittances, raise bridge costs, raise visa costs, new active land mines, cut foreign aid, el chapo act, etc.

    “Refugees”> 8 usca 1157> Trump and number 2) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest. So, in regards to both sanctuary cities and this, they are either incompetent or just trying to essentially say well I tried.. kind of. See also 1980 refugee act.

    Under this provision of the INA, the President also has the authority to determine how that total should be allocated among the various refugees fleeing conflicts and disasters around the world, thus giving the President important authority to express his preferences regarding who should enter, whether those preferences are motivated by foreign policy or domestic political concerns.
    A putative refugee must demonstrate not only that their STATE of origin intends to harm them seriously without cause, but that the harm is due to their status/identity. The statute says “persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” So, i would argue, that a country can be exceedingly dangerous and perilous for humans beings and it still wouldnt qualify the people leaving that country as refugees under US law. Moreover, in the Convention’s definition of refugee, it requires the applicant to show that they fear persecution and are unable to avail themselves of the protection in their state of origin. So, being that not everywhere in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Somalia, and Iran are warzones, i would further argue that almost of these people are not refugees. Many have passed through numerous other countries also. Anyway, refugee status is not to be extended to every alien displaced by conditions of unrest or violence in their home country. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
    Anyway, I would also argue that since almost all of these people were not “refugees” at the time that they were admitted, that most of them should be deported. The refugee status of any alien admitted to the US may be terminated if it is determined the alien was not a refugee. The USCIS may terminate the refugee status of any refugee, and their spouses and children, if it is found that the person was not in fact a refugee at the time of admission. Again, STATE has to target them, which is not happening for most of these places, they can’t avail themselves to the state, again most have places that are not war zones.

  2. Strangely – this is being reported in the MSM. In today’s Observer 21/10/18. They do not focus on the irony of Mexico refusing to allow invaders from one country, whilst condoning their own people invading another one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.