Χαρακτηριστικὸ κοινὸ στοιχεῖο τῆς ὅλης ἱστορίας μὲ τοὺς «πρόσφυγες», εἶναι πὼς τὸ 1/3 αὐτῶν ποὺ μπουκάρουν εἶναι μὲ πλαστὰ διαβατήρια, ἐγκληματίες, φυγόδικοι, δραπέτες καὶ τζιχαντιστές.
Τὰ ἴδια δηλαδὴ ποὺ ἔπαθε ἡ Ἑλλάδα, ὅταν μᾶς ἔστειλε ἐδῶ ἡ ἀλβανικὴ κυβέρνησις ὅλον τὸν UCK καὶ τοὺς βαρυποινίτες τὸ 1990, μὲ ἀποτέλεσμα νὰ ἀλλάξῃ γιὰ πάντα ἡ χώρα, ἀντιμετωπίζοντας μία πρωτοφανὴ σὲ βία ἐγκληματικότητα.
Παραθέτω ἕνα μικρὸ ἀπόσπασμα ἀπὸ τὴν ἐπικὴ πραγματεία τοῦ Murray Rothbard σχετικὰ μὲ τὴν εἰσβολὴ σὲ ἀκοιντὰ σύνορα.
The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. Ι began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarchocapitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems
clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.