Population shift or invasion?  Why should we be concerned?

The words 'population shift' convey an innocence that gives a very euphemistic meaning to a violent and tragic human phenomenon. 

'Population shift' can be used to describe the invasion of North America by Europeans, particularly after the civil was.  It  does not describe the death, humiliation and suffering of the Indian.  'Population shift' can also be used to describe the immigration of millions of blacks into the Dutch settlements of South Africa   and a birth rate that soon made the natives a majority of the population.  In Kosovo, Yugoslavia, particularly after WW2, these words can also be used to describe the invasion of Albanians into the province.  These are three examples of population shift. 

The reason for these shifts are not hard to understand.  The invading group has seen greener pastures, or more freedom or more opportunity in the land being invaded.   Are these examples important to us? 

Problems arise with the response of the invaded country and its' people.  The Indians, being a tribal society and constantly at war within their own tribes, were a pushover for the white man with guns  because they could not get organized as a group to present a united resistance.  They are still agitating as losers, trying to use our own laws against us.  Does anybody think we are going to give the land back?  

In South Africa there was a different set of circumstances.  We had the United Nations.  We had a great concern over human rights.  Because of these two factors, we were obliged to support the majority blacks.  The problem in Kosovo is not yet  over.  The United Nations and all the human rights forces have made us support the Albanians.  Now we have a new president of Yugoslavia, Mr. Kostunica.   The country is moving toward Democracy.  However, the new president holds the same goal for Kosovo as that of Mr. Milosovic.  He wants the Albanians out.

Is this important to us?

Now we are faced with our own population shift and what to do about it.  The Clinton-Gore administration  wants to grant a second amnesty to all illegal aliens in the US.  The first amnesty just encouraged more and more illegal immigration and disenfranchised those aliens who were waiting for legal entrance into our country. 

Are we a sovereign state?  Do we have the right to say who can enter our country?   Must we accept the criminal element of any group along with the good?  Don't we have the right to screen those who want to enter? 

If we grant a second amnesty as Clinton-Gore wishes, we might as well give up and let every country send all of its' surplus population here, and give each of them a green card.

If we are to remain a free and sovereign nation, we have to control immigration, and there must be no illegal immigration.  We are facing a population shift on the Rio Grande border.  Asians, Cubans,  Poles, and Middle Eastern people take desperate chances to beat our weak immigration guards.

Do we offer resistance as was done in Kosovo?  Or do we just open the floodgates?        

Dear reader, the population shift is here,---now---today.  Do we want to lose our nation, as the Clinton-Gore plan
recommends?