In 1999 I had to take a diversity course during my final semester of college out east while completing my first master degree. It was here that I learned of the new view that immigration into the US should resemble a stew instead of a melting pot. This concept greatly disturbed me even then, and we are now constantly exposed to the dangers of a lack of assimilation. Although cultural disharmony threatens our nation’s security, the unintended consequences now pose an even greater threat to the millions of illegal immigrants within our borders who insist on being separate.

On Monday the Trump administration announced the end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to 200,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador. This follows the expiration of TPS for tens of thousands of Haitians and Nicaraguans. These populations, though here illegally, were granted annual extensions from multiple prior administrations, essentially making their illegal entry a temporary legal act.

Trump was elected largely because of his promised immigration policies. Over 70% of the nation support his immigration policies. This includes 59% of Hispanic voters.

Getting approximately ¾ of our citizens to agree on anything these days is near miraculous. I argue illegal immigrants have brought this “miracle” upon themselves.

With academia and our government stressing the insignificance of assimilation for decades, large percentages of immigrant populations (especially those from South and Central America and from nearly every majority Islamic Nation) have become increasingly abrasive, while demanding access to entitlements such as in-state tuition, driver licenses, and access to health care and public schools.

Large numbers settle in ethnic enclaves and show no desire to interact with outsiders. In a growing number of Muslim communities, for instance, they are increasingly refuting the power of the state to enforce the rule of law and even demand the power to practice Shariah law. Multiple generations of illegal immigrants from both Hispanic and Muslim areas either do not learn English at all, or speak it only out of necessity.

Their contempt for their host nation is displayed in sports, and large numbers openly demonstrate hatred for America. How many moments like this have we seen on the internet or the evening news?

Is there really any shock that, after decades of public ingratitude and endless demands, that a supermajority of Americans turned against them?

America is incredibly tolerant. There would not be ¾ of us who support stricter immigration policies, including their forcible repatriation, had they behaved like guests and demonstrated a desire to embrace American culture as their own. If the majority of illegal immigrants instead followed the outdated melting pot concept, there is no doubt in my mind that this would not be the leading issue of our time.

To support my theory, I ask a question.  Is there a large public outcry to repatriate Africans or Asians who overstay their work visas or are otherwise here illegally?  No.  Why? For whatever reasons, these populations seem more willing to assimilate and show an appreciation for the opportunities this nation offers.  They do not publicly demand that we become the nations they left behind.

Also on Monday, the Pope delivered his annual address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See. Somewhat surprising, considering his more recent comments, Pope Francis stated that immigrant populations, “must necessarily conform to the rules of the country offering them hospitality, with respect for its identity and values.”


This should be a warning to all immigrant populations, present and future. If you behave badly as a population, you should expect Americans will eventually demand that you leave.

The State Sponsor of Terror List needs more teeth. In its current form, the list only leverages three elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, and economic). It is time to discuss changing this reality by adding the fourth and final element of national power.

On November 2nd  the State Department failed to meet a congressional deadline. Their task is to determine whether the United States should relist North Korea on the State Sponsor of Terror List. President Trump will announce a decision at the end of his current Pacific diplomatic visits.

It may come as a surprise to most Americans that North Korea is not currently on this list. They were removed by the Bush administration in 2008 in a forlorn hope that the North Korean dictatorship then under Kim Jong-il would honor new denuclearization options in exchange for their removal from the list. As anyone with common sense and a rudimentary understanding of that region’s history should know, that did not work. Also unchanged is the Kim dynasty’s sponsorship of international terrorist movements who actively target the west, especially the United States and its interests.

This discussion, however, provides an opportunity to reconsider the usefulness of the State Sponsor of Terror List in its current form. There are three countries identified on the current list: Iran, Sudan and Syria. They have all been on this list for many years, and they have not changed their behavior in any tangible fashion. In fact, one could argue that all of them, and most certainly Iran, have accelerated their support for terrorist organizations.

Why? Listing a nation as a state sponsor of terror results in automatic diplomatic and economic sanctions, and such actions have next to no impact on leaders of nations who simply don’t care. Certainly, adding North Korea to this list will do almost nothing to them we are not already doing. Can we impose further diplomatic or economic sanctions than those already imposed due to their withdrawal from the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and their pursuit of ballistic missile delivery systems for their nuclear warheads? The obvious answer is, “No.”

The United States must alter its current policy to include the military element of national power. We must include the stated right to immediately, and without warning, retaliate against any state sponsor of terror in any fashion the US deems appropriate, up to and including the use of our own nuclear arsenal. Such an attack will be triggered as a response to a terrorist attack against our nation, its people, or our allies so long as the terrorist organization is shown to receive any support (arms, money, training, safe harbor, etc.) from a state sponsor on the list. This will provide a level of deterrence that currently does not exist.

Some may argue such a change would be extreme. I, however, would argue it is in our survival interest to do this quickly. Technology has progressed to where even third world dictators like Kim Jon-un are able to acquire weapons that can kill tens of millions, destroy hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure, contaminate our food sources, attack our economic infrastructure, shut down national electric grids, etc. Our enemies are all pursuing some or all of these technologies. It is very possible, and arguably probable, that at some point one of these nations will consider providing such a weapon to a terrorist organization they believe they can control. We need to insure they think long and hard before doing so.

This is a narrowly defined policy change. It would only apply to those nations who we place on the list. The State Sponsor of Terror List will then have a level of importance it currently does not, both for nations added and for those who are removed.

We need to stop giving the state sponsors of terror a pass while they conduct war by proxy against the US and its allies. Change our policy, and place North Korea on this list.