Restrict Immigration, Not Civil Liberties


A tragedy for thousands of Americans, the September
11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. were a boon for
Eurostatists, Eurocrats and other assorted architects
of a

European state.
The superstatists quickly put
their own spin on the attacks, arguing that their
success proves the impotence and pointlessness of
national sovereignty.

As British European Union advocate

Graham Watson
(send him

mail
) put it, "The fig leaf of national sovereignty
serves only to hide the impotence of nation-states." If
Europeans want security from terrorists, they must find
it in the centralization of power in the European state.

This theme has been waiting for lift-off ever since,
five years ago, a European Commission planning document
concluded: "It will be difficult to achieve political
union [of sovereign countries] without there being the
perception of an external political threat. A terrorist
outrage would contribute to the perception of an
external political threat."

Although the attacks of September 11 were committed
against the U.S., Eurostatists have seized on the attack
to call for a European arrest warrant, European criminal
law based on the

Napoleonic
model, and the creation of a centralized
agency with the combined powers of the FBI and CIA.

These items were on the EU agenda for "judicial
integration,
" but in the aftermath of the
September attack on the World Trade Center they have
become part of the war against terrorism. Opposition to
these measures is fading as no one wants to be accused
of being soft on terrorism.

These developments have severe implications for
habeas corpus and the English common law tradition. A
Greek or Spanish prosecutor would be able to arrest an
Englishman without having to meet

English standards
for extradition.

As well, the EU has defined terrorism broadly enough
to include those who oppose increased powers for the EU.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph
wagers that the EU`s anti-terrorism language "will
before the decade is out be used to charge a British
citizen engaged in political dissent against the EU."

[VDARE.COM NOTE:
Evans-Pritchard may be unaware that this already
happened
in 1999, to a veteran of WWII, who was


charged
with
"racially-aggravated criminal damage" for writing "Don`t
forget the 1945 War" and "Free Speech for England" on
the wall of an abandoned building.]

The English spent 1,000 years making law a

shield of the people
rather than

a weapon in the hands of government
. Now this
historic achievement is to be

vitiated
for
the sake of "anti-terrorism" measures. No one has
explained how these measures could have prevented the
September 11 attacks.

The U.S. and Europe are endangered not by national
sovereignty and civil liberties but by immigration
policies. It is folly to be allied with Israel against
its Muslim enemies and simultaneously to keep one`s
borders open to
Muslim immigrants.

The real situation is different from what political
leaders in the U.S. and Europe are saying. The U.S. and
Europe are being intentionally flooded with
unassimilable Third World peoples in order to destroy
the homogeneity of the nation-state and
dissolve
it in multiculturalism.
This prepares the way for
superstates ruled by unaccountable elites that turn
countries into provinces and the 50 American states into
administrative zones for the government in Washington
DC.

It is a hallmark of despotism to combine law
enforcement and intelligence agencies under one head.
Giving

Europol
these combined powers is particularly
irresponsible as the head of Europol answers only to the
management board that appoints him. There is no
democratic check on his executive powers.

Unless the U.S. and Europe exercise care in their
response to terrorism, they will become more oppressive
than the Taliban.

Protecting civil liberties when people are concerned
with security requires more judgment than the

ACLU
recently
showed when it

demanded
that a public school take down a flag with
the inscription, "God bless America." If the ACLU
foolishly places civil liberties in opposition to public
expressions of patriotism, civil liberties will take a
big hit.

Indeed, it will look like the ACLU is trying to stamp
out God, not defend our liberty.

Good judgment is always in short supply. In times of
crisis it can altogether disappear. We need to keep this
in mind and consider whether it is better to restrict
immigration instead of our civil liberties. 

Paul Craig Roberts is the author
(with Lawrence M. Stratton) of

The New Color Line : How Quotas and Privilege Destroy
Democracy

COPYRIGHT 2001

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

October 09, 2001