There has been something of a public alarm over the 11 Egyptian students who went missing on their way to a special college program in Montana. The FBI released a list of their names, but has been slow to publish photos that would actually aid in their arrest. (Michelle Malkin now has the mug shots posted.)

But Newsday reported today that foreign students fall off the official screen all the time to blend into the country, no big deal [Disappearances not unusual, 8/9/06].

Immigration agents are investigating about 1,300 leads on visa violations by students or exchange visitors who were flagged by the foreign-student tracking system known as SEVIS for such things as not showing up at school, ICE statistics show.

And, since 2003, agents have arrested more than 1,800 students and exchange visitors who violated immigration law according to SEVIS notifications, the statistics show. [...]

There are nearly a million foreign students and exchange visitors with visas in the United States, [ICE spokesman Dean] Boyd said.

If a Martian were to plunk down into 2006 America, he would have no clue that this nation was attacked on its own soil just 5 years ago with shocking loss of life. The borders remain scandalously open, as do the ports. Border Patrol agents have been criminally prosecuted for protecting the nation’s perimeter. Now we are reminded that student visas are yet another way for our enemies to enter at will.

In a column on seatbelt laws, of all things. But author Eric Peters has a point.

The late conservative intellectual Sam Francis came up with an excellent term for all of this stuff – “anarcho-tyranny.” In brief, he meant a situation in which the truly lawless (violent criminals, big-time crooks) are increasingly treated with kid gloves while at the same time, ordinary schlubs who never commit serious personal or property crimes are increasingly hassled over Pecksniffy technical fouls and “lifestyle violations” such as failing to wear their seat belts.

Invariably, the punishment involves money.[Seat Belt Lashes The American SpectatorAugust 7, 2006]

In 1997 Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny

“a form of government that seems to be unknown in history until recently. Anarcho-tyranny is a combination of the worst features of anarchy and tyranny at the same time.

Under anarchy, crime is permitted and criminals are not apprehended or punished. Under tyranny, innocent citizens are punished. Most societies in the past have succumbed to either one or the other, but never as far as I know to both at once.”

And he included seat-belt laws in that. I put the whole article below the jump:

(more…)

Frank Field is the Labour Party, (i.e. left-wing) Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, in England, which is where I grew up. (Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but I’m an immigrant myself.) He said recently of Britain’s dramatically increased immigration:

“The revolution is on a par with Stalin’s forced migration of Ukraine. He set out to transform Ukraine by forcing out the existing population and replacing it with citizens loyal to the Soviet Republic.

“The Ukrainians did not vote for Stalin’s brutal policy. Nor have voters here agreed to the transformation of England.”

icLiverpool - Birkenhead MP calls for end to mass immigration

The interesting thing about this is that it’s a left-wing MP who’s talking like this. Enoch Powell, who was the unofficial opposition to the center-left consensus after his great speech on immigration, was a Conservative.

The Labour Party, for ideological reasons, couldn’t speak out against the mass immigration of Indians and Jamaicans, although Harold Wilson, fearful of the electoral consequences of doing nothing about it, actually passed into law an immigration reform act in 1968.

In fact, one reason why Powell’s prediction of demographic disaster didn’t come true sooner than it did is because the Labour Party, while speaking out against him, had done a good deal of what he asked.

But if a Labour MP is actually saying this publicly, the times have changed. They must have–few Labour MPs of the 50s and 60s would have criticized Stalin, either.