Migrant Entitlement Necessitating Legal Change

by Rose Sybil

Rose Sybil presents the Shiloh case as a stark warning, urging the deportation of Sharmake Omar to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the American founding stock.

As a child, I grew up subjected to random, primitive violence. Even now, after moving away and becoming a mother, I’ve still had to deal with my own kids being targeted by primitive indiscretions and hostilities. That’s why this pivotal case with Shilo really hit home. It is a very real stressor for racially aware parents. It feels like we are on a sinking ship, with the tide of third worlders rising all around us (and taxpayer-funded). This very public debacle with Shilo made me immediately think about her safety for relocating.

It’s wonderful to see the shift in support. Just a few years ago, GoFundMe would cut off anyone white who was deemed “racist” by the system, so more options unwilling to do this is a refreshing change. The massive outpouring of financial support is encouraging, and the underlying cultural shift in the West is obvious, but we can’t let that momentum fold back on itself. My first concern is that once her family relocates, she will still be constantly targeted. Sure, she could change her hair color or something, and most third worlders wouldn’t recognize her. Of course, it would be liberal traitors doxxing her wherever she goes, directing that primitive, impulsive violence her way. This would become circular fast and burn up the energy of this new shift.

Yes, this isn’t the same cultural landscape as a decade ago, or even five years ago. I still recall Jake Gardner being driven to taking his life, or that family in Virginia targeted by BLM, with their house set on fire and first responders blocked (to this day ZERO charges). If Shilo were doxxed, there would be an outpouring of people wanting to protect her, which would likely lead to a continual standoff, played out through legal channels. Being in a reactive position against the system didn’t end well for Mark Vawter (he’ll be forgotten soon enough by most, but I won’t forget him). It was, without a doubt, an impressive display of masculinity and heroism but his sacrifice was in vain and the energy dissipated. As encouraging as the rise in masculine readiness to defend her is, it still leaves those trying to protect her in a reactive position, and it ends up reinforcing the legal system as if it’s the ultimate authority. That also keeps the spotlight on her family, when really, mass attention is easily led and redirected.

So it immediately occurred to me that what’s upstream of reaction is proactively shifting the focus to the fact that we need to reground the law to serve the best interest of actual Americans. A real shift in the times doesn’t come from constantly reacting to this mess of a legal system; it comes from something concrete, like deporting Sharmake Omar. His deportation would be a pivotal power shift — one the liberals waiting to track her down would definitely feel. It would put them on the reactive, instead of feeling backed and emboldened by the legal system itself. Like, why is a Somali “refugee” even allowed to come here let alone stay after raping a minor? He felt so comfortable out at a playground filming an American mother to intimidate her and try to destroy her life publicly. It’s completely absurd.

None of Omar’s deliberate attempts to intimidate her and ruin her life are considered violations of privacy under this overly abstract legal system, yet we can not even know his immigration status? That is insane to me, but it also makes total sense. It highlights the core problem: this abstracted legal system is inherently harmful precisely because it lacks direction, and by direction, I mean a people it tangibly is an extension of. Our legal body has become a detached mechanism, a technique as object that places us as subject. There is supposed to be an active interplay between laws and the people they’re meant to protect. The very founding of this nation was built on the right to alter or dissolve governing systems that fail to serve the people and their posterity.

If you look through sex offender records in Nebraska, for example, you’ll see a disproportionate number of mestizos and, of course, they’re labeled as white. It’s obvious that many of them are recent migrants. We can access public records for criminal charges, we can be shamed and harassed at a park by a sex offender rallying people who want to harm our children, but somehow the privacy line gets drawn at knowing someone’s immigration status? That’s ridiculous. Not only should that be public record, but anyone acting against the founding stock should be removed from our lands. It’s outrageous that this idea of universal privacy protects Somalis squatting here and their supposed immigration status, all while they publicly target and try to destroy a mother with children (and we wonder why replacement rates are so low).

So I reached out to a friend to ask why. Why is immigration status considered private? It clearly ties back to the universal application of all constitutional protections, and I learned this stems from the Insular Cases. Funnily enough, those cases were originally about the rights of people in our territories, but by giving them unfettered rights and handouts it’s basically flipped, making us the territories of them. I break this down more in Defining the Civilization from Its Originators. But this shouldn’t be left up to some stagnant court interpretation. We need active laws that meet the demands of changing times, that define different forms of citizenship and residency status, and make clear how those can and should be revoked when individuals show they have no respect for the long-standing populations of our civilization, as I outline in that article.

Then I found out that both federal and local protections exist around documents (things like driver’s licenses, passports, immigration records) but those laws mostly protect the documents themselves. That kind of protection could be easily overridden with new legislation or executive action aimed at defining more precise forms of citizenship and residency, along with stronger vetting for those who come here with intentions that harm the founding core of this civilization. We are not a world market. People seeking our protection or refuge (and what are Somalis even refugees from, their own dysfunction?) shouldn’t feel entitled to come here and spit in our faces. When in Rome…

What type of world do we live in where a “refugee” can come here, rape a minor and still be allowed to stay? A convicted minor rapist felt entitled to go to a children’s playground. At that children’s playground he used our own technology (smart phones) to record her, upload it to our invention (the internet) and try to rally her doom. This is abhorrent and we cannot live like this. This outpour of energy going into helping Shilo needs to shift to the root of this issue to continue its momentum. It is time to demand new laws to meet the current realities, not leaving it to the past outdated interpretations that clearly don’t work, allowing the judiciary to continually abstract from old law as an outdated stasis of forms. We need an overhaul of public immigration registration and accountability to the populace, a redefinition of residency, citizenship, and visa statuses — and we need it now. Otherwise, this will never end.

True justice would be the deportation of Sharmake Omar (by catapult of course), which would also represent a real cultural shift to reclaiming American autonomy over globalist control.