This was a plot point in some South Korean book I never read but read a detailed summary of about 15 years ago, but this one plot point always stuck out to me.
Long story short, the book is about the two Koreas uniting peacefully in the 1990’s and America doesn’t like that since Korea kicks the United States out of all their bases in their country. In revenge the United States performs a naval blockade of Korea and starts bombing them from bases in Japan. In revenge (and with the assistance of China) a large Korean Expedition Force stealthily lands in Mexico, and then with complete surprise launches attacks from across the Mexican border with aims at taking and securing several major US cities near the border like San Diego, Los Angeles, Tuscon, El Paso and San Antonio.
One aspect of their plan which is repeatedly said to be “genius” is the idea that the Korean military will open up every border crossing they control to allow “unlimited migration” into the United States from anyone who wants to cross (presumably Hispanic migrants). The idea being the massive wave of immigration/refugees would not only clog up American roads further past the Korean live of advance, but also the sheer number of migrants arriving into US cities during a critical time such as a foreign invasion of America would cause many public systems to fail under the sheer weight of the newly arrived migrants/refugees.
My question is, would that have ANY chance of working? You would think running into an active warzone would be the exact opposite of what refugees/migrants would do, and in fact letting migrants in would actually HURT the Korean Forces since they also have to deal with a bunch of people they don’t know/trust running around their active combat zones and also clogging up their supply lines.
I’m going to put aside several other questionable aspects of this book that you’ve described and focus on the open border question.
It wouldn’t work. A country can’t take unilateral action on its borders. Just because Mexico decided to let its citizens leave doesn’t mean the United States would have to let them enter.
…The scenario wasn’t the US deciding to allow this. The premise is that a military enemy is forcing this.
But it wouldn’t work, and it also wouldn’t work. First, it wouldn’t work because people flood out of warzones, not into them. And second, it wouldn’t work because increasing immigration would strengthen the US, not weaken us.
An occupying power could allow foreign nationals to enter American territory they control and the American government couldn’t stop this. But even if you accept the idea that immigrants are a problem, these immigrants would only be a problem for the occupying power not for the American government.
So my understanding was that the OP was asking what would happen if immigrants flooded into the unoccupied portions of the United States.
I’m assuming once they got past the border checkpoints (that are now open) whatever person could now just get around the country both occupied and unoccupied since there would be vast swaths of land in the desert they could now easily cross without detection.
The Union used that to their advantage. Men coming off the boat were offered a enlistment bonus, or draft if they didn’t enlist.
My Great Grandfather was “lucky” in that he was a skilled woodcutter and was put into a unit that repaired rail lines. Made railroad ties “for the duration”, got to be a supervisor. Could be worse.
The Mexicans would be pissed and we’d have plenty of new recruits.
Not to mention- getting past border checkpoints is a breeze compared to the battle front.
There are already vast swathes of land in the desert they can cross. And plus, now, there’s an actual war going on, which presumably means military deployments and something like a front line, with the potential for a highly permissive set of rule of engagement to enable even more widespread human rights abuses than we are now seeing. How does border towns being under the control of an occupying force make it easier to enter the US?
Honestly, the entire story sounds half-baked at best, and a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the white genocide conspiracy theory at worst.
In addition to the other issues pointed out (people leave war zones, more immigrants would strengthen the US, the occupying power now has more people to cope with)
Getting past the border isn’t enough. You also need documentation to work and such. I mean, you don’t NEED it, but without that, your stay remains tenuous.
If the US had more undocumented immigrants than there are jobs that want undocumented immigrants, i suspect a lot of the surplus would end up going back home.
A frontline in a war functions as a de facto border. No army is going to allow large groups of people to move freely around it and get behind it; that would be disastrous if enemy troops did it. And if an army is strong enough to get armed troops from getting past it, it’s strong enough to keep unarmed refugees and immigrants from doing so. Sure, some individuals will get through but you’re not going to see any mass movement unless the army allows it.
This reminds me of Glory Season by David Brin. In it, an isolated, low-tech, matriarchal colony founded by feminists is rediscovered by the greater human society. They send a messenger, who tells them that refugee ships -each carrying tens of thousands of civilians- will start arriving in about 50 years. They can either accept the refugees, and thus slowly destroy the unique nature of their colony, or destroy the ships, in which case the technological changes required to build the weapons and the guilt over the mass murder of innocents will slowly destroy the unique nature of their society.
I wasn’t a fan of the book, but the moral dilemma has stuck with me.
I literally don’t know I’m also been trying to find it, all I know is that a South Korean writer of some fame wrote it, (called the Korean Tom Clancy according to the book jacket), it was a minor best seller, and was written in the 90s. The person had read the untranslated Korean version and transcribed it on a website.
Yeah, this. Even if an enemy force occupied all the currently existing border checkpoints, it would be pretty easy to just establish new checkpoints some distance further into the country than the previous border location.
At best the migrants would be stuck in a no-man’s-land between two belligerent military forces, which is, historically speaking, not a great place to be. I suppose it increases the chances of an inadvertent or deliberate war crime being committed against the migrants, which has some value as both propaganda and an attack on the soldier’s morale, but militarily, it wouldn’t accomplish much.
You’re welcome. And on the one hand, I kinda feel like I want to read that book. On the other hand, I think maybe I already know as much about it as I need to.
It’s one of those things I’d love to see someone do a 10-20 minute internet video on complete with graphs of troop deployment, territory captured and casualties. Just so we can see how absurd it is for 20,000 Korean troops to take the entire US Southwest.
You’re forgetting about the 100,000 Mexican gang members. I, for one, welcome our Korean-Chicano overlords (as long as it means Bulgogi Taco trucks on every corner).