Yes, I believe illegal immigration would still be an issue even without welfare.Illegal immigration will always be present as long as Mexico and other nations to the south, but primarily Mexico, continues to be a rife with drugs, corruption and violence which keeps their country from moving forward to prosperity. As long as people are living in squalor and see no hope they will do just about anything to get here and have nothing more than hope. I think the quality of living between the US and Mexico around 1914 was dramatically different but not as much as it is today. Our helping hand in NAFTA has done nothing but create a greater divide in an already perennially poor country.

No, immigration would not be a problem. Certain kinds of immigrants can be a problem (and have been): criminals, those carrying infectious diseases, and those who seek to overthrow capitalism and individualism for whatever reason -- i.e., those who threaten the rights of the individual. Those are more of a threat when they leverage the nation's own anti-individualist elements against us, exploiting the 'immigration' of European statist and collectivist ideology imported long ago and still spreading, including but not limited to the current welfare statism.

Agreed!

"can we say that Mueller, Rosenstein and et al are doing usurpation of power?" Yes. Their purpose was never to uncover the truth but to find something, anything, to discredit or cast doubt on this President in order to impeach.

Oddly enough it seems more Mueller is allowed to continue the worse he makes himself and those supporting his agenda look. More, he's examination has tainted others in the FBI and elsewhere for their wrong doings and dirty dealings.

In a morbidly frustrating way its amusing. I can't wait until someone decides which heads will roll.

Then, can we say that Mueller, Rosenstein and et al are doing usurpation of power? It seems that they no longer serve their purpose. From my viewpoint many people are angry with the Russian Collusion investigation. Mueller is acting above the law and what he is doing is unconstitutional. Wimpy Republicans refuse to take action to remove Mueller and or make a Congressional recommendation to Trump for the firing of Mueller and the corrupt upper management of the FBI.

I have similar books but I do believe I'll buy that.
I'm sure I'll learn something new about the Schlieffen Plan and how it became messed up for being at first held up by unexpected Belgian resistance. .
The novel at this point is called Chasing Little Red. Little Red is the nickname of Babette LeBrun.
Her father is a retired French general (a hero of the Franco-Prussian War), who lives on an inherited estate in Belgium where he breeds race horses.
An expert rider, Babette is already being chased by Germans when she witnesses the infamous firing squad massacre of men, women and children at Dinant from the heights of the east bank.. That turns Babette into a killer.
Dinant is quite a scenic place. The saxophone was invented there.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dinan...

I didn't think it would be easy to find. Unfortunately, my copy fell victim to a family move while I was in college. However, given your novel is staged in 1914, you might find this useful: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ernest-F-Hen...

Don't think a paperback version found in Amazon is the book you speak of. World War One was known as "The Great War" until World War Two came along. Guess anyone can make a title out of that, especially with a large time lapse in between~
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-1914...

If you can ever find a book simply called "The Great War", published in 1919, it's probably one of the best overall writings, like Schirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." It has one of the best discussions of the Eastern front, and war between Germany and Japan in the Asian theater, as well as the war in the African provinces. Lots of illustrations, and a great reference.

The ease of looking things up is why I love the internet.
I've also built a library of research books that's far more about the Western Front than the Eastern, and I recall reading about the UK's need for gunpowder some time ago.
The closest book to my PC desk right now is "French Aeroplanes Before The Great War."
Below it is "The Military Atlas Of World War 1."

You might find it interesting to learn the ties between the UK need for gunpowder during the Great War, and the creation of the state of Israel. I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.

Me dino is just kicking a pet theory around.
Have to admit I don't know much about pre-1914 Russia.
I've done a lot of research on The Great War due to a novel I'm trying to write.
It's more an action novel than historical fiction but I'm trying to keep facts accurate.
For example, it takes place during 1914 and I had to rewrite a battle scene after I learned that the Brits invented tracer bullets during 1915.

Islam doesn't need a reason to get violent, just the time to recover from the last battles. There appears to be a cycle to the reappearance of Islamic violence about once a century, with occasional lapses into somnolence.

As for Russia, a revolution almost happened in 1905, riots in St Petersburg, with a bloody put-down by the Tsar's Cossack guard.

Tsar Nicholas II didn't seem to have a handle on how to rule, being more concerned about his haemophiliac son. His grandfather, Nicholas I, was a reformer who ended the system of serfdom, but was assassinated by anarchists. The result was a backlash by the next Tsar, Alexander, who was brutal. The Communist revolution might have been delayed without WW I, but the elements behind it would be festering, waiting for an opportunity.

Historical cause and effect are always difficult to definitively connect. My German-born sister-in-law insists that if The U.S. had stayed out of the Great War, all of Europe would now be at peace in a Bismarckian welfare state under a beloved Kaiser.

Me dino used the word "maybe" for a reason.
It does appear that the then Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan sparked a massive revival of radical Islamic behavior.
Without a World War One kicked off by the assassination, "maybe" a communist revolution in Russia would not have "possibly" occurred.

The Mafia was pretty much a terrorist organization, even prior to 1914, murdering lots of New York city residents, leading for calls to restrict immigration from Italy. While the calls to restrict immigration from China in that era has been chalked up purely to racism, the reality was that alarm at the violent acts of San Fransisco Tong gangs was a significant element behind the call for restrictions.

Radical acts of terrorism are a component of Islam since its inception, with a sincere belief in conversion by the sword. I can't legitimately tie Ferdinand's assassination to 9/11.

Should be in no way means it is. You're belief in the way something should be is not everyone's let alone is it the law.

Key word is "Promote"...that is Not control.

The constitution is full of stuff the left will never understand...they attack and criticize everything by present day language and understandings forgetting that they screwed all that up themselves!

No. The 10th Amendment should be read along with the 9th. Together they make clear that any power not expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution is either a state power or an individual right -- not a federal power.

Relevant to today's politics? Indeed yes. Usurpation as a form of treason? Yes. But, like a wound that never fully heals, one becomes used to the pain until the infection ravages the whole body and death looms on the horizon.And that's pretty much the road that we were on.We let treasonous acts continue to plague us until the very foundations of the government of, for, and by the people was starting to crumble. We are now on the road to patching up the damages, and hopefully we will continue on this road unless, once again we let the illness go until it destroys us.

Back during 1914, we did not have modern-day terrorists.
During 1914, Serbia had terrorists called The Black Hand, who assassinated Austrian Archduke Ferdinand which triggered World War One and a domino effect dooming millions of lives to subsequent wars that includes the bloody rise of Communism, Soviets in Afghanistan and a revived radical Islam.
If Ferdinand and his wife not been murdered, would 3,000 people been massacred during 9/11? Me dino thinks maybe not.

Yes, and Madison shot this notion down in Federalist 41 saying, basically, Why would we even add particulars to general statements if the general statements - for example: to promote the general welfare - were controlling?

Spawning all these progressive generational dependency programs funded by all these deplorable “incentives” to limit production, self responsibly and prosperity.

Lot's of people arguing "The Constitution says..." but they forget that there are other laws passed that allow the government to do things. They state the 10th amendment but it's also the 10th amendment that allows it to do the things the people dislike so much.

Read the AntiFederalist Papers. The biggest flaw in the Constitution those authors pointed out was the phrase "promote the general welfare," which they saw as a literal Pandora's box, from which would spring all sorts of unauthorized claims of government power. Unfortunately the other Founders didn't share that view, and we're stuck with the results.