June 18, 2007
Immigration: You Don’t Have to Like It, You Just Have to Do It
Just when you thought
it was dead, the immigration bill rises up from the grave. Its possible
resurrection says far more about the attitude and character of those
pushing it than it does about the illegal immigration issue itself. The
disconnect between Washington pols, the duties of their offices, and the
will of their constituents has never been greater. And the consequences
of that are too grave to ignore.
First of all, both
Congress and the president have a Constitutional obligation to defend
the border by whatever means is necessary to secure it. Article IV,
Section 4 states as follows (emphasis added): "The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
This was originally
passed so as to keep the 13 colonies from retaining individual standing
armies for security and thus to prevent any possible skirmishes that
might have occurred between the states as a result of the availability
of such forces. It also promoted national unity by ensuring that no
state's safety would be placed in the hands of another.
In other words, there
is an affirmative duty by the federal government to ensure that no
outside force can enter a state. And notice that the language doesn't
say anything whatsoever about the type of entity perpetrating an
invasion. It can be large, uniformed, armed, carrying another country's
flag and hostile. Or it can be none of those things. But so long as they
are within the borders of any state without permission, they are by
definition invading. And all 'invade" means is to enter without
permission, which illegal immigrants most certainly have done. Hence the
word "illegal," which no elected official seems to remember exists much
less what it means.
But for a great many in
Washington, President Bush included, the oath they all swore to uphold
the Constitution was empty. They have no qualms over being derelict in
their duty to repel all of those who would enter the United States
illegally. On top of that, they intimate that anyone who merely thinks
the law should be enforced as written is racist and even suggest that to
do so would cause rioting. (So a veritable domestic insurrection force
should be rewarded with amnesty and citizenship? That those who would
respond violently to being deported for having broken and entered of
their own volition should be kept here? Is that what you're saying,
Would any of you allow
a burglar to stay in your home? Would you accept it if the police
refused to even try to remove him because he might get violent? I didn't
think so. Yet we allow precisely this to happen on a much larger scale.
And in a post-9/11 world, no less. For all the big talk unleashed in the
aftermath of that horrible day, there is appallingly little walk. The
simple logic that any border open enough for a Mexican migrant worker to
cross is open enough for a weapon-smuggling terrorist to cross just
doesn't penetrate the arrogance that permeates the average politician’s
Nor do they grasp the
mathematics of the issue: 20 million-plus former illegal immigrants
suddenly eligible for all forms of government programs, on top of all
the obligations already incurred by Medicare and Social Security that
can't possibly ever be paid. This is roughly the equivalent of wanting
to load a thousand more people into a lifeboat holding 500 - that was
originally made for 20. It will inevitably head for the bottom of the
ocean at warp speed. And now they want us to believe the fines paid by
these people will go to pay for the border wall. If they're so dirt poor
as to sneak into the U.S. for whatever menial labor they can find, how
on earth will they magically come up with $5,000 a head? Obviously, they
And whether they do or
not, building the wall and securing the border is still the U.S.
government's obligation and has been all the time they've been avoiding
it. It is not dependent upon the impossibility of squeezing billions of
dollars from those who don't have it. They should have been protecting
each of the states from invasion all along, because they took an oath to
uphold a Constitution that requires them to do so. Congress's and the
president's personal opinions and feelings are completely irrelevant and
beside the point. They don't have to like it or think it a good idea -
they just have to do it.
The moment that they
decide that they can simply ignore whatever part of the founding
documents, circumscribing their powers and duties, that doesn't happen
to suit them, we the people have far more to fear than who enters our
country illegally. That they think we can be so easily fooled is both
insulting and shows just how deep their arrogance runs. Perhaps they
even figure that if a large part of their constituents resent and will
no longer vote for them, they can still get re-elected simply by
importing an even larger ingratiated constituency that will.
If this is really the
conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, then perhaps the citizenry will
have to invoke "their right, [...] their duty to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
© 2007 North Star Writers
Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
is Column # DKK065.
Request permission to publish here.