North Star Writers Group

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, Senator McCain?)

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 brain.

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 won't.

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."

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 it.

This is Column # DKK065. Request permission to publish here.