Why control immigration? Common sense. That’s why.

Overview: Putting Immigration in Context

The American Indians found out what happens when you don’t control immigration.

The aboriginal tribes of Australia found out what happens when you don’t control immigration.

The British and many of the EU member countries are now experiencing what happens when you don’t control immigration.

Modern America is finding out that even though immigration from across an Eastern or Western ocean is relatively easy to control, immigration from a large southern and northern land border is not.

Let’s do a quick thought experiment: How would things be different today if the American Indians had the technology, the capability, and the unity to secure their borders when the first groups of Europeans began to arrive? Some suggestions:

  • There might not have been nearly as much extermination of indigenous people by foreign disease
  • There would have been more protection of Native American language
  • There would have been more preservation of Native American culture

How many others can you think of?

Since early times in this country, and in others, leaders recognized a need to control the borders from foreign influences as they sought the best good for themselves and/or their people. We live in a highly imperfect world, and there are no signs that erasing natural or unnatural borders will mitigate this hard fact of life. So, there should be no shame in protecting one’s borders other than not doing it fully. Borders protect language, culture, economics, religion, ethics, morals, and a host of other properties of a successful nation. The Romans knew this. The Persians knew this. The Assyrians knew this. The Chinese knew this.

Fast-forward to the modern era. Whatever has happened in the past, there is nothing that can be done to reverse it. Endless and recursive reparations could be paid and frequent and deep apologies made for many generations in many lands (not just the U.S.) and it would never change a thing about historical events. What is happening now is of the utmost importance because the course we’re charting will lead to outcomes that our descendants will have to live with. We do not have the right to make a bad decision on their behalf.

Below I will outline my own reasons for protecting the borders of the United States of America. They’re not what you think they are. I am a European mutt, with the blood of ancient Celtics, Danes, Welshmen, Normans, and Irishmen running through my veins. My particular ancestors (the ones whose histories I could trace), despite an initial few awkward encounters with Native Americans, largely came to live peacefully with the country’s prior inhabitants and, to my knowledge, none of them ever owned a slave. I am a private citizen, not a politician running for any office. I owe allegiance to no political party (I’m an Independent) or ideology other than that of freedom and justice for all and a preference for the rule of law over the rule of kings, tyrants, or the mob. I enjoy listening to talk radio for insights and perspectives from personalities and callers alike, but likewise owe zero allegiance to any particular personality. I listen to them all as I make my own effort to think critically and act logically.

Why America’s Current Borders Should Be Protected From Illegal Immigration and Invasion by Foreign Powers

Reason #1: Protecting Economics and Entitlements

This is where liberals and conservatives should see eye-to-eye. Conservatives don’t want any more burden on their tax dollars than they’re already stuck with. Liberals don’t want to lose their entitlements due to budget cuts or state and national bankruptcies.

When my wife and I were first married, we attended church in a Latino congregation. I believe every family but one (the Bishop’s) was living in the U.S. illegally. It wasn’t a secret. It just was. We served them as best we could with our meager newlywed resources, but mostly we tried to help them help themselves out of poverty, encouraging them to get their papers in order when it seemed appropriate to ask them to do so. But many still relied on what the government provided, despite their immigration status.

My uncle, a Gringo like me, was a factory manager in Mexico most of his working life. We visited him in Guadalajara and in Hermosillo and his son continues to work there to this day. His family’s ties there because of his work there are very strong, even leading to the adoption of my youngest cousin from just across the U.S. border.

So, in my pre-Clinton days, I was pro-NAFTA. What wasn’t to like? No tariffs, people have jobs, and everyone’s happy and healthy when we all cooperate to expand our economic base. Right?

Not so fast. NAFTA has been a qualified disaster as far as worker’s rights on the Latino side and retention of jobs on the U.S. side. My uncle always treated his employees exceptionally well. Because of that, he was well loved and well-respected by everyone who worked for him. And, the companies he has worked for did a fair job of it with or without his help. But, let’s face facts. The reasons a U.S. company moves its manufacturing operations to Mexico or any other developing country, is largely for cost savings. (That means they’re looking for cheaper labor and a lower standard of living.)

In a broader sense, by granting amnesty and having open borders, we would quickly open our nation up to too many dependents who likely won’t be able to contribute back in the same measure or more as they remove from the system until the 2nd or 3rd generation. Allowing all comers, under the guise of “allowing free markets to flourish”, to pour into the country and use up its benefits without contribution, regardless of documentation status or desirable characteristics (preferably non-criminals and people who don’t belong to MS-13 or the Latin Kings), is a way to ensure that entitlements from prison funding to Medicare/Medicaid, to the world’s best health care system, to Social Security will fail–and fail hard.

Kind of like it’s doing now.

My grandmother was living in Arizona with my mom about 30 miles north of the Mexican border. She had moved back there after 30 years of being away from the area she had been a school teacher in prior to retirement. I remember her telling stories about the cute Mexican kids and how much she enjoyed teaching them in a Nogales elementary school.

But she also told me stories of how Mexicans and people from points further south crossing a then relatively unenforced border would break into houses quite regularly to steal whatever they could find that would finance the rest of their journey into the U.S. She had often contemplated putting a sign on her windows and doors saying, “Don’t bother…everything’s already been stolen” just to keep them from breaking windows and busting door locks.

In 2005, she fell and fractured her hip. Upon arrival at a Tuscon hospital emergency room, she was told to have a seat and someone would be right with her.

Hold the phone! Have a seat? Broken pelvis here!

The ER was in triage mode. You see, there were so many Latino folks there that evening, many of them fellow travelers of immigrants who had gotten critically injured in car wrecks or immigration raids or gang violence and needed medical help, that they had to treat the life-threatening situations first. Since Grandma wasn’t bleeding out, she and my mom would have to take a seat and wait.

Eight hours later, Grandma was admitted to the ER. By then, she was deep in shock and had been sitting on a fractured pelvis for all that time.

Hospitals in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and now other states are having to accommodate illegals, sometimes ahead of citizens, because of fears of bad PR or financial impacts if an immigrant dies or sues the hospital. The fact that they’re operating at a loss with patients who can’t pay for services is apparently worth mitigating a visit from the ACLU.

Reason #2: Everybody’s Doing It

Mexico, for example, protects its southern border from Central American immigration incursions. They know what problems we’re experiencing as a result of our porous border and they’re learning from our mistakes. Though, they are actually more ruthless now about it than we’ve ever been.

Mexico also protects its interests from American economic and cultural incursion by requiring us to present all kinds of documentation when we cross the either of their land or sea borders. Just try going to Mexico without the proper documentation sometime and see how far you get before you’re stuck in a jail cell desperately asking for a phone call so you can pay enough mordida to get out.

Reason #3: Safety and Security

History is ruthless in telling us one inescapable fact of human existence. There are good guys and there are bad guys. Some good guys live in tribe A and some bad guys live in tribe B. Likewise, there are bad guys in tribe A just as there are good guys in tribe B. The difference between them is who wields power and influence. The logical tautology is that it’s best for the good guys to wield the power and influence.  A corollary to that is the idea that if you have a good thing going, it’s probably a good idea to keep it safe from disruption by outside influences.

And guess what? It’s relatively easy for radical Islamonazi terrorists having Middle-Eastern characteristics to cross the southern border undetected. They do this, and have been doing it for years, with the help of anti-American narco-trafficking drug lords who only want guns and money to further protect their cartels.

In 1994, I was in a Guatemalan/Mexican border town. The village had come to be known among locals and foreigners alike as “Little Tijuana”.  A man in a crowd tried to engage me in conversation in English and ask me for assistance in getting to the U.S. to see his family.

I was young and naïve at the time, and he looked like any other Guatemalan mestizo I had ever talked to.  The fact that he was talking to me in English didn’t raise any red flags. Lots of Guatemalans did that when they saw Gringos like me. It simply never crossed my mind to ask him further questions about his circumstances.

Seeing that I was friendly, and probably detecting my naiveté, he offered his background of his own accord, telling me that he was a Chechen rebel who had fled the conflict with Russia to seek financial assistance for the Chechen resistance effort from his brother in Los Angeles. Then he lifted up his shirt and showed me a bloody bandage. Then he uncovered the bandage to show me a gaping, but healing bullet wound. He had two other fully healed bullet wound scars on his right forearm and left shoulder.

Well, that was certainly exciting for a country bumpkin like me living in a foreign land. And who wouldn’t want to help a “freedom fighter” with such an effort, especially if it was against the “Ruskies”? I told him I didn’t have those kinds of contacts or resources, but as the humanitarian I endeavored to be, I gave him my family’s phone number and address in case he needed someone to call or visit when he got to the States and ask them to look up his family’s phone numbers and addresses. That way he could get in touch with his family and they could help him and the war effort against the Russians.

It wasn’t until after 9/11 that I began to look into this whole Muslim thing in more detail. I was also interested in that my aunt was of direct Middle-Eastern descent, 100%, but her parents were Lebanese Christian, pro-American immigrants who arrived here legally.

Eventually, I came across information about the conflict between Russia and Chechnya (this is a later version of what I read in 2002). In 2006, when I heard of Muslim extremists bombing the Russian Beslan school, I had a chilling realization that I may have not only aided and abetted a member of Al Qaeda to cross into Mexico and later to the U.S. by helping him get in touch with his brother in L.A., I had also given him the address and phone number to my mother and grandmother’s house.

It was like a kick to the gut.

Reason #4: Protecting Language

American language is overwhelmingly English. Everything we read, from street signs to newspapers, is English language. Some would like our government to publish its documents, including tax forms, in multiple languages so we can seem to be more incluuuuuuusive.

We’ll also be more broke than a nag horse walking into a glue factory if we do that. The compliance burden of just the IRS tax code alone is in the tens of billions. You can already get tax forms in Spanish, so we know that at least half of the compliance cost is represented by a foreign language.  But can you imagine translating every other government form, let alone traffic signs, DMV tests, building permits, etc. ad nauseum to the mix?

Reason #5: Protecting Culture

America’s heritage is a beautiful mosaic of music, art, literature, food, history, and the way people live their lives. I wouldn’t trade that for the world. I also wouldn’t trade it for a Latin-American free-for-all mass immigration that would ensue the moment we grant amnesty to anyone wanting to come here. Such an influx of a single culture would threaten to overwhelm and eventually erase the varied international, intercontinental cultures we have now, replacing them with a largely Latin-American one. Don’t get me wrong, I love Latin-American culture to death. It’s my favorite, actually. But that’s not all I’d want to see every time I set foot outside my door.

Reason #6: Protecting Jobs

This pretty much goes without further argument. In the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and one that is predicted to get even worse, I don’t think we can afford to flood an already overburdened labor market with more laborers. And Americans will do any job if they get hungry enough.

Reason #7: Protecting Immigrants and their Families! (Imagine that!)

“What about the families!”, I’m always hearing. “If we deport the moms and dads, then the kids will suffer! The families at home they send money to will no longer get their remittances!”

A dear friend from Guatemala, after whom I named my first daughter, married in Guatemala and she and her husband had a little baby boy. Then, hearing that money in America grows on trees and falls from the sky, he got dollar signs in his eyes and went north. He said he’d be back in 6 months to a year, which is a common thing for a Guatemalan man to say to his wife just before he abandons her to go to the U.S.

Two years later, having not heard anything from him and desperate to know anything about her husband and father of her child, she left her toddler son with her mother, borrowed the family’s life savings, and paid a coyote for passage to the U.S. border.  After weeks of traveling, she and the other paying passengers were unceremoniously dumped somewhere along the Arizona border near Nogales. She only found that out later, and was lucky to live to tell that tale, because their group wandered in the desert for days looking for civilization. Some died. She almost did.

Now she lives in Los Angeles, California. Her husband is cheating on her and she’s bound by her honor to pay back the over $5,000 she borrowed from the family savings as she slowly scrapes by cleaning hotel rooms and waiting tables. She madly misses her young son, who is now growing up without a mother and a father, and who only knows her and his father by photographs and telephone conversations. She wants so much to return, but hubby isn’t interested. He’s chasing the dream, even though they’re barely paying the bills.

When she told me of her intent to try to find her husband in the States, I offered to do it for her but I begged her not to put herself in harms way by making the dangerous journey and crossing the border. She now goes between wishing she had listened and hoping her husband will come to his senses, pitch in to pay her debt, and return with her to raise their son. After what she experienced coming here, she wisely rejects any suggestion that they send for her son to come to them here in the same way they both did.

Good Guys vs. Bad Guys? What is this, a Spaghetti Western?

One might argue, how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys, especially in an era of inclusion (moral relativism) and tolerance (competing political and religious ideologies)?

You can tell good guys from bad guys by how they treat their own people and others. It helps even more to compare such things within the context of their nation’s founding principles and ideals for a better society.

It appears that I’ve just left the door wide open for direct criticism of only America, because only imperialist, capitalist America has done bad things in the world, right?

If you believe that, I have a few books on the Holocaust and a couple of good web sites tracking the various ongoing genocides in Africa to send you. If you’d like, I’ll even send along a body count estimate of the various dictatorships and Communist regimes this world has suffered under in the past century.  Call now and you’ll get a free outline of the way ancient cultures used to treat each other that will make you grateful to not have been living in times when life was nasty, brutish, and short.

America, on the other hand, has acted to repair the damage and to improve conditions in ALL the countries it has ever invaded or fought with.

America has fallen far short of the vision of the Founders in recent decades, it’s true. But one thing unrevised American history teaches us is that, despite our warts of slavery and injustices towards Native Americans, both terrible things in their own right, the populace at large was not doing those things out of hatred or spite. They were acting within the confines of their own chronology. They were living in their own minds, culture, and times, and were doing the best they could with the knowledge they then had. They didn’t have the benefit of jumping ahead to the future and realizing how their actions were going to affect so many people. And it does us no benefit, nor does it exact any real vengeance, to denigrate dead people by posthumously applying our values and judgments to their times.

Columbus didn’t have microbiologists in his day to advise him of the dangers of contacting indigenous peoples.

Columbus didn’t have bodies of university professors and UN human rights commissions to advise him on multicultural issues that might arise from the way he and his men interacted with native San Salvadorans according to the European customs and cultural assumptions of the time.

Columbus didn’t have a time machine to go forward and realize that, not only had he not reached the Orient, but that the gold he sought was largely all the way on the Rocky Mountain end of a mainland continent hundreds of miles away from his initial landing spot.


It’s not collectively America’s fault that it was successful. It’s not collectively America’s fault that free markets require fiscal and personal responsibility to function properly. It’s not collectively America’s fault that people become addicted to drugs that happen to be sourced largely in other countries and trafficked here across our southern border. It’s not collectively America’s fault that people make poor decisions to join narco-trafficking gangs and immigrate here and import third-world problems into our cities and towns and neighborhoods.

But it will be America’s fault, collectively, if we fail to rein in the insanity of our unenforced borders. Future generations of all cultural and national backgrounds rely on our decision today to responsibly build and enjoy a strong nation.

Related articles


Suddenly, the Feds become REALLY interested in illegal immigration

The other day I had a nice talk on the phone with my uncle, who is currently doing mission work in Mexico. I won’t say much more than that because I want him to get out of there alive.

He’s cutting short his missionary service by a month or two. Partly for family life reasons anyone might have, but also partly for safety reasons. Last year alone, Mexico had over 24,000 homicides. Kidnappings are at an all-time high and rising with no end in sight. People, especially tourists and foreign nationals, are being advised to travel only during the day and early afternoon, taking different routes to their regular destinations each time, and to remain locked inside their homes in the evenings.  Even though violence and kidnappings in Mexico are equal opportunity crimes, as an American national, that paints a big, red target on his back that he’d rather not have to deal with.

His son, who works and lives in Mexico as well, is also getting the heck outta Dodge for many of the same reasons.  He simply can’t afford the kind of risk that being an expatriate carries in a country where the government cannot provide for the safety of anyone, let alone its foreign guests.

In related news, trying to save face in an onslaught of support for Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, Obama and company send the National Guard to defend our southern border. 1) It’s about time and 2) what took you so d$@# long!?

With increased coverage of these events, more enlightening stories about what is happening with regards to terrorism and our southern border are coming out.

Like this one.

In addition to the Somali immigration issue, Mexican smugglers are coaching some Middle Eastern immigrants before they cross the border – schooling them on how to dress and giving them phrases to help them look and sound like Latinos, law enforcement sources told FoxNews.com.

This is disturbing on two fronts. For starters, we’ve known for some time, but even more now, that illegal immigration by Islamonazi terrorists is a real and tangible phenomenon.  But worse, the Mexican government, by regularly providing aid to smugglers and smugglees in the form of leaflets on how to successfully mount a border crossing, is colluding with terrorists to help them enter our country illegally.

The article goes on to say:

Pham says the DHS alert comes too late. “They’re just covering themselves for the fact that DHS has been failing to date to deal effectively with this,” he said. “They’re already here.”

In my book, at the very least, these disturbing developments should put the government of Mexico and the U.S. Government diplomatic ties on shaky ground.  Ideally, it should result in the entire nation of Mexico and all its citizens (and non-citizens) crossing our borders illegally on terrorism watchlists.  Further, a formal declaration of economic sanctions, including cutting off the estimated $21b in annual remittances by illegals to their families back home, should be levied against Mexico until it gets a handle on its terrorist trafficking problem.

Instead, Mexican President Felipe Calderon gets carte blanche to criticize American immigration policy while standing on American soil.

Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

Are any of you paying attention out there?

What are you doing as U.S. citizens and voters to put a stop to this insanity?

People, wake up. As I’ve argued before, I’ll argue again. Either Obama is so delusional that he thinks he’ll get re-elected in 2012 with such a dismal record of protecting our nation, or he is intentionally destroying our sovereignty for God knows what ends he has in mind (North American Union, whatever).  There’s not much more middle ground to flee to on this.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Open Letter to Liberal/Libertarian Friends: Arizona Immigration Law

To all my liberal and libertarian friends:

I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you on the idea that the Arizona Immigration law is racist, mean-spirited, and unconstitutional.

I admit that it might not be for a completely objective reason, since it’s partially a personal family reason for me. I, too, have friends from the other side of the border who came here illegally and are still here illegally. I’m never going to turn them in or anything. I’ve explained the moral issue behind what they’re doing by taking public services they didn’t pay into and have encouraged them to either get legal or go home and left it up to their own conscience. Even though they’ve preferred to stay, they’re still my friends. I know there are others like me, so I don’t think it’s in any way as polarized as the left and the media is duping people into believing with their daily sound bites.

I have more faith that bad cops will be taken out of the mix than I have suspicion that this is a carefully concerted conspiracy by the governor, law enforcement, and citizens of one state to subvert the 4th Amendment. If you’ve been to the Arizona border recently, it really is a war zone. Whereas people crossing in the past were non-violent and grateful for help they got from humanitarians, they now are regularly armed and are not shy about shooting, without even so much as a “hello”, at border patrol agents and even ranchers or average citizens they encounter. Home break-ins are at an all-time high, even to the point of people being at home during the time of the break-ins and the perps not even caring about it…just taking what they want with impunity. They know the cops can’t touch them because of the toothlessness of the Border Patrol’s “rules of engagement” and the ACLU. They know about the drug dealer shot by Ramos and Campeon and that not only did the dealer get off on a technicality, he successfully sued them with the help of US attorneys and got them put in jail. They know this when they boldly charge the border every day because it’s reported as “good news” in Mexican media.

The arguments by liberals, and some libertarians interested in legalizing the drug trade, seem to be broken down into four categories (mostly defined by emotions and eschewing the logic required to maintain):

  1. We have so much. Why not give it away?
  2. Civil Rights and freedom of expression are independent of a country’s borders.
  3. Requiring documentation of one’s citizenship status is the mark of a poor philosophy of government. We have found a higher standard…no documentation whatsoever.
  4. Illegal immigration and the drug trade are two separate issues.

Let’s break these down logically rather than emotionally.

  1. Nothing on earth is for free. Everything requires labor and capital to produce or distribute, and sometimes even consume. Government is not immune from the universal law of thermodynamics…there has not ever been, there is not now, nor will there ever be a such thing as a “free lunch”. No matter how much we may wish it to be so. “Free stuff” was purchased at the cost of another and given away to someone who didn’t work for it (and quite often, as in the case of the illegal immigrants we see holding up signs saying they’ll turn their gardening tools against Americans, doesn’t appreciate). Personally, I would feel guilty taking free medical care or free housing or free education or free food or free law enforcement or free legal services that I didn’t pay for even if I’m told by my host country that I’m welcome to it. That’s because, personally, I can’t stand being in the debt of anyone. I’d do everything I could do to return the favor somehow. But maybe that’s just a difference in life’s learned lessons between some of us and others.
  2. Of course we give people freedom of expression. I’m willing to let illegal immigrants speak out against the government that has housed and fed and employed them. But it seems the height of ignorance, and even ingratitude, to expect that the country you come to because of its stability due to the rule of law your own does not have cannot itself require you to follow the same laws you hope will protect you one day. The newspapers in El Paso and Southern Arizona are full of illegal-on-illegal violence. Who pays for the law enforcement services to protect illegals or to put them into the justice system so they can have their “Day in Court” for the crimes they committed or were committed against them? The very country they denounce as being racist and xenophobic. It boggles the mind.
  3. We must categorically reject the ill-conceived notion that it is a better foundational government philosophy to not want to root out ne’er-do-wells by having them go through a visa application before gaining admittance into the human rights and prosperity candy store that is America.  To me, the very desire for the absence of such checks is anarchistic and mafioso.  It puts the power into the hands of anyone who wishes to do Americans harm, rather than into the hands of Americans who want to protect their lives, families, liberty, and property. To put it in more personal terms, would you allow some strange man to come into your home and take care of your kids without at least a background check?  (Yuppies in New York City do this all the time, but New Yorkers aren’t exactly the most logical people in the world.)
  4. I think a bit more reading of border news stories and talking to average people who actually live near Arizona’s borders is on tap for a lot of Americans who believe the myth that drug trafficking and immigration are two separate concerns. They are decidedly not.  About 10-15 years ago, the required passage for smugglers was around US$1500 per person. Families would scrape and save and borrow to come up with the funds. One could even have respect for the fact that at least these poor folks were working hard to save enough to come here and take our free goodies. But the “coyotes” (smugglers) have wised up and realized there is a LOT more money to be made by providing border crossing for free in exchange for each crosser being a mule to carry over backpacks full of marijuana and cocaine. Drug dealers pay better than peasants. It is now a shameful fact that the vast majority of immigrants “pay” for their passage by carrying drugs…and weapons to defend themselves from BP agents and ranchers…so that they can deliver their payload to the handler on the other end. For if they do not deliver their payload, they may as well lie down and die in the Tucson desert.  With that in mind, do libertarians and liberals truly think that “better drug policy” is going to make a dent in the market for making immigrants into mules?  If the ideal they’re proposing is about making the drug trade legal so we can tax it and so that no crime will be committed by anyone for a fix or a sell and other fringe libertarian stuff, then that’s a whole other discussion.
  5. Of course, all of this would be irrelevant and unnecessary if the Democrats and certain self-interested, career politician Republicans (Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn) hadn’t introduced their amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill. This amendment, if it didn’t outright break the law by legislating a mandate that resulted in a failure to fully fund and build the border fence, at least hobbled it.  See the Secure Fence Act of 2006, ‘Where’s the fence?’ activist asks Congress, page 123 of the Omnibus bill (the actual amendment), and Bill guts border fence requirement.

    By forcing a single state of the union to pass its own law to fill the vacuum left by what is a basic and fundamental duty of the federal government (to protect the borders of national sovereignty), the federal government is ultimately to blame for any of the rights that are trampled upon here. That is, if we lived in a nation with a Commander in Chief who respected the Constitution and the rule of law and wasn’t always passing the buck.

    Another question to my liberal friends is this:  If a cop in Green Valley, Arizona sees a van stuffed to the ceiling with people racing along the freeway from Nogales to Tucson, isn’t he obligated to check it out…even just from a safety perspective (both for the occupants and anyone else unfortunate enough to crash into them)? If he then makes an arrest based on immigration status, why is he now in legal trouble since it’s illegal to enter the country without documentation? Why must his arrest of the occupants be solely on the basis of a routine traffic violation when a greater crime is at issue?

    Is it a civil or human right to be in another country, enjoying its services and benefits, illegally? If you believe (the lie) that borders are an artificial construct that stand in the way of human unity and progress, and that south-of-the-border countries are composed of kumbaya-singing humanitarians who can’t understand why there isn’t more free passage, why when we travel to Mexico is it a problem to not have one’s passport and/or birth certificate? Why can’t we just trot right over the border the other direction with the same impunity we offer to southern countries?

    The answer is simple. Our politicians have forgotten that a nation’s ability to be coherent, to be ruled by the rule of law rather than by mob or tyrant, lies in the integrity of its borders, its language, and its culture.  And they forget this to our detriment, as illustrated by Arizonans uniting to do for themselves what their federal government will not do for them.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    In this case, the powers were indeed delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution to protect our nation’s borders. The irony of this is that with all the desire to increase the size of government at the expense of the states, one would think that the Feds would jump at the chance to take on border enforcement (and a little bit more) already prescribed to be under its purview by the Founding Fathers. Believing that would be to make the mistake that anyone in Washington actually cared what the Founding Fathers thought, or, worse, to mistakenly believe that politicians in Washington aren’t overtly trying to subvert the Constitution.

    By abrogating solidly granted Federal powers to the states, they are unintentionally signalling their contempt for America and its freedoms. If this isn’t a reason to take them out at the polls in November, I don’t know what is.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]