Saturday, December 08, 2018
Does the United States have the Right to Secure its Border?
These same countries who believe that the US doesn't have a "right" to secure its borders happen to have among the strictest immigration policies of practically any country anywhere, and how they go about both protecting their national sovereignty and punishing those who violate their immigration laws are downright barbaric. I'm talking about countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Honduras among others.
These are places where illegal immigrates are often robbed, raped, beaten and in some cases, tortured...and that's by the police! Anyone who aids them in any way is subject to arrest and imprisonment for the first offense. In some cases, local police or government law enforcement will ransack their homes and, well, things happen to go missing. In a few cases some individuals are able to bribe their way out of arrest or jail time, but it's always a high price.
Prison in these places are best described as "hell holes" almost in the literal sense. Individuals typically get one very badly and often infested mattress on concrete floor. Their tiny cells are usually either freezing in the winter or unbearably hot in the summer; it's not uncommon that they are open to the elements. Food (if you call it that) is bare minimum. Often not much more than watery soup, stale bread or crackers twice a day. If prisoners want anything more, it's up to their friends or families to provide it. If you're there illegally, that's rather hard to do.
Nevertheless, we're told that we don't have a "right" to impose our immigration laws on those attempting to come here; immigration laws that every single country in the world has and legally applies. So, why is it that America isn't suppose to have this same right? Some like to argue that the original settlers were no different than "illegal immigrants" or that they stole land from the Native Americans. What do you think? Were the first settlers simple land grabbing interlopers or was there something more to it?
Of course we know that when many of the native immigrants arrived in the Americas, there were already other groups who had come here earlier. Also, while Native Americans really didn't have any concept of land ownership per se, they did establish certain areas in which they hunted and grew food. Anyone who impeded on that land faced attack. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for Native Americans throughout the Americas to fight over good crop and hunting land. So, when the first Europeans arrived, there was no usurping of land since there was no ownership of the land. The construct of "ownership" was essentially a European one. As more and more Europeans arrived, they occupied lands held by Native Americans, often at the point of a gun, but also just as often, by trade. But how was this different from how the Native Americans interacted with each other over the use of land?
It wasn't until the US was firmly established, and legal agreements with Native Americans came into being that the notion of "stealing" land came into being. Why? Because both the Native American tribes came to recognize the European concept of legal ownership or possession. It was here that the real problems developed; where the federal government would enter into a signed agreement with the Native Americans, only to ignore the terms and push the Native Americans off of the lands they had agreed to. More often than not, this was done for mining--particularly gold and silver.
Whenever the Native Americans complained or fought back to protect what was legally theirs under the terms of the treaty or agreement, the interlopers would convince the local "Indian Agent" or other federal authority to send in the military, which they routinely did. The result became nothing less than a intentional genocide of a proud people; a national tragedy which remains uncorrected to this day. However, for the sake of our discussion, it addresses the notion the Europeans settlers were in some way "illegal immigrants", which they clearly were not.
So, I bet you're wondering what constitutes an "asylee" or a "refugee"? Well, someone seeking asylum is called a "asylee". These are individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their native country out of fear of persecution due to their race, religion, ethnic group, social group, political status, or more recently, their sexual preference according to the US Department of Homeland Security. As a rule, this would Yazidis, Buddhists, or Assyrian Christians fleeing Syria due to persecution by Muslim extremists like ISIS/ISIL or the Syrian military. Recently, white South Africans, many of whom have roots dating back to the 1600's, have been forced from their lands, attacked, beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered by black members of the pro-Communist ANC. Unfortunately, however, the US has been slow in accepting applications for asylum from these white South Africans although some other countries, such as Russia, have. Also, as an aside, the US has also not been particularly pro-active in allowing groups like Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists from the Middle East asylum status as well.
A refugee is typically someone who has been forced to flee their country due to war, violence, or some environmental disaster such as famine. A refugee may start off as a asylee and ultimately be accepted as a refugee once a decision is made regarding their status and reason for leaving. As a rule, international law requires both types to leave the country where they are endangered and seek entry in the next closest country where there is no danger.
There is a third class of individual, which I think we need to pay close attention to since this directly pertains to the current situation on our southern border and to the approximately 8 million illegal immigrants living in the US right now, and that's the "Economic Migrant". These are individuals who are not endangered by their race, religion, political class, or any of the other factors previously mentioned. These are individuals who are simply looking for employment or a better job; they willingly chose to relocate rather than are forced to leave. As such, they are entitled to no protection under international law. This describes those who are currently "demanding" entry into the country right down along our southern border. It also describes the vast majority of the illegal immigrants present in America. Economic migrants often try to claim "refugee" or "asylee" status as a way to gain entry into a particular country which otherwise would be closed to them.
Here's a couple of interesting statistics for you. According to the Department of Justice, 26% of all federal inmates are illegal immigrants (the Center for Immigration Studies put that number at 32%). The Bureau of Prisons report that 66% of all inmates are illegal aliens, which means that one in five prisoners are in this country illegally. The majority are serving time for various drug offenses, followed by violent assault, robbery (including theft, burglary and armed), and homicide. So-called "sanctuary cities" have provided many illegal immigrants, especially those active in criminal gangs, with a safe haven akin to the "Hole-in-the Wall" and "Robber's Roost" of the Old West or the "safe cities" like Chicago, New York, or Miami during the glory days of organized crime in the 1920's and 1930's.
Lastly we come to another type of "immigrant" key to this discussion, the "Anchor Baby". So, just what is a "anchor baby"? Under current US immigration laws, if a non-citizen woman gives birth in the United States, her child automatically becomes a US Citizen. Thus, by extension, she gets to remain in the country along with her husband and family (that definition has been broadened to include grandparents, aunts and uncles, and in some cases, even cousins have been approved). As an aside, in Canada, this is often referred to as "Passport Baby" and has resulted in a cottage "Baby Tourism" industry worth millions (in the case of Canada, it's allegedly popular with wealthy Asians). How did this come about?
So what does all this mean? Basically, it means that the US does have a duty and obligation to secure and protect its borders as a sovereign nation; the same right afforded to every other nation without exception. It means that the majority of illegal immigrants now in this country, and the thousands on our southern border "demanding" to be allowed to enter do not qualify under the definitions of "asylee" or refugee", but rather are economic migrants, which entitles them to nothing under international law. It also means that those who protect illegal immigrants do so as the costs of those who are attempting to do the right thing; to follow the law.
It also means those who aid these individuals are defacto criminals as well ("aiding and abetting") while at the same time demonstrates that over 1/4 of prison population is comprised of those who in prison not because of their violation of US immigration law, but because of crimes they willingly committed. All of this totals billions of dollars---approximately $113 billion dollars at the federal, state, and local levels--- imposed upon the average American Taxpayer; money that could be used to improve roads, schools, infrastructure, medical research, and so forth. The only real question remaining to be answered is just how long are we going to allow this? Some cite that "No Human is Illegal" but fail to mention that their actions are. That's why we have laws and a legal system to enforce those laws. Continuing to grant amnesty simple encourages more to come illegally in the hopes that they can wait out the next call for amnesty. Meanwhile, taxpayers are continue to get crushed by mounting increase to cover not just the influx, but for medical claims, education (including tutors), subsidized public housing, food, and utility bills.
US Department of Homeland Security: Definition of a Asylee
Amnesty International: Difference between Refugee and Asylum Seeker
Center for Immigration Studies: 32% of Federal Inmates are Aliens