Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Immigration control breaks the law

Immigration control breaks the law

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 11, 2014.)

End deportation of illegal immigrants?

Government at every level throughout America needs to obey the U.S. Constitution- the highest law of the land- to the letter. All federal, state, and local governments need to tightly control and regulate who is allowed to enter our country, and make sure those allowed in are complying with all the immigration laws the Constitution establishes in order to make sure our borders are secure. Their papers must be in order, or else!

But, there is at least one problem with that.

The Constitution doesn't allow government to regulate or control immigration at all. It spells out how the states may regulate the importation of slaves, and permits government to establish a way for immigrants to become citizens, but that's all it permits with regard to "immigration". And, the only powers the Constitution permits governments to have are those specifically spelled out in its text.

So how can those who cry most loudly for government to obey the Constitution ignore this inconvenient fact?

Honestly, I don't know, but I have some suspicions.

I support those who gathered last Saturday in Clovis and across the nation to protest deportation policies. Since a law which runs counter to the Constitution is not a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey this pretend "law"- according to an earlier Supreme Court ruling- there can be no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" to deport, Constitutionally speaking.

The claim "but they are illegal" is as meaningless as saying it was illegal to be (or harbor) a runaway slave. "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" is countered with "What part of 'unconstitutional' don't you understand?" Because, as far as written and enforced laws in America are concerned, nothing can trump the Constitution. Not even if you think it's a good idea, or absolutely "necessary". That's the same excuse dredged up by anti-gun activists.

The only mistake the activists make is asking to be equally violated by "drivers license" requirements, which are also not within any government's authority.

If you are calling for "immigration control" and pushing for deportation, you are advocating breaking the law. You become the "illegal" you rally against. See why I love irony?

When any person attacks an innocent, or violates private property, I support unflinching self defense or full restitution. I don't care where aggressors and thieves were born. Being attacked by someone whose family has lived here for generations is not somehow "better" than falling victim to someone who just arrived from somewhere else. To pretend otherwise shows a willingness to ignore the root and focus on the insignificant pettiness that divides people and empowers the state.



  1. Kent,

    The subject interested me greatly, so I put aside my normal refusal to click on pointless surveys, and I read your column. Well-written, as always.

    Like you, I just don't understand the Lock-The-Borders mindset.


  2. I've always felt that here in the UK, we don't have an immigration problem. We have a welfare problem. I would suspect that the US is similar.

    According to the latest public spending breakdown, 2/3rds of public spending here is on some form of welfare, be it directly in social security or state pension payments, or indirectly in "free" healthcare or education. It's a massive chunk of the tax bill and our system is notoriously generous (with other people's money).

    Leaving aside the moral problems inherent in the whole "re-distribution of other people's money" thing, there's the argument that a country with a generous welfare system will always attract more immigrants of the mooching sort than one without. "Moochers attracted to handouts" is hardly a shocking headline, after all.

    Pare back (or preferably eliminate) the welfare system and what do you think you'll get? More immigrants who want to work for a living and less who want to mooch, I'd be willing to bet. That can hardly be a bad thing for anyone concerned, and there's no *need* to lock the borders in that case.

    1. I have said this many times, but it's always met by "welfare exists and no one will get rid of it, so we have to work with what we've got now..." So, to me it means a refusal to change the root of the problem (which violates people) and a determination to whine about violating people in another way instead.