I know of someone whose parents, while he was just a wee lad, broke into several antique stores, amassing a tidy little sum fencing the artifacts before retiring from such activity. Then the family settled into the quiet life of the “Nouveau riche.” There was just one problem: eventually the authorities broke the case and discovered who was responsible for the string of thefts. By this time, my acquaintance was just entering a fairly respectable college, fully expecting to afford the tuition with ease.
That is, until his parents were exposed and all their assets seized. But since it would be unfair to deny him such a great educational opportunity just because his parents had broken the law, the court ruled the family could keep the money and send him to school. The various antique store owners and their families were astonished.
OK – confession time. The above is made up, and I don’t actually know of such a case. But there are apparently a lot of people who would agree with the fictional court ruling above. These are the people who want to allow the children of illegal immigrants to stay in the United States, despite their parents breaking the law to get them here.
“But a child shouldn’t have to suffer for their parents’ actions!” It’s an easy statement to agree with, emotionally. And yet children do suffer the consequences of their parents’ actions every day. Children are fatherless because of “no-fault” divorces. Children live in poverty because their parents failed to acquire skills or motivation to work a decent paying job. Children are beaten when parents abuse alcohol or drugs and fly into rages. On and on the list could go.
Our nation is being played emotionally yet again to allow people to stay here who never had any right to be here in the first place. I understand sending away people who’ve lived here their whole life seems cruel. But is it compassion to allow wave after wave of invaders to break into America, depressing wages and driving up social spending for those already legally here? Does it serve justice to have an immigration policy that, in effect says, “you have to follow this specific process… unless you can successfully hide out illegally in the U.S. long enough to become a sob story when you’re discovered?” Does it build confidence in the integrity of our institutions when those charged with enforcing the law go out of their way to obstruct it:
The NYPD says the (DACA) protesters arrested outside Trump Tower (Tuesday) won’t have to be fingerprinted if they provide their information willingly — no fingerprints means no arrest information transmitted to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
After all, we wouldn’t want to deport any of these people who are now so bold as to say “yeah, we broke the law to get here, but we deserve to stay anyway!”
The other heartstring being pulled is “if you enforce the law it will break up families!” This is only because the United States is one of the few nations left in the world where geography of birth confers citizenship (via a grossly expanded reading of the 14th Amendment*, which was dealing with the end of slavery, not immigration in general). The Founders talked about “securing the blessings of liberty to our posterity.” That means the descendants of Americans. One should not receive automatic citizenship unless at least one of your biological parents is already an American (even if they themselves are a naturalized citizen). Our current process created an “anchor baby” loophole through which hundreds of thousands of migrants have put down dubious roots in our land.
And it is our land. Not just anybody’s. To state otherwise is to void any semblance of a nation-state or international borders. It’s understandable that parents want to provide the best life they can for their children. But they must do so legally. Allowing the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. is the moral equivalent of allowing my fictional acquaintance to keep the ill-gotten gains his parents arranged.
So no, enforcement doesn’t mean breaking up families. It means they should all go back. Thirty years ago Ronald Reagan was played a fool by agreeing to a deal for amnesty in return for better border security and stricter immigration. As we all know, only the first half of that deal occurred. I guarantee Congress will try the same thing again, now the Trump has (properly) put this issue back to the legislature instead of trying to rule by Executive Order as his predecessor did. We cannot allow our Congresscritters to hold stricter immigration and border security hostage to the demands of people who literally have no legal standing to be in the United States in the first place. We must communicate to them clearly and loudly that we won’t consent to a second sucker’s deal. On a tangential note, isn’t it interesting the GOP couldn’t fulfill its promise of repealing Obamacare, but within hours of the Administration’s DACA announcement there is already bipartisan support building to let the “Dreamers” (a propaganda term if there ever was one) remain in the U.S.? Who, exactly, do these “representatives” represent?
Build the Wall. Deport the lawbreaking illegal immigrants — all of them.
This is not a race issue. It is not a “realizing the American dream” issue. It is an issue of whether we are a nation of laws, and one that is willing to defend the inheritance intended to be handed down to future generations. If we fail this test we may as well erase the borders from all maps, because they will have become meaningless.
And our children will watch helplessly as invaders finish squandering the legacy of their ancestors.
Let’s remember that when anti-American globalists try to play the emotion card.
(*) – The 14th Amendment is by far the single longest amendment to the Constitution, and the various broad judicial readings of its provisions have dramatically changed the way in which our system of governance operates. But that’s a post for another time…