Dakota Beacon

Actually, this question is much like the famous, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” – it is invalid in that it inaccurately presumes that the newly enacted law respecting our national borders and illegal immigration “invalidates” something in the first place.

We need to follow up on these presumptions – take them to their logical and inevitable conclusions in order to establish what is reasonable and right for America in its treatment of legal and illegal aliens and its own citizens, both native-born and naturalized.  Should we accept that there is a “birthright” here, we must determine how that right was bestowed and by whom.  It is an accepted convention in any reasonable legal structure that one cannot dispose of anything to which he cannot himself claim ownership.  In other words, Jason cannot give to Stanley, let’s say, Robert’s new Mercedes.  Any thinking person should be able to accept this tenet.  If Jason does not rightfully own the Mercedes he cannot legally give it or sell it or in any other way dispose of the car outside of a legal process whereby he gains legal possession of it first.  

In “anchor baby” chain migration, the proponents of unlimited illegal immigration must explain how a criminal (one who has broken the law, in other words) in a foreign country in which he is not a citizen himself, may be permitted to bestow the impressive gift of citizenship on another, whether it is his own offspring or not.  This is merely a case of exploitation of infants.  It is not in any way a racial issue.  The principle must be upheld whether the alien in question is Mexican, Chinese or Prince Phillip.  It matters not.  

The argument that we should make special arrangements for these criminals to crown them with citizenship in our country because they are “of color” or of whatever minority you use to describe the people who cross our southern border is racism itself.  Our laws are and should be color-blind and race-blind.  If a collection of Norwegian or Polish drug dealers decides to use our Mexican/American border as a shortcut to circumvent our airports, it does not matter that they are “White” and “European”.  The “race” argument must be dispensed with out of hand if we are to talk about the real issues and how this crisis affects our lives in America and our national sovereignty.

Do those who favor amnesty or open borders truly believe that we ARE a sovereign nation or that we OUGHT TO BE?  If we are not, then what is the alternative?  Our sovereignty protects those values which we, as Americans, have always held dear: our liberty, our right to speak freely, to associate with whom we choose, to have children – and as many or few as we want or can, our right to enjoy the benefit of the living we earn, the rights of the vulnerable (such as women and children).  If we are NOT a sovereign nation, our laws, by definition, become irrelevant and are lost to us – those laws which, based in our Constitution, protect the innocent, the weak, the young and, indeed, all of us.  These laws establish our right to succeed, to go about the business of following our dreams and “pursuing our happiness”, in the words of Jefferson.

Much has been made of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The context of this part of our law was the best effort Congress could exert to assure newly freed slaves that they would have the same rights as others born here.  This law, by the way, cites those under American jurisdiction.  For example, it did not extend to Native Americans because they governed themselves under tribal law.  It did not include the offspring of diplomats or visitors in America.  It was clearly and specifically designed to ensure the rights of those born as slaves.  It was a promise that color did not define citizenship.  This promise flowered in the election of a non-White to the highest office in the land, with considerable support from Black and White Americans.  When Lincoln officially freed these people we had a new paradigm to work through.  This was an effort to address some of these issues.

We do not hear too much from those who favor open borders about the ENTIRE Fourteenth Amendment because this Amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS [emphasis supplied] of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  This should inform us that American citizens and their rights are to be protected under our law.

Citizens and nationals of other countries are not under our jurisdiction.  They are under the jurisdiction of their own laws and their own lands.  They can choose to renounce those nations and ask to be admitted to our land legally and adhere to our laws.  This is the process followed by all those examples being flung at us from the open-borders people.  The immigrants that they speak of who have so enriched America, who have sired most of us here today, regardless of color, these people elected to follow the law.  In rewarding those who do not we punish those who do respect American law.  This is no way to conduct affairs in a respectable nation.  

Of special interest is another little section of the Constitution.  This would be Article IV. This is so important to the argument that it must be considered in full.  To summarize, Section 1 orders that full faith and credit be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.  Congress is to establish the manner in which such proceedings are proved and the effects – so, in other words, the Framers did not want willy-nilly edicts or kangaroo courts.  This is not what took place in Arizona.  The lawfully established legislature took action in their best sight to correct a dangerous threat to citizens – of every color and background – by marauding criminals invading this nation from the south.

Section 2 says that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.   It goes on to order that a person charged with a crime who flees justice in one state for sanctuary in another must be sent back when captured, to the state he fled, for prosecution of the law.  Section 3 deals with new territories. And Section 4 is VERY interesting:  “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion [emphasis supplied]; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”  How shall this be applied?  The federal government has point-blank refused to come to the aid of Arizona citizens literally struggling against foreign invaders.  When Arizona finally took desperate action to protect itself, our federal leader announced a huge increase in border guards.  What were they doing?  It turns out they were checking up on all SOUTHBOUND trains.  This, it would seem, should be the responsibility of Mexican border guards.  It surely does nothing to protect American citizens.

I hope before much longer we can put this inadequate defense of the cases


Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government