WASHINGTON, September 22, 2014 – Criminal invasion does not guarantee a right to citizenship, or a right to remain in our country and be protected by our laws. The 60,000+ invaders, many of them minors, who have streamed into the United States this year seem rightly to believe that they were invited by our feckless president. Our Homeland Security and Justice Departments necessarily carry the water for their boss, and offer no resistance to him. However, it’s against the law, and a new Administration that respects the law will be obligated to deport these illegals, causing a bigger problem for the U.S. and creating greater stress on the illegals themselves, and their families.
The theory advanced by the Administration through its network media outlets is that these “kids” are either reuniting with their families who are already in the U.S. (many, illegally), or that their families back in Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica (but never Nicaragua, Ecuador, or any other central or South American country, and certainly not Mexico) have sent their children here, in desperation. If they stayed in their own countries, these children would no doubt be worse off, facing starvation, slavery, rape, sickness, or death.
Never mind the ridiculous premise: that it’s both a good idea to reunite families (here), and it’s a good idea to break them up (in their home countries). Never mind that it’s impossible for Border Patrol to tell the difference between a Honduran six-year-old and a Nicaraguan, or Mexican six-year-old.
Or a Costa Rican gang member and a Mexican gang member. No one is carrying identification.
And that’s another problem: the law prohibits Mexicans from coming here under the pretense of asylum. Who, though, makes any effort to tell the country of origin of these minors? Who at the border cares?
When there is talk of “reuniting families,” who is to document which families are being reunited, what is the scope of the family – parents or third cousins? — and how is the relationship, or even the identity of the minor or the adult verified? No one is doing DNA testing, and no one contacts the “families” prior to letting the illegals in.
What, by the way, is being done about the illegal family members already here?
As an important aside, the notion of “anchor babies” is frequently brought up as justification for letting the parents remain in the country, even though they entered illegally. The fact is, “anchor babies” are not automatically citizens.
The Constitution clearly states (Article XIV, Section 1), “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Infants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, since they are incapable of exercising free will, and thus cannot be “subject to” anything. They are not citizens, and they confer on their parents, siblings, and relations no rights of citizenship whatsoever.
But these illegal invaders represent a pitiful humanitarian problem, and somehow (by popular demand?), once they have broken our law and nested in our country, they have become our problem. Not so fast, amigo! Their need does not in any way legally obligate us to fill it. People have endless needs and wants, and even the most-indebted nation in the history of the world has no obligation to go farther into debt, to satisfy them.
But, but… we’re Americans, and these people need help! We can’t just let them freeze, starve, rot from diseases… can we? Each of us needs to make that decision for himself, but it’s the individual’s decision, not the government’s. Still, if the idea of social obligation has overwhelming support to help everyone who needs help and can sneak into the country, then what?
There is a way that provides all the help needed, but does not threaten our sovereignty, our people, our jobs, schools, or the integrity of our laws. If we were really concerned about the “humanitarian crisis” that is the media’s definition of the invasion on our southern border (and the relocation and dispersal of these criminal invaders across the country), we would set up humanitarian centers, as DHS has done. But we don’t need to let these people into the country, in the first place.
Borrowing from Scarlett O’Hara, the illegals might ask the Spanish equivalent of “Where shall I go? What shall I do?” It’s not that we don’t give a damn, but it’s also not our problem.
These people have already gotten into Mexico, one presumes, with some sort of tacit permission from that government. Let Mexico keep them. After all, it’s easier on these “refugees” if they don’t have to learn another language, if they can stay in a climate more like the one in which they were raised, and in a country that seems to welcome them.
Americans aren’t heartless, though, and it’s a popular idea to have taxpayers fund refugee centers, where these aliens can get a place to sleep, a decent meal, and some remedial health care. So, I say, let’s indeed set up these centers, right on the border.
On the Mexican side.
That way, they won’t have to commit yet another illegal border crossing and they won’t become American students, American patients, and American voters, until they want to do it legally.
This plan would give these minors all the help our president says they need, but would not bring them into the country illegally. In fact, it would probably help a lot more of them, since they wouldn’t be turned away at the U.S. border.
Oh – and if we somehow have an obligation to “reunite these families,” let’s do that, too — also in Mexico.