(My Clovis News Journal column for November 28, 2014.)
Those who oppose "illegal immigration" should push for a constitutional amendment to finally make immigration control and closed borders constitutional (therefore, legal). In clear language, with no ambiguity. This would be necessary to make some immigrants "illegal" and end the hypocrisy. Those opposed to "illegal immigration" should obey the highest law before demanding others obey subordinate laws which were never authorized by the Constitution.
Obviously, clear language guarantees nothing. The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear, yet has been violated and ignored by "laws" at every level of government for the past 80-plus years.
Even with a constitutional amendment it would still be wrong to pretend any government has the authority to violate private property rights and dictate whom you are allowed to rent to, hire, or invite for a visit, and to tell people where they are allowed to be. At least then those who claim to want government to obey the Constitution wouldn't be talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I do sympathize. To a point.
If you are worried immigrants will vote for more socialism- just like the majority of American voters already do- why not win them over rather than alienating them? The actions taken by those who explain they are only opposed to "illegal immigration" are self-defeating at best. If you believe your way is so unappealing it isn't possible to make newcomers want it, then immigrants are not your biggest problem.
It bothers me when anyone, regardless of where they were born, votes for more socialistic handouts and programs; for more government or more "laws". No matter what justification they use. It makes no difference to me where an attacker or a thief was born, nor what government papers he holds. I want to see aggressors and thieves struck down through self defense every time they strike.
Yet, if private property rights are respected, the whole issue of "immigration" evaporates.
If all property were individually owned, and there weren't an entire system established to wrest control of property from the rightful owners, the owners could decide how to control it. Government owns nothing it didn't either steal from the original owners or buy with stolen (or counterfeited) money. Since no thief owns the stolen property he possesses, why do people pretend there are federal, state, or local "public" lands to be controlled by government?
With real property rights people would either be where they have a right to be, or they'd be trespassing and subject to forcible removal. If property rights stopped immigration, so be it. If not, that's also just fine. This is as it should be.
.
