We The People

of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? The Preamble to the Constitution clearly lays out the key reasons for our government’s very existence and mission, among which it lists to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

By not securing our borders the Government has failed in this task, plain and simple. Regardless of your views on how restrictive or open our immigration policies should be; that is a separate issue from the fact that a government must secure its borders.

I’m not completely thrilled by this new Arizona law that’s got the some folks up in arms (oh wait, sorry, only racist Tea Partiers get “up in arms”), but I can understand the frustration and frankly disgust with the inaction on the Federal Government’s part that led to it.

Build the goddamned wall.

Build it now.

We must secure and gain control of our border first, then we can discuss and create an immigration policy that we can actually implement.

35 Responses to “We The People”

  1. LeeAnn says:

    When we lived in SoCal, we had our patio furniture stolen twice by illegal immigrants passing through our neighborhood. I know this because they were caught, taken across the border and released, and came right back and did it again. Again, arrested (not the sharpest tacks). This was the most minor thing we had to deal with in our 15+ years next door to Mexico. It never stopped. Never. I doubt it will at the rate it’s going.

  2. Skyler says:

    I’m continually baffled by the “conservative” reaction to immigration.

    In almost everything else, conservatives see that when a government program doesn’t work, the solution is never that we need more government control. Yet with immigration, they fail to recognize that making it harder to immigrate only makes the problem worse and the people more desperate, which causes them to resort to crime.

    You will never stop the influx of immigrants without some serious investments and methods that I don’t think will ever be tolerated. The Berlin wall didn’t keep people from moving between east and west Berlin. There were still escapes, and the cost of that wall in damage to the culture and death to so many people is unacceptable.

    Mexico is currently in a state of anarchy with the cartels having larger armies than the government has. The people there are quite desperate to leave. They will leave, they will not be stopped, and their behavior will be law abiding to the same degree that they are allowed to abide by the law in entering.

  3. Mr. Bingley says:

    This is not some government program, it seems to me, but rather a basic function of government that even the most ardent of libertarians would concede: a ‘country’ that can not control its own borders is not, in fact a country at all but rather a territory that is open for invasion and colonization.

    Our immigration policy is for US to decide and administer, not for those who wish to come here. That is non-negotiable or we cease to exist as a nation.

    The example of the Berlin Wall is not the proper one, because that wall was built by a government looking to prevent its people from leaving by whatever means they could, including the deadly means you allude to.
    A more fitting example perhaps would be the Israeli wall. Sure, it annoys the dog snot out of the ‘world community’, but I see that as a feature. It also has cut crime in Israel, and since the area where the Palestinians rule is certainly comparable to Mexico in terms of the general chaos of the life there it certainly bears looking at with regard to your assertion that a wall would increase crime.

    The idea that making immigration harder will somehow make the problem worse frankly baffles me. My house is unlocked. Someone walks in. The next day I lock my doors; how have I made the problem worse?

    I actually probably agree with you more than you think with regard to the illegals that are already here; the en masse deportation of frankly millions of people is not something that I would support and we need to create some type of path to citizenship for the majority of them.

    But that doesn’t mean we should abrogate our rights and duties to secure our border and control who comes in as best we can.

  4. Rob says:

    Good to see you, LeeAnn. Does it still stand alone? 🙂

    I have quite a bit of trouble with the law. First off, it’s not an immigration law. We’re not trying to keep the Brazilians, the French, or the Australians out. This one is aimed at Mexicans and Mexicans only. I was going to add more but Skyler did an excellent job of expressing my opinion.

    Finally, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t get a chill from an Arizona LEO asking for “Your papers, please”.

  5. Rob says:

    Not sure where my comment went. Moderation?

  6. Gary from Jersey says:

    Want them to leave? Stop the welfare, free health services, schools and so on then demand that all government business be done in English. That’s how Oklahoma solved the problem. No roundups, arrests or trainloads of illegals headed for the border. The illegals simply left to prey on others.

  7. Gary from Jersey says:

    One more thing: The US isn’t the cause of Mexico’s impending collapse. Mexico is, and that’s no excuse to make us pay the price.

    Poor border controls, idiotic policies that penalize the Border Patrol for doing its job and the lack of adequate resources leave the border wide open.

    Want the Mexican civil war to end? Stop the drug smuggling. It can be done and has been (see Colombia, Jamaica, etc.). Also, let Mexicans know in blunt terms it’s them or us, so if they want the benefits of a prosperous neighbor they’d better get their act together.

  8. Yojimbo says:

    Turn them into Republican voters. The dems will shut the border in a NY minute. Despite what you hear the people here are mostly for it. Locals television news polls show a solid majority are for it. This is 2-1 dem country here it Tucson, I might add.

    I wish the “Founders” had left out that “promote the general welfare” thing. That has been a source of nothing but trouble from the start.

  9. Dave E. says:

    I think Skyler’s comparison of border control to the Berlin Wall just gave me a small stroke.

  10. Mr. Bingley says:

    You went straight to spam, Rob. No idea on that why. If it goes to moderation I at least get an email. Argh.

  11. Rob says:

    The Berlin Wall comparison is not that far off, Dave and Mr B. “Your papers, please” is right out of the Nazi/Stasi playbook. Fences don’t make good neighbors. I think there are better ways to go about this. Most immigration reform has the sound of “Let’s close the door behind us now that we’re in” to me.

  12. Skyler says:

    “a ‘country’ that can not control its own borders is not, in fact a country at all but rather a territory that is open for invasion and colonization.”

    Why? How does the one follow the other?

    It doesn’t matter who the people in the country are, we are not a homogeneous lot. It only matters if we have the rule of law and protect individual rights. By making laws that can’t be enforced without drastic measures, we’ve essentially asked them to end our rule of law.

    The rule of law requires responsibility in following laws and responsibility in making laws that are reasonable to follow.

  13. Skyler says:

    “I wish the “Founders” had left out that “promote the general welfare” thing. That has been a source of nothing but trouble from the start.”

    The power hungry would have found another clause . . .

  14. Mr. Bingley says:

    Rob, the wall and “show us your papers” are in fact two separate things, and in fact I agree with you mostly on the papers part (although I must admit i can’t read that line without thinking of that old Cheech and Chong routine); I’m very uncomfortable with such a scheme and the enormous discretionary power it would hand to the police.

    I’ll tell you what doesn’t make a good neighbor: having several of your border states collapse into total anarchy, exporting your displaced poor and criminal elements to your ‘neighbor’ to the north, and allowing your country to be a conduit for other nation’s problems to be passed along. It makes a fence sound like a damn good neighbor to me.

    I’d love to hear what you think is a better way.

  15. Yojimbo says:

    I’m sure you’re right, Skyler, I’m sure you’re right.

    Moderation. Ha! I wonder if all “Cavalier” questions go straight to moderation? 🙂

  16. Skyler says:

    All things in moderation.

  17. Mr. Bingley says:

    As far as the ‘country’ stuff goes, I guess Skyler I’m curious as to how you define ‘country’. I’ve given a rough definition, which obviously you don’t agree with.

    Invasions and colonization don’t require John Wayne and Randolph Scott to be effective.

  18. Mr. Bingley says:

    Dammit, Skyler, is that another joke? 🙂

  19. Rob says:

    I don’t know, Mr B. My ancestors on my mom’s side poured into the country over open borders from Ireland in the 1820s, ended up in Minnesota, and fought in the Civil War. On dad’s side, they poured in from Italy around the turn of the century, landed in New Orleans, and melted into the crowd. The sentiment we express today was strong then, too. My grandfather was embarrassed and frightened to speak Italian. America is stronger today because they got in.

  20. Rob says:

    Testing … delete or scroll to the next one. (spam…man this is just weird)

  21. Skyler says:

    Our country is our Constitution, most especially our Bill of Rights, and the ideology of individual sovereignty. Nothing else much matters. It doesn’t matter if we are in Virginia or on the moon, or if we speak English or Tagoloc, or we eat hamburgers or kimshee. So long as we revere individual rights, we are American.

    The sad part is that it’s mostly the people who have had families here for many generations that are biggest drivers away from this American ideology.

  22. Skyler says:

    As a military officer, I’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution, not a language or a border.

  23. Rob says:

    Just not letting me put “blog” at the end of my url?

  24. Gunslinger says:

    “It doesn’t matter if we are in Virginia or on the moon, or if we speak English or Tagoloc, or we eat hamburgers or kimchee. So long as we revere individual rights, we are American.

    Unfortunately, more than a few illegal aliens aren’t interested in being a part of the whole, respecting the laws of the land, or even in respecting others. Allowing our borders to become a revolving door will invite far more trouble than benefit.

    Then there’s that whole tuberculosis thing…

  25. JeffS says:

    Cool, Skyler. I trust that you open your doors to all Americans, just so they have a place to sleep.

    (Hey, if you’re going to be intellectually idealist, so am I.)

    Rob, the world today is not what the world of the 19th Century. And that’s how a fair number of my ancestors came to America as well.

  26. jb says:

    Government is the solution, don’t you know? Build the wall.

    Look how well/wall they do everything else!

    The Soviets were great wall-builders, too.

    LMAO

  27. Rob says:

    “Rob, the world today is not what the world of the 19th Century. And that’s how a fair number of my ancestors came to America as well.”

    What’s happening now is not much different than what was happening then, JeffS. Some things haven’t changed that much. People are still coming here for opportunity and people still resent it.

  28. Skyler says:

    JeffS, I’m very consistent. I expect to keep and protect my own property. I want everyone to have the same right to buy property and live in peace. I don’t demand that my neighbor not be allowed to sell to people whom I don’t like.

  29. JeffS says:

    To be consistent, Skyler, if you’re going to allow a bunch of crooked politicians to give away the country, you should give your house away as well.

  30. JeffS says:

    What’s happening now is not much different than what was happening then, JeffS. Some things haven’t changed that much. People are still coming here for opportunity and people still resent it.

    Rob, I am all for legal immigration. 100% for it. Absolutely. Emigrate, pay taxes, work for citizenship. Not a problem. That’s the law.

    But that was NOT the law back when. The world was an open place. Warfare was much different. We didn’t have terrorists trying to destroy America. Getting citizenship was a lot easier….and people wanted. Today? They want welfare more than anything else. Citizenship? Why bother, when there are a bunch of chumps willing to pay the taxes to support illegal immigrants?

    And speaking of warfare, Mexico was a problem back when. Pancho Villa raiding into the United States, open banditry along the border? Remember how it was addressed? Hmmmmm? What, do we need another “Columbus, New Mexico” for people to look at the mess Mexico is in?

    And if “[w]hat’s happening now is not much different than what was happening then”, where are the troops deployed along the Mexican border, as they were BEFORE the Pancho Villa campaign?

    Sorry, Rob, but the world is NOT the same as back in the 19th Century. Not even close.

  31. bingbing says:

    Not American so haven’t paid too much attention until all this flared as to how bad (or not) it is down there.

    Still, to read about a bunch of San Franciscans – people about as far away from any US border as you can get – complaining about it? That was funny.

  32. Skyler says:

    No jeff. I want the crooked politicians to stop acting as though the country were theirs to withhold.

    The law says that anyone, no matter their nationality, can buy the house next to your house. That crooked politician is saying they’re just not allowed to live in it.

    If you’re worried about welfare and other programs then attack those programs.

  33. Skyler says:

    JeffS: “Rob, I am all for legal immigration.”

    Well duh. So is just about everyone.

    The difference is that I think that what is legal should more accurately reflect what is reasonable and proper.

    Others, and likely you, think that we should make it immensely harder to come here legally.

    I’m all for legal driving, too. But if the government only issued ten driver’s licenses a week, I suspect we’d quickly get a whole lot of illegal drivers. Would you then be calling for a further curtailment of issuing driver’s licenses and making it even harder to get one? I hope instead that you would be demanding that the government be more reasonable and issue out as many licenses as there are people who want one and can reasonably demonstrate an ability to drive safely.

    If your argument of immigration were applied to driving, you would be demanding that we have smaller roads and fewer drivers. How dare all those people out there try to drive, it’s just driving up the costs of making roads and now look how many parking lots we need to build. Driver’s licenses should only be allowed for those people who can prove that they have to carry heavy objects and then issued only after waiting for a few years. You don’t need a car when there is a city bus you could take, besides, it’s better exercise to walk to a bus stop, you worthless lazy bum.

    And just look at all the damage caused by those illegal drivers, crashing into other cars and buildings. If we had fewer drivers then we’d have fewer accidents. Hence we must stop people from driving and severely punish those who drive without a license, and at the same time make it harder to get a license. That would certainly solve everything!

  34. Mr. Bingley says:

    Skyler, I don’t think we should make it harder to come here legally and I’ve never even hinted at that, but I do, for a variety of reasons, think we should make it harder to come here illegally.

    In fact, one thing that upsets me greatly is how people with skills our society/economy wants and needs spend years going through all the proper channels for legal immigration only to be denied while others who are a drain on our resources are rewarded for sneaking across the border illegally. That’s just wrong and it sends the wrong message to those folks about how we value and respect the rule of law here. We have laws on our books about how to come here legally. Enforce them uniformly. That’s fair. We have every right, in fact I would say we have a duty, to cherry pick the best of the people who want to come here to better our society. We are under no obligation to accept any and all; 100 years ago was a different world and our country had different needs then than it does now. It is both reasonable and proper for our immigration policy to favor those most likely to benefit our society, those who have skills we are in need of.

    Look, I am very sympathetic to the plight of poor people in Central America and elsewhere, but quite frankly I care a hell of a lot more about the poor American citizens in Newark, in Detroit, in rural Mississippi and West Virginia than I do about those in Ciudad Juarez or Tapachula or Kampala. We have limited resources and my fellow Americans rightfully have dibbs on what I can offer long before non-citizens do.

    Funny you should mention illegal drivers. Perhaps you weren’t aware that in study after study the vast majority of unlicensed drivers are illegals, based upon data from both traffics stops (both checkpoint data and moving violation data) and, oh yes, drunken driving and hit-and-runs. The states with the highest levels of illegals have the highest levels of unlicensed drivers, the highest levels of uninsured drivers, the highest levels of hit-and-runs. Yes, of course none of these people have insurance, so any damage they cause, whether to other people, to property (“other cars and buildings” as you’d say) or also physical damage to themselves is paid for by the US taxpayer. This is reasonable and proper how?

  35. Skyler says:

    First my allegory on licensing drivers should not be distorted by using any data about illegals and driving. That doesn’t change the point.

    Second, in your example if those people had more to lose by disobeying the law than by obeying the law then they would be more likely to obey.

Image | WordPress Themes