Compassion at what cost?

Allowing illegal immigration isn’t compassionate - it’s criminal

With the tidal wave of illegal immigrants crashing over the southern border, cities are finding it more and more difficult to deal with the deluge. Veterans have been displaced to house the offenders. Children are being ejected from schools to provide a place for the proscribed pilgrims. Still many Americans voice a cry of compassion for this cortege of colonists. “These people are seeking a better life; they’re fleeing horrible conditions in their own country” they wail. When someone disagrees, they trot out the tired trope, “we are a country of immigrants.” Where is the compassion for the Americans being displaced? Why should those guilty of breaking and entering be treated better than the residents of the home? In what world is it ok to make American citizens pay to support criminals (anyone entering the country illegally has broken the law and is thus a criminal, no matter the reason for coming), while over six hundred thousand citizens are homeless? This needs to be addressed, as these arguments carry with them heavy emotional appeal but rely on a flawed perspective.

While America may have been a “country of immigrants” two centuries ago, those original immigrants had children, and their children had children, and so on to the extent that there have been several generations of native-born Americans. So, no, we are not a country of immigrants. Even the founding fathers had a rather conservative view of immigration, and they themselves were immigrants.

James Madison wrote:

I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

James Madison, Naturalization, 3 February 1790

Our forefathers believed that only those who had the potential, and desire, to be a productive part of the American culture should be allowed entrance. This belies something else bothersome about that bromide: even if we accept that America is a country of immigrants, the question must be asked: immigrants of what type? The immigrants who first landed on the eastern shores came to a savage wilderness that had not yet been tamed. They scraped and clawed to develop this country from soil to cities, and from sand to skyscrapers. Those original immigrants were makers and builders. Can the same be said for those coming now, or are they takers and destroyers?

This is why George Washington avered that only those interested in assimilating to American culture should be encouraged to come:

My opinion with respect to emigration is, that except of useful mechanic’s—and some particular descriptions of men—or professions—there is no need of extra encouragement: while the policy, or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain the language, habits & principles (good or bad) which they bring with them; whereas, by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, manners and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

George Washington to John Adams, 15 November 1794

Most coming illegally do not wish to assimilate. They want to reap all the benefits without any of the responsibility. Worse, they have no allegiance to our country. It is for this reason I believe the government is allowing the illegal importation of innumerable immigrants. As I posited in May of last year, an army is being built that will include those who have no qualm about firing upon American citizens. You may dismiss this as a cockamamie conspiracy, but consider these facts:

• the government is arming and training bureaucrats who are more loyal to government than to the people

• many of the illegals entering the country are military-aged men, a large proportion of which have origins outside South America (i.e. China, the Middle East, etc.)

• two Congressmen recently put forward a bill to give illegals a rapid path to “citizenship” if they enlist in the armed forces

• several cities and states are considering permitting non-citizens, potentially including illegals, to serve on the police force

Those who claim the open border is necessary and compassionate for those seeking amnesty fail to realize that those coming are seeking handouts, not a hand up, and they will likely do whatever is necessary to receive them. This is what the government has promised.

Alexander Hamilton was quite verbose in addressing this subject, and his writing is rather derisive of those who allowed themselves to be swayed by such sentiment:

The pathetic and plaintive exclamations by which the sentiment is enforced, might be liable to much criticism, if we are to consider it in any other light, than as a flourish of rhetoric. It might be asked in return, does the right to asylum or hospitality carry with it the right to suffrage and sovereignty? And what indeed was the courteous reception which was given to our forefathers, by the savages of the wilderness? When did these humane and philanthropic savages exercise the policy of incorporating strangers among themselves, on their first arrival in the country? When did they admit them into their huts, to make part of their families, and when did they distinguish them by making them their sachems? Our histories and traditions have been more than aprocryphal, if any thing like this kind, and gentle treatment was really lavished by the much-belied savages upon our thankless forefathers. But the remark occurs, had it all been true, prudence inclines to trace the history farther, and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy? And who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a useful lesson might be drawn from this very reflection.

Alexander Hamilton, The Examination Number VII

Hamilton sardonically compares the desire to admit masses of migrants to the reception the European immigrants received from the Native Americans. Even now, Americans aren’t easily accepted or assimilated into Native American tribes. Yet this is that upon which open border supporters insist. Admit the illegals into your huts; make them a part of your families; make them sachems of our society. And in some places, this has been done. Flags of other nations are flown above the American flag, or the American flag is burned, denigrated or hidden. Our culture is despised by many of those coming. How does granting such people asylum strengthen America?

Even if granted asylum, Hamilton insisted immigrants did not possess the rights or privileges of citizens. Continuing on, Hamilton writes:

The impolicy of admitting foreigners to an immediate and unreserved participation in the right of suffrage, or in the sovereignty of a Republic, is as much a received axiom as any thing in the science of politics, and is verified by the experience of all ages. Among other instances, it is known, that hardly any thing contributed more to the downfall of Rome, than her precipitate communication of the privileges of citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy at large. And how terribly was Syracuse scourged by perpetual seditions, when, after the overthrow of the tyrants, a great number of foreigners were suddenly admitted to the rights of citizenship? Not only does ancient but modern, and even domestic history furnish evidence of what may be expected from the dispositions of foreigners, when they get too early footing in a country. Who wields the sceptre of France, and has erected a Despotism on the ruins of a Republic? A foreigner. Who rules the councils of our own ill-fated, unhappy country? And who stimulates persecution on the heads of its citizens, for daring to maintan an opinion, and for exercising the rights of suffrage? A foreigner! Where is the virtuous pride that once distinguished Americans? Where the indignant spirit which in defence of principle, hazarded a revolution to attain that independence now insidiously attacked?

Alexander Hamilton, The Examination Number VII

Hamilton clearly did not believe immigrants should be hastily granted the right to vote (suffrage). Do you think he would approve of granting that right to those who arrived through illicit avenues? Yet those on the left desire to do just that. Despite all their outcry of voting integrity laws, such as requiring valid ID, disenfranchising certain segments of voters, what does allowing illegals access do to the polls? How does such permissiveness not more so disenfranchise all legal citizens voting?

In addition, Hamilton’s questions are just as relevant today as when he penned them. Where is the once virtuous pride that once distinguished Americans? It still exists among some, but it is denigrated by many, including many now holding public office! It is certainly no longer extolled in public school where children are now taught that America is an evil empire built through evil pursuit. We can thank the likes of Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” and the 1619 Project for that.

Where is the indignant spirit which in defense of principle, hazarded a revolution to attain that independence now insidiously attacked? Those who still have it a relatively few compared to the rest. Instead, most now prefer the safety of dependence than the risk inherent in independence. Make no mistake, our independence is being attacked both from within and without. It is up to us to stand firm against the onslaught. Part of that is stopping illegal immigration.

I haven’t even discussed the fentanyl that is flowing across with the refugees. Where is the compassion for the American victims of that deleterious drug? I haven’t mentioned the women and children being trafficked. Where is the compassion for those being sold into slavery? I haven’t delved into the disgusting dishevelment left in their wake and the damage wrought to people’s private property. Where is the compassion for American land-owners and the environment? I haven’t mentioned the overall cost to citizens for financially supporting the squatters. Where is the compassion for Americans struggling to feed their own families? I haven’t gone into gang members and violent criminals flowing in. Where is the compassion for those on whom they prey? There is so much more that could be said.

Our government’s responsibility is to us, the American citizens they are sworn to serve - not masses migrating across Mexico to take advantage of all our government promises to give them. Our immigration system is broken - that statement is accurate - but it is not broken in the way most believe. It is broken because the President is responsible for enforcing existing immigration law and refuses to do so. It is broken because we are being invaded and Congress has both the power and responsibility of repelling invasion (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). Allowing the border to remain open is treasonous, and the President and Congress are equally derelict in their duties. Leaving the border open isn’t compassionate - it’s criminal.