Security Versus Immigration

How Non-Enforcement of Immigration Laws Supports 
The Continuing Need For The 2nd Amendment

With the introduction of refugees from Syria into the United States and the expressed security concerns of our citizens, there has been much talk about the Statue of Liberty greeting those who are seeking a better life in the United States. If that is what you legally seek, you are welcomed here but while the Statue of Liberty may be a popular site, it was not intended as symbol for any United States governmental law or act.

Dedicated in 1886, the Statue of Liberty was a joint project of the French and American peoples to celebrate their union. Why and how it was conceived had as much to do with immigration as New York's first ticker tape parade which also happened on the date of the statue's dedication ceremony. Written in 1883, the Emma Lazarus poem, The New Colossus which is quickly recited anytime an immigration issue is discussed, most particularly the lines “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free....” was written as an art project to help raise funds for building the statue. In the United States art projects help raise funds for loads of governmental projects.

Provisions for legal immigration is a function of the government of the United States. To say that there are too many illegal aliens residing in our country to deport them is a call to arms for those that believe in the United States and the rights of it's citizens. “May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, or of those whom the constitution of the State has not admitted to the rights of suffrage?” Publius (James Madison) – Federalist No. 43 Originally published January 23, 1788. In short, we are in the midst of an invasion. While this may have been a fairly friendly invasion to date, change looms on our horizon.

The current state of affairs having to do with radical groups that promote terror has brought about the need for enforcement of our immigration policies. These groups seek to end religious freedom which is one of the core principles of United States government. We have spent a significant amount of time struggling with what to do about our illegal alien problem, and that time is testament to that fact. We realize also that some of our citizens would rather not enforce United States immigration law out of a sense of compassion for the families that enforcement would affect. Compassion for the citizens of other countries should not be more important than the need for our own citizen's right to feel secure within our borders; especially when the security threat would affect all those within our borders whether here legally or not. The people of the United States are compassionate and therefore we have immigration law.

You can't make judgment's based on an outward appearance and but it's impossible to know what is in a man's heart. You know that through deed. I submit if the illegal alien population is not willing to step up, identify themselves and seek legal citizenship then they are part of the force that threatens the United States. You cannot say you love a thing and allow yourself to be a part of it's destruction.

There is no need for government if it does not provide security. The United States government acts harshly with it's own citizens for breaking the law even to the point of imprisoning citizens long-term for acts that would only hurt their own person or persons of like behaviors. By not acting on the immigration law, the United States is deeming our own citizens of less importance. Illegal aliens need to be informed about why these laws are of importance so as not to break them. It's not a simple matter of convenience and I have seen no real effort to educate in this regard. Members of our primary political parties prefer to either ignore the problem and claim that it is an insignificant threat or use it as a subject for advancing their career in politics with no plan of implementation. This leaves individuals with the prospect that they face invasion alone. If citizens view that they may have to do without the forces that they pay taxes to in order to provide for their security, then why should they pay those taxes? Because it's the law?

Knowing the volatility of all this, each year there are proposed gun laws that seek to limit the ability of citizens to act as their own security. These laws range from wanting all guns out of the hands of citizens to limiting the type of weapons available. Since the Bill of Rights gives citizens the right to bear arms and that right was given in order to defend not only one's own security but the security of the United States as well. It seems to me rather unpatriotic to suggest that citizens should not continue to enjoy rights given to them by our founders while refusing to provide for their security and in the midst of the recent terrorist events.

Some feel that in 2015 we surely have advanced beyond the need for citizens to bear arms but what has changed to assume that? There is surely still war in the world, tyranny, and persecution. Let us not forget that our founding fathers were painfully aware that their own government could become unbearable under the right circumstances. In light of recent events, some U.S. citizens even feel that their government has become infiltrated. It would be the first order of business of a tyrannical government to disarm those citizens that would oppose them. The right to bear arms is not just to prevent invasion. It is so that citizenry can rise up against it's own government should it become unbearable. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” Declaration of Independence. The right to bear arms is just as valid today. I'll go one step further and say that you will never get those guns from a breathing, self-described patriot of the United States, even in peaceful times.

No comments: