As I write, a column of foreign invaders is marching toward our border, intent on breaching it to enter the sovereign territory of the United States. Given that our Republic has a government in place that controls the world’s most powerful military, this is a thing that we should have ample resources to prevent. (As I understand it, protecting the nation’s frontiers against hostile incursion is any government’s primary responsibility; after all, if it fails at that it soon need not bother with anything else.)
As it happens, this invasion force is not a mechanized army of hundreds of divisions, but a rag-tag mass of pedestrians numbering only a few thousands. There should not be any problem here.
Right?
9 Comments
It seems to me to be more difficult though Malcolm, with the problem not being primarily military but moral – and democratic. It’s really up to the American people, working through their Congressmen, to decide the answer to a tough question: do we have the stomach to say “no” to South Americans, of whom some may have at least a case to be made for refugee status. If so, then how should we revamp our immigration system through legislation (e.g. should we make it harder for refugees to claim asylum)? I suppose we’ll find part of the answer to all this in 14 days.
Jason,
The “refugee” question is a simple one: refugees fleeing country A into adjacent country B should apply for asylum in country B.
The remaining moral question is whether we are obligated to permit unconditional entry to anyone dissatisfied enough with local conditions (for whatever reason) to wish to relocate here. Many people watching the mawkish news coverage of this “caravan” will answer “yes”.
But…
There are 7.6 billion people in the world. The population of Africa alone is expected to rise above 4 billion by the end of the century. Clearly, flinging open our borders to billions of people would, in the end, help nobody; it would simply overwhelm and destroy the United States.
This is simply a matter of numbers, and there can be no doubt about the conclusion. A lifeboat for 25 people cannot hold 700. (And even if the raw numbers weren’t overwhelming, the demographic and cultural tsunami would be sufficient to inundate and destroy everything that ever made the United States a lifeboat in the first place.)
So: if the United States is to continue as a nation, admission must be controlled by some limiting principle. But what is that rational principle? I haven’t heard one mentioned by our muliebrous news media. Have we nothing to guide us now but bathos and emotion? Has our nation’s bloodline been drained of everything but estrogen and oxytocin?
We have a nation to preserve, and a civilization. Let us remember that this is our duty: not only for our own sake or our children’s, but also for the sake of the world — because if the West is toppled and overrun, there will be a long era of darkness for everyone else.
Jason, do you think (in re immigration policy) there is a strong connection between what the American people want and what congressmen do? Or between what congressmen do and what fedgov actually enforces? I think these things are only feebly connected.
Most of these people are definitely not ‘refugees’ in any real sense. But the current understanding of the concept is idiotic in any case. Similarly ‘human rights’ now include pretty much anything that someone thinks would be nice, as long as their feelings are compatible with Leftism. (A special bathroom tailored to your unique kind of sexual confusion, anywhere you’d like to have one, for example.) Someone whose life is not so great because he comes from a screwed up primitive disordered society is not a ‘refugee’. Someone who married a bad man of her own volition and got beaten up is not a ‘refugee’. Someone who can’t find a nice job is not a ‘refugee’. And yet people like that apparently do often count as refugees in the minds of many liberals and even legally.
Thanks for your response Malcolm. Part of my criticism, about which I obviously was not clear, is simply a practical one, that merely a military solution may be insufficent. From what I have read, there seems to be an honest albeit contentious difference of interpretation within the Trump administration over whether we can prevent South Americans from seeking asylum at the border, versus at various consulates throughout Mexico (and Central America). Wouldn’t the administration be strongly supporting your point publicly if the law were clear? If our laws are ambiguous here then, then obviously the solution is for Congress to legislate unequivocally over the matter. (Caveat: I’m not a lawyer, and very well may be missing something here.)
But “who” are the American people chedolf, something that can be an abstraction. Instead, there exist all sorts of factions, all of which claim to speak for the people. The Democratic Party, alas, seems to be currently dominated by Hispanics and progressives, preventing honest liberals and others from taking a more sensible line on immigration. It’s a dreary spectacle, but that’s where we’re at, I’m afraid.
Something I thought of Chedolf, that maybe gives more meat to the theoretical point that I was trying to make above. Let’s suppose that in November Trump and the Republicans manage to maintain both the House and Senate. The president could reasonably argue that the American people clearly gave him a mandate to at least prohibit any massive influx of South American refugees into our country. In addition, he could improvise and argue that he has also been called to suggest further legislation, such as greater restrictions on asylum requests. And if liberals and progressives don’t like this and feel Trump is overreaching, well they can bring their case to the American “people” in 2020. It seems to me this sort of haphazard process, which is certainly not the stuff of a university seminar, is probably the most we can hope for in contemporary democracy.
One more brief point I would make Malcolm: I think you’re right that it’s hard to find a limiting principle to South Americans seeking asylum within our nation. Considering the traditional definition of a refugee, one whose life is in danger because of his or her religion, ethnicity, or political point of view, it appears that the danger of inflation (to reference Jacaques’ point) arises if you try to fit Hondurans or whoever in here. For obviously they’re not voyaging north for these typical reasons, but because of mainly 1) gangs and druglords and 2) poverty. It seems then, that perhaps the best (albeit surely flawed) solution is to bring in the UN or other NGOs and try to set up safe areas in Latin America (analogous to those in Turkey), where Central Americans and others might flee violence.
Jason,
Good points. You seem to be asking whether American law requires that everyone seeking asylum be admitted first, then given a hearing in court as to the validity of their appeal.
Here’s what 8 U.S. Code § 1158 says:
There is an obvious vulnerability here, now being exploited. This probably deserves a post of its own. (One thing I will say, though, is that relying on the U.N. is not the answer.)