The Deal on Illegal Immigration America Needs
Bert Peterson
WHO DECIDES IMMIGRATION POLICY?
The first responsibility of government is not that of providing welfare, nor education, nor even a legal system to protect citizens from criminals and redress grievances. The first responsibility of government is to protect the national sovereignty, for without that, none of the other things the government does matters. And the most fundamental protection of the national sovereignty is through the protection of its borders. The protection of borders means that it is not foreigners who decide who will enter the country, but that it will be American citizens who do so.
For some reason, we seem to be coming to the conclusion that if a person is here illegally, that equation somehow changes. We can keep foreigners out of the country, but once a foreigner is in the country, then we forfeit our authority, for, well we could freely exercise it prior to such illegal entry, we cannot – after some arbitrary length of time – exercise that authority, because it would be “cruel.” It is as if, once in the country, the American government forced the foreigner to remain in the country, to put down roots and build a life. But the American government did not do that. The foreigner made that decision – those multitude of decisions over time – in reliance of the hope that the immigration law would never be enforced. Each new day, he or she makes the decision to continue to “live in the shadows.” That decision places no obligation on the American government to bring such persons “out of the shadows.” Yet some argue now that the foreigner’s reliance on this hope places an obligation on the American people. Under this thinking, it is not Americans who are determining what our immigration policy will be; it is foreigners living among us who are doing so. This constitutes nothing less than a surrender of national sovereignty.
FROM ANCHOR BABIES TO ANCHOR CHILDREN
One of the greatest incentives for illegal immigration is the policy of granting citizenship for anyone born in the United States, whether their parents were in the country legally are not. Once such a child is born to parents who are not in the country legally, that creates a situation where the government cannot deport the parents without deporting an American citizen – commonly referred to as an “anchor baby” – at the same time. For, if the government does so, then it is “breaking up families.” (For some reason, it is never the parents that – in order to retain the benefits of American citizenship for the child – are seen as doing so.) Under this policy, the authority for deciding the nationality of a couple’s or single mother’s children has been delegated to whoever has been able to enter the country. Again, a surrender of national sovereignty.
“Surrender” is probably putting it mildly. It is almost as if we are asking for foreigners to violate our borders. We are creating not a deterrent for lawbreaking, but an incentive. And what an incentive — American citizenship for one’s children. It is the dream of many if not most parents that their children have lives better than their own (even if only to support them in their old age;) who then who could blame a couple for succumbing to such a temptation? The point here is not to criticize them, but to criticize a policy that does not punish, but rewards them for violating our borders.
In the past, there has been talk of eliminating such an incentive to illegality. But, instead, under former-president Barack Obama, we went in a different direction. Obama created a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in which foreign-born children of illegal immigrants received legal status,renewed every two years. Under DACA, the children of illegal immigrants are afforded temporary legal status, even if the parents are not. So we again come to the same situation – if the parents are deported, and the child remains, then we are “breaking up families. Instead of abolishing the legal basis for the creation o fanchor babies, we have expanded it.
Such a policy was never enacted by Congress, but was enacted instead as an executive order by Obama. This was an action that, up until the time he did it, he – as a former constitutional law professor – said was unconstitutional. Then, he enacted it, supposedly as an executive order anyway. Obama never explained how his legal thinking changed, or if, in fact, it did. Since he didn’t, we can only conclude that he decided that it did not matter if DACA was unconstitutional; the DACA program, at least in his own mind, was more important than some piece of paper – even though his own authority derived from that piece of paper.
In doing so, Obama created an additional incentive for the violation of immigration law. As we have noted, immigration law – the protection of our borders – is the most fundamental responsibilities of our government. If a president can unilaterally take action on an issue such as this, then there is nothing that a president might not take unilateral action on.
Under the Constitution, enacting such a policy is, under the separation of powers, a shared responsibility between Congress and the president. If the separation of powers does not prohibit the president taking an action such as this, what does the separation of powers prevent?
Barack Obama was followed by Donald Trump, who has said he will, after a six-month delay, resend DACA. If we are to have constitutional government – a government following the rule of law – Trump had no choice. Had he let DACA stand, he would have been reporting President Obama for his abuse of presidential authority. And, with such reward, he would have been setting a precedent for all future presidents, telling them: “If Congress doesn’t pass the legislation you want, go for it; enact yourself through (wink, wink) executive order. At least when you will create a situation that will make it politically difficult to reverse – such as granting large numbers of people things or legal status that they did not have before.”
Trump did not want to set such a precedent for lawlessness, and so will rescind the program. (Ironically, it is a loose-cannon, reality-TV star who will reverse an abusive presidential authority committed by a constitutional law professor and graduate of Harvard Law.) Trump will rescinded it, but with a caveat – he would delay the rescission by six months to allow Congress to act. He will be placing the onus on Congress, where it belonged in the first place. But only he will be doing so only after 800,000 DACA recipients have been created. So it is not as if they will be coming to this issue with a clean slate. There stronger pressure Congress to reward the recipients for the illegal entry of their parents then there would’ve been had not Obama issued his unconstitutional executive order. So, even with the passing of the responsibility back to Congress, Obama did receive a benefit from issuing that order.
In light of that fact, and in light of the illegality of the underlying entry of hundreds of thousands of parents with their children, it would have been better for Trump to have rescinded the program – not with any six-month delay, or, (as Trump has given,) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers.html?_r=0
– indications of support for any legislative reincarnation of DACA but simply to have rescinded it, period, and with a promise to veto any legislative attempt to revive it.
To such an unyielding response to this unconstitutional program, some will point out that it is not the DACA recipients themselves who broke the law, and so should not be punished. But of course, in this response, they would not be punished; they would not be sent to prison, they would be deported to their nation of birth. If, because of the disruption to their lives, this is seemed to be a “punishment,” this is not a punishment that the United States is responsible for; the United States did not require that the parents of the DACA recipients bring them into this country; this is the responsibility of the parents.
Some will say that even though the United States did not require the DACA recipients to remain in the country, it certainly facilitated it by providing temporary legal status, and so shares some of the responsibility for the current situation. Such facilitation, however, was provided outside of the clearly-understood legal authority that then-president Obama had. The United States cannot be held responsible for the rogue actions of a president; doing so would only reward such actions. Consequently, the responsibility in this regard is not on the United States, but is on Barack Obama, who – thinking he would be able to get away with it – acted beyond his authority.
As a matter of law, the DACA recipients should be returned to their nation of origin, at which point they would be free to apply for reentry into the United States in the same manner that law-abiding citizens do so. In point of fact, however, that seems very unlikely. In all political likelihood, the DACA recipients will, at the least, receive a right to permanent residence. In any case, for the sake of argument, let us assume that to be the case.
THE DEAL WE NEED; PART 1
Upon receipt of such legal status, that there would probably be immediate agitation for citizenship; for a “path to citizenship.” There should be no path, not ever. Aside from voting, such residents should be legally indistinguishable from citizens, and that can be written into the legislation. They would be free to run for political office, but, in federal elections, they themselves could not vote. There are several reasons for this.
1 – It is an open secret that, not just Obama, but Democrats generally have been facilitating illegal immigration for the purpose of advancing their political agenda – that is, creating a demographic that would support a government with greater, if not unlimited powers – particularly with powers for the redistribution of wealth. In this despicable, if not treasonable enterprise, the Democratic Party should not be rewarded with the additional political power that it has betrayed Americans to obtain.
(Alternatively, if Democrats deny this charge and contend that their only purpose was one of compassion – that is, to provide an opportunity to desperately poor people, then they have no reason to object to such a restriction.)
2 – The rewards of illegal immigration should not be greater then the rewards of legal immigration. Even with only permanent residence, the DACA recipients will receive an advantage unavailable to the children of law-abiding immigrants. There is no reason to add to that by granting the vote also as well. That should be open only to children of illegal immigrants. This is only fair, for there should be some benefit for legal immigration over illegal immigration.
3 – We need to (contingent on reforming our educational system) allow for assimilation. Third World societies are very different than American society, and those ideas and values that have developed over generations do not disappear in a few years. Some will deny the importance of this reality. Their denial is based on a belief that democracy simply requires that you vote in your own self-interest, and that immigrants from the third world have no problem in doing that. But democracy is not about simply voting in your own self-interest. Democracy requires that we vote in the common interest, and that we understand what serves the common interest. If such attitudes were easily adopted, and such understanding easily attained, the United States would be such an exception of freedom and material success as it has been.
4 – Not being able to vote is not oppression; it was the condition of the majority of Americans during the early years of the Republic, when only landowners could vote (and women generally could not own property.) Though they could not vote, they did not see themselves as oppressed. They had the essence of democracy – that is, they had freedom of speech. And, in the spirit of democracy based not on self-interest, but the public interest, they “formed opinions about questions under popular consideration and shared in the discussions that went on in country in town.” Charles and Mary Beard, The Beard’s History of the United States, Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1944, 74.
The residents originating from DACA would have the same opportunity.
To put it another way, the essence of democracy is not voting; it is free speech. It is better to live in a society that has no voting, but has free speech than it is to live in one with voting but no free speech. The DACA recipients would have free speech.
5 – If the residents of DACA insist on a path to the vote, we can, given their Third World heritage, and past experience, safely assume it would be for two reasons: First, to vote for more taxpayer-funded benefits for themselves. Secondly, to open the borders for relatives and others. If they have no such purposes, and, aside from voting, are treated in the same manner as American citizens, then they have no need to vote. If residents of DACA object to that, that suggests that they have come not just to care for their families, but to take over. Americans would be fools to assist them in that endeavor.
THE DEAL WE NEED; PART 2
Not only may the residents originating from DACA not vote, but their children may not vote as well. Only the third generation – that is, their grandchildren – with the voting rights of American citizenship. This is a provision that should apply not simply to the children of DACA recipients, but to all children born to illegal immigrants. (In this regard, notwithstanding any subsequent deal granting permanent residence, DACA recipients would still be recognized as having entered the country illegally.)
In other words, part of the deal would be that, for purposes of voting, no “anchor babies” would qualify.(For their own elections, states or localities, they take a different position.) They would, as discussed above, be permitted to stay as permanent residents. And their children would be born with the same voting rights as those of citizens. But no child of a person in the country illegally would, at least that federal elections, be able to vote. The reasons for this are the same:
1 – It is taken Western nations centuries to develop democratic societies. Those societies rest ultimately on a respect for human individuality, as expressed particularly with regard to free speech. As we see today, even those whose ancestry goes back far more than two generations, this is not such an obvious concept. And, in the world today, it is still a rare one. If we accept massive numbers of immigrants, even illegal immigrants, we cannot expect assimilation unless a commensurate amount of time (and a reform of our own public education) is allowed.
2 – Some Americans appear to believe that the right to vote can be passed out as easily as party favors; while mouthing the word, they really have a little regard for democracy. Such a policy would treat that right with the respect it deserves, and a recognition of the responsibility it incurs.
3 – If illegal immigrants object to such a policy, they aren’t that desperate, and/or they haven’t come to assimilate.
4 – If we are to have laws, there must be some appropriate consequence when such laws are broken. Only then will we remove the incentive – or at least a part of it – for breaking them. What price do you put on living in a free and democratic society for the rest of your life, and the lives of your children?
CLOSING
Let us keep in mind that Americans have not kidnapped the parents and children of DACA, or others. They came here of their own accord; because they believe we have a better society than the one they left. And we do. That means that Americans set the standards, not those who come to America. And it certainly suggests that, in setting those standards, Americans should strive preserve the distinctive nature of our society that has led to such success. That means, above all, two things – that we respect and affirm our laws; that, if we do not punish lawbreakers, we at least do not reward them. And that, if we take in massive numbers of illegal immigrants from Third World nations – nations with anti-democratic traditions – we require a commensurate time of assimilation. Let us raise such standards.