Immigration has always been subject to territorial and economic strictures. Hunter gatherer societies have always maintained a need maintain their defined territories since the question of food supply applied to their collective health and even their existence. An inability to defend such a food source territory meant that they became migrants trespassing on the territory of other groups and immediately banished or succeeded in taking over another groups territory. The size of any group’s territory depended on its size and relative ability to defend itself. This has always been a matter of life and death for such societies.
As agriculture grew territory became more static and defined. Where once the social group as a unit roamed the vaguely defined territory, the new social groups subdivided the defined territory into family or personal plots. Families may collectively own common ground and work together to grow food for the common good but each recognized that the other families had a share in that common ground. And as families grow in size there is the need for some of its members to leave and find their own territory. This works well when the ground upon which the farming is based is very similar in it capability to grow food or is not otherwise occupied buy outside groups. History is replete with the stories of populations migrating across distances, both vast and small, and so mingling with other populations whose language and culture differs significantly. Several generations must pass before the immigrants are given the social status of fellow citizen. And in some cultures this is never done, an immigrant always remains an outcast.
In our modern times we have any number of progressive thinkers who have decreed that there are universal rights of man or humans, if we wish to be politically correct. Nature is not so convinced for there is nothing in nature that conveys such an idea. Nations inhabit specific territories. These areas have been marked on maps, sign posts place, and a government established to secure the borders that its citizens inhabit. Wars are fought over territory, usually in defense of the need for more room o grow for one group of citizens or more power for the government rulers. This has been the history of the past ages and continues now in places like the Ukraine where Those in power in the government of Russia want to see Ukraine returned to the fold of a once great empire. Thus we see that what is rule of law for one country is not rule of law for another. True, there is an international clamor that there is only one true rule of law but it does not exist unless there is someone to enforce that law. So our collective good intentions are always subject to national sovereignty and its supposed good intentions.
Which brings us to the dilemma of President Obama and his approach to immigration reform. In an age in which many nations or countries have porous borders, meaning that citizens of other countries may pass freely over them, we are dependent on the good will of such foreign citizens to respect our rule of law. America has no national identity card for each of its citizens and the idea of issuing one raises the hue and cry of progressive and conservative alike, usually claiming abuse of freedom, whatever that means. But this is not true for much of the rest of the world. Most European countries have national identity cards issued to its citizens and must be produced upon request to the police forces when necessity arises. And one must pass through ports of entry showing a passport that identifies country of origin and citizenship, and if need be, a valid visa or right to stay in the nation for some specified period of time. Almost all countries require visas of foreign citizens who wish to visit for a specified period of time. And most nations have rules and standards for acquiring residence cards for foreign citizens to stay indefinitely in that country of application.
The question turns on what is to be done when those who do not respect the rule of law of that country they wish to inhabit are found out? If a foreign citizen has crossed the national border and avoided the ports of entry then that person has committed a crime. Or if a foreign citizen has stayed beyond the period of time allotted by a visa, that person has committed a crime. The normal course of events is deportation, the removal of those individuals who by their continued stay in a country not of their national citizenship. And our president must see that such laws are upheld, it is his oath of office.
Now we come to the difficult part of rule of law as to immigration and visitation. We should not blur the distinction between the two. Back when we had won the right to become our own country, our own nation and write the laws that would govern our collective and individual behaviors we wrote that all those who were residing in our nation would be eligible to become citizens. And we anticipated the need for a greater population and wrote that any one who is born on our territory is automatically a citizen by right of birth. So far, so good. We have quite a bit of land and settlement wasn’t a problem unless you were a native American. Had you been an indigenous American immigration was a severe problem that would not be settled in your favor. And for a long time even you were not considered to be a citizen of this country.
But there comes a time when more individuals who are citizens of other countries wish to reside permanently in our country and yet either do not have the means to abide by our requirements for a residence card or are a group we consider undesirable. We place restrictions on who can visit or immigrate to our country. We have quotas that we try to enforce that allow only a set number of individuals to be given residence cards. Unfortunately we have so much demand that individuals and families seek to game the system so that they may live here permanently. And there are a great many well meaning individuals who are active in supporting these people who are in this country illegally. The arguments for letting these illegal immigrants stay in this country are little more than excuses for breaking our law. Yes, I’m sure that many are afraid of being killed by drug gangs in their country but so what, we have people in this country killed by drug gangs. The human condition is universal around this big wide world. We have starvation, we have illness, we have drug gangs, we have all the ills of other countries including corruption. So why should we give the illegal immigrant a pass when he or she commits the crime of being here illegally? Either we have and respect the rule of law or we have no law. And if we have no respect for rule of law then why would immigration reform make any difference?
Now you want to talk about special cases. You mean the type where a pregnant woman comes into the country, gives birth at a local hospital and whose hospital bill is paid by one or more government agencies and thus by the taxpayers, and now claims that since she is the mother and her child is an American citizen by right of birth she should be allowed to stay permanently in this country. Then we need a change in the laws of citizenship. We should disallow the automatic granting of citizenship to a child of a foreign national. Deport both mother and child, and place a permanent bar to their return by way of visit or immigration. Well, what about all those farm workers who migrate across the border to plant, tend, and harvest crops for our agriculture industry. Since there are some ten million illegal immigrants in this country then surely we have enough individuals to do the farm work. You see, the problem with migrant labor is that it is paid well below its value, True, most Americans do not understand how much skill it takes to harvest grapes and other crops with efficiency, but the fact remains that the labor can be mechanized. It is a matter of cost and when human labor becomes too costly the mechanized labor becomes available. And the other fact is that most of the labor coming across the southern borders is unskilled. We have a very high unemployment in unskilled labor in this country and it will not improve. Should we ever erect tariffs so that much of our former industries return to this countries we may be able to employ more unskilled labor. But that would mean much higher prices for goods and services. And even Amazon is turning to robots to pick the orders and process the shipping of online orders. Almost every developed country is over populated when it comes to the number of available jobs and it is getting worse every year.
And lastly, the hype about H1B visas and all those foreign college students needing employment here. Why should we allow corporations to employ foreign people they say they need because they can’t find the right employees here? It is time to end that program and make those foreign student graduates go back home where they are needed in their own countries. We have far too many college and university graduates out of work and who can be trained to do the jobs of the H1B employees. It makes no sense to expand that program. President Obama’s new fiat is illegal since he is charged with enforcing the rule of law, not changing it to suit his political ambitions. By the constitution, Congress makes the laws, the President and his administration carry them out. By signing his latest executive order he is over stepping his authority and is liable to impeachment and ejection from office. If you are an activist and you want to appeal to a higher moral authority you must still respect and obey the rule of law no matter how much you disagree with any particular law. For without the rule of law your rule of a higher moral law is worthless. I may take exception to your interpretation of a higher moral law and not feel bound by it. But the common law that supports our society must be respected and if need be, changed for the better by a group of individuals who represent the people and not the few such as yourselves.