Until the other day I thought I had a clear understanding of
how I felt on immigration; that is until reading two articles. The first was Alan Caruba’s, Migration is as old as mankind and the other by Judge Napalitano, Immigration is a Natural Right. I respect both
of these individuals for their ability to express reasoned thoughts; life
experiences coupled with years of self examination.
One important responsibility of being a member of society is
to continually assess long held beliefs and weigh them against any and all
challenges to those beliefs. It’s
difficult to make adjustments because in so doing there is the risk of admitting
long held beliefs may have been in error.
Alan Caruba correctly recorded:
“With or without immigration
reform, history demonstrates that people will migrate, so our response to the
current population of illegals and some kind of reform is now a priority.”
Judge Napolitano wrote, and I agree:
“The issue the politicians and
bureaucrats would rather avoid is the natural law. The natural law is a term
used to refer to human rights that all persons possess by virtue of our
humanity. These rights encompass areas of human behavior where individuals are
sovereign and thus need no permission from the government before making choices
in those areas. Truly, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, only God is
sovereign—meaning He is the source of His own power.”
These articles triggered an internal assessment mechanism;
not saying I have thrown in with the idea that immigration and citizenship are
one in the same; only that the factors which I once held as inviolate may have
been based on a false premise.
I awoke into conscious thought to find myself going over the
basic concepts of civilized society, natural rights and how they apply to a
self governed people as opposed to rule by force as so often is the case in
nature. In other words I was playing the
“what if” game to a level requiring my being alert and willing to open my mind.
If immigration or migration is a natural right as suggested
in the afore mentioned articles, then does that immigration or migration
automatically qualify individual (s) for membership in the society which exists
in the area and has already established rules for membership. Now that’s a deep question because it
involves so many levels of response.
Before answering that broad sweeping question my mind
immediately recalled a study performed and recorded by Farley Mowats via his
autobiography, Never Cry Wolf, which was made into a
movie under the same title. Wikipedia
has a brief summary:
“A young, naive biologist named Tyler (Smith) is
assigned by the government to travel to the isolated Canadian arctic wilderness
and study why the area's caribou population is declining, believed due to
indiscriminate wolf-pack attacks. Tyler
receives a baptism of fire into bush life with a trip by bush plane piloted by
an odd, adventurous bush pilot named Rosie (Dennehy). After landing at the
destination, Rosie leaves Tyler and his gear in
the middle of a subzero Arctic nowhere. Unsure
of where to start, Tyler's
indecision quickly imperils him until he’s rescued by a travelling Inuit named Ootek
(Ittimangnaq), who builds a shelter for him.
Alone, Tyler's
days are divided between research and mere personal survival, while nights are
fraught with anxiety-born nightmares of wolf attacks upon him. He soon
encounters two wolves--which he names George and Angeline, who have pups--and
discovers they seem as curious of him as he is of them, slowly disspelling their
mutual fears. He and the wolves both begin social exchanges, even urine-marking
their territories, producing trust and respect between them.”
Some insist that social acceptance and social membership are one and the same; however, as the movie brought out, the wolves acceptance of the human, permitting him a space to exist within their area of domination, that acceptance did not make the human a wolf with all the rights and privileges of the wolf pack. The human was always a separate cast within a working society, a society which he had only a limited understanding of at best.
Social acceptance and social membership are not one and the same; other factors must also be reconciled. Those entering a society which already exists have limited options.
Individuals can be assimilated into that society; accept the customs and laws and request membership by virtue of becoming indistinguishable, for the most part, from any other member of that society. The voluntary act of assimilation adds strength to society in general and permits the greatest range of movement with in that society for its newest members.
“Cultural assimilation is the process by
which a subaltern group's native language and culture are lost under pressure
to assimilate to those of a dominant cultural group. The term is used both to
refer to colonized peoples when dominant colonial states expand into new territories
or alternately, when diasporas of immigrants settle into a dominant state
society. Colonized peoples or minority immigrant groups acquire new customs,
language, and ideologies through contact and education in the dominant society.
Assimilation may involve either a quick or gradual change depending on
circumstances. Full assimilation occurs when new members of a society become
indistinguishable from older members.”
“Cultural diversity is
the quality of diverse or different cultures, as opposed to monoculture, as in
the global monoculture, or a homogenization of cultures, akin to cultural
decay. For example, before Hawaii
was conquered, the culturally diverse Hawaiian culture existed in the world,
and contributed to the world's cultural diversity. Now Hawaii has been westernized; the vast
majority of its culture has been replaced with Western or American culture. The
phrase cultural diversity can also refer to having different cultures respect
each other's differences. The phrase cultural diversity is also sometimes used
to mean the variety of human societies or cultures in a specific region, or in the world as a whole.
The culturally destructive action of globalization is often said to have a
negative effect on the world's cultural diversity.”
History is replete with examples of warfare; but I’ll use for example only the Third Reich, or NAZI Germany as it was also called. These folks took on their neighbors and placed them into complete subjugation in its quest for total world control. There was no attempt at diversity, these nations were conquered and at the mercy of Germany. They eliminated unwanted portions within society; the extermination of the Jews as well as those who opposed the Third Reich.
“The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic,
state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the
Nazi regime and its collaborators.”
We have to look at property rights, yet another natural right. Many have defined property rights; but none better than Frederick Bastiat. Consider the ramifications of these three thoughts as they build toward a natural conclusion, that governments are instituted by men in order to protect the natural rights of those who instituted their government.
“Life, liberty, and property do not
exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the
first place.”
{…}
“Each of us has a natural right –
from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the
three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is
completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties
but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension
of our faculties?”
{…}
“If every person has the right to
defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it
follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common
force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective
right -–its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. (The Law, p.6)
With citizenship comes the acceptance of the rule of law as
established through our founding documents; our Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Our society has given government the power to defend our lives, liberty
and property from all who would attempt to subjugate us; our enemies abroad or
from within. In the most simple of
terms, sovereignty was established.
With sovereignty comes the ability to define the extent of
our geographic borders, a means of identifying where our social order is in
force. This isn’t much different than a
pack of wolves urinating on stones to mark their territory, a crude analogy,
perhaps; but easily understood throughout the world.
Those who wish to enter our borders must adapt to our social
and cultural ways, try to become a part of our culture and expand what that
social culture represents by convincing us to accept their social differences
or conquer us and put us into subjugation; it’s that simple. (I’m not a big fan of the last option)
Immigration laws were written to protect the social culture
shared by those who respect our constitutional republic and serve no other
purpose. By extension, our immigration
laws are the first step towards gaining citizenship and full assimilation into
our culture.
It is not logical to expect our society to accept those who
wish to modify, replace or destroy our existing culture with values of an alien
culture all in the name of diversity.
Those who would have us accept migration as a natural law must also
accept all other natural laws, laws which have been in existence from before
the world was created.
We as a nation of individuals have a natural right to
protect our social order by establishing geographic boundaries and enforcing
criteria for entry; in other words, immigration laws. Those who would become a part of our culture
should respect our laws. Those who don’t
respect our laws or who have an ulterior motive for gaining entrance into our
borders should be dealt with accordingly, without concern for violating their
natural right to migrate.
While it is true, each individual on the planet has the
natural right to migrate; in doing so he/she must acknowledge the natural
rights of those who inhabit those areas along that path, to include the right
to deny entrance or limit freedom of movement within the sovereignty of
established borders.
This article has been cross posted to
The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The
Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
No comments:
Post a Comment