The other day I addressed the concept of rights and the fact that the concept of an individual “right” meant the vesting of such placed a corresponding duty on society at large to not to interfere with that right. For example, if I have a right to life, then society at large has a duty to not interfere with my ability to exist.
I have been reading the amnesty bill that the infamous “Gang of 8″in the Senate is thrusting on America, and please do not be fooled, it is an amnesty program because it does nothing to fundamentally alter the conditions that currently exist that have led to illegal immigration over the years. There are nothing but theoreticals and promises in it – it is legalization first, enforcement later – we will convene a committee at some point in the future to see if we should enforce anything. I’ve seen nothing since the Reagan years that give me any warm and fuzzy that any politician in Washington will have the backbone to do anything.
The standard rule of politicians applies: if they won’t do it today, they won’t do it tomorrow.
Michelle Malkin has a good review of the bill here.
One can’t address illegal immigration without addressing the concept of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is defined as the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a city, a state, a territory or a nation. It is a political construct that is based on power to rule and make laws. History and necessity has recognized that groups of people with common interests are able to exercise power and control over the geographical area they occupy. That requires the drawing of boundaries between areas where those common interests differ.
In theoretical terms, the idea of “sovereignty” from the time of Socrates to that of Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it. This “moral imperative” is the idea that the existence of a sovereign state rests on its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens; therefore, if a sovereign state is to guarantee the best interests of its citizens, it must also protect and defend its borders.
- Would it not also follow that if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state?
- If a state no longer acts in the best interests of its citizens, is it not legitimate to think that it no longer can perform its moral imperative and should cease to exist or be replaced with a state that can?
The other aspect of a sovereign state is that has been put forth by the American sociologist and social scientist, Immanuel Wallerstein – and that is that for a state to be truly sovereign, that sovereignty must also be recognized by other states. This equates sovereignty with a “right” and that means that for sovereignty to exist, other states have a corresponding duty to not interfere with that sovereignty. This is an extension of the idea of John Stuart Mill and others that the individual is sovereign in him and that individual does not relinquish that individual sovereignty when he chooses to become part of an organized political unit, like a state.
It is not a coincidence that this concept of individual sovereignty is also the basis for my argument about corporations, that the individual does not give up his “personage” when he becomes part of a corporation; he merely confers those rights to the corporation to exercise on his behalf within the limits of the corporate charter.
So the question is this – if a state will not protect its own borders, will a neighbor state respect its sovereignty?
I think we can answer this question and the answer is “no”.
In the US, we only have two international borders (with the exception of Native American lands), Canada and Mexico. Canada respects our borders and follows our laws as we do theirs, Mexico does not. We have routinely been hypocritically lectured by Mexican leaders on our immigration policies even as they rigorously defend their southern border and have very strict immigration policies.
A nation is no nation if it does not secure its borders.