For those out there who don’t know who Rodney Dangerfield was, download or go to Netflix and watch the 1980 movie “Caddyshack”. Dangerfield was a hilarious stand-up comedian, famous for his self-deprecating one liners like this one:

“When I was a kid I got no respect. The time I was kidnapped, and the kidnappers sent my parents a note they said, “We want five thousand dollars or you’ll see your kid again.”

Every zinger was wrapped around the premise of Dangerfield not getting respect from those around him. In the wake of Donald Trump’s visit to Mexico, given the comments from Mexican leader and former president Vicente Fox, it would seem that America gets the same level of respect as did Rodney Dangerfield. We apparently get no respect from the Mexican leadership, especially in regard to our borders. Current Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto stated that he was responsible to “protect Mexican citizens wherever they are” and that “Mexicans are law abiding” and “deserved respect” as if Mexican illegals are thrown in prison camps instead of being added to roles of the American welfare state or having U.S. government agencies like the IRS aid and abet their illegal status.

Someone should remind the Mexican leadership how brutal the immigration laws are in Mexico. Where the Mexican leadership and the Democrat/progressive open borders cabal in the United States openly state that illegal immigration isn’t actually “illegal”, under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. The penalty? Immediate incarceration and deportation or up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.

Mexico actually deports more illegal aliens than does the United States to defend its borders. Mexico treats immigrants in such a way to preserve its own sovereignty while ignoring the sovereignty of the United States…and that is the problem.

The fact remains that 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.

Perhaps the most important aspect of a sovereign state was an idea put forth by American sociologist and social scientist, Immanuel Wallerstein – and that idea 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).

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.

A sovereign state must also claim and defend its right to control those who seek residency and citizenship.

Would it not also follow that if a state could or would 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?

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, they will not.” The evidence is right before our eyes down along the Mexican border.

America only has 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. The illegal immigration problem is not solely America’s responsibility – Mexico and its leaders are an even bigger part of the issue. It is both a national security and an economic crisis and one that won’t be solved with unilateral action by the U.S. unless that action restores respect for our borders and our laws. We can’t be the Rodney Dangerfield of the Western Hemisphere any longer.

A nation is no nation if it does not secure its borders.