Thursday, June 28, 2007

A Federal Case for Sane Immigration Reform

A key vote is scheduled today on the Senate's amnesty bill. And by the way, it has ever been and remains a bill designed primarily around the intention of determining a national policy on immigration which grants amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and to open the door to millions more. These are the fundamental principles which yet undergird the Senate's bill.

If passed the bill would effectively kill all efforts initiated by individual States in this union intended to deal with the growing threats of open borders, and a lack of will at the national level to enforce existing immigration laws to the respective states themselves. Thus killing in effect the vital guiding influence of the States upon the national entity regarding this question of immigration reform.

In contemplating what the better route would be in determining national policy on this important question, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the States should set the standards for the national government around which to mold and shape a federal policy. After all, a national policy on immigration should reflect the will of the whole People of these United States, not of a few rogue representatives of States directly installed by the People thereof who themselves wish to impose their will on the rest of the nation. Oh how I long for a return to a proper balance of powers among the States in this union; how I long for the day when the sustaining influence of federalism experiences a rebirth in this faltering Republic.

My friends, the federal principle is key to the survival of this Republic. I am convinced now more than ever, and in light of recent developments regarding the amnesty bill that in the absence of the re-establishment of the federal principle, we are effectively doomed as a nation unique to the world. We must at some point halt encroachments upon the federal principle, and to begin restoring it to its rightful place in this (Federal) Representative Republic.

I've mentioned on a few occasions now that the legislature of my State has indeed taken aggressive steps with regard to the growing immigration problem here. And as I've said before, this legislation is due to take effect Nov. 1st of this year. The Senate's amnesty bill would, for all intents and purposes, overthrow what the People of the State of Oklahoma through their legislature have determined to be the proper and right course of action for themselves.

While I appreciate the need for a national policy on immigration, much more appreciative, as well as cognitive am I of the need for a sane national policy on the immigration question. And it's my firm belief that the national Senate is too disconnected from the general population to get a sane national policy on immigration reform from that body of miscreants.

No; this Senate amnesty bill needs to be killed now. It is, as is the body proposing it, too wrought with disease to admit of any immediate change or alteration capable of rescuing it from the depths of utter contemptability. And when it's finally put to death, for once and for all, then the States who have yet to do so need, as a matter of responsibility, to take up the question and determine their own policies regarding immigration reform outside the coercive influence of the national government. That appears to me to be the only route available to us by which we may get a sane national policy on the immigration question.

Within the ranks of the GOP it seems like there's a growing fear that the party will suffer immensely if it doesn't rally around the President and his determination to get the Senate bill passed. Personally I don't give a hoot about whether the party lives or dies. All latinos and all latino sympathizers can go on over to the extreme liberal party for all I care. It's not my purpose or my intention to alienate any conservative from the conservative party. But first, I don't think the Republican can any longer claim the attribute of conservatism except perhaps in a sort of 'relative to' kind of way. Nor do I think that any true conservative could ever lower himself to joining ranks with the democrats and what they represent overall.

There's also a growing fear within the ranks of Republicans and democrats alike that if something (the Senate amnesty bill) isn't passed now, the national policy on immigration will be determined by the next President and the next Congress. I have to wonder what exactly the problem is there. What's the rush to get this bill passed? Where exactly are the opposing parties coming from which has them agreeing that it can't wait till 2009? The answers are fairly obvious to my mind.

As I've said, it seems to me that the State legislatures are much more likely than is the national legislature to put together immigration packages closely resembling the general sense of the citizens thereof. And that a proper national policy might better be guided thereby than by their elected officials at the national level whose relative disconnectedness from the general sense of their respective constituencies must be evident to any reasonable person.

The fact of the matter is, my friends, that if you can't trust your State governments to determine a policy on immigration closely resembling your own, then you certainly can't safely entrust that responsibility to the national government which is much more distant from you geographically as well as philosophically. And seriously folks, why would any of you wish for a single State, or a combination of States, to determine national policy on this issue if in fact the opinions and the policies of those States does not comport to that of the majority of States in this union?


Michael Tams said...


Very interesting. Of course, by now, we've learned that indeed this is a great day for America, as the bill died - we shall pray - a permanent death in the Senate.

While I admit I concur with your logic respecting the states being closer to the people, I wonder how closely I would cling to the federal principle had the reverse been true? And isn't that where, on issues like the border, we see the unusual manifestation of overt jealousy between the spheres?

Take Arizona for example. If the votes of their two Senators are any indication, there may be some strong sentiment in that State for the provisions of "the Departed" (which is how I was referring to the bill this evening in conversation; affect a strong New England accent). If the border states (CA, AZ, NM, TX) chose insanity, the general government would still have domain over the border, would it not?

No; while I admit there is a role for the general government in such things as the border, of course I would still cling to the principle. After all, that's how this experiment in government is supposed to work. It won't always be perfect, but even that can be fixed by adhering to principles.

While I'm merely playing "devil's advocate" I do firmly hold that your reasoning is sound and I can't find anything in the way of disagreement on the issue. My only wish is that the once-proud State formerly known as the Land of Lincoln had a fraction of the good sense that you Okies so readily display.

I'd move, but my past and future is in this place. Maybe we can import some right-headed folks from down your way...?


Terry Morris said...

MT, all I can say about the devil's positions is this: he is the devil, what else do you expect.

Nah, you raise some good questions...

First, under a federal system there's nothing that says that the States bordering the 'border States' can't protect their own borders. The legislatures of the respective States would (theoretically) take into account the interest of their neighbor States in effecting their own immigration policies. Beyond that, it wouldn't be long after being overrun by immigrants (they wouldn't have anywhere else to go) that the border states themselves would begin to experience a feeling that they might just need to reconsider.

Second, the original federal Constitution makes it the domain of the national Congress to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization." (Federalist #42) That's a whole different baby than imposing the immigration policies of Tx., Ca., Az., and N.M. on, say, Illinois.

Third, I'm thinking (long-term) in terms of having an upper house more consistent with the original design, e.g., chosen (in)directly by the People of the respective States.

I'll say it again: it's that pesky fourteenth amendment that's at the root of all the problems here.

Michael Tams said...

Amen to that, all your points are good ones.

I heard Dick Morris on the Medved show a couple weeks ago and he was speaking out against the old way of choosing Senators; his logic being that - according to him - the state legislatures are populated with corrupt lightweights, and are worse than Washington DC.

While I was certain he was speaking of Illinois, and could hardly argue against such a charge of my state, I know that doesn't hold true elsewhere. Indeed, you've provided some prime examples of just how good state government can be.