CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS

Immigration or “Invasion”?

                             by

M.E. Boyd, Esq., “Miss Constitution”

Miss Constitution is very cautious about tiptoeing into this very controversial area of the law as there are so many advocacy groups ready to pounce that before your foot can hit the water an assault has been mounted.  However, there is no point in having a “Miss Constitution” if she is unwilling to go where no one else will go.  The following is meant to be a brief overview, not a complete overview, and not a complete compilation of the law and of the court decisions around the law.  This column is intended to give you a feel for what is going on.  I encourage all of you to do some research in this area away from advocacy websites.

When many of you think of refugees and asylum seekers you may think of the St. Louis, a German ship, carrying 900+ Jewish passengers fleeing Nazi Germany.  In 1939 this ship attempted to dock in Cuba and was refused so asked the United States for permission to dock and was refused again.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated that he was afraid that Nazi spies might be a part of the passengers trying to sneak into the United States and do harm to our country.  At this time, war with Germany was anticipated, and the whole world was holding its breath.  The ship returned to Europe where the passengers were dispersed and about a quarter of them eventually died in Nazi concentration camps.  Every one of these passengers had a well-founded fear of persecution as the Germans had made clear what they intended to do.

For most of the 20th century America’s immigration system was based on quotas from different countries with primary emphasis on the quality of the person seeking to become a United States citizen, the person’s ability to be self-sustaining, and that person’s ability to assimilate to the culture and laws of our country.  We are a part of Western Civilization and our laws, culture, and customs are rooted in certain philosophies and assumptions that one accepts when one takes a very profound Oath of Allegiance to this country.  Naturally, countries with traditions similar to our own were emphasized as assimilation for those immigrants was easier.

All of this changed after the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and in 1965 we changed our thinking about immigration.  This change is reflected in the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965.  America became ashamed of its racist past and entered into a period of self-loathing that we are still in.  Immigration from Europe was de-emphasized and immigration from Africa and Asia emphasized.  In other words, the thinking was that if America became less “white” she would be a better nation and a better representation of the values and ideals of our founding.  Family reunification was emphasized as a way to automatically expand a more diverse racial mix in America rather than emphasize assimilation.  Senator Ted Kennedy was instrumental in advancing this thinking while assuring those who were skeptical that the racial mix of America and the culture we have produced would be unaltered by this new law.  It is now commonly anticipated that by 2040 the majority of those living in the United States will be non-white.  The effect of this, if true, is an important future discussion.

This is the background of the current immigration morass that we are in.  Many laws and amendments to our immigration system have occurred since the 1960’s but the premise of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s thinking was “What is the effect of letting this ship dock in the United States and is it in the best interests of the country?”   Today’s thinking is “What is in the best interests of this refugee or asylum seeker?”  Sometimes, the two pair up nicely and sometimes they do not.  Many Americans are afraid to say that the interests of the nation should come first as we are still in our decades-long pit of self-loathing.  Miss Constitution thinks that the citizens of the United States should think about the above questions and have a very open dialogue about them as all immigration law should flow from what the People decide is the philosophical foundation of our policy.  This is not a discussion about the merits of a particular person wanting to come here but how to best be the beacon of hope for the world while maintaining the culture, law, philosophies, and economics that make us the beacon of hope for the world.

What we have today is the statement of a well-founded fear of persecution (the legal standard) carefully written out on a piece of paper, or memorized, or pinned on a shirt to gain entrance to the United States as a part of a giant gaming of our system within a background of Court decisions that emphasize the individual not the nation.  It seems the conversation Miss Constitution thinks should be had by We the People has already been had without anyone knowing anything about it.  Thousands are just showing up to be secured by Customs and Border Protection officials who are supposed to deal with social work and medical issues on the spot or face discrimination and abuse charges.  Unaccompanied alien children with head lice and infections and open sores and malnutrition and dehydration and diarrhea and loneliness and emotional distress of great magnitude are just thrust forward for our society to deal with by drug cartels and sex traffickers and coyotes and mules and every form of human perversion possible.

Miss Constitution thinks the whole thing should be stopped until the Sovereigns of the United States (The People) can get a handle on the issue and calmly think about what we are doing; the long-term effects of what we are doing; the unintended consequences of what we are doing; and how we want to handle immigration to this country.  Miss Constitution considers the current situation an invasion under Article IV of the United States Constitution that requires the federal government step in and stop.  Article IV – “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.  This, not impeachment, is the critical issue of today.

Copyright©2019 M.E. Boyd, Esq., “Miss Constitution”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here