Amend to End the Border Crisis
The crisis at the southern border reveals a deeper truth: it is a prime example of the dangers arising from unrestricted power— unchecked power is evident when government fails to value life, liberty and national sovereignty.
The federal government's extreme abandonment of duty in securing our borders is a blatant abuse of power which threatens all of America’s fundamental principles; primarily, consent of the governed, federalism, representation, separation of powers, fiscal responsibility, and fiduciary government.
Some politicians and media propagandists will proclaim that securing our borders is "immoral" or "racist" and will vehemently oppose any serious, common-sense proposal aimed at enforcing immigration law, but all we need to do is look back to 2006 and call them on their falsehoods.
Secure Fence Act of 2006
Summary: Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.
NOTE: below that the act uses the word "all"—Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 legislation was passed with bipartisan votes, whereas 80 members of the U.S. Senate voted to approve it.
Oddly, support came from then-Senator Barack Obama, who made the following statement in 2005: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
Support came from Senator Chuck Schumer, who said “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. —People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally.” (2009)
Support even came from Joe Biden, who said: “Let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons—hear me, tons—of everything from byproducts from methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin, and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico.” (2006)
So, what has changed?
I'll tell you what has changed:
What was being done in stealth mode to ignore their obligation to ensure each state a republican form of government is now being done hostilely— IN-YOUR-FACE. This authoritarianism is blatantly aggressive and impossible to ignore. If the rule of law is not upheld, then representative republicanism and liberty will cease to exist. Representative republicanism and authoritarianism cannot co-exist— we will become all one thing or all the other.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." ― Abraham Lincoln
This abuse of power must be fought— with the principles in the Declaration and the Constitution as our guide. If we fail to take a stand, we will soon face even more egregious authoritarian actions by the sesquipedalian "elite" caste in D.C., one I refer to as a fascist ideologically based regime hostile to our liberty-protecting Constitution as well as anyone possessing the temerity to defend it.
Authoritarianism: the concentration of power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people.
So, we have established that DC is subverting the Constitution, what's next?
It is well known that the Constitution does grant the power of naturalization to the national government. This power was granted because of the disarray that came about under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison explains this conundrum in Federalist No. 42.
A brief summary: Under the Articles of Confederation, each state retained authority over the naturalization of aliens. This resulted in widely varying state practices, which James Madison in The Federalist No. 42 called a “fault” and “defect” of the Confederation. At the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, there was virtually no opposition for moving the naturalization power from the states to the new national government. Further, only a handful of Anti-Federalists even raised the issue during the state ratification conventions.
However, it is less known that the power over immigration falls solely under the jurisdiction of the national government. Naturalization and immigration, while related, fall into two separate spheres. It would take "implied powers" to suggest that Congress holds power over the states in regard to restricting immigration—
The doctrine that Congress has broad “plenary” power over immigration is, well, absent in the Constitution, yet that is precisely how the Supreme Court has ruled, and thus upheld on the basis of precedent for many scores since.
The argument that the power over immigration is an inherent sovereign authority for any nation was well understood in the 18th century. The Law of Nations, by Emmerich de Vattel, established fundamental principles which then defined obligations and rights of nations in accordance with natural law.
Vattel states that a sovereign nation actually possesses an absolute independence from all others; that each nation should be left in the peaceable enjoyment of that liberty which it inherits from nature. Moreover, no foreign power has the slightest right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, albeit with rare exceptions pertaining to duties of humanity.
Of all the rights that belong to us as a free nation, our sovereignty is the most precious. And because America's sovereignty is more than a political concept, sovereignty here refers to the rightful authority— and that rightful authority resides with We the People in order to protect what other nations just don't have: self-governance and required consent of the people. Our borders define that boundary which separates us from authoritarian ruled nations. The Constitution is the supreme rule of law within our borders and therefore, should be scrupulously guarded from subversion.
The Framers and ratifiers knew from experience that all power and sovereign rights should not be vested in a single authority. Their revolutionary principle divided the power between the States and the People, and the Federal government, whose power is again divided between its three branches; this was designed as a means to prevent the formation of an oligarch, monarch, or a democratic mobocracy.
As the crisis at our southern border continues chaotically year after year, the heartless propaganda media and establishment politicians politicize the situation. They do not possess a humanitarian objective, as evidenced by their contradiction in terms:
If they believe what they say is true: that America is racist, misogynistic, xenophobic and unjust, why would they possibly call for refugees to deluge our borders in unmanageable numbers? They wouldn't. Like the phrase or not, this is intentional propaganda warfare— warfare to subvert our liberty.
The refugees are being used and abused as a means to overthrow our Constitutional sovereign authority. That's inhumane, that's human trafficking!
America has always embraced immigrants— immigrants should embrace the principles that hold our nation united in freedom. They should respect our rule of law. Rule of law distinguishes a republic from archaic repressive governing systems around the world.
I plead that an immigration amendment be discussed at length during a Convention of States
An amendment could take the power from Congress (jurisdiction limiting) both in their ability to abdicate and to politicize their obligation in the Guarantee Clause, Naturalization Clause or any implied powers "granted" by the Supreme Court.
We the People could replace the current chaos with an explicit amendment, leaving no room for confusion on the matter. We have the power to act upon our righteous indignation and restore the true meaning and purpose of the Declaration and the Constitution. We have taken similar action with the 13th amendment, and we should take similar action again.
Immigration was never meant to divide our nation or its people. The Declaration and the Constitution were meant to unite us— in a nation where humanity is guaranteed to withstand any measures put forth by inhumane authoritarians attempting to destroy liberty.
It is important to note here that it was heavily debate during the drafting of the Constitution as well as during the state ratification conventions, whether or not the Constitution granted too much power to the national government. The Anti-federalists' foresight and wisdom is evident in the Anti-federalist Papers; their vigilance is evidenced by the addition of the Bill of Rights which put added constraints upon the national government, not the People.
The Bill of Rights were the result of the vigilant patriots of the founding era endorsing the use of Article V— it is well past time for We the People to put Article V to good use again!
Article V: where the V also stands for the Vigilant Voice of the People.
