Saturday, August 14, 2010

No Defence for Defending Illegals

U.S. Constitution reads in Section 8 "The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Notice that defence now spelled defense comes before general welfare. Additionally to defend the country (national security) comes before any other responsibility. Yet, Congress and the executive Branch continue to ignore their first priority and focus on their recognized responsibilities second or less priorities. This document, U.S. Constitution, was written very intentionally as to where the words were placed and even to what words were capitalized. These intentions were part of the reason it is took so long for adoption.

Also, after paying the debts, the collected money is to first go to national defense or national security as we so call it today. Yet how many times do we hear people complaining about so much money going to defense where it should be directed to the general welfare? Protecting our country's border is the first priority or as some would say it is Job #1.

I was reminded of this once after listening to numerous U.S. elected official continue to deny this primary responsibility and reading about this alarming trend. A new study by the Pew Hispanic Center suggested that 8% of all babies born in this country are from 4% of the population and that population is illegal immigrants. Common sense seems to have flown the chicken coop and replaced by self serving interests (more votes to keep corrupt elected officials in office) especially many of these births are being paid through the tax dollars of legal U.S. citizens.

Since I am a first generation Swede on my father's side, I am quite offended by those who break the law when others are denied entry into this country. My father's family entered through Ellis Island along with millions of others and had to be sponsored by a current American citizen.

My grandmother being an incredible woman actually had her brother immigrate to this country from Sweden 20 years earlier, establish a farm in Northern Wisconsin, become a naturalized citizen and then sponsor the rest of her family. Later they applied for U.S. Citizenship through the proper channels. Yes she wanted a better life, but she did it legally as did millions of other immigrants during the early 1900's. This is the essence of the Rule of Law and it is the second reason (establish Justice) why the United States of America became a nation. (See the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.)

Being Scandinavian and a history buff, probably some of my ancestors were Vikings. These individuals invaded other European countries. They were not considered illegals, but were call invaders because their behaviors consisted of robbing, murdering and kidnapping. (Of course the Vikings were not the only ones engaged in such behaviors, but they were as feared by many and I am not condoning these behaviors.)

So what is the difference between these behaviors of over 1,000 years ago and the behaviors of those who cross into the U.S. illegally? The people of Arizona have to live with the behaviors of these invaders a.k.a. illegal immigrants and cannot have "domestic Tranquility" as noted in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Once again legal, contributing U.S. citizens suffer at the hands of the very government that was charged to protect them. There are no valid arguments to support illegal immigrants and the continued abandonment of this Constitutionally mandated responsibility.

Tags: illegal immigrants, national security, U.S. Constitution To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Immigration, can you believe that The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010, S.B. 3932 being proposed will legalize undocumented individuals creating a provisional legal status, Lawful Prospective Immigrant (LPI) and will incorporate the entire DREAM Act?

It also includes a “clarification” that federal laws preempt any state or local law that discriminates on the basis of immigration status, and clarifies that 287 (g) does not authorize states to engage in any immigration enforcement activities.