Immigration

Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution states, “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.” Meaning, the Federal Government has a responsibly to protect the States from invasion. This is one of the things the Trump Administration has been taking care of.

 

That being said, what qualifies as an Invasion? Judging by the inclusion of domestic Violence in this clause, one could assume an Invasion is when any entity is attempting to forcibly enter the United States to commit violence. I would argue that this would include threats such as armies, gangs, plunderers, and traffickers. However, as previously stated, these entities are invaders, not immigrants. So, how should the federal government treat those seeking to legally immigrate to the United States?

 

Constitutionally, I believe this issue is extremely vague. The only time the U.S. Constitution mentions migration is in a clause regarding the slave trade, which does not provide clear guidelines on how we should handle immigration. The Supreme Court essentially decided in 1876 that immigration was an “assumed authority” of the federal government, leading to actions such as Congress passing a ban on Asian immigrants from 1882 to 1943.

 

With few constitutional guidelines, Congress has since largely ignored the issue of immigration, leaving the fate of millions up to the executive and judicial branches. This has resulted in a lawless immigration system that is arbitrarily enforced. Currently, I do not intend to debate the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1876; instead, I argue that for there to be the rule of law, our laws must be consistent, understandable, enforceable, and respectful to the rights of mankind. 

 

While non-Americans are not automatically entitled to America, I believe the United States has a unique purpose in the world. Our history began in the Plymouth Colony—not for economic gain, but for religious freedom. From the very beginning, America has been a refuge for minorities seeking truth and liberty. By operating under these principles, we are like a shining city upon a hill—providing an example and hope for those living in darkness around the world. I believe that if we continue to uphold these values of truth and liberty, it will attract honest and hardworking people from across the globe, who should be welcomed with open arms.

 

What really makes immigration an issue is the Nanny State. If wealth were not forcibly redistributed by the government, there would be little incentive or means for dishonest people to enter our country and live here at the taxpayer’s expense. If the United States truly returned to a free-market economy, immigration would rarely be an issue, which I think should be the end goal for liberty-minded individuals. In the meantime, I support an immigration policy that deports violent illegal immigrants and prevents further illegal border crossings, while streamlining legal immigration for those who love and respect America. I cannot see our current immigration policy being enforceable without placing every citizen on a federal list—which is something I morally, legally, and personally detest.

 

In short, I am pro-borders and pro-immigration.