How to End Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is a huge problem for the United States. By the millions, immigrants cross the border in opposition to the will of the citizens as expressed in immigration law and take up residence in this country illegally, without invitation, permission or consent from our sovereign nation. Many live in the shadows, in fear of being identified as an illegal and deported. Some of these illegals come to the U.S. to work, earn a meager income and send most of it home to support their families south of our border. A good portion of this uninvited crowd are criminals involved in human trafficking, illegal drugs and gang violence.

Many that come to the U.S. will work for low wages; businesses that hire illegals and other businesses that learn that illegals will work for less, lower their pay scales for all their workers. More and more illegals are applying for and obtaining social services in the form of financial support, housing, food stamps, welfare, SSI benefits, Medicaid, education benefits, etc. By a misinterpretation of the Constitution, when an illegal immigrant couple has children born in the U.S., at birth the newborns are erroneously declared U.S. citizens (Anchor Babies). Citizens can have family members immigrate legally to join them in the U.S. (Chain Migration). Foreigners desiring a visa to enter the U.S. can do so by winning a lottery just for immigrants (Immigration by Lottery).

In the past, giving Amnesty to those illegals living in the country was seen as a way to end illegal immigration—by simply designating illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. Rather than discourage illegal immigration, Amnesty made it so much worse; suddenly there were thousands more crossing the border illegally thinking they might, just by living illegally in the U.S., also be granted Amnesty.

More recently, there has been a loud call from the American people for a substantial wall to be built along our southern border that might greatly limit illegal immigration and enable Homeland Security and ICE to deal with a more manageable number of illegals. Many claim a wall would not even slow down illegal border crossings and that ultimately it would be a waste of money. 

We have long been very soft on illegal immigrants apprehended by law enforcement, failing to deport almost all of these, even the criminals. Many that are deported often end up back in the U.S. Perhaps we should deport all apprehended to some country in Africa that would agree to take them and see how many bounce back then. Would that be enough of a deterrent?

If an immigrant claims asylum, they are given a court date to plead their cases for asylum months into the future and are then set free in the U.S. (Catch & Release); few ever return for their court date. This cannot be allowed to continue. Our policy for dealing with those seeking asylum should be altered such that no applications for asylum are taken at the border, they’re only taken at United States embassies in foreign countries.

The wall, by itself, could not possibly halt all illegal immigration as long as there are strong incentives for coming to the United States; most people admit that constant searching for tunnels, monitoring air travel, checking for human trafficking in large rigs masquerading as commercial trucking, and many other measures will be necessary in addition to the wall. What we have failed to consider as a nation, is this critical question: “Why are people putting themselves in life or death situations, selling all their possessions to buy the aid of criminals in crossing over to the United States, braving the treacherous deserts to get here?” 

The answer to that question must be known and understood before illegal immigration can be dealt with effectively. If we can determine what incentives exist that drive illegal immigration, by removing those incentives, illegal immigration will cease to meet the illegals’ expectations, and unsatisfied illegals will return home of their own accord. As it is unhealthy to separate families, departing illegals will be vigorously encouraged to take their whole family with them back home. 

Many of the incentives for illegals to come here are commonly known; some are discussed above. I have made a list of steps to be taken for the removal of incentives for coming here. I believe this is the only way to stop illegal immigration without using armed military force.

Remove Incentives and They Won’t Come -

– There is No Other Non-Violent Way to Stop Illegal Immigration

1.      No More Insecure Border – Build the Wall, Harden the Target.

2.      No Amnesty (or even talk of amnesty which encourages more to come illegally).

3.      No More Catch & Release; No More Applicants for Asylum at the Border, No More Slacking on Current Immigration Law Enforcement.

4.      No Jobs for Illegals; Strict E-Verify, stiff punishment for those that hire illegals and swift deportation for illegals.

5.      No More U.S. Taxpayer Dollars Going (directly or indirectly) to or for Illegals: No Healthcare, No Welfare, No Food Stamps, No Worker’s Comp, No Social Security Benefits, No Education Benefits, No Paid Family Leave.

6.      No More Drivers’ Licenses or ID Cards for Illegals; And No Illegal Immigrant Votes.

7.      No More Anchor Babies.

8.      No More Lottery or Chain Migration.

9.      No Official Language but English. No More Pressing the Number “1” for English.

10.   No Separating the Families of Illegal Immigrants – All Go Home Together.

11.   No Sanctuary Cities, States or Sanctuary Anything.

Connor Boyack Questions Utah Candidates for U.S. Senate

In August of this year, Connor Boyack, previously with the Mike Lee for Senate campaign and currently a Scott Bradley supporter, submitted eight questions to the Constitution Party, Democrat Party, and Republican Party candidates for U.S. Senate from Utah, asking their positions on a number of issues. Only the Constitution Party candidate, Scott Bradley, elected to respond to this questionnaire, and his rather lengthy response was published on Boyack’s blog site. I have chosen to respond to Boyack’s questions, listed below, from Mike Lee’s perspective.

1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the Middle East, and why?

2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?

3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?

4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?

5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?

6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?

7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?

8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?

Several of Connor’s questions are already addressed on Mike Lee’s website, although perhaps not in the detail that political aficionados would like. Mike addresses the issue of the current war on terror as manifested by the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his views do not differ greatly from those of Mr. Bradley.

Mike has also clearly expressed his position on illegal immigration: secure the borders, no amnesty, no more anchor babies (via original intent of 14th Amendment clarified by legislation as Mr. Bradley explains), no healthcare/welfare benefits for illegals, and enforce current law including preventing employers from hiring illegal workers so they will pack up and go home.

Mike Lee is also in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and has expressed his view on his website that members of both chambers of congress should not become career politicians, but serve no more than 12 years.

Mike has also outlined his views on fiscal responsibility, smaller government, strengthening national security, preservation of freedoms and tax reform. Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar undeniably committed to returning to constitutionally limited federal government.

As for the other questions, they concern controversial issues where simple answers are insufficient with a public that is unschooled and uninformed regarding current libertarian issues and thought such as the role of the Federal Reserve.

Without such a foundation for discussion, a candidate’s well-reasoned position in these areas will be easily misunderstood and motives misconstrued. However, there is no doubt that Mike Lee will adhere to the Constitution on all issues.

The comments here predominantly commend Mr. Bradley for his straightforward response to each of the questions. His responses are detailed and lengthy and are evidence that Mr. Bradley dedicated significant energy and effort to this work. I was personally disappointed, however, that he deftly side-stepped some of the major concerns regarding these issues.

Mr. Bradley’s proscription against war is well taken, however, when we are attacked by an enemy we have the right and the obligation to defend ourselves. It is undeniable that Congress has the power to declare war and the executive branch has the power to wage war. Abuses of executive power must certainly be stopped. And the United States should not have a mission of nation building.

The difficulty is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was willingly hijacked by al-Qaeda and served as a base of operations for attacks on the West. Even now, if we were to abruptly pull out, the Taliban/al-Qaeda insurgency will return to dominate and abuse Afghanistan as a base for terrorist attacks. Without some “nation building” assistance, how will the Afghan government ever become strong enough to resist on their own a Taliban/al-Qaeda takeover?

After further terrorist attacks we would have to return to Afghanistan again to finish the job we justifiably started after 9/11. In the interests of our very real national security needs and a mission to eliminate the root of terrorism that threatens our land, we cannot afford to go down this road. I would like to know how Mr. Bradley would address this part of the issue.

As far as illegal immigration, as others here have pointed out, Mr. Bradley deals with the constitutionally designated federal control of naturalization, but fails to mention that the Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over immigration, which is a separate issue.

In such cases, the power to control immigration is constitutionally relegated to the states or to the people. While state control of immigration may be difficult and impractical, if we are to adhere to the founder’s intent of the Constitution, that’s the way it is.

Also, Mr. Bradley says that we should enforce immigration laws and then penalize any illegal caught after a grace period who has not submitted to forced self-deportation. In the past, enforcing immigration laws has meant in practice primarily detecting and deporting illegal workers.

Mike Lee believes that by enforcing laws that prevent employers from hiring illegal workers, jobs for illegals will dry up and they will pack up and go home without any coercion. Where does Mr. Bradley stand on employer enforcement?