By DEXTER DUGGAN
“We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed” — Thomas Jefferson
+ + +
PHOENIX — You know those classic Western stories where the courageous sheriff and his deputy prepare to confront the bandits in the street. The law-abiding town has been taken over by criminals who must be defeated or else the decent settlement becomes uninhabitable for good people.
The sheriff carefully reviews his options then declares, “What the heck. This is too dangerous for me. I’m headin’ for Canada. I hear there are some good welfare programs up there that I can retire on.”
No, that’s not how the West was won, protected, or allowed to thrive. Tough work and danger sometimes can’t be avoided before the necessary prize is attained, as Thomas Jefferson observed about making the transition to the fruitfulness of liberty.
Running away in a sweat can be justified if there’s a hurricane on the horizon or a merciless invading army. But ducking your duties to your own land isn’t so easily rationalized if one simply prefers to avoid the toil and struggle that can accompany living and achieving. Reform often doesn’t come free.
Many Chicago neighborhoods, to take just one example, sorely need safety. The residents’ welfare concerns us deeply. However, the Canadian government isn’t obligated to provide for what Illinois hasn’t done, although Ottawa certainly is free to donate as it may desire.
Even when obstacles are understood, the struggle can require courage and determination. When I sat down with a journalist in San Diego during one of my periodic trips there earlier in this new century, he didn’t reveal anything novel about problems in nearby Mexico, only their persistence.
His work frequently took him south of the international line. He spoke of the widespread corruption and bribery that make life in that society difficult, and how Mexico’s government prefers a porous border with the United States so discontent can come here rather than being bottled up there.
If the border were closed and frustration became inescapable there, people would be rattling the rafters for real reform. It’s easier to urge people to “go north” and have the U.S. assume responsibilities for their lives.
Not only is that an injustice against the U.S., it’s also an injustice to people there. They don’t like the conditions that Latino politicians created at home? “Too bad, now pack your bundles, pay a bribe to a lawless smuggler, and leave.” Meanwhile, those left behind have a country depleted of some initiative and ambition by the others’ departures.
And if those arriving here have diminished resources, they may seek assistance from tax-paid U.S. programs or engage in criminal activity.
Some radio news stories in Phoenix on September 22 reported that the Border Patrol in the Yuma Sector said the federal government no longer was prosecuting first-time border violations by illegal entrants. The Yuma Sector, in western Arizona, previously used firm policies to cut illegal immigration and crime drastically.
But the Obama administration was taking another step to throw open the borders further.
It turned out that in mid-August, Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot had notified Arizona congressional representatives of the problem. Apparently under some constraint to be politically correct, Wilmot referred to “UDAs,” meaning “undocumented aliens.” Nevertheless, the sheriff was frank.
In a letter to Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), Wilmot recalled:
“At one time, Yuma County had the worst record in the United States for illegal entry by UDAs. As a result of the high UDA traffic, our community suffered numerous ancillary crimes. In [an] effort to reduce the UDA traffic and their criminal activity in Yuma County, the federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies came together and formed a partnership with a common mission — 100 percent prosecution of all UDAs. . . .
“This partnership has been very successful, to the point that it has been viewed as an excellent example of a collaborative effort to accomplish a mission,” Wilmot continued. He described a defendant in a recent smuggling case as telling investigators that alien-smugglers “are moving to other areas due to our hard stance on smuggling and the fact that if you are caught in Yuma, you will go to jail.”
Now, Wilmot wrote, he has been informed that first-time offenders won’t be prosecuted, which means the Yuma Sector is to follow the failed policies of other areas.
Wilmot said this “new guidance gives a strong impression that its sole purpose is to direct the UDA traffic and their criminal activity back to Yuma County. This practice undermines everything that we have worked hard to achieve over the years for the citizens of Yuma County.”
After describing some cases of identity theft, the sheriff said, “It is our position, much like other border sheriffs, that without 100 percent prosecution of all UDAs, this administration will continue to see a border that is porous and open to the criminal element entering the United States to prey on this country.”
The people on the front lines to protect the border, Wilmot said, will be discouraged by the administration’s change in the rules: “…this new guidance will cause these brave men and women, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to feel betrayed by the very government that they serve.”
These aren’t the kinds of facts that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Arizona Catholic Conference want to hear or publicize, when bishops push for “welcoming migrants.” These are simply the facts that real-world Americans suffer under as Barack Obama tries to lure ever-more illegal aliens into this burdened welfare state, making bishops and their bureaucrats cheer.
When you reward certain behavior, you probably get more of it.
Awhile back, my Phoenix parish became known as a good location for anyone to beg for money. More people started showing up in the parking lot with their hands out, and in the vestibule, and once a man even approached me in the confessional line.
The situation was out of control. The associate pastor told parishioners to direct any supplicants to the church office for aid. Because we donate to the parish, he said, our financial obligation already was fulfilled, and they are to go through the proper channels.
As I was headed into church one day, a man on the corner held out his hand. When I directed him to the office, he said they refused him. With no time to debate, I gave him something, but after Mass I stopped by the office to look into this. The receptionist told me no one had been refused.
Does anyone think that illegal aliens’ demands will decrease when powerful voices in the U.S. invite all comers to cross the border whenever they care to?
“Go Time”
The Washington Examiner posted on September 16 that foreign citizens are hearing it’s “go time” to rush into the U.S. because of concerns the border will be tightened.
“The summer lull in illegal border crossings from Mexico is about to give way to a rush of even more immigrants in a frenzy of fear that Washington is about to shut the door, according to several Hispanic leaders,” the Examiner reported.
“In Honduras, for example, U.S. threats coupled with those from local leaders warning about the dangers of crossing the border have instead reenergized children and adults to run fast to America and pay inflated fees to ‘coyotes’ to get them there,” with an additional 145,000 Latino minors expected next year, the news site said.
Meanwhile, in mid-September the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, illustrated why many Americans believe massive entry is changing the very character and standards of their nation. The Ninth Circuit ruled that a high school in Morgan Hill, in northern California, could forbid students to wear shirts with an image of the U.S. flag on Cinco de Mayo because this sight could provoke violence by Latino students.
The American judiciary was subjugating U.S. students to prejudices from afar.
NBC News in the Bay area posted on September 17 that an attorney defending the display of the U.S. flag shirts commented online: “Americans have fought and died to protect that flag, and now we are told to conceal it so we don’t offend Mexican aliens, some of whom entered this country illegally. The liberal judges on the court were forced to do rhetorical back flips to come to this outrageous decision.”
However, burning the American flag instead of having to hide it has been ruled perfectly acceptable as free expression by no less than the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1989.
Used or misused, laws have a purpose. Just as the first priority of Mexico’s restrictive immigration law is the benefit of Mexico, and the first priority of France’s is the benefit of France, so must the first priority of U.S. immigration law be the welfare of the United States — not Guatemala, or El Salvador, or Switzerland. They all have their own governments, and their own obligations to nurture justice and human dignity.
The fact that some lands may prefer to shirk their obligations is no more excuse for them than the fact that some parents prefer to mistreat their families. We don’t change the law to establish as a principle that a bad Dad may do as he pleases.
When Galatians says people have no nationality in Christ, neither Jew nor Greek, it also says there’s neither man nor woman. Anyone who can’t understand that statement in the Bible may think Obama is merely being Christ-like in promoting open borders and LGBT. If so, what’s needed here is deeper Bible study, not confusion about the necessary restrictions of earthly existence versus the freedom of Heaven.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress