The United States Is Private Property: No Trespassing Allowed
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough recently dashed Democrats’ hopes of securing immigration amnesty for millions of persons here illegally (PHIs) by declaring that amendments to the current federal immigration law could not be attached to the $3.5 trillion spending bill.
Republican lawmakers, in turn, hailed MacDonough’s ruling.
What remains both baffling and alarming is that we have to rely on parliamentary loopholes to halt transnational trespass. Instead, that practice ought to be overwhelmingly condemned regardless of party politics.
Democrats and Republicans can have legitimate differences of opinion about the size of government; America’s role in international military conflicts; whether abortion, marijuana and same-sex marriage ought to be legal; and what if any limitations should be placed on the right to keep and bear arms.
But when it comes to crossing our border illegally, or entering legally and unlawfully remaining past the allotted time, the response should be an absolute rejection, from liberal San Francisco to conservative Tulsa, just as if the question were, say, whether we ought to support murder and armed robbery.
Plain and simple, the United States is private property, open only to U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents (LPRs) and legal nonimmigrants (such as visitors, students and temporary workers).
Granted, those within our nation’s borders are free to move about from state to state, but they need to be eligible to be here in the first place. Much like fans at the stadium can visit the restrooms and concession stands, but only if they entered the stadium legitimately with an admission ticket.
Persons who crossed the border illegally or overstayed unlawfully are not “immigrants” – they’re PHIs. If music legend Paul McCartney touring the United States and basketball superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo playing for the Milwaukee Bucks are not immigrants, then surely border-jumpers aren’t either.
As I wrote in my book “Stop Calling Them ‘Immigrants,'” far too many Americans erroneously refer to any foreign-born person in the United States as an immigrant. In many instances, it’s just an honest mistake, but don’t be fooled into thinking that much of the time ulterior motives aren’t at play.
Enablers of transnational trespass often tout that “immigrants commit fewer crimes than natural-born Americans.” When referring to actual immigrants — who are either naturalized U.S. citizens or LPRs — that makes a great deal of sense. After all, real immigrants have been fully vetted, unlike hundreds of millions of people born here who are left to their own devices.
When including PHIs, however, that statistic is no longer true. But amnesty advocates want to conflate the numbers so that we get used to calling all foreign-born persons physically in the U.S. “immigrants” in order to legitimize all of them, no matter how they got here and regardless of them remaining unvetted.
For several decades, both major parties turned a blind eye to illegal entry and stay. Democrats because they realized that if these folks gain the right to vote someday, they’d surely vote Democrat, and because many want to expunge our nation’s Western European heritage. Republicans because nothing boosts the economy quite like cheap and easily exploited labor.
Then came Donald Trump. Like no president since Theodore Roosevelt more than a hundred years ago, Trump railed against our porous borders. Immediately, the establishment — and their media messenger boys — struck back.
First, they insisted that Trump categorically called Mexicans “rapists” and “criminals.” As I pointed out in my book “Trumped-Up Charges!” that simply isn’t true. Next, they accused not only Trump but practically any supporter of strong border security of being racist against “brown people.”
Think about it: If you’re out to dinner and your neighbor texts you that three guys are breaking into your house right now, are you going to think, “Gee, I really hope they’re Swedish or Norwegian burglars, because I’d be OK with that”? Of course not. All you’ll care about — and will try to stop — is their criminal trespass; their nationality, skin color or religion won’t be a factor.
Similarly, those of us who care about transnational trespass onto our private property of the United States couldn’t care less about the trespasser’s demographics. But those who dream of an open-border utopia often try to silence us with false and inflammatory rhetoric.
There is also a great deal of confusion about asylum. First, it must be based on a well-founded fear of persecution, not simply because living conditions in a particular country aren’t optimal. Second, asylum seekers should apply to the next-closest country to their own where conditions aren’t dire.
The United States is that next-closest country only for citizens of Canada or Mexico, neither of which faces a national crisis that renders living conditions categorically unsafe.
If, say, the Taliban seized power in those countries, then their citizens — more specifically, ones whose lives might be endangered because they supported the previous government — would be eligible for asylum in the United States. Absent that type of situation, no one is eligible.
I am the son of immigrants, grew up surrounded by immigrants, and as an immigration attorney helped secure rights for countless individuals from numerous countries and of various races and religions.
I am not anti-immigration. I’m anti-trespass.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
