I’m a big fan of the “mission statement” of this republic. What also is known as the Declaration of Independence. When it comes time to determine “Original Intent” or what the courts call “legislative intent,” there’s no better starting place than here.
For it was then that the Founding Fathers acknowledged that rights don’t come from a government — they come from our “Creator.”
Perforce, when they wrote the Bill of Rights, they didn’t grant We The People any rights. They acknowledged rights we already had, and that these rights are so “self-evident” that they don’t need to be explained or justified.
Applying logic and reason to the matter, this would mean that what is true at the micro (individual) level applies on the macro (nation) level as well, and vice-versa.
So just as the 4th Amendment recognized that We The People of this republic had the “right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,” it logically, reasonably and self-evidently followed that We The People had a right to a secure border as well.
This is also the logic applied in the Peace of Westphalia. And while the U.S. was not, of course, a signatory to that treaty, the concept of Westphalian Sovereignty has been the basis for peaceful international relations for over 370 years.
It’s even enshrined in the U.N. Charter. Is it a worthy goal for the federal government to protect this right? The only sane, rational and logical answer is: of course!
Now that the moral and legal argument in favor of a secure border is done, it’s time now to look at the necessity of one. In his Oval Office address, President Trump said that “over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country,” and made the easy prediction that more would be killed in the future.
Well, “thousands” is a bit vague, and “over the years” is even more so. Yet the Democrats don’t dispute those numbers, and so I’m going to accept them as valid. The question then becomes: Is saving the lives of “thousands” of Americans a worthy goal of the federal government?
The only sane, rational and logical answer is: of course! But aside from that, there’s an economic cost to having millions of illegal aliens in the country. It runs into the billions of dollars.
For health care, schooling, imprisoning those who rob and rape, etc. A year. Every year. Meaning that we’d recoup the $5.7 billion that is the source of the current brouhaha in just a matter of months.
Is saving billions of tax dollars a worthy goal of the federal government? The only sane, rational and logical answer is: of course!
At present, certain parts of the federal government are shut down due to a struggle between our president and the federal legislature. Our president wants to enforce — logically, reasonably and in full accord with international law — the right of We The People to a secure border, via The Wall.
On the other side, the Democratic Party, lead by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and the Minority Leader of the Senate Chuck Schumer, who both spoke in favor of some sort of physical barrier not all that long ago. Now, however, they regard doing so as “an immorality.”
This is, completely and self-evidently, nuts. Unless one takes a look at what so clearly drives them, and the rest of the Democratic Party, to oppose The Wall.
When Pelosi and Schumer spoke in favor of a physical barrier on our southern border, it was done for the purpose of gaining political power. Now they speak in opposition of one for the same reason; they want greater political power, and this how they think they can get it.
This should be our guide as to which side of the struggle We The People should support. Logic, reason and (dare I say it?) common sense tells us that it is always best to support those on the side of reason, logic, common sense and the law.
Anything else is just nuts.
Sean Colgan of Oceanside is a longtime supporter and activist on behalf of President Trump.
