Why ARE There Immigration Laws?
In a couple of weeks Congress will again take up the issues of immigration and the border wall. During this process our leaders will do well to remember and reflect on why there are immigration laws to begin with. It is fact that EVERY single country that has a codified penal system has immigration laws (see “Immigration by country” in: en.m.wikipedia.org). Some countries like Iran and North Korea have draconian responses if and when a breech occurs: imprisonment, torture and even execution. Even, a “progressive” country like Mexico deports the Hondurans that cross their southern border. Even though the United Nations requires that migrants be treated with “sensitivity and respect” it does NOT require member countries to accept migrants. The requirement that countries settle migrants applies only to those countries that signed the “1951 Convention” which was voluntary and which the United States did NOT sign (the US did sign the “1967 Protocol” which gives countries much more leeway in whether they accept migrants or not and if so, how many). Source: Wikipedia: “Convention Related To The Status Of Refugees” in: en.m.wikipedia.org. Many countries simply choose not to accept migrants: Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, and Indonesia to name a few. No punitive measures have been taken by the UN toward these countries, so it is apparent, even in the United Nations, that a nation has the sovereign right to control who may enter that country temporarily (visas) or permanently (immigration). Since ALL nations have immigration laws, the obvious next question is: why?
The first reason for immigration laws and quotas is economic. In the past, the majority of migrants to America were highly motivated, very willing to assimilate and, by and large, were able bodied individuals capable of making significant contributions to our country. Currently, large portions of “refugees” do no such thing. They DO NOT assimilate, and in response to the availability of generous welfare benefits, motivation is exceedingly poor and, so, by and large, many simply don’t work or don’t work hard. One statistic shows that 85% of Syrian “refugees” in Minnesota were on government assistance! EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT!!! This percentage will likely go down somewhat in time, but will likely remain high. A vicious cycle will perpetuate government dependence: They are on government assistance because they don’t work. They don’t work because they don’t assimilate. They don’t have to assimilate because they don’t HAVE to work. And they don’t have to work because they are on government assistance. The economic drain that taking these migrants will cause will likely be enormous. As a friend of mine succinctly put it: “You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You can’t have both.” (Thanks J.M.).
The second reason for immigration laws is security. America (or, for that matter, ANY country) simply MUST protect itself from the criminal element that crosses borders for nefarious purposes. This is not to say, of course, that all undocumented immigrants (or even most undocumented immigrants) are criminals – but SOME are. And, recently, in addition to thieves, rapists and drug dealers, there is also the potential that terrorists gain access to America in this way. America MUST be able to vet immigrants to rule out the bad guys, and PROTECT itself and its citizens.
The third and most subtle (but no less important) reason for immigration laws is cultural. Every human society has customs and traditions that apply to the universal aspects of human life: birth, child rearing, education, rites of passage, work, marriage, crime, aging, sickness, death, and others. The details of these customs and traditions, however, can vary dramatically. For example, in Catholicism divorce is all but prohibited except for extreme circumstances when it is annulled by church decree. In Islam, a man can divorce his wife by simply saying three times: “I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you.” That’s all it takes! (Women, by the way, can NOT divorce unless the husband agrees). Another example involves banking and loans. In most westernized countries, charging interest for loans is so accepted that the practice is taken for granted. In Islamic societies, charging interest is haram (FORBIDDEN). And there are many many such examples.
Now, these many and varied traditions and customs taken together with the artistic culture of art, literature and music, together with society’s religious practices, comprise what might be termed the “cultural character” of a society. Because all cultures have customs and traditions for dealing with life’s universal needs “progressives” maintain the liberal shibboleth that “all cultures are equal”. It should be acknowledged, however, that this is simply NOT TRUE. All cultures are NOT equal. Some are more brutal than others. Some protect the rights of women better than others. Some protect the rights of children better than others. Some allow for more upward mobility than others. Some provide better education than others. Some have a more equitable distribution of wealth than others. Some HAVE more wealth than others. Some take better care of the sick and disabled than others. Some allow more freedom of religion than others. I could go on and on, but the point is clear: all societies are NOT equal. If we allow substantial immigration from cultures wildly different than our own (and especially from cultures that either can not or will not assimilate) many off the things we cherish about our own society will be watered down or worse. It is extremely unfortunate that some Americans simply don’t see or acknowledge how rare and precious our society is. And how fragile. We MUST not take it for granted, and we must not let it be overcome.