When certain politically influential people, liberal progressives ideologically opposed to U.S. Constitutional requirements and constraints, pick laws from the U.S. Code that they don’t particularly like, refuse to obey them, and strongly encourage other rank-and-file citizens to disobey them, a major problem exists that the Honorable John Adams would have described as a matter needing to be severely handled by federal law enforcement. This is because John Adams, and the other Constitutional Framers, believed in the rule of law as the sole basis for social order in the new American republic, forged from the blood, sweat, and anguished tears of many American patriots. If one disagrees with an existing law, he must still obey and stay the proper course while seeking to change it through congressional repeal or through the Constitutional amendment process. To ignore and disobey the law, and to persuade others to ignore and disobey it, are crimes that oppose social order and, as such, should carry the weight of criminal redress and punishment. As such, immigration law as it exists in the U.S. Code contains criminal statutes that have been legislated by plural Congresses and signed into law by several different U.S. Presidents during the 226 year history of the American republic. These laws are not arbitrary and flippant in their summary of immigration policy, but precise in their statements and requirements regarding illegal immigration and the legal intent of the laws making illegal immigration a crime.
Previously I have written numerous articles and essays about the treatment to be accorded to illegal aliens currently residing within the USA, and have compared those, predominantly Hispanic, individuals to shoplifters, since the first offense of illegal immigration committed by a foreign national is a federal misdemeanor, per the U.S. Immigration Code, and the crime of shoplifting is, and has been, regarded as, either, a federal or State misdemeanor, per U.S. and State criminal codes. Moreover, I have posed the issue, and left it blowing in Bob Dillon’s wind, of which is worse, shoplifting or illegal immigration. In one article, I asked the question, “What do you say to an illegal alien.” Well, I’m pretty sure I know what nearly everyone will say to shoplifters, especially the merchants and storeowners who are victimized by them. “You damn thieves! Put the merchandise back before I call the cops!” If a shoplifter steals something and a store customer sees him, or her, do it, there’s a 97 percent probability of that customer reporting the theft to store management. This means that nearly every honest person regards shoplifting as a terrible crime. So, what happens to a shoplifter who commits the same crime over and over? The shoplifter is arrested continually for a misdemeanor crime, unless the amount of the theft exceeds the threshold for grand theft, or if the shoplifter committed burglary by planning to shoplift before entering a particular store. Yet, an illegal alien who is deported, and is, again, arrested a second time for illegally entering the USA is charged with a federal felony. This is the major difference between illegal immigration and shoplifting. Illegal immigration is much worse than shoplifting, and carries with it a greater punishment if it is a repeat offense. Let me provide a graphic example of this fact, which will clearly convey the profound reason why a high impenetrable wall needs to be built along the entire southern border between the USA and Mexico.
When I was an itinerant contract shoplift-agent for the Safeway Stores, working for a time at the Safeway store in San Ysidro, California, the store manager was particularly concerned about a pair of illegal alien Mexican sisters who were regularly coming across the border from Tijuana into San Ysidro and stealing great quantities of expensive foods from his store. So far they had stolen $5,000 worth of merchandise. He wanted my partner and me to apprehend and arrest those sisters and ensure that they were punished for their crimes and permanently deported. It was July 17, 1984, the day before the Big Mac attack mass-murder at the McDonald’s in San Ysidro by James Huberty, the unemployed security guard, when we saw the sisters enter the store, and immediately begin filling their purses with expensive foods. I arrested one of the sisters and my partner the other. We handcuffed them, did our required paperwork, and immediately called the San Diego Police Department, who, in turn, contacted the U.S. Border Patrol. The sisters were subsequently arrested by the San Diego Police and then turned over to two Border Patrol agents, who didn’t do any paperwork on the sisters, but took them directly to the border and released them. Catch and release; that was the way it worked in 1984, and is the way it still works today in the second decade of the 21st Century. Illegal aliens are not punished for their original misdemeanor crimes. It is, instead, continually a revolving door of repeat illegal immigration. The Safeway store manager contacted us a week later to let us know that the sisters had again looted his store, and that he was considering hiring someone to break the sisters’ legs, or worse, since law enforcement wasn’t willing to do anything to stop them. Hence, an impenetrable border wall between Mexico and the USA, guarded 24/7, is greatly needed. But what about the 12-14 million illegal Hispanic aliens currently in the USA. How should they be treated by American citizens who respect the rule of law?
Of these millions of illegal Hispanic aliens residing in all parts of the republic, there are those who have been in the country for only a short period of time, who cannot speak English. These aliens are those Hispanics who have trespassed across the southern border on Monday, and by Thursday have been relocated to a Hispanic community in Virginia or some other state through an illegal network set-up for illegal aliens. And then there those who have been in the country for decades of time, who have learned to speak and write the English language and have had numerous anchor babies, or children who are “not” American citizens even though they were born on U.S. soil. I will address these many illegal aliens per the 14th Amendment later in this article. Illegal aliens, who have managed to remain in the country on the lam, unseen and unnoticed, are tantamount to U.S. citizen criminals who have committed crimes and have successfully evaded law enforcement by changing their names, staying under the radar, and blending quietly into a community in a particular job setting, until the day when they are recognized and brought to justice. These criminal aliens have committed crimes by sneaking into the USA one, or more, times. If they have already been deported once and sneak, again, across the border, they are illegal alien felons. Therefore, based upon the current demographics of illegal immigration, in a group of fifteen adult Hispanics gathered on a street corner anywhere in the USA, the probability that five or more of them are illegal aliens is 95 percent. This is an alarming statistic that broaches the many billions of tax dollars collected from hardworking U.S. citizens that have been spent by State and federal governments to feed, clothe, educate, and provide healthcare for these millions of illegal aliens and their anchor babies. Now, what about those millions of anchor babies currently in the USA. If, for example, Rosa and Juan Mendez, Mexican citizens, sneak across the southern Mexican-U.S. border when Rosa is nine months pregnant, and, at the moment that Rosa and Juan step onto U.S. soil, the woman goes into labor to have triplets, which have to be delivered by caesarian-section, who picks up the cost tab for the healthcare? Let’s say the Border Patrol finds Rosa ten feet inside the border on U.S. soil in labor. What should federal immigration enforcement do? This is where the matter of what they should do conflicts with what they actually do. The Border Patrol “should” call the Mexican police to have Rosa taken to a Mexican hospital, and should not spend one-dollar of federal tax money on her. Yet, these border cops think that money grows on trees when they humanely radio for a life-flight helicopter to fly illegal alien Rosa Mendez, and her husband, to the nearest U.S. hospital to have an American obstetrician perform the caesarian-section at taxpayer expense. And you know what? Rosa and Juan Mendez, and the many other illegal aliens like them, aren’t required to repay a penny of the money that has been spent on them. Now the children born to them are not under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth. Why? The parents are Mexican nationals who have illegally entered the USA. Hence, they are still under the jurisdiction of Mexico while illegally in the United States. As such, the children that exit Rosa Mendez’s body onto U.S. soil are also not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Why does this make a world of difference in the birth status of those children? The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause, states the following. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” While Rosa Mendez’s children were born on U.S. soil, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Who, then, would be foreign nationals born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If Rosa and Juan Mendez had obtained visas and had been on U.S. soil legally, they would have been under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and, therefore, their children would have been born under U.S. jurisdiction. Also, if the couple had endeavored to immigrate legally into the USA, and were legally in the State of California, Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico when Rosa had been required to go to a hospital to have her babies, the children would have been born as U.S. citizens. That was the intent of the citizenship clause, to make it clear that illegal aliens were not under the jurisdiction of the USA, and that children born to them in the USA were not U.S. citizens.
The absence of the rule of federal law in firmly stipulating the citizenship status of anchor babies, and the immigration status of any foreign Hispanic national that crosses the southern U.S. border illegally, makes all Hispanics in the republic suspect of illegal status; for who can tell the difference between an illegal Hispanic alien who has been on U.S. soil for a month, but can speak and write English passably, and another Hispanic, an educated U.S. citizen who was born legally in the USA to Hispanic U.S. citizen parents? The presence of the millions of illegal aliens in the republic makes imperative the application of law to enforce the U.S. Immigration Code and to deport all Hispanics illegally in the United States. The “rule of law” is essential in determining legal U.S. citizenship, just like the codified law making shoplifting a crime. If a police officer apprehends a shoplifter and, afterward, pats him on the shoulder saying, “It’s okay! You didn’t steal that much. You don’t deserve to be arrested,” or if a judge exonerates a shoplifter and rules that the person really didn’t commit a crime by stealing a box of candy bars from a store, and allows the shoplifter to go free, he has set a dangerous subjective precedent that flies in face of the Honorable John Adams famous statement, “We are a nation of laws, and not of men.”
In summation, people who break the laws of the United States should not be treated nicely. If the federal government treats illegal alien criminals nicely and refuses to enforce the immigrations laws, and all other codified laws, as they were intended to be enforced, it is a system that is just the opposite of the foregoing statement by John Adams. By its refusal to properly enforce existing immigration laws, the U.S. government is telling the American electorate, and the world, that “we are a nation of men, and not of laws,” that human whims and subjectivities are more important than legal rules and their constancy.
Allowing illegal Hispanics the same courtesies as U.S. citizens contradicts the “rule of law” principle. If you are going to allow illegal aliens those courtesies, why not allow shoplifters the same courtesies. If you learn that a person, with whom you just had lunch, with whom you had just shared some personal secrets, had stolen hundreds of dollars of merchandise over-time from 7-Eleven stores by shoplifting, how would you feel about that person? Illegals and their children, over time, steal a great deal of money from American taxpayers, and they do it with apparent impunity. Just because illegal Hispanics are holding down jobs and earning money does not mean that they have a legal right to have those jobs and make that money. The only way that illegal immigration is going to end is by the American electorate awakening to the fact that illegal immigration is illegal and wrong, and that the building of a southern border wall, as President Trump has pledged to do, will go a long way to let these illegal aliens know that they are not welcome in the republic and that they should go back to their native countries. If you allow one shoplifter to get away with stealing, a terrible precedent has been set by men and the rule of law has been defied. The same basic principle applies to all crimes, especially illegal immigration.