That’s the law. Nothing can be done about it.
And that’s the liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of uneducated, unruly, fractious, antagonistic masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Liberals call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.
Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: Unlawful.
Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: Illegal, immoral, possibly even criminal.
Illegal. Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen, Democrats and some Republicans, to stigmatize and end any action to stop, disincentivize and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands.
Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all.
To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.
Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Ford standard? Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. A compelling standard.
That’s what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.
No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture
The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate liberals hope to colonize is in every American’s head.
Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. That’s the reality! Helped by the American left’s monopoly over the intellectual means of production—the average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and “think”:
“Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.”
Illegal, immoral, un-America: These are all pejoratives reserved not for the grifters making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.
To listen to the liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are “seeking a better life.” Moreover, provided an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.
So, is The Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses?
A bit of both.
The Center for Immigration Studies provides something of a corrective. The gist of it is simple:
“The Border Patrol has the authority to not only arrest those who enter illegally, but also to dissuade their entry. There is nothing in the law that requires the Border Patrol to allow aliens to enter the United States illegally, and then arrest them. Simply put, aliens do not have a right to illegally enter the United States.”
Essentially, the opportunity to assert “a credible fear” of persecution, as explained by Andrew R. Arthur of the CIS, doesn’t give a scofflaw the right to enter the country and claim asylum.
To the contrary: The “credible fear” provision, evidently being misused and misconstrued, doesn’t “exist to facilitate asylum claims.” Rather, “it exists to facilitate the removal from the United States of aliens who have attempted entry through fraud or without proper documents.”
This charitable interpretation struggles to convince. Notwithstanding a defense of lousy and lax law—it nevertheless seems true to state that U.S. laws governing the admission of asylum-seekers and refugees will still process people based on a tale told at a port of entry, and despite disqualifying conduct: the brazen, even criminal, behavior evinced by the Central American caravanners rushing our border.
As practiced, the law is worse than an ass. It’s perverse in the extreme.
In the context of law misconstrued or reinvented, the chant about the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act is as telling. It’s the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for a lack of vigorous military action against an en masse breach of the southern border.
With their Posse Comitatus chant, the no-borders crowd is claiming that sending the U.S. Military to the border is tantamount to deploying the military for civilian purposes.
If an ongoing, sustained, intentional and international invasion of U.S. territory by foreign nationals is considered a domestic dispute to be handled by civil authorities—then America, plain and simple, is both defenseless and borderless; there is, seemingly, no law that’ll defend American borders.
What those liberals colonizing our heads are attempting to convey is that a good America, a just America, a moral America is de facto and de jure a borderless America.
In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, Posse Comitatus means that “the U.S. military is not to be used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.”
The hordes amassed on the border with Mexico, and rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif ornia, are not American citizens. They are not even very nice.
Ilana Mercerhas been writing a weekly,paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube