''A state can no more give up part of her sovereignty than a lady can give up part of her virtue.
~ John Randolph
FROM THE FRONT
By Len Semas Main Feature 4/12/2016)
SOVEREIGNTY UNDER ATTACK
The concept of sovereignty has become unfamiliar to our citizens; an almost quaint notion. And yet it is sovereignty that defines our status as a nation. Our constitutional rights and duties were made possible by the sovereignty established in our break from England 240 years ago. Today, our sovereignty hangs by a thread.
Sovereignty is the recognition of a nation as a free and independentstate, with the sole right to govern affairs within its borders and with final responsibility to and authority over the citizens, granted to it and from whom it derives its existence.
There are two primary attacks on our sovereignty: an external and directly dangerous attack together with a more insidious, internal one. The external attack is via the United Nations and other organizations and programs supported by Internationalists and "New World Order" proponents. The internal attack is through a dilution of our culture and our language encouraged by Multi-culturalists, and a direct assault on our institutions, our economy and our way of life through the intentional violation of our borders by illegal immigrants. How do we protect our nation’s sovereignty against these threats?
THE EXTERNAL THREAT
The agenda of the United Nations and much of its membership, is not supportive of the United States - it is, in fact, antagonistic towards it. The reasons are many, but the message is clear: the U.N. has become a bloated international bureaucracy with far more influence than is justified, much of it exercised by petty tyrants and ego rich international celebrities, such as George Soros. The Iran “Deal,”and Syrian “refugee” resettlement programs are but the latest in a long history of U.N. failures detrimental to the interests of the U.S. and its true allies. It is time to replace that organization.
There is merit in the concept of an international body to assist in the progress towards world peace, encourage the development of poorer nations, and facilitate relations on the world stage. The inclusion of rogue, terror sponsoring and tyrant states is counter- productive, however. While there is room for a diversity of culture, there needs to be a commonality too: religion and economic systems, a fundamental commitment to human rights, some form of democratic system, and a national demeanor of peacefulness. If that sounds like a bias to Western culture, it is! Not all of the world's nations should be allowed to participate; in fact, many would be purposely excluded unless, and until, they mended their ways. It is through international stigma, economic sanctions, and a united force among those opposing them that such nations will most likely effect change. Unlike the United Nations, the mission of such a replacement body would be clearly stated, expressly limited, and funded proportionally by all the member nations. The functions would be limited to: global peace, fair trade, stability, and sound environmental practices.
A separate organization, a replacement for NATO and other military alliances, would be created to address the express issue of a uniform military stance for the protection of member nations, and those living peaceably among them. It would be a more limited body, based on military capacity and a common set of values, the preservation of which would be the common goal. While such a body might include long-standing allies such as Australia, England, France and Germany, the ability to act would not require unanimity, and might more closely resemble the coalition assembled by President Bush in the war on Iraq. Free from the bureaucratic nature of the UN., it would likely function more responsively and be less politically driven. Such a capacity would result in swift and sure reaction, retribution and retaliation when justified, including preemptive measures as may be occasioned by severe and supportable threats to world peace, or that of any member nation. This would be a "no-nonsense" coalition of the "peaceful but powerful," and no rogue nation on earth would test its resolve without immediate and severe consequences.
The era of threats, encroachments, and saber rattling by North Korea, Iran and others would be gone, and those perpetrating evil would be dispatched quickly and permanently. The threat posed by a nuclear N. Korea and Iran would be immediately addressed by preemptive force, if necessary, by western, democratic nations exerting a joint military response, once and for all. There would be no blaming of the U.S. for acting alone; no phony protection under a Russian or Chinese umbrella; and no foot dragging while the threat continued to full nuclear capacity. The message to the next rogue nation would be unambiguously clear.
THE INTERNAL THREAT
While the threat to our sovereignty from without is clear and simple, the internal threat is more complex and insidious. There are estimates of 12-20 million illegal residents in our country today - many feel the true number may be much higher. Half or more of these trespassers are from Mexico which, therefore, must be the primary focus. The justifications for tolerating such an assault on our borders are many. None have a legitimate foundation, and all ignore the serious consequences in the loss of our nation's sovereignty.
There are justifiable reasons for encouraging legal visitation, residence and application for citizenship to our country. Certainly, the visitation by those from other nations is to be encouraged for social, family, cultural, economic, tourist, and other legitimate reasons. The desire for foreigners to seek employment and receive the benefits of that employment affect many industries and also needs to be reasonably accommodated. Lastly, our country has a long and noble history of welcoming immigrants. America's strength lies in the diversity of its citizenry woven into a single, assimilated fabric reflecting American traditions and a unique cultural uniformity.
The problem with illegal - as contrasted to legal - immigration, is that its agenda is wholly different from, and often antagonistic to the assimilation process. Some come here illegally to cause direct harm to the United States and its citizens, as we know all too well. Many others come here simply to take, and not to embrace the full range of both rights and responsibilities of being an American. They want to be in America, but not be an American.
Their allegiance is to a foreign land or culture, a condition that is corrosive to the values and culture of America. Others still, come with disease, criminal backgrounds, or other liabilities. Many come simply for the benefits of social programs for themselves, their families, and their offspring to come, thereby draining the taxpayers of this country, with little given in return.
A proper program of immigration would address the legitimate needs and responsibilities of our nation, while vigorously defending it against attack by illegal entry. Components of such a program would include the following:
1. The proper characterization and recognition of entry as either legal or illegal…period.
2. Procedures for visitation that vary depending on the background of the individual and their country of origin. Proper credentials, visitation purpose, and travel between countries with normal and peaceful relations would be stream- lined and require minimal interference. Visits from countries, or by individuals, with suspect backgrounds or motives, or strained military or diplomatic relation- ships, might require fingerprinting, photographing, detention and interviewing, and other more aggressive measures prior to entry. Cooperation from the originating country would be a requirement; failure to establish cooperative policies might move that country to a less welcome status.
Finally, countries with which we have severe differences, for example, those sponsoring terrorism, would be banned, except for the most stringent and necessary purposes, and only under the most demanding and rigorous entry provisions. Such a ban would apply to student visas as well; there is no intelligent reason for educating the citizens of countries dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
3. A program similar to that for visitation would be developed for longer term or permanent residency. Such residency would be granted only when a clear mutual benefit is established between the visitor and this country based on skills, education, financial capacity, and a moral and law-abiding character. The characteristics of those seeking permanent residence would be quite similar to those for naturalization and citizenship, the end goal being the primary difference.
4. A program for temporary employment in critical industries such as agriculture, hospitality, and other high demand/low supply jobs would be established. Such a program, unlike current programs, would have a high degree of control and cooperation between our government, our employers, and the legally resident temporary workers. Limits would be placed on the period of residence (short term), identification and regular reporting would be required to ensure compliance, and participation would be limited to adult males and non-pregnant females. A regular medical exam, employer provided, would be required of females, and pregnancy would be grounds for termination and return to country of residence. Close and complete cooperation of the host countries would be a condition for the program, and host countries would be expected to prosecute or support prosecution of violators.
5. A change from income based to consumption based taxation would ensure that all visitors, workers, and immigrants would pay their fair share of taxes since taxation would be based on consumption, not income and other complex forms of taxation. In addition, a tax would be levied on remittances sent out of the country, since they benefit the receiving country at the expense of our own economy.
6. All illegal entrants would be prosecuted when caught, as would those facilitating illegal entry. Conviction of illegal entry would bar an individual from participating in any legal entry visitation or worker program for 5 years; double conviction would bar permanently any entry as well as application for citizenship. A treaty between host countries would be required to enforce the provisions of prosecution and conviction. The host country, not America, would be responsible for the costs of criminal sanctions, such as incarceration.
7. Our borders would be permanently protected and sealed with a combination of roving border patrols, the establishment of military bases at frequent intervals along our borders, and the use of technology such as laser detection, satellite surveillance, and other means to ensure detection and apprehension of illegal entrants. A physical barrier – a wall – would also be erected at the most porous points of entry.
8. A constitutional amendment would require that citizenship by birth would be limited to individuals born to parents, at least one of whom IS a U.S. citizen and the other is either a citizen or a legal resident. We would end birthright citizenship.
9. Much more stringent standards would be developed and mandated for citizenship, attendance in U.S. schools, or for utilization of other taxpayer provided services, such as health care and social services. English speaking would be a requirement and all public documents would be available only in English. To accommodate such a requirement, states would be encouraged to implement reasonably priced programs for immersion instruction in English so that fluency could be expected in a one-year program of instruction. Private alternatives would also be supported.
No mechanism of automatic legal status to those who have entered illegally should ever be offered. A program for immigration must address ALL the issues including: economic costs, impact on institutions and systems, border security, cultural integrity, and the health and safety of U.S. citizens. The intolerable condition of illegal occupation in this country needs to be addressed before any program for accommodation of immigrants is considered. A moratorium on immigration should be implemented while the matter is analyzed and a comprehensive long-term solution is enacted. A registration requirement for all individuals residing in the country illegally must precede any other action. Any other approach must be vigorously protested.
The United States is among the most free, generous, and peaceful nations on earth; It is unquestionably the most powerful and economically successful. It is time for it to exercise its prerogatives in re-establishing a system of world organizations that work, while preserving the sovereignty of all nations.
The United States is also a nation of immigrants who have historically been welcome as long as they arrive legally, assume both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and assimilate into a culture long established. It is time for it to assert reasonable demands for visitors, residents, and new citizens to comply with legitimate requirements; to welcome those who do; and to reject and prosecute those who don't. The continued sovereignty of a great nation hangs in the balance.