The New American Magazine (NAM) apparently still can’t both leave their stale immigration arguments alone, and actually have an honest debate on the issue of Immigration as it relates to the American system of government and republicanism.
In the August 19 Issue of the magazine, they included a letter to the editor that agreed and bought into the entire supposed “rebuttal” that Kurt Williamsen published in the magazine, of which I wrote an article that can be found here.
Perhaps an author and/or editor of the NAM should take the time to define what a Fundamental, or “Natural” Right actually is. I say this due to the fact that if you truly understand our fundamental rights as coming from something higher than our peers here on Earth, you will inevitably have to come to the conclusion that the right to travel or “immigrate”, to contract, to honestly acquire property, etc. etc. are had by all men, regardless of citizenship. Once again, the Declaration of Independence does not state that all “citizens” are created equal.
I find it very telling for a magazine, such as the NAM, which claims to champion a strict interpretation of the items of authority vested in the Congress via Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, to have yet to point out the specific authorization for the federal government to even have a say in the issue of immigration at all! The Constitution of the United States doesn’t even authorize the Federal Government to have the sole power over making rules of Naturalization and enforcing them, let alone immigration. And in fact, the authorization is only to make guidelines, or “uniform rules” for the process of becoming citizens, or “members of the club,” if you will. The individual states that made up the federation could add any additional rules they felt were best for securing the rights and freedoms of the people they represented.
As I have pointed out before, and which cannot be emphasized enough, Naturalization is NOT immigration. Immigration is NOT naturalization. Immigration, an extension of the right to travel, is unalienable and comes by virtue of one’s humanity. Naturalization, or the privilege (“civil right”) of becoming a citizen comes by virtue of living amongst a form of organized society. These two different issues that cannot be confused for a correct and pure view of the topics surrounding “immigration”. Remember, no one has a fundamental right to naturalization, since that would force others to associate with them. But on the flip side, no one has the right to force and bully someone into becoming a citizen either.
The argument, even if solidified by some quote by the “Obama of the Right” Ronald Reagan, that borders have to be “enforced” outside of assuring jurisdiction of the government so represented by people living within that arbitrary line (which, of course, doesn’t tangibly exist), has yet to be argued adequately, let alone proven.
The letter also included a quote from the Biblical book of Acts, as well as an interpretation that he used to further solidify this stereotypical “conservative” view of immigration. Acts 17:26 states:
“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” (bold emphasis being the author of the letters’ emphasis)
Without going into a detailed breakdown and biblical passage, I will just point out a glaring hypocrisy. I think it is telling for someone to claim that even attempting to actively regulate land one does not own (aka “public” land) is somehow within “the bounds of their habitation,” in a letter claiming that people who are traveling here from other countries are somehow not within their own bounds. Has the author of this letter personally been a victim of trespassing? And if so, at that point, as should be obvious, citizenship would not even matter.
Actively regulate, including the choice of checking citizenship for those whom you associate if you want, your own property and land ALL you want; but outside of that, no one is justified in personally inhibiting one’s ability to travel and move, therefore, no one is justified in delegating any supposed “power” to do the same to their agents in government. If, somehow, Mr. Williamsen of the NAM or anyone else out there happens to have a lawful claim and ownership of the border itself, then by all means, enforce a citizenship check all you want on your own property. But, of course, no one has yet to show that proof of personal ownership, let alone the proof that it belongs to anyone at all, including the bogus assumption of “state ownership”. As if an intangible legal fiction can truly own anything tangible at all anyway.
If the NAM feels that the issue of immigration as viewed by the founders was inadequate or wrong, they should honestly claim this as the case instead of claiming to be for the founding values while simultaneously latching on to the typical bogus stone age quality “conservative” view on the topic.
I agree with the Father of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams, when he stated in his immensely influential essay, The Rights of the Colonists, that:
“[a]ll men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.”
[End Note: This article should not be misconstrued to be a bashing of the general views of those at the New American Magazine. It is due to my view, as a subscriber, of their good intentions that leads me to desire them to reconsider their position on this issue in the first place.]