'Tis Only My Opinion!

February 2017 - Volume 37, Number 2

"Anarchy or Sanctuary?"

The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic based upon Judeo Christian principles.

Sovereign nations enforce their laws, control their borders, and deal with their own internal strife. They don’t use the country next door as a piggy bank, a holding tank for their problems, or a welfare provider.

Lawrence Lessig's definition of anarchy is classic.

One of those basic principles embodied in the framework of the U.S. constitution is "compassion" for the unfortunate. Over the past 2-1/2 centuries, "compassion" has morphed into allowing the immigration system to be subverted.

The founders of the U.S. were considered to be independent and populists, i.e., each state was sovereign and the Constitution enumerated those rights which the Federal government had.  All other rights were originally to be held by each independent state as stated in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:

  • "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Globalists take a dim view of sovereignty and use the "compassion concept" as a way to promote their cause. Many Christian churches and their members have used compassion as a justification to assist both legal and illegal immigrants. What they fail to understand is the impact of the demographic changes to their society that will occur due to their efforts.

Of course, it makes many church members "feel good." But what it does to the society that their children and grand-children will inherit is not on their minds.

A nation that does not control its borders and ignores the demographics of illegal immigrants will soon find that its culture and language will disappear.

The Spectre of both Great Britain and France.

Both in Great Britain and France, immigration policies have created a situation where significant areas of both countries bear little relationship to the native culture that existed within the country before World War II.

The significantly-different birthrates and language of the both legal and illegal immigrants has resulted in a society in Great Britain and France that is decidedly different than prior to World War II. Today, there are more mosques in France than Christian churchs. The birth-rate of immigrants  is about 3 times the birth rate of the native French citizens. Although not quite as high, the situation in Great Britain is similiar.

In many parts of both countries, English and French are rarely spoken. In many areas of both Great Britain and France, law enforcement has withdrawn and it is too dangerous for native police officers to patrol. In both countries, tourists are advised not to visit areas which have become populated by non-native immigrants.

The legal systems of both countries are now under attack by those calling for sharia law and in fact, Sharia courts exist in both countries.

U.S. Immigration Policy

During the Obama administration, the immigration laws were often ignored and many refugees from the Middle-East were settled in many rural communities throughout the Corn Belt and the Pacific Northwest.

Despite an increased threat of terrorism since 9/11, there was a major increase in the flow of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders. While many government officials estimate that between 10 to 14 million illegal ("undocumented") immigrants are in the U.S. in 2016, other estimates go as high as 30 million. Many of the illegal immigrants also do not speak and/or learn English and reproduce at a substantially-higher rate than U.S. citizens. The "anchor baby concept" also has assisted many immigrants to come to the U.S. under the concept of "compassion."

Since 2008, the number of illegal immigrants from countries outside Latin American and South American attempting to enter the U.S. has increased.

The U.S. border patrol was ordered by the Obama administration to use a "catch and release policy" rather than immediately deporting an illegal immigrant. The Obama administration also refused to increase funding for the immigration courts which enabled many illegal immigrants to simply disappear into US society.

Bryon York wrote an article in the Washington Examiner on January 26th that pointed out the changes which the Trump Administration will undertake to regain control of the country's borders.

"There's one fundamental difference between the new White House and the old when it comes to immigration:

Barack Obama ordered his administration not to enforce a number of immigration laws.

Donald Trump has ordered his administration to enforce them.

Trump's two immigration executive orders, issued Wednesday, are long, far-reaching, and complicated. But perhaps the most consequential passage in the two combined orders is a single sentence: "The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

That is the heart of Trump's immigration strategy. "We do not need new laws," the president said at the Department of Homeland Security Wednesday. "We will work within the existing system and framework."

Trump's proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border dominated coverage of the two executive orders. But the orders do much, much more than that — or at least they start the process of doing much, much more. For those who follow immigration closely, the Trump orders contain several critical provisions. Among them:

1) End "catch and release." In the Obama years, as thousands of people, mostly from Central America, crossed the Mexican border illegally — and made no effort to escape apprehension, asking for a "permiso" to stay — the border authorities would briefly detain them, give them a date to show up in court, and let them go. The practice was known as "catch and release." It did not take a rocket scientist to predict that most, now safely inside the U.S., would not show up for court. With family units who arrived in that fashion, immigration court statistics gathered by the Center for Immigration Studies (a group which favors tighter immigration restrictions), reveal that 84 percent do not show up in court.

Under Trump's new directive, the Department of Homeland Security will now detain those illegal crossers and handle their cases on the spot. "The Secretary [of DHS] shall immediately take all appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law," the order on border enforcement says, "pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the country to the extent permitted by law."

"They will be setting up detention facilities and have asylum officers and immigration judges on hand to deal with these cases right away, instead of releasing them into the country to disappear, or claim a work permit," notes the Center for Immigration Studies's Jessica Vaughan.

2) Put pressure on "sanctuary cities." Trump spoke often during the campaign about cities and counties that openly defy federal immigration law. He frequently cited the case of Kate Steinle, the young woman murdered in San Francisco in 2015 by a criminal illegal immigrant who had been convicted of multiple felonies and deported multiple times, yet was still protected from another deportation by local officials enforcing San Francisco's sanctuary policy.

"Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States," the Trump order on interior enforcement says. The order would give the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to determine "that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with [federal law] are not eligible to receive federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the [DHS] Secretary."

Some leaders of sanctuary cities are already promising to fight the federal government. But some will likely yield to federal pressure — a remarkable change from the Obama years.

3) Speed deportations. Both the Obama administration and now Trump said they want to remove illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. But Obama waited until the immigrant in question had been convicted before even beginning what could be a lengthy removal process. The Trump interior enforcement order allows removal paperwork to begin at the time an illegal immigrant is charged, on the reasonable assumption that a person who is in the United States illegally to begin with, and is then charged with at least one additional crime, does not have a right to stay in the country indefinitely.

4) Follow the law in deporting "removable" illegal immigrants. "We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement," the order on interior enforcement says, referring to illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes, and in some cases deported multiple times, only to return to commit more crimes and endanger local communities. "I hereby direct agencies to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.

I think it's very important that he is telling DHS officers in all three enforcement agencies that they will again have the discretion to enforce the law as written," says Vaughan, "and not be limited by arbitrary prioritization policies that have been so disastrous for public safety and that have encouraged more illegal immigration."

President Trump in the Executive Order on Immigration proposes to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. Of course, many of those cities, counties and states as shown in the following map immediately took offense.

Mexican Immigration Policy

It is interesting to look at the immigration policies of Mexico.  However, the Mexican government becomes unhinged and combative when the U.S. begins to adopt some of those same policies.

The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and legal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

  • in the country legally;
    have the means to sustain themselves economically;
    not destined to be burdens on society;
    of economic and social benefit to society;
    of good character and have no criminal records; and
    contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

  • immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
    foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
    foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
    foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
    foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
    those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense.

Actually, the Mexican government does disagree if the United States wants to implement the provisions contained in the Mexican law.


The definition of anarchy is simply where there is a lack of obedience to the law. It often appears in either political and/or social disorder due to the lack of governmental control.

Cities, counties and states which have allowed sanctuary areas to exist are creating anarchy.

For political gain, both the Republican and Democratic parties have used non-enforcement of the immigration laws and amnesty for illegal immigrants as a way to garner votes.

The politicians have simply shrugged their shoulders at violations of the immigration laws. The continued inability to enforce the law has led to the current situation where city, county, and states openly challenge the federal government on its enforcement of immigration laws.

Of course, by not providing swift adjudication of violations, the federal government is also fostering along with the city, county and state officials a state of anarchy.

The solution to anarchy is simply to enforce the law shown below and to arrest the politicians and their representatives at all levels for failure to enforce immigration laws.


 Using the above law to "perp walk a few prominent politicians" should set "anarchy" back a few years as well as stopping "sanctuary" cities from spreading.

Of course, the citizens of the United States of America always have the option of changing the law ... and in a constitutional republic, that is done by a vote in Congress.

If sanctuary cities are allowed to exist, the constitutional republic is doomed as anarchy spreads!

 But then - 'Tis Only My Opinion!

Fred Richards
January 28, 2017


Corruptisima republica plurimae leges. [The more corrupt a republic, the more laws.] -- Tacitus, Annals III 27

'Tis only My Opinion! Archive Menu, click here.

This issue of 'Tis Only My Opinion was copyrighted by Strategic Investing in 2017.
All rights reserved. Quotation with attribution is encouraged.
'Tis Only My Opinion is intended to provoke thinking, then dialogue among our readers.