Immigration Lines of Defense

An illegal immigrant could be a good person, or a criminal, or worse - an enemy.

Good people generally are willing to jump through the legal hoops to enter the country but sometimes the red tape takes too long and they really need to escape whatever situation they're in so they enter illegally. But even then I think they can ask for asylum if their trouble is political and then they'll be allowed to stay. 

A criminal typically crosses the border to escape the authorities in another country or to smuggle things into this country. I don't think anyone has a moral problem with catching and deporting criminals who are here illegally.

An enemy typically crosses the border in order to attack the United States. Some of our enemies have entered legally in the past so that's frustrating but some of them have entered illegally. I don't think anyone has a moral problem with catching enemies of the United States.  No one can agree on what to do with them once they are caught, though.  Should they be imprisoned? Deported? Executed? 

If we can agree that we should at least try to catch illegal immigrants so we can decide what to do with them, instead of letting them run free and possibly causing havoc in our country...

Then our first line of defense is the national border. The international terminal at some airports is part of our national border. 

Our second line of defense is business. Businesses that check the identity of their customers restrict the movement of illegal immigrants.

I'm not saying that every business must check the identity of its customers.  I am saying that checking the identity of customers has benefits. 

And I think it's ridiculous that California has a law that prohibits landlords from checking the immigration status of their tenants (or applicants).  Is the point of that law to prevent discrimination?  Oops!  

That law actually provides freedom to illegal immigrants while restricting the freedom of citizens. In California, an illegal immigrant could actually use the legal system to sue a landlord and win.  Do you understand what I'm saying?  They don't get deported!  Our government allows them to be here and to participate! 

Of course we still have the famous Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that selectively applies the immigration laws.  Well, they claim they apply the immigration laws uniformly but obviously there is a huge discord in our intentions when other branches or levels of government ignore the same laws.  

I think that if the United States has a law, then it must be integrated into everything we do. If only certain people are allowed to be here, and that's a federal law, then citizens ought to be allowed to ask each other for identification. I'm not saying to require it, as that would be a burden on those who don't care. And I'm not saying to require reporting it, although that could be another law. 

A little analogy. We have a law that minors are not allowed to drink alcohol -- what if the government prohibited people from asking each other's age before serving alcohol, and created a government agency specifically for the purpose of preventing under-age drinking, which frequents elementary schools and churches but ignores the rest of the country?? 

Stolen Valor Act

I just read a disturbing article at military.com, saying that two men who were convicted of lying about military awards (they were never in the military and one said publicly he is an ex-Marine and got the Medal of Honor) are appealing on the grounds of free speech...


It says "Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself." and then it says "One of the men... had just been elected... when he said at a public meeting that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor" We must assume that every lie that is told DOES have a financial benefit. Lying about being a war hero at a public meeting might increase his influence over the people present. Without the lie, that increased influence would have cost him something... more time and possibly more money spent trying to acquire it. How do we know he wasn't lying all along to people who elected him? We don't, and since he's a proven liar, we must assume that he got elected with the help of his lies. Without the lies, getting elected would have cost him more... time and money.  


We need to keep the Stolen Valor Act. The amendment for free speech was intended to protect people's right to protest the government peacefully - it was never intended for protecting people's right to fame and benefits they don't deserve.


Bragging of fake medals hurts people the same way as writing bad checks... It's basically counterfeit honor. These posers are defrauding people who are looking for the real thing. It doesn't need to be financial in order to be wrong!! Think of the girl who would fall in love with a hero but falls for a lying scumbag instead. Ooops!! He didn't ask her for money so no harm done, right? But what amount would he have needed to spend on a hooker if he wasn't free to lie about his status?  


Bragging about fake medals is wrong the same way that lying about your grades in a college application is wrong. But for some reason, we think it's ok for colleges to verify grades. When colleges find out a man is a lying scumbag their punishment is to not admit him (or expel him if they find out later). When society finds out he's a lying scumbag, it's too late because he's already in, and we have an ongoing aversion to expelling undesirable people from society so we need to have a different punishment. I think community service and fines is just fine.  


An abundance of counterfeits forces people with the real thing to spend more time and money proving they are legitimate (see other comments about VA process that are spot-on). So these posers ARE hurting the real winners of honors and they're also hurting everyone who believes their lies. A punishment is deserved. Lying about military honors must NOT be protected speech, just like lying about being a police officer isn't protected speech.


It's so infuriating to consider even the possibility that some judge would rule that the First Amendment protects these posers.


We have the Constitution and the Amendments because of the Army that George Washington led. The same man also served in a civil capacity as our first president. Does anyone think that if this issue were raised during Washington's presidency it would have even a snowball's chance of being protected as free speech? Hell no!! 


The First Amendment doesn't protect these posers, just like the Second Amendment doesn't protect people convicted of violent crimes. These rights are to protect people from oppression by the government, not to protect criminals from justice.