BRUCE BARTON

Bush to Give Away America's Birthright? What Will be the Unintended Consequences of Immigration?

Next week, President Bush will offer to Vicente Fox the entire labor market of America to Mexican immigrants. On Jan. 12, 2004, all Americans are being asked to show their displeasure by not making any purchases on that day. In other words, boycott Bush to get his attention. Can we afford to continue to absorb wave after wave of poor uneducated persons with few skills other then the sweat of their backs? How long will it be before they learn the benefits of state sponsored welfare and bankrupt our states?

In my last column, I discussed the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Next week, President Bush will present his immigration "reform" to the Summit of the Americas without a single American casting a vote on the matter.

The following quote from the Washington Post will illustrate how President Bush is listening to the 70 percent of Americans who wish to take a breather from the rampant wave of immigration:

CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan. 3 -- President Bush will propose protections for the Social Security taxes paid by the workers who would come into the country under massive changes to immigration laws he plans to announce on Wednesday, Republican officials said Saturday.  Bush's plan would make it possible for such workers from Mexico and perhaps other countries to collect retirement benefits without being penalized by their home countries for the years they spent working in the United States, the officials said. 

Immigration has changed the American landscape for better or worse for the past two centuries.  Immigration has also been used as a tool for change; intentionally and with intent of purpose by those in power.  

The following document from the pages of history contains pointed questions that the reader is invited to consider. The issues may have changed, but the tactics remain the same.  I have included comment by this author to guide the reader in seeing the questions I ask. 

Background to the Sovereignty of the Several States Over a National Government 

A Federal system of a Republic is what was created by the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- not a centralized national government as we've come to know. Ours was a system not envisioned to allow the chief executive to unilaterally provide open immigration and social welfare benefits to all non-Americans. This is exactly what chief executives for decades have done, now specifically George Bush will be doing this next week.

From our history lesson we continue, with excerpts from a speech by Jefferson Davis at the The Provisional Congress Of The Confederate States of America, in Montgomery, Ala., April 29, 1861:

"It was by the delegates chosen by the several States under the resolution just quoted that the Constitution of the United States was framed in 1787 and submitted to the several States for ratification."

"I have italicized certain words in the quotations just made for the purpose of attracting attention  to the singular and marked caution with which the States endeavored in every possible form to exclude the idea that the separate and independent sovereignty of each State was merged into one common government and nation, and the earnest desire they evinced to impress on the Constitution its true character -- that of a compact between independent States."

"The Constitution of 1787, having, however, omitted the clause already recited from the  Articles of Confederation, which provided in explicit terms that each State retained its sovereignty and independence, some alarm was felt in the States, when invited to ratify the Constitution, lest this omission should be construed into an abandonment of their cherished principle, and they refused to be satisfied until amendments were added to the Constitution placing beyond any pretense of doubt the reservation by the States of all their sovereign rights and powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution."
 
"Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression, has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs."

The New Slavery?

Consider this question: What happened to all the slaves owned by individuals in Northern states following the prohibition of slavery in each of their respective states in the mid-19th century?  Slavery was banned not by a single act of Congress, but state by state as it became politically correct policy. This author does not condone the institution of slavery, but uses the issue to illustrate how social changes were effected at the time.

But slavery is important to the immigration issue. Consider the following. The slaves of earlier centuries were transported by inhumane men who saw only the profits of their human cargo. Today's "coyote" transports their human cargo across the US border with similar regards. To whom flow the profits?

The slaves of the 18th and 19th centuries were used to provide cheap labor that couldn't (or wouldn't) be provided by the existing population of North America (including both northern and southern states). President Bush proposes to put American jobs on a Labor Department website and bid out the jobs not acceptable to U.S. workers to this cheap labor source. In Slave America, labor was put on the auction block in much the same way. And who are the beneficiaries of today's cheap labor? 

In 19th century America, forced immigrants (slaves) were used to expand the economic output of the country. Today, many look to the migrant from South and Central America to perform the same task. However, immigration has always brought with it unintended consequences as well.

The slaves of an earlier America had their physical needs taken care of by the plantation owners and were thereby dependent on them for generations.  The cheap illegal immigrant labor of the 21st century has its physical needs provided for by Uncle Sam's welfare plantation. And, just as the plantation owners had their overseer to keep the slaves compliant, today's politically correct environment provides ample volunteers for that same job. Who are these? Just look in any newspaper for mention of the "leaders of the Hispanic community" who purport to speak for their people. There are, after all, benefits to being the leader of some minority group.  

It may be that the only difference other than the era of American history and mindset of the population was that one population of cheap labor was brought here against their will -- this new one is enticed here by the promise of a better life.

Documents show that the majority of slaves owned in Northern states were sold to Southern interests in the years prior to the Civil War.  Some, it is noted, were given their freedom. It must also be added here that in the two decades prior to the Civil War the Northern states embarked on a program of massive immigration from Ireland and Europe, thus altering the representation of the Northern states in the Congress.

Our history lesson continues, courtesy of Jefferson Davis:

"The climate and soil of the Northern States soon proved unpropitious to the continuance of slave labor, whilst the converse was the case at the South. Under the unrestricted free intercourse between the two sections, the Northern states consulted their own interests by selling their slaves to the South and prohibiting slavery within their limits. The South were willing purchasers of a property suitable to their wants, and paid the price of acquisition without harboring a suspicion that their quiet possession was to be disturbed by those who were inhibited not only by want of constitutional authority, but by good faith as vendors, from disquieting a title emanating from themselves." 

Note here the descriptions of these organizations the similarity to the groups of today advocating open immigration, marital rights for homosexuals, environmental groups, civil rights groups. The specific text is called out for your consideration here.

"Fanatical organizations, supplied with money by voluntary subscriptions, were assiduously engaged in exciting amongst the slaves (substitute here the special interest group of your selection) a spirit of discontent and revolt; means were furnished for their escape from their owners, and agents secretly employed to entice them to abscond; the constitutional provisions for their rendition to their owners was first evaded, then openly denounced as a violation of conscientious obligation and religious duty; men were taught that it was a merit to elude, disobey, and violently oppose the execution of the laws enacted to secure the performance of the promise contained in the constitutional compact; the dogmas of these voluntary organizations soon obtained control of the legislatures of many of the Northern states, and laws were passed providing for the punishment, by ruinous fines and long- continued imprisonment in jails and penitentiaries, of citizens of the Southern states who should dare to ask aid of the officers of the law for the recovery of their property." Does this sound like property owners along the U.S./Mexican border today? What other examples of this can you observe in America today?

"Emboldened by success, the theater of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress; Senators and Representatives were sent to the common councils of the nations (today that would be the United Nations), whose chief title to this distinction consisted in the display of a spirit of ultra fanaticism, and whose business was not "to promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquility," but to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister States by violent denunciation of their institutions; the transaction of public affairs was impeded by repeated efforts to usurp powers not delegated by the Constitution." What divisions are we witness to in our country today?

When you read the following passage, disregard the slavery issue; consider the politically correct issues at the center of public debate today. For example, the state by state passage of various politically correct issues today, such as drivers licenses for illegal aliens, or free tuition at a state colleges and universities for the children of illegal immigrants.

"Finally a great party (this would be the Republican Party) was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which (fill in the PC issue here) should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States."

"In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well- established, and so necessary for self- preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions. They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union."

The issues may have changed, but are they important?  Consider the impact of the massive immigration from 1840 to 1860's and the changes to the fabric of American society. Then look at the social upheaval following the massive immigration from 1890 to 1920's of persons from Eastern Europe and the impact made on the American landscape in the decades of the later 20th Century. Lastly, consider what upheaval the massive immigration waves we are experiencing over the past two decades of peoples from Mexico and Central America will visit to our society.

George Bush is proposing the most sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy in the past 50 years. Our borders will be opened to millions of more immigrants --  each bringing their own vision of America. What will America be for your children and grandchildren after we're gone? What will America be for her posterity?

Bruce Barton's background includes experience in economic development, energy policy, politics and higher education. He previously served as the Business Department chair of the American Samoa Community College in Pago Pago. A resident of Safford, Bruce and his wife Brenda, (a fifth-generation Arizonan) hold a passion for the land and the heritage which is America.  See Bruce's website at: www.azbartons.org. He can be contacted at:  borders-n-immigration@azbartons.org.

Bruce Barton's Archives

An Unanswered Letter from a 'Bush Ape'

Election ‘04: The Phantom Menace?

Reflections on Homeland Security & the Border

Can we Protect Arizona Now? Or is it too late?

A 'European Union' Model for the Americas or a New Homeland Called Aztlan?