Refuting the Myth of "No Such Thing as Illegal Immigration": An Iranian-American Perspective
By Bobby Darvish – darvishintelligence.blogspot.com
As an Iranian-American who once fled a country plagued by oppressive policies and now celebrates the freedoms offered by the United States, I feel compelled to address the argument that there is no such thing as "illegal immigration" in America. The notion that immigration control is unconstitutional misinterprets both the historical context and the core intent of the U.S. Constitution.
The United States, as a sovereign nation, has every right and responsibility to regulate who enters its borders. To imply otherwise is to ignore both the historical foundations of immigration law and the practical necessity of national sovereignty.
The Constitutional Foundation of Immigration Control
The claim that immigration regulation is unconstitutional rests on a misunderstanding of the Constitution’s enumerated powers. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress broad powers related to "the general welfare" and "to provide for the common defense." Immigration, particularly as it pertains to national security and public order, falls well within these powers. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation repeatedly, recognizing that immigration is a matter of both national security and public welfare.
While it is true that Congress was not given an explicit power over "immigration" in the early years of the Republic, the federal government’s power to regulate naturalization and the protection of national security serve as constitutional bases for immigration law. The assertion that immigration laws did not exist until 1875 ignores the natural evolution of federal responsibilities in response to the nation’s growth and changing circumstances.
Historical Context: The Evolution of Immigration Law
The first formal immigration restrictions emerged in the late 19th century, but this was not because the Constitution prohibited immigration control. Early America had minimal need for complex immigration laws, given its expansive frontiers and smaller population. By the 1870s, however, increased immigration and industrialization highlighted the need for regulation. The 1875 Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 were passed in response to social, economic, and security concerns. The notion that these laws marked an "overreach" is a misreading of their context; they were enacted to address emerging issues of national security, labor stability, and public order.
In fact, even earlier, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — though controversial — indicate that the Founders were aware of the need to control entry into the country, especially in times of potential conflict. John Adams’ choice to address concerns through naturalization laws does not imply that immigration control was seen as unconstitutional, but rather that it was a less developed area of federal law at that time.
National Security and Sovereignty
As a conservative, I hold that America, like any other sovereign nation, has a duty to protect its citizens and secure its borders. The argument for "free movement" without limits on immigration may sound idealistic, but it ignores the reality that unchecked migration can strain resources, affect national security, and impact social stability. Every country, including those from which immigrants come, regulates its borders. It is not "anti-American" or "anti-Constitution" to enforce immigration laws; rather, it is an essential part of safeguarding the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination.
Federalism and Immigration Law
The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment delegates powers not expressly given to the federal government to the states or the people. However, immigration control is not merely a state issue. The movement of individuals across national borders affects the entire country, impacting everything from national security to economic policies. In fact, in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), the Supreme Court recognized the federal government’s authority to exclude aliens, citing the “plenary power doctrine.” The Court argued that regulating immigration is fundamental to a nation’s survival and sovereignty.
Moreover, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that immigration regulation is primarily a federal responsibility, further establishing that the Constitution allows for federal oversight of immigration matters.
Conclusion: Preserving American Identity and Stability
The argument against "illegal immigration" is not about xenophobia or restrictionism. It is about maintaining a system that allows the United States to control its borders, protect its citizens, and preserve the national identity that makes this country a beacon of hope and opportunity. As an ex-Muslim and an Iranian-American Christian conservative, I value the freedoms and security that America offers — freedoms that are secured through laws and borders. Those who advocate for unrestrained immigration overlook the role that lawful entry plays in preserving these freedoms for future generations.
Citations:
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Available at: https://constitution.congress.gov/
- Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/130/581/
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). Available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182
No comments:
Post a Comment