Every day the wave of immigrant travel a little farther through Mexico towards America. In reality Mexico does not choose to send them back by force so they continue coming. It is obvious that someone is paying the vehicles owners to transport them toward America. Those that pay for the caravan have alliterative motives. On is to change the demographics of America in hopes to make the nation's government from one party, through voting by those immigrants, enclaves from other nations pretending to be US citizens.
Those in favor of the immigrants keep saying “this is a nation of immigrants!” True enough the Spanish brought to America more illnesses then they took back to Europe, Asia, and Africa. The population when the pilgrims arrive was about half due to the germs brought from Spain. So the pilgrims met less resistance. The first few years they ran the colony as a cooperative with common ownership and community responsibility. Famine ended most of their lives. They reached a little farther into the Bible and discovered that the promise land was divided up into individual land holding by need and then additional land had to be earned. Private property rights governed the pilgrims, or as Thomas Jefferson put it, “pursuit of happiness.” Individuals were not owed happiness by the state.
The success of the pilgrim spread through Europe and led to many risking life and limb to venture across the ocean to America with knowing that the colony and then the United States did not own them happiness. They gave them the opportunity to pursue happiness, property earned often by the sweet of their own effort, the knowledge and skill they possessed, and for a few capital from Europe. Thus “this is a nation of immigrants!”
Dr. Milton Friedman an Nobel recipient and author of many books and articles including 'Free to Choose' says this to an audience, “You had a flood of immigrants, millions of them, coming to this country. What brought them here? It was the hope for a better life for them and their children. And, in the main, they succeeded. It is hard to find any century in history, in which so large a number of people experience so great an improvement in the conditions of their life, in the opportunities open to them, as in the period of the 19th and early 20th century.”
The immigrants left Europe with its class structure and regulations to maintain that structure. Franklin as an envoy spent years in England trying to discuss the problems of the colonies and finally left to join the revolution. He realized that the colonist were a lower class and that they were bared from ever changing class to higher ones. They were ruled by regulations to insure the stayed in their classes.
What the immigrants found is a nation with economic classes but little if any barriers preventing them from changing class. Thus a nation with significantly less regulations. Friedman mentions how regulations strangle the ability of people to do good things. He observed:
“I’ve always been amused by a kind of a paradox. Suppose you go around and ask people: ‘The United States before 1914, as you know, had completely free immigration. Anybody could get in a boat and come to these shores and if landed at Ellis Island he was an immigrant. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?'” [Ellis Island ~ 1880 with the growth of local welfare sent those that would end up on welfare back to the native nation. 1914 progressive, modern liberals, and socialist (progression of names) started state and national welfare programs.]
You will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’
What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not?
Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
Dr. Friedman goes on to explain: If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere.
And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit.
But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that
situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values.
Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican [Americas] immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the
illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.”
The immigrants like the Irish when they left, they left never expecting to return and most did not. They were fully committed and committed to survive thus committed to blend into the American society, the melting pot. They became Americans because they had no where to return to.
This is not the case for the present wave of immigrants since after WWII. Many come here for economic opportunity and like the British colonist and other European colonist they never broke the ties or citizenship with their native country. (WB participants have complained about these practices of the colonizing nations.) American by necessity was not the last and only option. America was not a melting pot so they created enclaves of the home nation, as the colonialist had done where the laws of the native country and religion ruled despite conflicting with the nations laws and culture. The problem of the Muslim wave into Europe is the fact that they have brought the culture and religious laws and class distinctions with them and they differ from there their feet reside. They do not keep those differences only within the enclave, nor did the colonist. Such enclave can be consider hostile to the nation and the president is authorized by the Constitution to defend the nation from external and internal threats.
The constitution give congress the exclusive power to regulate immigration and the president specific powers to act in the interest of the safety and security of the nation, to defined. Thus a President and in the past presidents have acted to limit or prevent immigrates from entering the nation in defense of the nation. Congress has the power to present a bill and if necessary to over-ride a VETO that directs the President to it's bidding.
Voting is reserved for citizens and the 14th amendment and subsequent case law that applies to immigrant without permission by congress to be in America as permanent resistances is clear. They do not have the right to vote. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) John Elk, a Winnebago Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states"; but "they were alien nations, distinct political communities", with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.
Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Thus the arguments in Florida and Arizona to count votes when illegal immigrant votes have been mixed by accident or on purpose with citizen ballot is creating fraud. In all case the public officials have committed criminal act on purpose or by incompetency. I believe election laws do not separate the two.