There are some who still deny that we have a crisis on our southern border. That is delusional. There are those who tend to assert that the numbers of people seeking illegal entry into the United States is negligible. Some have even attempted to make light of the situation, such as a former U.S. President. I believe it is time to cast aside emotions and ideological agendas and look at the situation with illegal immigration in America objectively.

First, we must decide whether we are indeed a sovereign nation, with recognizable borders and abide by a rule of law. There are only two responses to this inquiry: yes, or no. Those who do not believe that America is a sovereign nation and prefer open borders affirmatively answer the previously stated question. If that is their position, then there is no need for a debate or discussion with them. These are people that firmly believe that anyone can just relocate anywhere that they want, regardless of standing law. As a matter of fact, these individuals do not believe in the rule of law when it comes to this issue. Hence why these individuals do not believe that there should be a law enforcement agency responsible for upholding and enforcing the laws that we have.

Yes, we can say that America is a nation of immigrants, but we must caveat that by saying we are a nation of legal immigrants. If we now believe that the United States is just a place to walk into, or become a citizen because of a lottery, we lose the very essence of who we are.

When it comes to our immigration law, how very interesting that a federal judge would say that anyone can enter America anywhere? Last time I checked, there were authorized ports of entry into America, land, sea, and air ports of entry. Consider that when you are flying into the United States of America from a foreign country, you must enter through an approved port of entry. You must go through the proper checkpoints, citizen or not – that is the law – and it is how we control access to our nation. When a federal judge decides that anywhere can be considered a port of entry into the United States, then how do we control access to our nation? How do we maintain our national sovereignty? According to this judge, crossing the Rio Grande into America is no different from landing in Dallas-Ft. Worth airport. I guess that the airport in Tyler Texas is now a port of entry according to this judge.

No, I am not a lawyer, nor a judge, but this decision seems rather nonsensical to me.

I hear many people talking about the word “asylum,” so I figured I would do the simple thing and look up the definition. Asylum is defined as “the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.” Asylum also has another meaning, “an institution offering shelter and support to people who are mentally ill.”

Hmm, I tend to believe that leaving your own country because you do not like it does not fit into the textbook definition of asylum or seeking it. Saying that you want to find a better job, well, that does not make you a politically oppressed person in your home country. Sure, there were those who left their native lands all across Europe coming to America to seek better opportunities, but they came here legally and submitted themselves to our rule of law. And in some cases, they were refused entry. It’s funny how there are those people who never let the words “illegal” immigration slip from their lips. They will manufacture emotional language such as “undocumented workers” to make the case more palatable. I would offer that the same people would call a drug dealer an “undocumented pharmacist.”

We are told that people are fleeing their home countries due to gangs and violence. Well, if that is the case, then there are plenty of people in inner cities all over America who need to seek asylum. Chicago comes to mind – a city controlled by progressive, socialist Democrats who have declared the city a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants. Could the true citizens of Chicago claim political oppression?

I think that those who are declaring sanctuary states and cities here in America, in opposition to our rule of law, fit the second definition of asylum.

And why is it that we have supposed “immigration” lawyers coaching people how to manipulate our system of immigration law, and redefine the word “asylum”? Should these legal advisers be considered as undermining our rule of law? Should there be some consequences, ramifications, for their very disconcerting efforts?

And another point on asylum: if you are indeed fleeing a politically oppressive regime in your home country, then why not seek asylum in the first country of entry? If your condition is so very dire, then why not seek help wherever it comes? I find it very perplexing when folks storm the border of one country, that offered asylum, and transit through it to get to another.

I must ask a question: why was it that during the Obama administration, we saw numbers of Christians seeking to flee ISIS-controlled areas not being granted asylum in America. If we want to use a textbook definition of asylum, and refugees, there was no better example, and yet the Obama administration closed the door to many Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Yazidis.

Understand, I am a very compassionate fella, but I am also one who took an oath to our rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. When I see healthy, single military-aged males marching towards our border, I do not see political refugees. Why not, as we saw in Europe, stay in your own country and seek to make a difference – or as the left likes to say, “change.” I mean, if socialism is so great, why aren’t these migrants walking towards Venezuela, or even trying to catch a boat to Cuba?

We are a nation of laws, first and foremost. The word asylum is not just some word to be used to advantage anyone’s ideological agenda. America has always dispatched its sons and daughters to do as the U.S. Army Special Forces motto says, “De Oppresso Liber,” to liberate the oppressed. Folks marching towards our border waving the flags of the country that supposedly has oppressed them is confusing.

What is asylum? It is not what these “migrants” are seeking. What we should demand is respect for our nation.

This column was originally published at CNSNews.

The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.

© 2024 Citizens Commission on National Security

© 2024 Citizens Commission on National Security