The Government and Border Security

First, I should probably begin with a disclaimer.  I refer to myself more and more as a Libertarian, but I do not adhere to every tenet.  One of the areas I apparently depart with many Libertarians on is borders.  I do not believe in pure "open boarders," and I guess I should explain why.

The Preamble to the Constitution establishes that the people ordained our system of government to, among other things, "provide for the common defence [sp]."  From the Federalist Papers, we know that the Founders believed that a stronger central government was more capable of handling this responsibility than a weak confederation of states.  That is one of the many reasons they advocated the people giving up a portion of their liberty for the stronger Constitution over the weaker Articles.

A government cannot defend those who have granted it its authority (the people via the consent of the governed) without first delineating and securing the boundaries of the territory it plans to defend (that territory claimed by the people for their exclusive use).  For the government, this means not only keeping out invading armies, but also ensuring that those who enter from without have been properly vetted for the protection of those within.

Our world today is a global one, there is no denying it.  People will come to the United States to visit, to work, to learn, and to live.  We cannot completely shut off our borders, and I am not advocating that.  But despite our global world, it is a dereliction of duty by the government (upon which we have bestowed power) to fail to provide for rigorous checks at the borders.

I understand that many of those who seek to enter are seeking opportunities they cannot find in their native lands.  I do not propose denying them those opportunities.  I believe that opportunity is what brought many of our relatives to America.  I do, however, propose ensuring that all who wish to enter, and especially all who wish to make a life here permanently, are not a danger to the people of the United States.

I will also not deny that our current immigration system is broken, and in need of reform.  Those we have elected seem to have no real interest in fixing it, other than as a political talking point for votes.  Many factors play in to that, from misguided liberal beliefs to perceived capitalistic needs.  But how can we demand that the government protect us (a misguided demand, but one for another rant) and still cry that attempts to secure borders are racist.

Personally, I don't care if the illegal alien is Mexican or Irish, Iraqi or Italian.  There are rules.  You may not like them, but they are there, and your legal options are to obey them or change them.  Ignoring them because you don't like them is illegal.  That is not a question, it is a statement.  Stop acting shocked that a criminal got arrested.

So what do we need to do?  Well, we probably need to take a serious look at our system for allowing in guest workers.  This could have many positive benefits, including protecting those that come here to work, instead of forcing them into the shadows where they can be exploited.  There is obviously a demand signal for their labor, and there is obviously a labor force willing to fill it.  There is also obviously a serious gap between the demand signal and the legal way of filling that signal.  There should also be a way for a guest worker to apply for citizenship.  There is absolutely no reason why a wage level guest worker should have less of a chance at the American dream than a white collar worker from an immigration standpoint, PROVIDED they have followed the rules to come here.  We also need to take a look at the citizenship process altogether.

We need a way to balance our security with our economic, growth, and humanitarian desires.  This will demand a top to bottom re-evaluation of our immigration system, and it needs to be predicated on the assumption that our elected leaders care about our borders, and will enforce the laws that we establish to govern them.

Guns Won't Solve the Problem

Across the country, Second Amendment rights are on the march.  While the anti-Second Amendment (anti-2A) crowd is fighting it tooth and nail, gradually more and more Americans are realizing that their personal security is their responsibility, and no one else can keep them safe.  The anti-2A crowd loves their emotional arguments, and one I frequently hear is "Guns won't solve the problem," usually in reference to a murder or active shooter situation.  Well, they're right, but it doesn't matter, because they're making the wrong argument.

When they try to make the argument that guns won't solve the problem, they are making a high level argument - they're saying that one particular tool won't solve the overall problems of murder, rape, robbery, etc, or the specter of homegrown extremists or active shooters.  And they are correct.  These problems are complex, with many underlying factors - poverty, affluence, lack of a sense of purpose, greed, hunger for power, a need to belong, mental illness - and to believe that the introduction of a single tool is going to address all those underlying issues is ludicrous.  So, in a sense they are correct - more guns won't solve the high level problem.

Here's the thing - guns aren't supposed to solve the high level problem.  In the hands of a properly trained citizen, guns are a tool used to defend against a low level problem - the immediate act of violence.  I don't carry my Glock to prevent crime in California, or even in the next town over; I carry it to prevent an attack against the innocents in my immediate vicinity.  A gun won't solve the problems and evil choices that lead an individual to attempt a rape or murder someone in the course of a robbery.  However, along with a proper mindset and skillset, a gun can be used to stop the attempted rape or murder, leaving the victim alive and free to make the impact on the world they were born for.

It's important for responsible citizens to understand this fact, not just because it's useful in an argument, but because we all need to realize that guns are not a "one size fits all" solution.  A gun is a tool that must be coupled with a proper mindset and skillset to be effective in defending the innocent.  In fact, in a best case scenario the gun will never enter the equation - the citizen will recognize and avoid the trouble in the first place, or the police will be immediately available to assist the victim and arrest the perpetrator.  But we must realize that Hope - as shiny as it looks - is not a plan.  That is why we carry, and why we fight for the right to do so.  Not because we are under any illusions that we are solving the very real high level issues, but because we realize that there are people who have made a choice to do evil, they have no qualms about it, and the only thing between them and the innocent are good men and women who have made the choice that evil will not win the day.

Choose right, train hard, live free.