Holland Sentinel August 4, 2014
Bob AshbyMY VIEW (Bob Ashby)

A false moral narrative is being propagated about illegal child invasion.
There is a crisis at the U.S.-Mexican border, but it is not new. Since 2012, the flow of unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. has steadily mushroomed.

In 2011, approximately 6,000 parentless minors crossed over our southern border. By the close of this year, it will be more than 90,000.

Over and above that, our own government is distributing these chil­dren and young adults throughout the states without prior notice or coordination. (It takes coordination by our Federal government once they arrive at the border. The State governors know nothing about it. They just “show up” in their states.-jh

The crisis has been predictably in process for years. It began to mush­room after President Obama initiated legisla­tion through unilateral executive order for por­tions of the DREAM Act and after Eric Holder announced to the world the United States would no longer enforce selected immigration laws under certain circumstances.

These and other events such as Third-World lawlessness and anemic border enforcement has caused Central and South America to understand the opportunity. In their view, their near northern neighbor hoards almost limitless resources and has opened its arms to any who are able to claim hardship.

In the past, illegal immigrants have been mostly from Mexico itself.

In the present crisis, they are overwhelmingly from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

The cry from the left has been this invasion of Third World refugees are children fleeing from con­flict and persecution in their countries of origin.

Political progressives and ideological leftist want us to be believe children from Central and South America are tracking across 1,800 miles of rugged terrain, underdeveloped infra­structure and lawless Mexican states all the while managing to sustain themselves with food, water and shelter. After that, they are managing to appear on our border in mass on their own.

The reality is much different. As one border security expert has writ­ten, it takes bureaucratic organization and almost military precision to coordinate and execute such an operation.[Same thing with our government putting them on buses and sending them around the country. .-jh] It takes, from the mother country, at the minimum, knowledge of and support for the move. In the target country, it takes a con­certed effort of conscience apathy if not collusion with the countries of origin to accomplish the mission.

It should go without saying that all of these dynamics are the making of a disaster. The impact upon social services, the education system, employment, the health care system and public health itself could be debilitating. From a legal point of view, this situ­ation should cause any American to have grave concerns. There can be no doubt that if we do not have the will to exercise existing law in the face of foreign pressure we cannot claim to have the will to preserve law and order within our own borders.

But outside of the political, cultural and economic threats is the moral issue. The moral question is being skill­fully manipulated by non-conservatives. They have propagated the view that because America is a benevolent country, if not still mostly evil, she has a moral obligation to the lost and suffer­ing. It is true as far as it goes. But it is a grave mistake if not a purpose­ful distortion to apply that argument to any and every circumstance.

The question of moral­ity is not just one of the questions, it is the most important question. The problem is that in Amer­ica we have developed two competing ethical systems. One subscribes to the pragmatic cir­cumstantial evolution of values. The other side remains loyal to funda­mental changeless moral law. In the final analysis, both systems cannot work simultaneously. In the end one of them has to prevail. It is also important to remember that what a people do as a nation, what their obligations are to the world is not the same as what individual Americans must choose to live by. For example, for the individual, the great­est commandment of God is to love Him and then love those around them to the point of confron­tation or even sacrifice.

Outside of the nation of Israel, there is no such national commandment.

The present immigration crisis begs for differentiat­ing between personal and national righteousness.

The government of the United States has no divine commandment to love even its own citizens let alone those of other nations, especially to the point of dissolution. It is individuals that are commanded to love other individuals to the point of sacrifice. The obligation of our government is first and foremost the promo­tion of righteousness, justice and security for her citizens. By divine ordi­nation, governments are commissioned to impose justice and righteous­ness over those under its care. Individuals do not share that civil authority.

National governments have been given author­ity to demand obedience of those under their care, individuals have no such authority. Christians are commanded to love even their enemies and to care for the weak.

America has no such obligation to the rest of the world. The obligation of Washington, D.C., is to the safety, security and well-being of Americans.

As hard as it is to accept, it is individuals who bear the responsibly for the suffering of the world.

So what of the children of our southern border?

What is our national obligation? The sad fact of reality is that in order for our leadership to fulfill its primary obligations to those under its charge, it must first meet its responsibilities at home.

By definition it is both illegal and immoral to weaken our own people or threaten the welfare of our own nation in the name of love. That expec­tation is only applicable to individuals. It is immoral for our justice department to ignore duly codified law and it is immoral for our president to offer his nation up for sacrifice into the hands of foreign-­birthed economic and political tsunamis.

What then is the answer to the present crisis? If we understand the diff er­ence between national and individual moral obligations, the answer is clear. At our southern border, there should be a flood of private religious and non-religious chari­table organizations and individuals (including Michael Moore and Al Gore-type deep pocket liberals) caring for the health, safety and super­vision of those children.

Our government should be fulfilling its obligations to defend, protect and encourage those organi­zations and individuals.

Simultaneously U.S. territorial integrity must be demanded to include a military presence if neces­sary. After common folks exercise their ministry, families must be reunited in their mother countries unless it can be clearly verified that they are in imminent and grave danger.

How long will the nation survive by bleeding its own resources. When she dies, who will be left to sacrifice again for those whom it was trying to save? The internal integ­rity of the United States is her government’s first moral imperative. It is the only answer to being the hope of the world.

— Bob Ashby is a resi­dent of Holland, Michigan. He can be contacted at http://www.realitycheck101.net, where previous articles are archived.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube