Ruben Navarette is a nationally-syndicated columnist, circulated by the Washington Post. In a recent piece he attacked Texas and Governor Greg Abbot for the passage of a new law empowering Texas law enforcement to arrest, imprison and deport aliens, mostly Latinos, who have entered the US illegally.
Navarette argues that the law violates the U.S. Constitution which reserves this authority exclusively to the federal government. That may be the case but it’s not the point of my column. Texas has been driven to these lengths precisely because President Biden and congressional Democrats have failed to uphold their constitutional duty to follow the law and secure our southern border. Repeated public statements by Biden and his Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas — who testified before a congressional committee that our “border is secure” — contradict the countless TV images of thousands trespassing across the border on a daily basis.
Navarette describes himself as a voice and advocate for Latino causes, which is his primary focus. There’s nothing wrong with that but it reveals his bias, agenda and, perhaps, his blinders on issues affecting his people. To be clear, I am not equating Navarette in style or substance with the likes of Rep. Ilan Omar or Rep. Rashida Tlaib of the “Squad,” two irrational, screeching, Isarel-hating, antisemitic, left-wing extremists whose principal loyalty is to their Muslim brethren, certainly not to America. Navarette is a civil, liberal-leaning guy who loves America but his empathy for Latino migrants who enter our country illegally prevails over his concern for overall American interests on this issue.
In his column, he called Gov. Abbot “a creep” for “picking on downtrodden and defenseless immigrants and refugees.” No. Gov. Abbott isn’t picking on them, he’s attempting to deal with the crisis that’s afflicting border states even more than others. There’s a lot of misery in this world but the U.S. cannot be expected to serve as the entire planet’s sanctuary and welfare state, especially when the trajectory of our own welfare-state spending, endless budget deficits, and consequent spiraling national debt are driving us to fiscal insolvency.
Most Americans aren’t anti-immigrant or anti-Latino. We’re anti-illegal immigrant regardless of nationality or ethnicity. Yes, we’re a nation of legal immigrants and that’s a good thing — up to a point. So, what’s that point? What’s your limiting principle? How many immigrants should the U.S accept each year? A million? 10 million? 100 million? Or no limit? When you put that question to Biden, Democrat leaders in Congress, or mayors in sanctuary cities you won’t get a direct answer, much less a number. But they bear prime responsibility for the hordes of foreign criminals, terrorists, and shipments of fentanyl that cross our porous border.
And it’s not just Latinos. These caravans now include a world atlas of migrants form Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Turkey, Syria, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and more. Historically, U.S. immigration policy has controlled legal immigration and apportioned it among nations to limit the dominance from any one place in order to encourage assimilation into the American culture and discourage tribalism and separation. France, today, has an increasing problem in, now, ungovernable Parisian suburbs densely populated by fundamentalist Muslim immigrants who form separate Islamic societies displacing French values and civic law with radical Sharia law.
Navarette says, “It’s blatantly dishonest to portray undocumented (formerly known as “illegal”) immigration into Texas as a burden.” He argues it’s a benefit that adds to the state’s labor pool and fuels economic growth. That’s partially true but he conveniently ignores the staggering cost this tidal wave of illegal immigrants imposes on federal, city and state governments to support these people and their families with food, lodging, clothing, transportation, medical care, education, and sundry welfare programs.
It’s understandable, from their perspective, that people cross our border illegally seeking asylum to improve their economic condition and escape repressive governments, but that doesn’t qualify someone for asylum under U.S. law. To obtain that status an individual must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, not just for a better lifestyle. In any case, the requisite procedure is to apply for asylum from outside this country and wait for approval, not cross the border illegally.
To deal with Denver’s wave of illegal immigration, Mayor Michael Johnston lists three steps the federal government must take: dramatic increases in the number of work authorizations for migrants, more money for cities, and “a coordinated entry plan” (whatever that means). He left out the one vital step that would have obviated all the others: defend our sovereignty and secure the damn border! Oh, and stop advertising Denver as a “sanctuary city.”
Longtime KOA radio talk host and columnist for the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News Mike Rosen now writes for CompleteColorado.com.
