Make the Feds Enforce Their Own Laws

Collectivist busybodies of various stripes have recently objected to the fact that the Houston, Texas police department has not been enforcing federal immigration laws for several years. Typically, all their political posturing and rhetoric betrays a general ignorance and apathy concerning what constitutes lawful jurisdiction.

For example, it is not the prerogative of the federal government (or local collectivist busybodies, for that matter) to require Texas peace officers to do the federal government's "dirty work." Federal laws, by definition, require federal enforcement.

Simply put, there is no lawful (i.e., constitutional) provision empowering Congress or one of its agencies to requisition or divert the law enforcement resources of a State or local government for the regular enforcement of federal law.

Just as when state and local officers were unlawfully diverted into federal service during Prohibition -- and are similarly drafted in its reincarnation, that colossal failure popularly hawked as the "war on drugs" -- the central problem with immigration law enforcement is federal officials' enactment of laws for which they are unwilling to supply the necessary resources for enforcement.

Instead of allowing their own locally-funded law enforcement resources to be unlawfully diverted for the enforcement of federal laws, the citizens of Texas (and other States) should be holding the federal government accountable for its habit of embarking on multi-billion dollar "nation-building" adventures abroad at the expense of secure borders at home.

The Liberator Myth

This Independence Day has given rise to the din of self-styled "patriots" who persist in parroting the popular myth that U.S. forces have "freed" the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Current events -- only a tiny glimpse of which appears in "the news" -- tell an entirely different story.

In each of those countries, U.S. troops (supposedly executing their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States") have indeed toppled one less-than-perfect regime and replaced it with one occupied by officials for whom some folks "voted" -- but "democracy" does not equal freedom, and violent, divisive, civil unrest remain in those countries as a direct result of U.S. actions and continued presence there.

The people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan aren't "free" now and they won't be "free" even if U.S. forces are ever pulled out. Unlike the generation that founded the U.S., they obviously didn't have a united will to "free" themselves from the regimes that were violently toppled by the U.S. military. In fact, many of them are obviously unhappy with -- and remain violently opposed to -- those actions, so now our troops (supposedly executing their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States") are tasked with killing them, so the original "nation building" invasions won't end in failure.

This July 4th, instead of getting our warm fuzzies from our goverment's masquerade as a "liberator" of foreigners, we ought to remember exactly what the founders of United States liberated themselves from. That should include some time in sober reflection on how much the U.S. government has grown to resemble the very despotic regime from which the Founders sought that original independence, remembering that a true patriot loves his country -- not the government.