The federal government’s violation of its border commitments “does in fact empower any border state to control their own sovereign territory.” So said Stephen Miller, ex-senior advisor to President Donald Trump, on Tuesday’s edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Miller was, of course, referencing the southern-border invasion being wink-and-nod facilitated by the Biden administration and was saying, in no uncertain terms, that the states need to do the job the feds won’t do.
After host Tucker Carlson remarked that what we’re currently witnessing at the border seems “like a complete collapse and a disaster,” Miller articulately and compellingly illustrated the problem, stating:
Every few days, a camp the size of Del Rio is admitted into our country. Day after day, week after week.
Let me tell you a story. I was talking to a front line Immigration officer who works in Arizona. He says that people from all around the world, they book flights to Tijuana; they book flights to northern border towns in Mexico. They pay a small bus fare to drive one hour to the border in Arizona. They walk up to Border agents. They turn themselves in, children, families, teenagers, and single adults on the certainty — on the certainty — that they will be admitted into the country. That is how mad things have gotten.
You know, Benjamin Franklin said when describing our form of government that we have a Republic if you can keep it. It is not hyperbole but fact to say that at this moment in time, we do not have a republic because the basic principle of a republic is self-government by citizens.
And so if you have millions of uninvited people and the citizens of this country have no ability to exercise control over who can join the polity, then it is no longer a republic, because all of your work, all of your sweat, all of your toil will go to benefit people who have no right to be here.
That’s where we are right now.
Carlson then asked why Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been asleep at the wheel instead of securing the border himself with his state’s National Guard. “And if that provokes some kind of crisis with the Federal government, so be it,” the commentator continued. Miller responded:
Well, what you’re describing is the use of Article IV Section 4, and that relates exactly to the point that I was making. It is known as the Guarantee Clause and it says that the Federal government in effect shall guarantee to every State a Republican form of government, protection against invasion, and protection against domestic violence.
All three — all three of those tasks — have been failed by the Biden administration, so they’re violating their commitments under Article IV Section 4, which I would argue does in fact empower any border state to control their own sovereign territory.
And if they don’t, and if somebody doesn’t hold this presidency accountable, there won’t be a country in a period of time .
Miller’s counsel is just common sense. Consider: People generally rely on the police to keep their neighborhoods safe. Imagine, however, that local authorities restrained the cops so that criminals were free to continually do violence to you and yours and your property (as, sadly, too often happened last year in deference to BLM and Antifa rioters). Would you not take firm measures to secure your own property’s “borders” and deter invaders? And would you be deterred from this course if someone said “Stop! That’s the cops’ job!” when the police are MIA?
Note here that immigrationists would say, justifying the border-jumping criminality, that illegals “are just doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” Well, what should be the response when a criminal federal government won’t do a job it’s lawfully mandated to do?
Too often the response is a dodge, the excuse that securing the border is a constitutionally prescribed federal power. Yet this is faux constitutionalism as a cover for cowardice. As I’ve often pointed out, the Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another. Now, what should happen if one party subject to a contract continually violates it to advantage itself (which the feds have long been doing with the Constitution)? Should the other parties slouch toward subjugation owing to failure to act? Only power negates power.
Illegal migration has been a worsening problem for many decades not because the federal government can’t secure the border. Such has been done before; an example was when Israel sealed its southern border with Egypt and stopped cold the thousands of illegals that had previously poured across it. Rather, it’s an ongoing problem because the feds have no desire to solve it.
One reason for this is that leftist immigrationists long ago discovered that upon naturalization, Third World (im)migrants vote for them by wide margins. They are importing future voters as they effect the strategy articulated thus: If you can’t get the people to change the government to your liking, change the people.
It’s an old strategy, one strikingly revealed by a former advisor to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair. That man, Labour Party operative Andrew Neather, confessed in 2009 that the massive Third World immigration into the United Kingdom during the previous 15 years had been designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
The immigrationist sentiments are no different today on our side of the pond. The only difference is that the power-mad would-be potentates are closer to their ultimate goal.
