Sanctuary Cities, an Invitation for Criminals

Sanctuary Cities, an Invitation for Criminals
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn “Kate” Steinle died from a bullet wound in her back. She had been enjoying a pleasant stroll with her father along one of the piers in San Francisco’s Embarcadero district. The bullet killing her came from a gun used by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who claimed he was aiming at sea lions. One of the bullets he fired ricocheted off the pavement and struck Steinle. She died two hours later.

Are United States sanctuary cities an invitation for criminals? (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Burzum CC BY-SA 3.0)

An illegal immigrant from Mexico, Lopez-Sanchez had previously been deported from the U.S. five times. Loose control of the Mexico-U.S. border certainly invited his return for a sixth time. But something else figured into the tragedy that claimed a completely innocent victim. Lopez-Sanchez was in San Francisco because the city had declared itself a “sanctuary city,” one where cooperation with federal immigration laws has been declared practically null.

Once a city declares itself a “sanctuary” for immigrants, local policy prohibits police or city employees from questioning detainees about their immigration status, or even cooperating with federal immigration authorities in dealing with illegal entrants. Sanchez-Lopez was a known drug dealer who had been convicted three times in the state of Washington of felony heroin possession. He had amassed seven felony convictions total, but was still free to roam the country after his latest illegal entry. Deported to Mexico time after time, his return had become a certainty. And the gun he fired when Kate Steinle died had been stolen from a federal agent’s parked auto four days earlier. Not what anyone should call a good candidate for citizenship!

The killing of Kate Steinle and the entire matter of sanctuary cities became an issue in the 2016 presidential race. GOP candidate Donald Trump mentioned Lopez-Sanchez as an example of the need to deport foreign nationals living illegally in the U.S. At first, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton relied on the same term she used when questions were raised about her cavalier use of unsecured computers to conduct sensitive U.S. business. She said San Francisco had made a “mistake” in not deporting someone the federal government strongly felt should be sent back to Mexico. Clinton loves that word. Exactly one day later, the Clinton campaign effectively reversed what she had stated, claiming that Mrs. Clinton “believes sanctuary cities can help further public safety.” Choose which of those two positions you wish.

But what about sanctuary cities themselves? In effect, they constitute a thumbing of the nose at legitimate laws designed to thwart unlawful immigration. If the entire nation adopted sanctuary policy, there would soon be no nation, because, as history has shown, a nation without control of its borders soon ceases to be independent.

Arguments favoring the sanctuary declaration like to point to a seemingly related policy known as nullification, the refusal of a city or state to obey a law they claim has no legal basis. But there is a huge difference in these two ways of dealing with laws one doesn’t like. Sanctuary cities – sometimes even counties – choose to ignore federal mandates while still accepting federal aid of various kinds. Nullifiers are willing to accept the consequence of losing federal aid because of their refusal to abide by a mandate they find onerous, even abusive of higher law.

The death of Kate Steinle raised national awareness about declaring sanctuary city status. Their very existence indicates a breakdown in the essential rule of law that is the hallmark of any free country. But there has been minor reversal regarding their use. There should be consequences wherever sanctuary cities have been proclaimed. Imposing them would be one small way of honoring the memory of Kate Steinle. Doing so would also help keep our nation free and independent.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


The Immigration Mess

The Immigration Mess
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

President Trump is receiving plenty of flak for closing down immigration possibilities for refugees from several Muslim-dominated nations. One federal judge has ordered a hold on the president’s executive order, but little has yet to be done about our country’s relatively wide open borders and loose immigration policies.

The United States has had an immigration problem for decades (Image from Wikipedia Commons).

The United States has had an immigration problem for decades (photo by Makaristos (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).

The immigration problem didn’t start last year, or five or ten years ago. It’s been a virtual national suicide pact for decades. Very few Americans today know anything about the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Authored by two Democrats, Nevada’s Senator Pat McCarran and Pennsylvania’s Congressman Francis Walter, their measure established quotas based on ethnicity of those seeking to enter the U.S.

The Act stipulated that if ten percent of the U.S. population were of Italian ancestry, then ten percent of legal immigrants could be from Italy. Similar quotas were set for Irish, German, British, and Polish immigrants, as well as other nationalities. The goal was to maintain the culture of our nation, a foundation built by the Europeans who started coming here, even before the 1776 breakaway from England. And McCarran-Walter set the number to be accepted per year at 270,000.

After the Act won easy passage in Congress, President Truman vetoed it. A mere two days later, Congress overrode his veto – with plenty of support from Democratic congressmen – and the Act became law and was immediately targeted by domestic Communists and Leftists. But in 1965, liberals led by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) succeeded in overturning America’s immigration policy. No one seems willing to talk about the underlying motive of Kennedy and his Democrat cronies: Flood the nation with immigrants who will vote Democrats into office.

It didn’t take long for massive numbers to begin flooding into the U.S. By 1986, President Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. He said the problem was now solved, an utterly ridiculous claim. It grew worse. And soon, the arrivals weren’t just poor Mexicans looking for a job. The outmanned Border Patrol created a category of entrants known as OTMs – Other Than Mexicans. And the cost of feeding, housing, educating, and providing medical care for millions became an enormous burden.

With today’s flood of refugees fleeing the war-torn nations of the Middle East and parts of Africa, the U.S. is being asked (told?) by the UN to accept more immigrants. Will any be terrorists? Answers to that have never been satisfactorily answered. So Mr. Trump moved: No immigration from countries where terrorists might be among the refugees. And, for that, he has been severely castigated.

Looking back, we recall that the 9/11/01 hijackers came from the Middle East, almost all from Saudi Arabia, a country not on Trump’s list. The brothers who set off their bombs at the Boston Marathon came from the Middle East. It’s true that the killers in San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando were legal residents of the U.S. But others who have tried to create mayhem came from countries noted by Mr. Trump – the Muslim who tried to set off a shoe bomb on a commercial airliner being a good example.

The Trump order called for a 90-day ban on immigration from Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen plus an indefinite ban on entrants from Syria. Bleeding heart liberals and hardcore leftists have protested vigorously. But there exists a mounting number of Americans whose relatives, friends, co-workers, and others have been killed by radical Islamists in what might be termed “normal” (not terrorist) ways. This number is sure to grow.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright now insists that President Trump’s edict is “a cruel measure that represents a stark departure from America’s core values.” She likely has never heard of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act. She would be horrified to know that its authors were members of her Democrat Party. Her response to the Trump plan would open America’s borders to anyone. Thank goodness she’s a “former” Secretary of State.

Maintaining the flawed immigration policies that Mr. Trump tried to address in a relatively small way is dead wrong. Some new policy has to be created. We hope Mr. Trump succeeds in protecting our nation and its culture before both are no longer recognizable.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Sneaking in the Tunnels

Sneaking in the Tunnels
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall between the United States and Mexico has excited many Americans. It’s no secret that there are somewhere between 11 and 20 million individuals who have crossed our southern border illegally.

Photo of elaborate cross-border drug smuggling tunnel discovered inside a warehouse near San Diego. (Photo by DVIDSHUB [Otay Mesa Drug Tunnel, Image 4 of 4] [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Among the illegal entrants are many who want to work hard and build a better life for their families. If they entered the U.S. legally and started on a path to assimilation, they would find a welcome mat. But within the millions already here are a sizable number of criminals, agents of drug kings, and even murderers. Many have been deported, some several times, only to return and continue their crime sprees. And the cost of welfare, education, housing, and medical cares for untold numbers of these lawbreakers is another serious problem.

In the face of all of this, along comes an unorthodox candidate for President who wants to put a stop to the invasion by erecting a wall. He wasn’t supposed to win the GOP’s nomination, but he did. Elitists in the media and political world insisted he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but many Americans have ignored those self-important pundits.

Yet, one problem that only very few have ever discussed is that a wall will keep only some wannabe illegals out. But tunnels under the border continue to be a significant problem. In late August 2016, Border Patrol agents found a sophisticated tunnel whose beginning point was found in a cemetery in Nogales, Mexico. Similarly named Nogales, Arizona, sits across the border and a fence separates the two communities. But a fence isn’t enough to keep illegals from entering through the tunnels they built.

Border Patrol tunnel expert Kevin Hecht notes that these underground passageways are used to transport drugs into the United States. He says: “They know we’ll eventually find them. But even if one load [of drugs] gets through before we find it, they consider it a success.”

In the San Diego area, some U.S. citizens alerted the Border Patrol when they noticed suspicious activity in an area 500 yards from the border. Agents then found a tunnel 800 yards long. What they found were 2,200 pounds of cocaine and 14,000 pounds of marijuana. The cost of building that underground passage is easily covered by the sale of those drugs.

More than 70 tunnels were discovered along the border during a five-year period ending in 2013. Some had their own railways, lighting, and ventilation. The notorious Sinaloa cartel finances many of these, even knowing that construction of each will take as much as a year and cost as much as $1 million for labor and materials. Joseph DiMeglio, a 13-year veteran with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calls such an expenditure “pocket change.” A small cache of 25 methamphetamine packages has a street value of $700,000. Deadly cocaine brings even more monetary reward.

Isn’t there any way to detect these tunnels while they’re being built or after they’re being used?  The answer is a resounding no. Using a ground-radar machine doesn’t work because it isn’t capable of reporting anything deeper than ten feet. Homeland Security investigator David Shaw admits, “We’ve never found a tunnel using them.”

This problem won’t be solved easily. It will become less worrisome if the federal government quits winking at illegal immigration and forcing states and local communities to care for the invaders. A complete turnaround in the way illegals have been treated by the federal government and its courts is needed. If it ever comes, however, the digging of tunnels will still be a problem.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Open Border Costs Angela Merkel

Open Border Costs Angela Merkel
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Over the past year, more than one million refugees have descended on Germany. Many German citizens have expressed sharp discontent over their government’s open border policy. One result is a serious slippage of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s popularity.

Angela Merkel (2008). Photo by derivative work: Suaheli Angela_Merkel_(2008).jpg: א (Aleph) (Angela_Merkel_(2008).jpg) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

The holder of the nation’s highest office for the past 11 years, Merkel now knows of the stinging rebukes dealt to her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in recent local elections. Asked about the CDU’s losses and the loss of her personal political clout, she accepted blame for the influx of foreigners, but her message features only regret that the people disagree with what she has allowed. She has done next to nothing to reverse the policy that has permitted so many refugees to descend on the German nation.

In remarks after meeting with CDU leaders in the wake of two significant political party setbacks, she stated, “If I could, I would turn back the time by many, many years to better prepare myself and the whole German government for the situation that reached us unprepared in late summer 2015. Nobody, including myself, wants a repeat of this situation.” How far back she would like to turn wasn’t made clear. But before the collapse of Communism in Europe 25 years ago, she held a post in the East German Communist government. Is a return to communist-style rule what she wants? When the Iron Curtain came down, she and many other Communist functionaries throughout Eastern Europe abandoned the “communist” label and, overnight, announced they were now “socialists.”

The sudden presence of one million refugees resulted in a crime wave that Germans aren’t forgetting.  After a New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne eight months ago, women who were attacked filed more than 650 criminal complaints. Almost all were aimed at newly arrived refugees. Hamburg saw 150 similar complaints. Attempts to cover up the attacks in Cologne led to the resignation of the police chief. Nearly half of the city’s refugees from northern Africa have engaged in criminal acts – mostly theft. Many threw away their passports so that their home country wouldn’t be known.

Here in the U.S., President Obama delivered his final speech before the UN General Assembly on September 20th. In it, he called for acceptance of more refugees. Paralleling the president’s urging aimed at the leaders of other nations, the White House announced a week earlier to accept 110,000 refugees in the coming year, especially those from war-torn countries of the Middle East. He also pledged to spend $3 billion for resettlement programs to use the funds for jobs and education for the new arrivals. Tugging at heartstrings customarily accompanies announcements about the need to accept more refugees. But no mention is made of the stern warning given by FBI Director Comey only a few months ago that his agency is completely unable to vet Middle Eastern refugees who come here.

Barack Obama will leave office in January 2017. Will his successor carry on his lax refugee policies, or will there be a change in the attitude of the next occupant of the White House? What has been happening in Germany ought to be on the minds of America’s voters this November. To help persuade U.S. voters when they go to the polling places, Mr. Obama stated: “I’ll see it as a personal insult to my legacy and the work we’ve done together if we fail to step up and make sure that Hillary takes my place in January.” That statement alone will likely sway many U.S. voters. Are you one of them?

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Obama Versus Obama on the Use of Executive Orders

Obama Versus Obama on the Use of Executive Orders
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The fate of approximately five million illegal immigrants rides on a matter now in the hands of the Supreme Court. On April 18, the court entertained hearings on whether these immigrants will be deported or allowed to remain in the United States. A decision is expected in a few months.

President Barack Obama signs an executive order on the Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government, Nov. 9, 2009, in the Oval Office at the White House. (White House Photo by Pete Souza, from the U.S. Army Flickr accountsome rights reserved).

More than a year ago, President Obama sought to use an executive order to cancel congressional action calling for deportation of these illegal entrants. In effect, he wanted to grant them amnesty. Federal Judge Andrew Hanen blocked implementation of the Obama order and a federal district court later upheld his ruling. The Obama administration appealed that court’s ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

Led by Texas, a total of 26 state governments have sought relief from the costs incurred by the flood of immigrants, including the five million in question. Their issue dwells on expenses incurred by the immigrants such as the issuance of drivers licenses. But the greater issue here is the use of executive orders by a president in order to circumvent existing law, or even to establish law without it having first been created by Congress.

Interestingly, President Obama has provided totally conflicting views on the topic of executive orders. In January 2014, he threatened to make law via his executive order by declaring:

We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward….

As recounted by David Remnick in New Yorker magazine, Mr. Obama had earlier provided a completely opposite view during a fund-raising appearance at the Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center in California. Urged by some in his audience to rely on the executive order route, the president objected and stated:

If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so, but we’re also a nation of laws. I’m actually going to pause on this issue, because a lot of people have been saying this lately on every problem, which is just, “Sign an executive order and we can pretty much do anything and basically nullify Congress.” [But] that’s not how it works. We’ve got this Constitution; we’ve got this whole thing about separation of powers. So there is no shortcut to politics, and there’s no shortcut to democracy.

Not the first president who has employed executive orders to circumvent the sole power of Congress to make law, Obama might be the first to explain very clearly how wrong such a practice truly is. This nation does indeed have a Constitution that should be obeyed.

Currently, because of the death of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court has only eight justices. Should there be a 4 to 4 split, the district court’s previous ruling against the president’s use of an executive order will stand. President Obama’s action would, in effect, be deemed an illegal act and deportation action could proceed.

Which Obama position regarding executive orders will prevail? The odds seem to favor rejection of their use. For a change, the president’s grasp for power may be thwarted. Now, do your part and tell Congress to oppose all Executive and Congressional amnesties.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Sanctuary City Policy Invites Trouble

Sanctuary City Policy Invites Trouble
by JBS President John F. McManus

In 1979, Los Angeles became the first “sanctuary city” although the term for thumbing one’s nose at federal law wasn’t in use. L.A.’s Special Order #40 stated: “Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons” for violating the federal law against illegally entering the United States.

In July of this year, a gunman killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle as she walked with her father along a tourist-friendly pier in San Francisco (Photo from Flickr by torbakhopper, some rights reserved).

Since then, more than 200 cities or counties have followed that lead and the term sanctuary city, or county, has worked its way into common use. Among other cities defiantly ignoring the federal mandate calling for detaining and deporting illegal entrants are Washington, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Salt Lake City, Chicago, Minneapolis, Miami, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Detroit, Denver, San Diego, Albuquerque, and Oakland. In these locales, city employees (including police) are not permitted to ask detainees about their immigration status.

In 2009, the murder of a restaurant waitress in Albuquerque drew attention to the matter. Three illegal aliens were thought to have committed the crime. Before that murder, the three should have been detained and deported. But they weren’t because sanctuary city policy was in operation. Nothing changed. In July of this year, a gunman killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle as she walked with her father along a tourist-friendly pier in San Francisco. The only suspect for the killing is Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times to Mexico but who was back in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.

Three months before the murder of Steinle, San Francisco authorities detained Lopez-Sanchez for peddling drugs. U.S. Customs and Immigration Authorities (ICE) sought him but the city’s officials released him because their sanctuary city policy took precedence. County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s decision to bow to this policy rather than to federal law has now cost him his job. On November 2, voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots for a new sheriff. But San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy remains. In this instance, replacing a sheriff isn’t enough.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned the failure of San Francisco authorities to turn Lopez-Sanchez over the federal authorities earlier this year after a previous arrest. But one day later when the murder of Kate Steinle was still in the news, Clinton’s campaign officials declared her still in favor of the sanctuary cities policy. They issued a statement claiming, “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.” Like Barack Obama, she obviously intends to do little or nothing to put an end to cities defiantly ignoring federal law.

No sensible person doubts that the U.S. has a “border problem.” More than 10 million aliens have illegally entered our nation. By doing so, they have broken U.S. laws and little has been done to stop the on-going invasion. Meanwhile, sanctuary cities continue to receive federal aid in various forms. If shoveling money at defiant cities isn’t terminated, neither will there be an end to sanctuary city defiance.

In years past, nullification of distasteful law has been employed, even by states seeking to void mandates believed to be unjust. But nullification was always employed with knowledge that there might be consequences. To date, no consequences have followed in the wake of cities and counties defying federal law. And the U.S. Congress has even entertained new laws to enforce laws that are being ignored.

The United States is unraveling before our eyes. Let’s hope that there won’t be any more Kathryn Steinle tragedies before we welcome the end of the sanctuary city craze.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Laws Governing Immigration Don’t Work — When They’re Not Enforced

Laws Governing Immigration Don’t Work — When They’re Not Enforced
by JBS President John F. McManus

Over recent years, legislation and policy dealing with immigration into the U.S. aren’t doing the job. Many laws are being ignored, others are working in ways contrary to their intent, and some that aren’t even laws (e.g., executive orders) have the effect of increasing the number of border crossers.

The U.S. Constitution mentions the word “invasion” twice. Article IV, Section 4 mandates: “The United States … shall protect each of them [the states] against invasion.” Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 15 places on Congress the responsibility to “call forth the militia … repel invasions.” Neither of these portions of the Constitution uses the word “military” as a qualifier for invasion. Neither is being employed to stem what amounts to an invasion.

During recent years, upwards of 20 million persons have crossed our southern border with the intention of staying here. Is that not an “invasion”? Millions of these individuals have been provided housing, welfare, medical care and education. No other nation in history has been so kind to invaders. And, as evidence clearly shows, some of the border crossers are drug traffickers, and others have committed rape, robbery, mayhem and even murder. Jails in the southwest are overflowing with criminals who aren’t even citizens.

Plenty of headlines today point to the current wave of children seeking entry, a new category of invaders. Does anyone even ask how these youngsters, many unaccompanied by any adults, arrived at the border from Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica? They certainly didn’t walk from their homes through hundreds of miles in Mexico before reaching the Rio Grande. It’s obvious that help was provided and the children are being used to further erode our nation’s immigration policy.

On June 15, 2012, President Obama did his bit to weaken immigration restrictions with an executive order now known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” It directed agencies tasked with policing the border to use “prosecutorial discretion” in its enforcement actions. In other words, “Look the other way if you see illegal entrants that are children, or with children.” Critics have labeled DACA “a path to amnesty” which it surely appears to be. The effect of this unconstitutional use of executive power has actually encouraged more to enter our country.

No one can doubt that immigrants overall have contributed significantly to making America productive and strong. Nor can there be assurance that past procedures were problem-free. But the penniless entrants of years gone by came into the U.S. legally. They got in line, secured qualified admittance, and eventually won citizenship. Private agencies, mostly backed by religious groups, took care of many of the new arrivals. Allowing today’s millions of illegal entrants to bypass the previous process for entry into the U.S. denigrates the worth of properly gained citizenship achieved by millions. But that is not the only problem.

Many of today’s illegal immigrants have found jobs, worked hard, obeyed laws, and moved toward assimilation. But, with little or no understanding of America’s foundations, even they threaten to alter the cultural and political basis of our country. Each massive wave of immigration throughout history has led to fundamental change.

Beginning around 370 A.D., for instance, Emperor Valens opened the gates of the Roman Empire and allowed entry to Germanic Goths and Visigoths. He did so to obtain recruits for his army and a source of cheap labor. Only a decade after the gates had come down, those immigrants began a war against the Roman legions in the provinces and it eventually reached Rome itself. In short order, the Roman army was decimated, the Goths sacked Rome, and the Roman Empire collapsed.

Even though there are some militants among the illegals here, there is little likelihood that any military uprising that could duplicate what the Goths did to Rome. But changing the country can be accomplished with leadership supplied by liberals and leftists who can’t be unaware of the dangerous policies and programs they are supporting, including the extremely deficient educational system given to all of America’s youngsters.

There are more than enough laws on the books to put an end to the immigration crisis. What’s needed is a determination to use them, properly and humanely. That’s what swearing an oath to the U.S. Constitution should mean.

Are you ready to help? Visit Choose Freedom — Stop Illegal Immigration.