It’s not uncommon to see a patriot mistreated over the issue of immigration, usually by people who consider themselves part of the human rights/anti-racism movement. But while “global human rights” sound a little bit larger and more glamorous a struggle than “American rights,” both the glamor and resulting anger toward patriots ensue from a major misunderstanding of the importance of citizenship. 

In a proper republic, citizenship extends rights to those who are legally obligated to make sacrifices. We all get the chance to vote, and usually to receive some sort of economic safety net, and be protected by the police and firefighters, and benefit from the infrastructure created through taxation. We have the right to a trial by jury, the right to keep and use weaponry, the right to pursue a job, and the right to reside within our limited territory. But these rights are only inherited by our citizenry because they were paid for with the blood, sweat, and tears of both our ancestors and us. 

Since we only have limited resources, these privileges can’t ensure the safety and prosperity of everyone around the entire world, and so limiting these benefits to a specific people–a people culturally united from the grass-roots upward in protection of those benefits–ensures our allegiance under a sort of national, publicly condoned brotherhood.  And since the pursuit of happiness, property ownership, safety, and the promotion of general morality become nearly impossible to protect and promote without the existence of the state, it’s only right to give the people who fight for citizenry some surety of return.  In short, you have to define for whom the state works in order to have a working state, and a functional long-term existence demands that it can’t work for those who don’t have their very livelihood tied to its existence.

After all, the sacrifices necessary to maintain such benefits can be costly. In a proper republic the citizen has to pay taxes, he must obey and uphold our law, he has to serve in juries, he must exercise prudence and maintain responsibility for his family and self, and when the time comes, he must be willing to fight in defense of his countrymen.  The man who is unwilling to uphold these very basic pillars of citizenship (not to be confused with “is incapable of upholding”) shouldn’t be worthy of the citizenship resulting from them, and although women aren’t required to fight in battle, they are saddled with the overwhelming majority of duties to which we hold men.

Because all nations require duties of their citizenry, it’s safe to say that national application of duties and benefits differs in one of two ways: a country can be either tyrannical or free.  A government which gives an excess of duties and few rights is tyrannical, since its existence would be predicated on enslaving its population for benefits they will not necessarily receive. And while it might seem that a government which gives few duties and many benefits would be the opposite of tyrannical, this kind of government can’t last long without severely curtailing the rights of certain citizens to pay for the others, which would all be done under the implicit threat of violence and a tyranny of the majority.  In truth, the only kind of free state is one with both few economic outlays and few duties.

And this is precisely why American concepts of citizenship and liberty are intertwined.  There has been a trend, as of late, for citizens to disregard the duties of citizenship while benefiting from its privileges, trends both fiscal and social.  And while both trends espouse the appearance of global humanitarianism, the truth is that they both propel us toward a tyrannical future which not only severely curtails the rights of citizens, but also irrationally dispenses the wealth of their forefathers to those with no concern for its maintenance, or those who would take it without permission through acts of illegal immigration, theft, or war. 

Fiscally, while it seems the benefits of citizenry have been increasing due to an excess of social programs, the financial burdens of citizenry have disappeared for much of our population. Americans and Westerners in general have become content with saddling certain voters with [1] more taxes, while granting the right those who are taxed nothing the right to vote, so non-producers can continue increasing taxes for their benefactors. 

Since producers are saddled with most federal duty, higher levels of production are positively correlated with higher levels of fiscal burden instead of equally distributing duty across the board. Not only does this display a morally backward attitude toward production and success, but it directly opposes equality and economic progression while psychologically undermining the value of citizenship.  Financially, not every American has an interest in America’s fiscal security.

As far as our social problems are concerned, while you can publicly insult the United States of America, you don’t necessarily have to fight for it. While you can benefit from public schooling, you don’t necessarily have to pledge allegiance. And while few actual standards for treason are enforced, to the point where our military members can be openly hostile to the US (see, [2] terrorist Nidal Hassan), people oftentimes openly display their allegiance to other nations (see: [3] Mexican students tear down US flag).  Organizations owned by men with connections to terrorism can [4] buy land next to Ground Zero, and open the buildings on 9/11. Cities such as San Francisco even receive the protection of the US military while [5] banning all recruiting activity within their high schools.  And now, with the crime of illegal immigration being actively supported by our leaders, we know that the benefits of citizenship are accessible for non-citizens.

But as far as citizenship is concerned, this cause of amnesty is one of the most damaging to the existence of our nation. We have to understand that this movement for “global humanitarianism” strips citizens of their own privileges while shouldering citizens with extra responsibilities toward non-citizens with absolutely no responsibility at all, and even moreso than the gross inequality of progressive taxation.  Essentially, amnesty is forcing a nation of people to forcibly serve for not only non-citizens, but also law-breaking trespassers.

In this discussion, it doesn’t matter whether illegals are socially disadvantaged, or whether some Republicans are racists, or whether illegal aliens pay taxes, or even whether either party needs a Hispanic vote to win an election: this issue is an issue of citizenship, property rights, and the maintenance of our very liberty.  As president Lincoln once said: “We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.”

When people from a foreign country want to forcefully take something from our citizens or any other country’s citizens, their actions are nothing less than thievery.  And if this bestowal of stolen privileges is supported by our government at the expense of all our men and women who struggled for it–under threat of law, and sometimes loss of life–then it should be viewed as tyranny, since the existence of our progressive taxation system mandatorily confiscates the wealth of our producers to provide for Mexico’s consumers who are breaking and entering.  Aside from these points, there is no argument: if America doesn’t belong to Americans, then the state’s bestowal of duties becomes entirely illegitimate.

So as we consider bills for both amnesty and deportation, let’s please be careful to consider the liberty and rights of our citizens. And please remember: the largest fundamental right a non-citizen lacks is the right to refuse deportation.