An essay on immigration, foreign policy, national interests, and the principles which ought to be applied to them.
When cartels or criminals execute US citizens, or countries are so chronically corrupt or negligent of their citizens that entire armies of citizens attempt illegal entry into the USA with the hopes of humane treatment it is a chronic and severe threat to US national security.
It likely isn't an ideal foreign policy to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign countries but when and where is it appropriate to take preventive actions in defense of the USA?
In the Middle East it appears of little concern to take aggressive lethal actions when the lives of US citizens are critically altered or the threats presented by country's policies threatens critical US interests.
It is one thing when a neutral or hostile nation's citizens or policies affect US interests and another thing when friendly foreign countries arbitrarily or neglectfully create equally frustrating negative effects to US interests. Or are they different at all?
US interests may have degrees of importance but when the danger to US citizens is even more lethal to US citizens by friendly nations ought those dangers be considered less lethal?
It is clear some political opinions and chronic misinformation by presumed trusted news sources broadcast vastly different viewpoints for a variety of obscure or nefarious reasons favoring differing policies effecting US citizens or our national interests.
For example, when is it a good idea to not have an immigration policy or an immigration policy that promotes illegal entry into the country? What are the purposes of those laws? Or the neglect in addressing the shortcomings of the laws? Why would any politician or news source encourage illegal behavior? The reasons are obscure if well intentioned and nefarious if not.
If it were a constitutional issue as in the case of Virginia, California, or New York governments passing horribly infringements on God given human rights, an outcry or even uprising is not only sane, it is the responsibility of citizens to protect their rights.
Alternately, contrast the rhetoric for supporting clearly illegal activity: We are a nation of immigrants! Our values and respect for the dignity of human rights demands we allow massive illegal immigration!
What?
Okay, our Statute of Liberty has some very inspirational words upon it, fortunately those are not governing laws in this country, they are high ideals humanity ought strive towards. Few would deny those ideals are admirable, encouraging, or even should be our law. We also have the words of our third president's letters assumed to be constitutionally enforcible. There are no laws separating church and state. In fact the primary related law is quite the opposite, free exercise of religion shall not be infringed. A person being offended by religious activity does not negate a persons constitutional right to practice their religion, where ever that practice occurs. A government not infringing on the right clearly does not mean it is advocating for a state religion which is the purpose of the constitutional clause.
These points reflect great national debate which ought be attended, but when it comes to national security or the interests of the USA ought we view equally harmful issues with a different attitude?
Some US citizens working in a foreign Middle East country are murdered by radical Islamic terrorists. We kill the second highest official of a foreign government who is likely responsible, or at least killing him will effectively discourage future behavior by that set of people.
Equally terrifying criminal cabal kills an innocent family in a neighboring friendly country. We politely ask if we may assist them with their negligent law enforcement. "No thank you." End of discussion.
What?
Wouldn't the proper response be to apologize to our friendly neighbors after eliminating that particular criminal cabal?
So what would be a proper response to a Central American country whose citizens abandon their homes in armies of immigrants with the hope of some humane treatment?
First it is always a good idea to do a little introspection before lashing out at the folks failing in their duty, causing their citizens to flee. Why are these armies of illegal immigrants seeking only the USA in their death march?
Indeed. Why? Perhaps, while our laws forbid the activity, our politicians who have sworn oaths they will uphold our laws and defend our rights, instead campaign against them encouraging these armies of immigrants?
Our foreign policy is devised by whom we elect president and in some degree by how the congress funds those policies. Our presidents are still sworn to act to defend our laws despite other politicians criminally neglecting their duty and oaths.
Consider for a minute what that president may need to consider. Take this fact into consideration, the number of fatal crimes in the USA cause by illegal immigrants. The statistics aren't at hand for an essay editorial opinion but it certainly must be more than a handful of folks in the Middle East that results in the execution of a terrorist who is also a high government official of another country.
The idea of executing vice presidents or Department secretaries of Central American countries because of armies of illegal immigrants are likely to have international consequences of ill effect, particularly when our politicians are openly encouraging it and the nefarious news reporting makes those illegal encouragements popular.
President Trump's policies have been very effective in addressing, even preventing some of these horrible assaults on our national interest, but again why are these phenomena recurring?
Since our president has used his policies to encourage the offending countries to improve situations, which they embrace, why are their citizens fleeing again?
If it truly is the country's crime or mismanagement, perhaps more aggressive intervention is necessary, but not without some investigation. Why would those politicians encourage behavior that is their duty to discourage and by oath must discourage?
Let's not pretend. Ideologies are at stake that folks deeply believe in. Power and authority are at stake. Why is divergent. What if it isn't entirely the ill-behaved politicians?
What if some organization, entity, or individual is supplying ample encouragement for the death marches with obviously dubious results. Again, for what gain or purpose?
It is relatively well known that at least one billionaire appears to have a penchant for chaos and sweeping cryptic government changes at any cost.
Can any of those entities be the threat to national security and the cause behind hundreds, even thousands of deaths in the USA as a result of their encouragements?
Starting this editorial, the idea was: should we treat friendly nations causing USA equally fatal injury the same as neutral or enemy nations? In the process of writing, as is often the case, the right questions answer themselves.
We should always protect our national interest and the only real decent use of government power is to provide intervention safety to our citizen's rights, lives and property.
Perhaps if it is a criminal cartel and the foreign government refuses to attend their internal problems we ought militarily eliminate, at minimum, the criminal enterprise that has become a threat or nuisance to our national security. Perhaps destroying the economy of a friendly nation in order to encourage them to, at least, not cause their citizens to flee the country is a bad idea: if destroying their economy will only increase the likelihood of their citizens fleeing. Is it the duty or responsibility of our citizens to pay to make the foreign country a viable human sanctuary? We already pay diligently so military may provide our security should our foreign policies fail at every attempt.
Before we attack our friends, should we not investigate any villainous threat from iniquitous organizations, entities, or individuals and eliminate them?
Despite the answers to any of these questions, the fact remains, threat to our national security or national interest ought be treated with similar policies. There are good reasons to treat our friends, friendly, and our enemies more harshly.
If a citizen dies by a terrorist actions in a foreign country are they anymore dead than a citizen slaughtered by a criminal invader of our country, for whatever reason: insanity, philosophy, greed, lust?
That appears obvious to even the most insane.
Every US citizen deserves the protection of our government's power, influence, and foreign policies. Our government ought universally use all means available to prevent or destroy threats to our citizens and our interests, be them friend, foe, or entity threatening to overthrow the ideals and details of our country's high laws.
 |
| Author Bio |
No comments:
Post a Comment