Illegally Acquired Rights

Would you agree that, acquiring unlawfully an advantage creates a right to its legally protected enjoyment? The question here is, whether an illegal act can create a lawful right to benefit its perpetrator. For the sake of clarity, take this example. Suppose that someone forges money. With it, a property is purchased. Is the right to that property protected once the crime is discovered?

You are wrong in case that you assume this to be a hypothetical question raised to stimulate abstract reasoning. The issue here is one of practical politics. Mr. Trump has given the matter a head-line grabbing significance by indicating that, birth-right American citizenship should be curtailed.

Regardless of whether the plan will become law once the grinding millstones of partisan politics is applied to it, those that are not viscerally anti-Trump might agree that the general principle elucidated above is sound. In an advanced system, in which the supremacy of law is practiced, a criminal act cannot be allowed to bear legally protected fruits. Furthermore, the US’ birthright citizenship following the parents’ illegal entry, leads to wide-spread abuse. Generosity has provoked criminal actions and became an instrument to facilitate the exploitation of a charitable act.
Rewarding cunning parents for producing “anchor babies” does more than to confirm an unearned privilege that favors persons that are sufficiently clever to detect an opportunity to be exploited.

Birthright citizenship goes beyond remunerating lawlessness; it provokes and encourages proscribed behavior. It does so in that it makes a crime (illegal entry) pay by giving the parents immunity from their delinquency. Beyond protecting from forced repatriation, in the case of crimes by “illegals”, having a child with citizenship can prevent the expulsion of adults who have become, through their actions, “undesirable aliens”.

Granting of citizenship has become a problem in developed societies in which it brings economic rewards in exchange for negligible contributions. With the admission of masses of that are un-integrable and who possess antiquated skills, immigration policies need reconsideration. The spreading turmoil, created by the pressure of often bellicose migrant masses, confirms the point.

Furthermore, the over-all approach related to the granting of citizenship demands examination and adjustment. The interest of the hosting community in the practice that set a term of (legal) residency as a pre-requisite of citizenship, demands that it be sent where the dodo bird went. A society’s ability to integrate is limited by the quality of newcomers and the quantity of their number. Regulated borders and supervised migration are defining traits of sovereignty. (Something with no enforceable borders is no country.)

Controlling the quantity and quality of the inflow makes the difference between hosting and being invaded. Calling those that bring this up “Fascists” might settle the matter among “talking heads”. It will not remedy the problem that evolves on the ground.
Newly made citizens that become local majorities do more than to share political power with the indigenous. If that power can be used to gain advantages that undermine the prevailing order, then clustered minorities will create pressures that the system will not be able to survive.

In modern societies that provide extensive welfare, there is a further aspect to be considered. Such services wish to help all as human beings and do so irrespective of their ward’s contribution to the financing fund. Admitting unemployable masses burdens regular contributors. Discovering that the input and the output have been disconnected will cause resentment. The reaction will diminish the inclination to contribute once the idea spreads that doing so makes one into an easy mark. Getting for an effort what the others get for nothing is, once it sinks in, sand in the machinery of an economy. Socialism’s record confirms the point.

Therefore, legal residence must be conditional of employment. Equally important is that participation in the economy be made part of the criteria for citizenship. Welfare careerists, unemployables, criminals, and those who fail to find their place in their host country’s system should be denied citizenship. Successful applicants must not only have jobs that keeps them off welfare. They also need to have a command of the majority’s language, and share their chosen compatriots’ ideals. Yes, there is a right not to conform in these realms -preferably back in the old country. However, taking that option justifies the exclusion from “membership”.

Granting citizenship that is earned through a choosy process is as important as is a selective immigration policy. Migration is not a basic human right, and the admission to a community depends on mutual acceptance. Those that join a quire do not acquire the freedom to let off fire-crackers during practice.

There is a practical advantage to severity. Uncontrolled migration produces communities that live out their rejection of the majority in homogenous settlements. These not only protect the inhabitants from the competition of the outside world but also allows their insiders to live according to the rules of the systems they had fled. These rules have failed where the migrants were indigenous and produced backwardness and supressive government. No improved result can be expected in a new context.

The new immigration, in truth, a “migration of peoples”, has created new challenges. Since old practices flop in the new context, revised rules and a determination to enforce them by governments created to protect their citizens, are sorely needed. “Not noticing,” “improving statistics”, and the moralizing demand of “tolerance”, all in the hope that the problem “will go away”, do not cut the cake. Not surprisingly, to an increasing extent they are being rejected in a growing number of countries.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner