The Greatest Obstacle to Border Enforcement, Part 3

The Greatest Obstacle to Border Enforcement, Part 3
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, June 01, 2010

There is one gigantic obstacle that stands before America and our immigration crisis. And, quite frankly, it is in my estimation an insurmountable roadblock that will inhibit any resolution that enforces current immigration law, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants. That barrier is not a people, policy or protocol. It is our president.

I seriously doubt that our current commander in chief can lead our nation out of this immigration mess because of a single fundamental and philosophical difference he has with most Americans, previous administrations and even our founders.

President Obama declared it in the Rose Garden two weeks ago in the presence of Mexico's President Felipe Calderon and an international television audience. And it seemed to escape the attention of most. It was one of the most un-American, unconstitutional and radical statements to date from Obama's presidency. He said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

His statement reminded me of what I wrote in my new expanded paperback edition of "Black Belt Patriotism": "For better or worse, we have new leadership and a new direction for America. It's a kinder and gentler Washington, to whom the global war on terror has turned into an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' It's a softer and relational Washington, with whom international bonds are more important than national borders and boundaries." Now we have more proof from the horse's mouth.

Obama's statement in the Rose Garden is not merely a stand against Arizona's or any other states' immigration enforcement laws. It is a stand against his presidential oath, our Constitution, and our national identity, security and sovereignty. For the commander in chief to go limp on border rigidity, especially when the feds themselves recently warned of "foreign 'terrorists' breach of U.S. southern borders" (including those coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen), is for the White House itself to jeopardize our national security.

Just a week ago at West Point, the president declared, "We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation." Our relatively young commander in chief gave new marching orders to a new generation and graduating class at the military academy, saying, "The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times ... combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds." His language seems eerily reminiscent to the U.S. Navy's new contested recruiting slogan, "A global force for good."

The White House website confesses that Obama's new National Security Strategy is "a blueprint for pursuing the world that we seek by outlining a strategy to rebuild our foundations, promote a just and sustainable international order ... and universal values." It plays down the threat of terror, trumps up (24 times) the threat of "climate change," repeats calls for more "global leadership," "international cooperation" and "partnerships," and regards "American innovation as a foundation of American power," rather than military might. Does that sound like a National Security Strategy or the beginnings of an international global governance manifesto?

Still, President Obama knows he is in the political border pickle of his life. And that coddling the Mexican president, doing nothing about border violence and remaining passive in the midst of an escalating national debate on illegal immigration is a recipe for political disaster and Democrat re-election demise. So this past Tuesday, the White House unexpectedly announced that Obama will deploy up to 1,200 National Guards to America's southwest boundaries. What timing, especially after he has resisted repeated calls for weeks from border state lawmakers to deploy 6,000 military personnel.

The fact is the deployment of up to 1,200 National Guards is a political appeasement, carefully crafted as "a temporary non-combatant assignment" restricted to providing only intelligence and training. You can also bet it's not a coincidence that the White House suddenly announced a $500 million supplement for border enhancement at the very same time that Senate Republicans began introducing several border security amendments to a $60 billion war spending bill. That Oval Office has amazing timing, doesn't it?!

Though I'm grateful that the White House was muscled into doing anything at this point for our broken borders, it should be leading in this crisis, not reacting for political gain. In the end, Obama's prescription last week for the border chaos is a clear indication that he still doesn't regard the problem as dire or deteriorating. To the contrary, his remedy is truly a Band-Aid on a national open wound (border) that is bleeding profusely. Obama has more passion (in his own words) to "just plug the damn hole" of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico than he does to stop the illegal immigrants and contraband that are gushing through the national screens we call U.S. borders. He even activated a superfluous 1,400 National Guards in four states to manage the oil leak crisis!

One last time -- consider the difference. What's more important: bonds or borders? Yours and especially your state and national leaders' answer to that question is among the most critical, because what we believe about our borders will determine the future of our country.

Will you believe and follow the philosophical precedent of globalists like President Obama, who said, "In the 21st century, we are not defined by our borders but by our bond."

Or will you join me and millions of other American citizens who believe and follow the definition offered by other leaders like President Ronald Reagan, who said, "A nation without borders is not a nation."