Lux Lucet

President Trump sigs the executive order for the border wall, 1/25/17.

Well, one full week into the new Trump administration, and, despite all the hyperventilating from the snowflakes, it appears that the world indeed has not come to an end.  Who knew?  So what shall we say about this surprising state of affairs?  Let’s find out. 

Build That Wall

Ask any Trump supporter, or for that matter any Never-Trumper, what he thinks the candidate’s most important campaign promise was, and I suspect many, if not most, respondents would say “Build that wall!” This, of course, refers to Trump’s promise to build a roughly 1,900 mile long border wall between Mexico and the US to prevent illegal immigration across the nation’s southern border.

It’s an audacious plan. And one that has outraged the entire establishment, everyone from Pope Francis, to the progressive secular left, to the RINO Republican right, to the former president of Mexico. Some observers have tried to argue that Trump didn’t mean he intended to build a literal wall. All that was just talk, you see. It was promise to fire up the base, which would soon be dropped when the realities of governing set in.

Well, apparently Trump was entirely serious about what he said, as Wednesday “he signed executive orders instructing construction of a wall on the southwest border, a crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities and directives that would make effectively every undocumented immigrant a priority for deportation,” as the Huffington Post reports.

Usually when it comes to immigration, politicians are quick to express sympathy for immigrants, legal and illegal, but rarely, if ever, so much as acknowledge the concerns of the American people. Their job, it seems, is to shut up, to pay up, and to not so much as to think about whether their rights are being abused by the current immigration system.

But Trump takes a different approach. At the signing of the executive orders on Wednesday, Trump was quoted as saying ” ‘[People] talk about how enforcing immigration law is going to separate illegal immigrant families. But the families they don’t talk about are the families of Americans forever separated from the people they love. They don’t talk about it, ever. As you president, I have no higher duty than to protect the lives of the American people. ‘ ”

I must admit, I’ve waited an entire lifetime to hear an elected official say those words and mean them, but never thought I would. Trump is exactly right to say what he did. He gets it, while almost no one else does. And this is why he won the election. It wasn’t Russian hackers that got him to the White House. It was the fact that he addressed real concerns of real people, while all the political establishment in both parties could manage was tell concerned citizens to, in so many words, talk to the hand…or call them deplorables.

“So, Steve,” someone might ask, “I guess this means you’re for building the wall, right?” To which I would respond, “No, I think it’s a bad idea.”

For one, Trump’s promise wasn’t just to build the wall, but to force Mexico to pay for it. That has always seemed unrealistic to me. And the notion that putting a 20% tax on goods from Mexico is no solution. It’s simply a disguised way of forcing the American people to pay for the wall in the form of higher prices for goods from Mexico.

Second, there is the concern that the wall, even if it does get built, could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. That is to say, it will take so much political capital to get done that it will make it hard for Trump to enact any of his other policies. Of course, depending on your point of view this might be seen as a positive.

Third, there is the concern that the wall may not be effective. Determined people can overcome a remarkable variety of barriers provided they have the incentive.

Fourth, it hardly seems in keeping with the Biblical purpose of borders. According to John Robbins, “Borders were instituted for the purpose of separating rulers, not peoples, from each other” (The Sine Qua Non of Enduring Freedom).

“So, Steve,” you might query, “Does this mean you think the current immigration policy of the US is okay as is?” To which I would answer unequivocally, “Of course not.” And this leads to a fourth point, I oppose the wall, in part, because it is a distraction from what I believe are far more effective reforms: 1) ending birthright citizenship, and 2) rolling back the welfare state.

As US law is currently interpreted by the courts, any child born within the territory of the US, with a few exceptions, is considered a citizen, regardless of immigration status of the parents. This leads to the absurd situation whereby a foreign woman can come to the US – legally or illegally, it doesn’t matter – give birth, and have her child automatically granted US citizenship. This is a tremendously powerful, perverse incentive for people to break US immigration laws. And what is more, since the child is a US citizen, he immediately becomes eligible for welfare benefits, which the parents, regardless of their immigration status, can request on behalf of their US born baby.

As there is no good ethical argument to support this sort of birthright citizenship, as this program greatly cheapens American citizenship, as this law provides tremendous incentive for foreigners to abuse the US taxpayer, as building a wall will not remove this perverse incentive, ending birthright citizenship should be the primary focus of any immigration reform initiative.

Along with ending birthright citizenship, the welfare state must be repealed. Not just because of the perverse incentives it creates for foreigners to break our immigration laws, but because of the perverse incentives it creates for Americans to go on the dole instead of working to earn a living.

The welfare state is theft, regardless of who ultimately receives the money. But when the recipient is not even an American, this is an aggravating circumstance.

“So, Steve,” you may wonder, “What would you replace the current system of birthright citizenship with? After all, you can’t beat something with nothing. You have to have some way of determining who’s a citizen and who isn’t.” Well, I’m glad you asked.

I propose this: Take the Presbyterian model of church membership as outlined in the Westminster Standards and use it as the basis for immigration and naturalization.

In the Presbyterian system, baptism is applied to professing adults and infants of one, or both, believing parents. Translating this to the language of US citizenship, the American nation would consist of 1) adults who have taken the oath of citizenship, and 2) the children of one, or both, American parents.

Against such a system, at least in my opinion, no reasonable objection can be raised. It guards American citizenship from debasement. It disincentivizes crashing the border. It does not reward law breaking. Further, it’s a system even Credo Baptists could live with. After all, it is what they already practice with respect to the citizenship of their own children. 

The Presbyterian approach to church membership – children of at least one believing parent of considered members of the visible church and are, therefore, to receive the sign of the covenant, which is baptism.  This is consistent with what nearly everyone practices already.  Most of us don’t even think about this, but we receive our citizenship from our parents.  And that citizenship is automatically conferred by virtue of our parents themselves being citizens. 

On the other hand, if the principles of credo baptism – credo baptism is also known as believers baptism; it is the historic position of Baptist churches; Baptists teach that baptism is to be applied only to those who are of sufficient age as to make a profession of faith in Christ, and have actually done so – were applied to the citizenship question, we would get a very different answer. 

For the principles of believer’s baptism would require the children of American citizens to wait until they reached the age of accountability to take the oath of citizenship.  And until they did, children would not be considered citizens at all, but rather a sort of resident alien class.  And this situation, I trust, no credo Baptist parent would tolerate. 

A Wall For Me But Not For Thee

One of the consistent themes of American politics over the past few years is the increasing isolation – both physically and psychologically – of the elite ruling classes from ordinary Americans, and the contempt these same elites show toward their fellow citizens.

A perfect example of this tendency can been seen in Mark Zuckerberg’s recent Facebook post, in which he opposed Trump’s immigration reforms, making a vague statement about “focusing on people who actually pose a threat” to serve as cover his push for the US to continue with the current taxpayer subsidized policies of mass immigration and refugee inflows.  

This is an interesting position for a man who has angered neighbors who live in the area of his Hawaiian estate by building a six-foot security wall around the property. Not that building a wall on private property and building a wall around national borders are quite the same thing, but there are at least a few parallels. 

Zuckerberg wants to secure his property.  Fair enough.  But at the same time, he argues in his Facebook post that the US should continue with more or less the same immigration and refugee policies that have done so damage the prosperity and security of tens of millions of his follow Americans.  And this he does by repeating bromides such as “The United States is a nation of immigrants.” To which the proper response is, so what?  Simply because this US was settled by immigrants does not tell  us anything about what US immigration policy ought to be.  You cannot logically deduce an ought – the US ought to have such and such an immigration policy – from an is – the US is a nation founded by immigrants.

Zuckerberg’s post exhibits the sort of facile and empty rhetoric that we have come to expect from the billionaire class as well as others in the ruling elite.  It would seem that they prefer to lord it over their fellow citizens rather then working with them to find solutions to the serious problems America faces.

In Closing

Although it is easy to understand the appeal Trump’s proposed “Big Beautiful Wall” has to many people, in the end it is not the best course for solving the serious problems the US has with immigration.  Instead of focusing on building a wall, Trump would be better served by changing how US citizenship is conferred from the current birthright method to one based on the biblical principle that citizenship is conferred either by children automatically receiving their citizenship  from their parents or by adults taking an oath of citizenship.

Many in positions of power argue against Trump, not on principle, but out of a deluded and at times hypocritical self-interest.  These people believe they can continue to ignore the legitimate complaints of their fellow citizens with self-righteous and empty rhetoric that, although giving the appearance of a charitable spirit, conceals a desire profit by harming others.