DHS Policy Is Criminal

November 21, 2011 by David Morris


If someone breaks our immigration laws and is in the United States illegally, he is a criminal.

It’s always bizarre to me when I hear people talk about wanting to deport only those illegal aliens who are criminals. The Department of Homeland Security said it will start focusing on deporting illegals with criminal records and leaving alone illegals without criminal records.

Call me crazy, but if someone breaks our immigration laws and is in the United States illegally, he is a criminal.

Keep in mind that my in-laws immigrated to the United States. I’m not anti-immigration. I’m anti-illegal immigration. I would like to either see open borders (not my first choice) or I would like to see the border locked down and the creation of a simplified process for non-residents to be in the United States legally.

But this current in-between system that we have in which laws are selectively enforced and ignored isn’t good for anyone. It teaches both immigrants and our kids that laws don’t necessarily mean anything. If someone’s breaking the law by being in the United States illegally, why should he obey the law and get car insurance? Why should he worry about breaking the law by drinking and driving?

Most countries have streamlined processes to let people stay in their countries long-term if they obey the law and are productive members of society. I’m good with that. At one point in the 60s, when my in-laws immigrated to the United States, they had to have a job lined up, a place to live lined up and $500 cash before they could get into the country. They didn’t have $500, so they pooled money with other friends who wanted to get into the United States. Once my in-laws got into the United States and on their feet (my father-in-law was working three jobs by the end of their first week in the United States), they sent $500 back to their friends so that the next family could immigrate.

What does this have to do with preparedness? The connection, in my mind, is that when you become known as being a place where unproductive people can come and live comfortably, you create a form of adverse selection, attracting non-producers and repelling and penalizing productive members of society.

In Central Texas, there is a mass migration every spring and fall. Illegal aliens who do landscaping come up in the spring when the grass starts growing and go back to Mexico to work for the winter when the grass stops growing in the fall. They want to work, and I would love to have many of them as neighbors in a survival situation.

But when illegal aliens aren’t productive members of society, it strains budgets during good times and creates large groups of helpless people who don’t know how to take care of themselves in a disaster situation — like what we saw at the Super Dome in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

So this is just one more factor that I keep an eye on — both to gauge strain on government budgets and to anticipate what the general response of the people around me will be to adversity in a survival situation.

National Right To Carry Reciprocity Act passes the House!

On Nov. 16, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act by a vote of 272-154. The bill, if left intact by the Senate, would cause concealed carry permits issued by any State to be recognized by any other State that issues concealed carry permits — similar to the reciprocity we currently have with driver’s licenses.

H.R. 822 would not create a national registry, despite what many emails floating around claim. I received several warnings from readers saying how bad H.R. 822 supposedly was; but, fortunately, the claims made in the emails didn’t match up with the content of the bill.

As a concealed carry permit holder in multiple States and a frequent traveler, I’m excited about this. It has been frustrating over the years to visit the same place a few times per year and have the laws randomly change between visits. Nevada was one particular example of this for me. I’m also excited to see how this pans out in places like California, Hawaii and Maryland — States that technically have concealed carry permits but who make it difficult for travelers with out-of-State permits.

The next steps are for it to pass the Senate, for differences to get ironed out in committee, if necessary, and then for it to be sent to the President. If it gets vetoed, there’s a chance to override the veto. I’m not sure how long the bill can be stretched out, but I wouldn’t mind waiting until late January 2013 for it to go to the President’s desk.

One objection to the bill is that it doesn’t give residents of Vermont reciprocity, since the bill requires a physical license. Frankly, I’m OK with that. This is my opinion, and I welcome comments and criticisms on it.

Right now, the requirements to get a concealed carry permit in most States are fairly lax. In my mind, this is the worst of all worlds. Permit holders get an official-looking document giving them a false sense of ability, and the 2nd Amendment is usurped to a certain extent.

I would much rather see concealed carry recognized as a 2nd Amendment right and for the requirements for concealed carry permits to go up considerably, or for there to be two tiers of concealed carry permits. The first tier could be a criminal background check and whatever is necessary to waive the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives waiting period for buying firearms, but would include no training. I see the possibility that this could also double as a “preferred travelerâ€