This is PART of an article:

http://acc.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseact ... ls&id=3940



5. Democrats governments are formed on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Illegal immigrants are in a democratic state without the consent of the governed. They have no moral or legal right to be in the democratic country. Therefore Democratic states should defend their borders from illegal migration without hesitation or apology. Any procedures regarding immigration and assimilation law of any kind (including the deportation of illegal aliens) should be decided by national democratic institutions and these same procedures can be revoked by national democratic institutions. “We the people” of a particular liberal democratic nation-state decide the immigration policies of that particular state, not unelected and unaccountable international (or transnational) lawyers or judges). Democratic governments should adhere to the principle of democratic sovereignty. In order to be valid within the liberal democratic system specific immigration rights beyond borders would be have to part of a treaty agreed to by a national democratic legislature and, by the same token, this treaty could be revoked by the same national democratic legislature.

6. On January 28 of this year, the El Paso Times reported that the national head of the US Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar declared that men in Mexican military uniforms crossed the US border near Sierra Blanca. He said that the local sheriff Leo Samaniego believed they were Mexican soldiers and that “I would have a tendency to agree with him.” Further, Aguilar stated that the charges by the Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary that the men were really American soldiers disguised as Mexican soldiers “doesn’t make any sense.” Apparently there are border incursions of this type (usually protecting drug smugglers) 200 times a year, about every three weeks. Yesterday, a group of Texas sheriffs (many of them like Aguilar and Samaniego, Mexican-Americans) testified before the Congress pleading for some back-up on the border by the US government.

Therefore, point 6, the Bush Administration and the Congress should listen to Aguilar, Samaniego, and the Texas sheriffs and give them the help they need defend a border that is currently too porous. Too open to all---to Radical Islamist terrorists, as well as individuals seeking to work in this city of Los Angeles.
7. In the US, the Immigration and Nationality Act declares that applicants for American citizenship must not only have knowledge of the history and government of the United States, but be attached to the principles of the Constitution and should be well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. Obviously individuals who seek to replace the US Constitution with Shariah law should not become citizens of the United States since they would violate the premise that a newcomer must not simply understand the principles, but be attached to the principles of the Constitution. Therefore, it makes sense not to issue immigrant visas to aliens who advocate the establishment of Shariah law. During most of the 20th century committed anarchists, Nazis, and Communists were not permitted to permanently immigrate to the US because they sought to replace the American constitution with an anti-democratic political system. Today these types of restrictions on anti-democratic ideology should apply to those who would replace the US Constitution with Sharia law. They should not be permitted to permanently immigrate to the United States.
John Fonte is a senior fellow and director of Hudson's Center for American Common Culture.

Contact John Fonte