In2theFray has a great post about sovereignty and taxation. A few comments from the elephant:
The Left uses the argument that illegals don’t receive many social services as a way to justify their drain on society. The argument is: “Illegal immigrants pay taxes but don’t always receive benefits, like unemployment and social security. Therefore, they are a net gain for our society.”
Not true. As previously blogged, they are a drain on American resources to the tune of $10 billion/year. Moreover, the argument is lousy: it assumes that the only “services” provided to illegal immigrants by the government would be welfare. It ignores the fact that most of our services are rendered to anyone who lives here: a military; a police force; a triparte system of government; agricultural subsidies which reduce the cost of food; mandatory ER care, regardless of ability to pay; highway maintenance; public transportation; public schools; the EPA; firefighters; etc.
In fact, most Americans don’t pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of services received. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of the income taxes (although they earn 15% of all income). Illegal immigrants, who are certainly not among the top 5% of taxpayers (who share 50% of the tax burden), certainly don’t pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of benefits received. If we are to allow illegal immigrants into America, we will either have to reduce our governmental services or pay more in taxes.
Those who force themselves upon a host and live off its property oft find themselves with a disastrous end: such is our sense of justice.
There is the idea running about that America is a “melting pot” and a “country of immigrants.” First of all, the Pachyderm doubts that anyone who says that America is a “country of immigrants” will really go for the idea that America was also founded on Christian principles, so such principles should permeate our government. More importantly, for those who missed the memo, America fought a war to be a sovereign nation. It then created a system of government that explicitly allows its legislative branch to determine who may be a citizen. Little has changed over the years; foreigners are not allowed to determine when they are citizens.
If 12 million people went into a country, against the will of the government and the people who empower the government to provide for its defense, it would be considered a hostile invasion. The country would be within its rights to command its military force to vanquish the sackers. Its moral obligations are limited to its citizens (those who surrender both property and rights to that government in exchange for its protection); the need of the invaders does not constitute a moral claim upon its intended victim.