Promoting Immigrant Lawlessness

How to Foment Anarchy, One Law at a Time

A sign at the international boundary between Canada and the United States in Point Roberts, Washington.
By Makaristos, 10/13/07.

On July 10 James C. Harrington wrote an article for “The Texas Observer” titled “Protecting Immigrant Families: A Call for an Economic Boycott of Texas.” He should have called it “Promoting Immigrant Lawlessness: How to Foment Anarchy, One Law at a Time.” That is a more apropos assessment of his proposal. Let’s examine his article.

Obfuscating Truth With a Euphemism

Harrington opens his proposal with:

The time has come for us Texans to promote an economic boycott of our state until the misnamed “anti-sanctuary” law, Senate Bill 4, is repealed and state officials end their war on immigrants.

Misnamed indeed! The term used to describe Senate Bill 4—“anti-sanctuary law”—is based upon the euphemism “sanctuary city.” A city that harbors illegal aliens—criminals that have violated federal immigration law—is no more a sanctuary than a home that harbors an escaped convict.

Enforcing the Law

War on immigrants? One million legal immigrants were welcomed to these United States in 2015, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security published data. Those who entered our country unlawfully are criminals that ought to be indicted, convicted and deported.

Harrington continues:

SB 4, Texas’ “show me your papers” law, which goes into effect September 1, is the worst discrimination law that any state has passed in recent times.

Horrors that our state chooses to enforce immigration law! Perhaps Harrington is open to repealing the “discrimination” of sexual predators, whose names and residences are published to warn neighbors. What about those poor burglars on the lam? Perhaps Harrington is open to providing them sanctuary in his home?

Arrest Officials Who Don’t Enforce the Law

Rather than draw any further attention to Harrington’s outrageous article, consider this solution to the lawlessness that masquerades as sanctuary. Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. delivered the concluding remarks at CPAC 2017. Reader Daniel Hunt commented on Clarke’s remarks in the “Letters” section of the July 24, 2017 issue of “The New American” magazine. He wrote:

Sheriff Clarke spoke at the CPAC Convention in February. He remarked that the sanctuary movement would be stopped dead in its tracks if just one government official supporting the movement was arrested.

One of those officials is Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy. On February 23, he stated to the nation, while on Tuck Carlson’s show, his refusal to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Governor Malloy either fails to understand or refuses to accept some hard facts. Article VI, Clause 2 states the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Clause 3 states all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Clause 18 states Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof. Congress created the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in pursuance of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; Article I, Section 8, Clause 18; and Article VI, Clause 2. Section 274 [8 U.S.C. 1324] of the INA—Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens—being the supreme law of he land for immigration, requires the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who aids and abets illegal aliens.

If Texas is to remain a state ruled by law, not by men, we must respect and enforce all law, including immigration law. When Texas regains its independence, we will respect and enforce all laws. Then, Texans that advocate lawlessness, like Harrington, ought to consider emigrating back to the United States, where the rule of men supplanted the rule of law.

About Andrew Piziali 24 Articles

Andrew Piziali is a retired design verification engineer with a passion for Jesus Christ and liberty. He is a contributor to the Collin County chapter of the Texas Nationalist Movement.

  • StillLearning-HNPV

    That sign (I hate to say this) should be in Spanish, Arabic, and probably a few other languages as well. If someone can read the English version, at least they may have a slight grasp of what they SHOULD know when they come to this country.

  • Texian for Independence

    SB4 is a mass violation of privacy rights and should be opposed. Sanctuary cities, while maybe not beneficial to society, should be decided on a local level, not state. After all, we are for decentralization, right? Besides, arresting people for refusing to enforce a possibly unconstitutional law is just plain wrong, and possibly unconstitutional in and of itself.

    • Darkmans_Shadow1

      It appears that you fail to grasp what is being stated here. It is not only that sanctuary cities are not beneficial to society, but they are in fact against the law based upon Art 1, Sec 8 of the US Constitution to which we currently adhere. We are not for any further centralization as you infer, “After all, we are for decentralization, right?” but in fact are for decentralization, which while an admirable aspiration is not the point here. The further statement you make “arresting people for refusing to enforce a possibly unconstitutional law is just plain wrong, and possibly unconstitutional in and of itself.” is not correct either. The Constitution states along with the laws pursuant to it concerning legal vs illegal immigration (8 USC 1324: Bringing in and harboring certain aliens: which states in part
      “(a) Criminal penalties
      (1)(A) Any person who-
      (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner…..
      shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

      (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs-

      (i) in the case of a violation of
      subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of
      subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for
      the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined
      under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

      (ii) in the case of a violation of
      subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18,
      imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

      (iii) in the case of a violation of
      subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to
      which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

      (iv) in the case of a violation of
      subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of
      any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or
      for life, fined under title 18, or both.”
      Now without going into the fine details of the sanctuary city problems involved therein, let us just understand harboring illegal aliens is punishable by arrest, incarceration, fines, and possibly even death if the situation applies concerning any particular situation.

      Unconstitutional? Sanctuary Cities? Yes, absolutely they are unconstitutional. Therefore they are against the law and those officials who are supposed to by oath support, defend and protect the Constitution (of the US and/or Texas in this respect) are operating unlawfully and as such are subject to arrest, prosecution, detention with imprisonment for a number of years, and/or fine. What part of harboring illegal aliens which is what operation of so-called sanctuary cities is does not compute?

      • Texian for Independence

        Ooh, several problems here.

        “sanctuary cities are not beneficial to society, but they are in fact against the law based upon Art 1, Sec 8 of the US Constitution to which we currently adhere.”

        Incorrect. Art. 1 Sec. 8 gives powers to Congress; it does not require states to assist Congress in enforcing those laws.

        “We are not for any further centralization as you infer”

        Banning sanctuary CITIES on a STATE LEVEL is centralization. That’s literally the definition of the term.

        “Any person who-
        (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner…..
        shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).”

        This is not relevant to the discussion. Nobody that refuses to enforce the law is bringing or attempting to bring aliens to the United States. They are refusing to enforce the law against illegals already here. Completely different matter. Also, this is US code, not the Constitution.

        “Sanctuary Cities? Yes, absolutely they are unconstitutional. ”

        In what way is a city refusing to enforce federal law unconstitutional? The feds cannot constitutionally force states or cities to assist them in the enforcement of federal laws. Even the Supreme Court has upheld this, and typically they’re not for local powers at all.

        “What part of harboring illegal aliens which is what operation of so-called sanctuary cities is does not compute?”

        Simple misuse of terms. Harboring illegal immigrants is not the same as refusing to actively assist federal agents in the enforcement of federal law. There’s nothing stopping ICE from conducting raids without the consent of a “sanctuary city.” They just can’t force the local police force to assist them.

        Furthermore, you didn’t address the unconstitutional nature of this particular bill, SB4. It is a violation of the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, violates due process, etc.

  • Or we can give you free healthcare an education and food stamps and if you have a kid it is a naturalized American

  • …Survivors will be prosecuted.

  • This must apply to American citizens returning from out of the country only…

  • Nah, NEVER be enforced.

  • In english…lmao!

  • Do it!

  • Build a wall. Stop making excuses and get it done. We brought all these problems upon ourselves by our lack of action.

  • Or be registered democRAT.

  • I’m thinking this should be in a language other than English.

  • Depends on what side of the border it is.