Rights and Obligations

On the 9th of March in 1916 Pancho Villa sent several hundred Mexican guerrillas on a raid into the United States. The invaders attacked Columbus New Mexico, killing 17 Americans. US cavalry from nearby camp Furlong confronted Villa's force, chased it back into Mexico and killed a number of the guerrillas along the way. Six days after the invasion President Wilson ordered the US army to launch a punitive expedition into Mexico to capture Villa and disperse his forces. A sequence of events was set in place that may well have culminated in a full blown war between the US and Mexico if not for the looming conflict in Europe that was to become World War I.

Looking back through the lens of history we see the 1916 US government seriously undertaking its responsibility to protect the sovereignty of the United States and the lives and property of its citizens. But what if the US government had not acted? What if those in the besieged town of Columbus New Mexico had their cries for help fall on the deaf ears of a Federal government that refused to perform its role? Would New Mexico have had the right to protect itself in the absence of assistance from the federal government? In 1916 these questions would have seemed absurd. In 1916 the federal government would have never entertained the notion that it did not have both the right and the obligation to provide for the security of New Mexico.

Under the federal system of government in the United States there is a fundamental presumption that the parties in the federation will fulfill their responsibilities to one another. The federal government has the responsibility to protect the whole of the country and to protect the individual states. When the various parties of the federation start arbitrarily deciding which rules they will follow and which rules they will not it brings the entire system into grave peril. Today there seems to be some confusion regarding where we draw the line between what is a right of the federal government, and what is an obligation.

Several years ago I read a heart wrenching article about two women that were victims of a home invasion. One of the women was able to hide from the invaders and call 911 while the other woman was victimized by the intruders. The police came and knocked on the door. When there was no answer at the door, the police left. The woman again called 911 and again the police came, knocked and left. Ultimately the second woman was discovered by the invaders and horribly tormented by them before they eventually left. During the subsequent investigation into the incident the police department established the position that they had the right to protect these women, but they did not have an obligation to do so.

Self defense is a fundamental right simply because there are times when no one else can help you. When an authority takes the position that they have a right to do something for you, but not an obligation, it at least leaves you with  the option of fending for yourself. The article about the home invaders was written as a warning that people should take their own security seriously and not rely 100% on help that may not arrive in time, or may not arrive at all. But what if those police had taken a slightly different position?  Suppose that they had taken the position that they had an exclusive right to protect those women from crime. Then the police, and only the police, could legally defend these women from the home invaders. The women would then be in a position where they are prohibited from legally protecting themselves. What if the police then went a step further and said that they had that exclusive right, but not an obligation? In essence they would be saying 'you can't protect yourself and we may our may not as we choose."

This is what is happening in Arizona today over the immigration issue. The federal government has taken the position that it has an exclusive right to enforce immigration laws in Arizona, but not an obligation to do so. If the fed refuses to enforce the immigration laws, and refuses to allow the states to do so, where does that leave us? First, it leaves us with an official open borders immigration policy. There is a growing chorus from around the United States against Arizona's choice to enforce immigration laws. The absence of federal commitment to enforce immigration law in Arizona can only be interpreted as the federal government taking an open border position on the issue. The ire directed at Arizona from around the country indicates that there is a significant, deliberate and widespread open borders movement. A second side effect of the federal government's position on this issue is stress on the integrity of the federation.

While this stress is not on the verge of threatening the union, it is important that we be clear about the source of it. City governments and private citizens around the country are vilifying Arizona and threatening boycotts. One might look at the actions of the Arizona legislature as the source of the problem, but one would be looking in the wrong place. If the federal government fulfilled its obligation to enforce immigration law, Arizonans would not have to deal with the barbs being hurled their way. We should not overlook the outpouring of support and solidarity that is also being expressed for Arizona by many Americans, but it is unfortunate that Arizona has to deal with any level of condemnation for exercising their right to self defense. One of the roles of the federal government is to limit disputes between the states. The federal government's lack of immigration enforcement on the southern border is clearly exacerbating the friction between American citizens from different states. While the federal government is very clear about having the right to control illegal immigration, they obviously do not feel much of an obligation to do so.