When freedom succumbs to 'necessity'

In December, 2009 the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of Sen. Lindsey Graham's and Sen. Charles Schumer's promise to resurrect comprehensive immigration reform. But where is their bill? Internet searches are fruitless and a review of THOMAS -- the Library of Congress' database of pending legislation -- reveals nothing. Yet the bill must exist for it's been discussed in reputable media outlets.

At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal article, will carry embedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is "legal." Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren't already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.

Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House's immigration reform bill (H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn't that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!

A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, "It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.

Immigration isn't the only area in which Americans are told to relinquish liberty because the government lacks the will and courage to perform its duties.

Look at air travel since 9/11. Six imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won't even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn't offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It's a necessity.

Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.

Criminals are criminals because they couldn't care less about legality. They aren't concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.

The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It's a necessity.

Government's failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government's failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government's failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!

Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 200 published articles for various newspapers, periodicals and websites. He can be reached through his website, therightslant.com. 
In December, 2009 the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of Sen. Lindsey Graham's and Sen. Charles Schumer's promise to resurrect comprehensive immigration reform. But where is their bill? Internet searches are fruitless and a review of THOMAS -- the Library of Congress' database of pending legislation -- reveals nothing. Yet the bill must exist for it's been discussed in reputable media outlets.

At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal article, will carry embedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is "legal." Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren't already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.

Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House's immigration reform bill (H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn't that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!

A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, "It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.

Immigration isn't the only area in which Americans are told to relinquish liberty because the government lacks the will and courage to perform its duties.

Look at air travel since 9/11. Six imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won't even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn't offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It's a necessity.

Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.

Criminals are criminals because they couldn't care less about legality. They aren't concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.

The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It's a necessity.

Government's failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government's failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government's failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!

Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 200 published articles for various newspapers, periodicals and websites. He can be reached through his website, therightslant.com. 

RECENT VIDEOS