The idea that southern states rejected Federal authority and sought to establish a separate Confederacy is well known. This anti-Federalist sentiment led to the secession of Southern States from the Union and culminated in the Civil War.
The anti-Federalist sentiment of the South was primarily motivated by their desire to preserve the institution of slavery, which they felt was their right. These sentiments were voiced at the time by Southern Senator John Calhoun.
What is not so well known is that illegal immigration has also been created and enabled by a very similar anti-Federalist sentiment and scofflaw attitude.
While these two movements share some similarities, they also share some significant differences. In the South, slavery was established long before the U.S. met to ratify a Constitution. Slavery began in the South in the 1600s, while it was not until the 1770s that the 13 colonies began contemplating breaking away from British rule.
Illegal immigration, by comparison, has only been established and defended by anti-Federalist sentiment for the past 30 years, 200 years after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land. It was established in direct defiance of existing Federal law. These include a usurpation of Congressional powers of naturalization and a substitution of Federal documents by state-sponsored documents such as state I.D.s and drivers licenses. All of the documents issued by pro-illegal immigration states are established by policies that not only defy Federal policy but are prima facie illegal, while slavery was legal at its inception.
Slavery was defiantly defended, while illegal immigration was, and continues to be, defiantly established and expanded. Illegal immigration is promoted ad hoc while slavery was defended post hoc.
While the defense of slavery, which took place over many decades, has been documented by historians, the anti-Federalist sentiment that established illegal immigration as an institution is not as well known. In fact, journalists and scholars of labor and immigration have taken great pains to avoid the topic of illegal immigration or have taken a position of support.
The anti-Federalist position of the South can be summarized with Calhoun’s theory of nullification. Crafted to enable the South to retain its institution of slavery, nullification was based on the idea that “the states possessed complete and undivided sovereignity…and that they were possessed of the final authority to interpret the Constitution.” (Kelly & Harbison, p. 292). In effect, it allowed Southern states to nullify the authority of Congress and interpret the Constitution to serve their own ends. From 1830 to 1860, this concept became more and more widely accepted among Southern politicians.
The connection to illegal immigration is this: if Chicago and other sanctuary cities and states wanted to encourage illegal immigrants to settle there, they would then simply declare themselves sanctuaries to illegal immigrants, promote their areas to illegal immigration, and shield them from Federal law. Sanctuary cities shield illegal immigrants from Immigration Law the way Southern states shielded the institution of slavery from Federalist intervention. Sanctuary cities and states defy Federal laws.
The first city to formally declare itself a sanctuary to “residents” regardless of citizenship status was Chicago. In 1985, Mayor Harold Washington issued Executive Order 85-1, declaring that all persons would be allow city benefits and jobs regardless of citizenship status. In effect, the Mayors declared that Chicago, not Congress, would decide what immigrants could reside in the City and receive local, state, and Federal benefits.
New York City followed only months later; and from 1990 to 2000, the U.S. grew at a faster rate than it had during any decade of its history. Most of the immigrants were illegal.
After declaring itself a sanctuary city, Chicago, Cook County – the County that contains Chicago – and the state of Illinois started to issue enabling resolutions and laws to facilitate illegal immigration, granting privileges to illegal immigrants that even citizens in the state don’t have.
For example, the State of Illinois declared the matricula consular card, a card issued by foreign consulates in the state, to be as valid a form of I.D. as an official State of Illinois I.D. card. This is clearly anti-Federalist in nature; only ICE and the Dept. of Homeland Security can decide what form of I.D. a foreign national can carry in the U.S. The state of Indiana follows Federal law and requires those applying for drivers’ licenses and state I.D.s to follow DHS guidelines.
In 2006, Chicagos Mayor Richard Daley II said that if Congress passes HR 4437, which made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant, he would “order his police to not enforce it.” Of course, he already orders all City agencies to not enforce Federal law with regard to illegal immigration.
When the Federal government passed the first e-verify law, requiring employers to use the internet to verify the validity of social security numbers, Illinois had the chutzpah to attack the law, stating that it would not enforce e-verify until the Federal government could guarantee the program’s reliability. That illegal immigration is anti-Federalist in nature is proven by the fact that twice, Federal Courts have ruled that immigration is a Federal issue, not a local one.
And of course, most Americans do not know that during its pro-slavery years, the South was run by the Democratic Party, and that illegal immigration was created by Democrats. This not only illustrates the historically anti-Federalist attitude among Democrat-run states; but since both blacks and Hispanics live in highly segregated neighborhoods in the major U.S. cities, it reveals something about how Democrats treat minorities in order to gain their votes in major elections.
It’s a tragic and unfortunate fact that the Democratic Party has not only practiced a highly oppressive strategy to create segregated urban areas for minorities, but that this was done by flouting their Constitutional rights.
(Reference: Kelly, Alfred H., and Harbison, Winfred A. The American Constitution: Its origins and development. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Fifth ed. )
Michael Bargo Jr. is the author of ‘Mexicago: How the Chicago Political Machine created Sanctuary Policy to exploit immigrants and grow government.”
Photo Credit: terrellaftermath