Our founding fathers did not envision a day and age where a foreign country (Mexico, for example) would become a staging ground for cross border infiltration on the order of a massive invasion. We had just won our Independence from England, the word's greatest power at the time separated by an entire ocean. The bonds holding us back from Independence and from freedom as a Independent Democracy were the bonds of power between British soldiers and King George on one side and the American rebellion on the other. Separation from England was an act of treason for which we fought the Revolutionary war. Our history as a nation has not seen this precedence setting illegal immigration or massive infiltration of Mexican citizens crossing our borders nor has it imagined these same illegals finding refuge by those who have done so successfully in the past. This now creates a perception that it is OK, to pretend to be an American, enjoying the benefits of citizenship, because America is not seen as being a "safe haven" for political refugees seeking freedom. America for these illegals is perceived as being too weak and too indefensible to know the difference between those who are really Americans and those who are just pretending to be.
While our founding fathers may not have predicted a massive infiltration of illegal immigration into this country, they had the forethought to separate the powers of government between 3 branches of government; The Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. The Executive branch (counting as 1/3 of this separation) is our commander in chief, the President. If the President does not perceive the matters of immigration to be a serious threat then it is up to our other 2 branches of government, the Legislative (Congress) and the Judicial branch to address the issues of illegal immigration. How effectively other countries may be in dealing with this problem is a matter of opinion. A government may simply just have a quota system whereby, other more deserving people may be denied simply because they waited too long. I would argue this is not an effective means of dealing with illegal immigration because it goes against providing "safe haven" to those who are oppressed by political oppression.
So can we continue to look elsewhere beyond are own borders for answers to questions that are uniquely American or should we continue to ask, why has the Congress not acted in deterring illegal immigration. The first amendment to the Constitution empowers American citizens with freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble in protest of the government. Yet, within certain thresholds whereby a protest may become violent to an extent where it infringes on the rights of others, what is a Constitution right can quickly become a violation of the rights of others. Are we to fault our police who respond to violent protests with water cannons and tear gas? Even to a point of clear and present danger to one's safety and concerns over personal property such condemnations are seldom expressed when obviously displayed as justifiable. In this light, therefore, it seems plausible, as well, that illegal immigration can be dealt with in a way that enforces the concepts that our founding fathers had of being a "safe haven" for politically oppressed individuals and yet also creates the awareness that these freedoms given to us are relative to the freedoms and safety that we all enjoy as citizens of the United States.
