Immigration, Culture, and Legalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRMlQiNkSpE

Our original Constitution of the United States, together with the Bill of Rights, was just a little over 5,000 words.  The first federal “criminal code” of the United States was the “Crimes Act of 1790, was approximately 3,000 to 3,500 words.  If typed and printed using standard type, it would require about six or seven pages.

In contrast, the 1926 Criminal Code of the former Soviet Union (a revision of the earlier 1922 Code) would have made up somewhere between 160 to 180 pages.  The infamous Article 58 of that Code (“Counter-revolutionary Crimes”) alone would have been approximately 1,200 to 1,500 words, translated to English.

The point here is that our Forefathers understood that 99% of the rules governing social conduct would best be derived from the mostly unwritten rules defined by cultural AND religious norms, with any (vastly fewer) exceptions being enforced mostly by civil courts and various local assemblies.  This is something that other, more left-wing and Communist countries, rejected.  In other words, our American ancestors believed that the most effectual means of jurisprudence was the existence of a strict individual moral code, upheld by a commitment to religious ideals, and enforced by the assimilation of cultural standards.  Or, as John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

It is for this reason that the above YouTube video by Jonathan Pageau is of such great importance, especially when thinking about what our national policy toward immigration must be, and by extension, what immigration enforcement must look like.

Similarly, the points I wish to make here are two-fold.

First, with respect to the question of immigration and how we should think about it: As Mr. Pageau explains, the acceptance and political support for the idea of unlimited mass immigration has the consequence of changing fundamental domestic societal norms and culture as a whole in very drastic ways. As he says, “If you do not conform...and if too many people do not conform to the thing that they are participating in, it will cease to be what it is.” Using the Biblical parable of the wedding banquet (Matthew 22), he continues: “It should not be weird...for nations to expect from people that come to their nation, to participate in the social fabric, to in some ways, ‘wear the wedding garment’, wear the clothing, ‘wear’ the behavior, ‘wear’ the social norms of the nation that their joining.” The problem is, if you don’t expect this of people coming to “join your nation”, as he says, then at some point, IT WILL NO LONGER BE YOUR NATION.

What the obvious lesson here is, is that, in time, we will no longer be the nation to which billions of people strive to come, and to which millions attempt to make the trip every year, despite incredible personal hardship, with many even risking death in the process. Instead, we ourselves, will become what those people are trying to escape; because those cultures and societies are clearly responsible for the current condition of their native country – if not ultimately, definitely in preliminary and developmental times.

Should immigrants have an obligation to “conform”, to assimilate in our way of life and our culture, as a price for remaining here? Or, to say it another way, would we have an obligation, if we were invited to another country and given the opportunity to stay, to assimilate with their culture, or at least, not do anything to try and transform it into our own image of what that country should look like? I think that answer is clear.

My second point is related to the associated question of immigration enforcement.

The Department of Homeland Security has recently released a list of “Worst of the Worst” criminal illegal aliens that have been apprehended, or for which other enforcement action has been taken, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the last year. BEFORE YOU DISMISS THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE ON THE BASIS OF YOUR OPINION ABOUT ICE, PLEASE EXERCISE JUST A LITTLE PATIENCE AND CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION.

Among those listed were:

1) “Yordanis Cobos-Martinez—an illegal alien from Cuban with a rap sheet including child sex abuse, grand theft of a motor vehicle, false imprisonment, and carjacking—was arrested by Dallas Police Department at a motel in Dallas for murder. Cobos-Martinez allegedly used a machete to behead a merchant he had an argument with in front of the merchant’s spouse and child. Reportedly, Cobos-Martinez then kicked the head of the victim ‘around like a soccer ball.’”

2) “Yorvis Michel Carrascal Campo, a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela and confirmed member of the violent transnational Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), has been charged for murder, racketeering, and drug trafficking in New Mexico. ICE arrested this gang member in Colorado Springs, CO on January 8, 2026. Several TdA gang members viciously kidnapped a man, tortured, and then strangled him to death. The victim’s body was found inside a suitcase and was buried in a remote location within New Mexico.”

3) “Alvaro Mejia-Ayala, a criminal illegal alien from El Salvador, who has been charged in the strangulation of his infant sister in Loudoun County, Virginia. ICE lodged a detainer for his arrest.”

NOW, IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT CRIMES BY ILLEGAL ALIENS, ESPECIALLY. There have been many more examples of violent and heinous crimes committed by people that might be considered “home-grown”. The point here is NOT that crime, violent or otherwise, is more likely to be committed by illegal aliens. In fact, evidence suggests that the opposite is true. HOWEVER, regardless of whether these violent and dangerous criminals are organic or imported, we have established, at every level of government, a cadre of individuals, as a traditional means of mitigating not only the problem of crime, in general, but the potential impact that criminals in particular can have on each one of us, and in some cases, as I have described, that impact is deadly and horrific. It is important to keep in mind, always, that these individuals place themselves between us and the most violent and dangerous criminals that seek to do us harm. They first shield us from the worst of those offenders, and then exercise a judicial course of action to bring about justice, when the best of those protective efforts fail.

The traditional response to that corps of individuals by society, going back to the discussion I made earlier about cultural norms, is to honor them for their brave efforts made on our behalf, and to support them as best as possible. At one time, this seemed not only reasonable, but would have been considered a terrible dereliction of moral duty not to do so.

And even if there exists among their ranks a few bad actors that betray our trust, does that negate this duty with respect to the larger corps of defenders? Of course not! Given the fact that these are human beings, and that what we often expect of them involves acting in an environment that is not only chaotic, but also antagonistic and hostile – sometimes for hours at a time, that should not change our disposition to that corps as a whole. Of course, we are right to demand discipline and, if necessary, legal action, when any of them cross the line. But, imagine what would happen if we were to withdraw our support, our honor, and our allegiance in its entirety. Why would anyone continue to work in such a field? Is our fairy-tale belief in some sort of universal “goodness” of mankind such that we don’t think that such a scenario would leave us mostly defenseless against ruthless, conscienceless evil-doers?

After all, most of us do not have the means to provide this kind of protection for ourselves, unlike some well-to-do celebrities and influencers – many of whom are themselves openly hostile to law enforcement and outwardly show their disdain while, at the same time, sparing no expense for their own protection with body guards, tall and impenetrable barriers and fences, and complex security systems.

Which leads me to my final point. I think it is reasonable to conclude, if my discussion up to this point has been at all rational and cogent, that the kind of support we owe to those in law enforcement includes the understanding that, in any personal encounter, unless faced with a clearly detrimental or impossible scenario, such a civil-minded people would feel an obligation to first comply willingly and with an amenable demeanor to any orders or instructions. EVEN IF we disagree with the policy that might be relevant to that encounter, or even if the act of compliance places us in an uncomfortable or inconvenient position; any act of protest or disagreement must be external to that which might interfere with the sworn duty of the officers. And, yes – even if we have the explicit RIGHT to do such-and-such; we must remember that the essence of the fabric of any society does not depend upon those written rules more than it does upon those unwritten rules and codes by which our cultural traditions run much deeper.

A failure to remember this is one of the things will surely result in making us “what we are not”, as much as any external influences that might migrate here from without.