When we are young we are told to be wary of strangers, that it’s better to not trust someone you don’t know, to stay away rather than take a chance. This is exactly why our borders must be secured. We have no idea who’s coming into this country. Sure, they could be a mother seeking safety for her child, or a young man simply wanting to earn a living, but they could also be a murderous psychopath.

All other immigration issues are secondary to border security. Without secure borders there is no basis from which to design immigration “reform” measures or consider amnesty. Why would we want to grant amnesty to people we know nothing about?

For illustration, consider the following…

Picture a town hall or city council meeting discussing the issues of immigration, amnesty, border security, etc. The floor being opens for public comments. A public representative approaches the podium:

“Thank you for being here and thank you for giving me a chance to voice my comments.”

“I’d like to ask you some questions. But before you feel like I’m putting you on the spot. I’m going to give you the answer. The answer is, ‘I don’t know.’ That’s right. For each question I’m about to ask, the correct response is, ‘I don’t know.’ So. My questions…”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many entered in possession of firearms?”

“What’s that? You don’t know? Ohh. Ok. Next question…”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many have a debilitating drug addiction?”

“You don’t know? Hmm.”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many are violent felons?”

“You don’t know that either? Wow.”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many have a communicable disease?”

“Don’t know?”

Wanting to control immigration isn’t driven by xenophobia or bigotry, it’s about safety. It’s about valuing the security of your neighbors and their children. It’s about trying to make sure we don’t allow people into our communities that will cause us harm.

Doing anything less is tantamount to declaring open season on our friends and neighbors.

So we now have speculative proof that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. By whom is still in debate, and that is the main reason why we should not launch a campaign in Syria. We have no idea who to campaign against. But there is another, more compelling reason why we should not go into Syria. The fact that chemical weapons were used at all.

What?! I thought the “red line” of using chemical weapons should be the catalyst for action, not inaction?!

Allow me to explain.

What does use of chemical weapons say about the person who used them? That they are inhuman animals? Murdering psychopaths? That their objectives permit the use of disgusting, indiscriminate weapons of mass death and mayhem? Yes, all of those things.

And if that person knew that an attack might come, as they certainly do, would that person have any problem at all storing chemical weapons in civilian facilities? Absolutely not.

So don’t you think that whoever that person is has stored their sensitive munitions close to schools, hospitals, mosques? And don’t you also think that, if we were to engage those targets, even with remote missile strikes, that the destruction would be used to further inflame anti-American tensions?

Do you think that person, who used chemical weapons, weapons that cause the violent, tortured death of innocent people, would have any problem using images of “death by American missile” to agitate his followers, even after arranging the very situation that led to those images of death?

A horrific as the use of chemical weapons is, we have no business getting involved in Syria. Even if we knew who used them, striking likely storage sites will get innocent blood on American hands. And what’s needed to strike storage sites without getting blood on our hands? Boots on the ground. How’s that “smart diplomacy” working now?