All men seek the fulfillment of two innate, presumably primeval needs: the need for order and the need for freedom. The first, the desire for order, contrary to first blush, is assuredly the most dominant. Simeon Weil, writing in 1943 (after being expatriated by the Nazi occupation of her Paris home), in The Need for Roots, observed that while man typically turns the phrase "law and order" as the preeminent requirements for society, it is the establishment of order that precedes all. In fact, laws arise to formalize a preexisting social order. The well of order runs deep and is ancient. These are the "prejudices" (as discussed by Burke) that are the essence of "folk-knowledge". These include the behavioral mores passed down through the life of the culture, father to son, mother to daughter, over centuries. Without a commonality steeped in this basic communal understanding, there is no cohesion and scant chance for the community to bind together in meaningful ways. Without a shared belief system - an unconscious appreciation of kinship - there is, inevitably, fragmentation and eventual dissolution. This set of unspoken but deep-seated beliefs are the nails to which the framework of law and society are nailed. Without them, the structure soon collapses. The "inner order" of the soul is intricately linked to the "outer order" of society. One only need contrast the end results of the American and the French Revolutions to discern the true importance of individual and societal order when establishing its offspring, law and, then, government. The deep abiding sense of order in the American people allowed for law and, then, government, to blossom. In France, a stark void of personal order killed law and, then, murdered government, root and branch. The French Revolution ended, not in triumphant democracy but in, first, ignoble despotism and, then, a return to absolute monarchy.

If a society has a sufficient wellspring and an appreciation of order, freedom may follow. For our purposes, "freedom" is the classical meaning of liberty to pursue a better life and the accouterments of same. Stated otherwise, the desire for freedom is, when boiled to its essence, the wish to be liberally governed. Which is to say that they wish to be unencumbered by the oppression restrictions that accompany despotism (always repugnant to liberty) or absolute monarchy (often an enemy to liberty). As Locke (and others before and since) have stated, the purpose of government is to protect personal property and, as a secondary purpose, to provide for the enhancement of the lives of the citizenry. The lives of those who voluntarily subjugate themselves to a system of government are, when rule is just, improved by controlling the transgressions against property and person of those (within the citizenry or without) who wish to do them harm. All of government, when well conceived and properly instituted, is constructed to facilitate the efforts of the citizens in their quest to achieve and retain their natural rights. These, as enumerated by Locke, are the right to life, liberty and property or, put more succinctly, the right to one’s estate.

The bargain between the citizens and their nascent government is contingent on two abiding principles. Government is established by the people of their free will. On the part of the people, they accept that certain personal and domestic liberties must be forfeited to the government in order that the system of laws thus established be effective for its purpose - i.e. preservation of private estate. Conversely, the government is chartered to usurp some liberties (those agreed upon, and freely given) of the citizens in order to execute their sacred duties. Those not clearly forfeited by the citizens through their acquiescence remain sacrosanct and with the subjects. This is the bargain struck when instituting a system of government. The citizens and the government, both jointly and separately, comprehend that specific tenets guard the rights of the people and that the government serves only at the pleasure of the citizenry.

When the communication between subjects and their chosen government is frequent and robust, there is a historical probability that the citizens will remain content and, being so, will permit modest incursions on their liberties and their properties. For instance, the governments frequently will require money to enable them to secure the tranquility - both domestically and in foreign affairs - of the nation and her people. These funds are, with the consent of the ruled, to be equally and justly requisitioned from the citizens. The government is trusted to rightly spread the onerous burden of taxes uniformly among all citizens. As part of the sacred trust between the people and their elected rulers, these monies are to be jealously guarded and expended only for actions necessary to ensure their sole purpose: the protection of the citizens natural rights of life, liberty and property. These being heretofore agreed upon as the sole purpose of government so instituted.

At times, in the function of every government, there will be conflicts between the people and their government. The causation of these disagreements will, invariably, be myriad and diffuse. For the most part, and given the nature of man, these disputes will arise when government fails to distribute the burden of its expenses equally and justly among the people. With an awareness by the government that every effort to solicit extraordinary monies should be freely discussed, with and between the citizens, prior to their implementation, these conflicts should be uncommon. Clearly, in avoidance of such disputations, the rationale for such a requisition should be made privy to the electorate in as great a detail as possible so that the people might be made to see and appreciate its need. When trust has been established between the government and the people over years of intercourse and mutually beneficial partnership, these passing disputes should be addressed easily and expeditiously. Communications between the elected and the electorate are always the most efficient and fruitful way of resolving counterpoint.

Undoubtedly, there will be rare occasions when there will be a difference in policy between the representative government and the people represented that cannot, given sufficient time and debate, be amicably resolved. It is at this time that statesmanship is required. The chief executive, duly elected as the best of the citizens from whence they are chosen, may be required to solicit directly from the electorate, their ascension in the new policy. Truthfully and candidly laying out the consequences of the various actions available and the impact non-ascension will cause the nation and the people, the leader presents the government’s case to the electorate. If presented with tact and honesty, eschewing all condescension, and bolstered by a reserve of trust from years of just rule, the wise statesman will most frequently carry the day.

However, if there is reason among the people to distrust government, such disputes can be intemperate. With a mature system, infused as they are with decades or centuries of tradition and mutual affection, citizens with their government, resolution can most times be achieved. Negotiation and compromise between right-thinking citizens and their legislatures has, throughout the rich history of nations, allowed cooler temperaments to prevail and disasters neutered.

There are exceptions. The American Civil War was a breakdown in a stable, mature governmental system among a people with a deep-running sense of individual and societal order. Yet, a nation was torn asunder by martial strife. Societal order collapsed before law and, once that occurred, the die was tragically cast. The interests of the two factions could not be reconciled and one, the South, felt their contract with the sitting government was fractured beyond mending. In truth, the common system of beliefs that had led to a unified community had begun to unravel decades before. The Old South, driven by pride and avarice, would hold onto their "peculiar institution" which had became repugnant to the majority of the nation. The lifestyles and economies of the regions (the industrial North and the agrarian South) grew apart as their shared allegiances was inexorably eroded away. Further, weak statesmen in power during the early stages of the conflict (President Buchanan, et al) contributed to the Greek tragedy that played out among the citizens and the government until the climax: four years of a bloody conflict.

Truly, these sorts of tragedies do occur but cast not a shadow on the basic premise: namely, when common beliefs, communication, free debate and trust are relied upon to bind the citizens to their government, harmony is, if not assured, highly likely. With the bindings of one and a half centuries since 1861-1865, it would not be imprudent to believe that American’s attachment to its government has been strengthened in that interim. Certainly, there are ebbs (Watergate, Viet Nam) and swells (World War II, 9/11/2001) in the tide of the citizen’s affections for their nation and its government. But, in the larger picture, these are but ripples upon the surface of a very sizable reservoir.

But, one may reasonably ask, what might the future hold? In this sphere, I am not nearly as sanguine. My personal discomfiture lies principally in the realization that the nation is changing at a rate which is not conducive to a proper instillation of the rich history that is the American nation. Unbridled immigration has diluted the delicate mixture of citizens born to and educated within the uniquely American social order and cultural patterns. When, as proven, it is the system of societal order that binds the structure of government and laws into a smooth-running system, I cannot help but believe that disturbances of this delicate balance are the most likely threat (not foreign aggression) to national stability and serenity. With this said, I submit that unencumbered immigration will pose the great threat to our national repose in the coming years.

I will not even attempt to refute the threadbare and trite retort that "we are a nature of immigrants." That is readily acceded and understood. But, there is a difference. Namely, the immigrants that did build this nation in times gone by did so, in part, as a result of their diligent and unwavering grasp for the American way of life. These people came to our shores with an all-consuming desire to not just inhabit American but to become - body and soul - an American themselves. They wanted, above all things, for their children to be seamless participants in the American way of life. In this quest, the parents sought to instill in their children - not the stories of the grandeur of the lands they left - but, instead, with the folklore, history, rights and duties that were part-and-parcel of their new land. They desired that their children speak America’s language and hoped, in turn, to have their children teach that language to them. They worked and strove to assimilate their families in to the American way of life.

In those halcyon days when it was not just permissible but a source of pride to speak of the "great melting pot" of our nation, we welcomed - if not with open hearts, at least open arms - immigrants, especially those who wish to follow their "American Dream." But, with the 21^st century torrent of immigrants - not from Europe as in the past but, principally, from Latin America - the attitude of the immigrants has changed. Examine, if you will, these comments from the Washington Post’s series on immigration:

"In fact, the very concept of assimilation is being called into question as never before. Some sociologists argue that the melting pot often means little more than "Anglo conformity" and that assimilation is not always a positive experience – for either society or the immigrants themselves. And with today's emphasis on diversity and ethnicity, it has become easier than ever for immigrants to avoid the melting pot entirely. Even the metaphor itself is changing, having fallen out of fashion completely with many immigration advocacy and ethnic groups. They prefer such terms as the "salad bowl" and the "mosaic," metaphors that convey more of a sense of separateness in describing this nation of immigrants.

""It's difficult to adapt to the culture here," said Maria Jacinto, 32, who moved to the United States 10 years ago with her husband, Aristeo Jacinto, 36. "In the Hispanic tradition, the family comes first, not money. It's important for our children not to be influenced too much by the gueros," she said, using a term that means "blondies" but that she employs generally in reference to Americans. "I don't want my children to be influenced by immoral things."" [Emphasis added]

I cannot help but be troubled by this expose and this rhetoric. For if it is true that cultures survive when there is a shared set of beliefs that allow the progression from order to law and, then, to effective governance, does not a fragmentation into a "salad bowl" or "mosaic: work against this uniformity of mores? Do we not see, already, a move to balkanization of the nation into vocal, occasionally disruptive enclaves of Hispanic, Asian, Arabic and other immigrants, all demanding "separate-but-equal" government support? And do not ethnic "cliques" foment interracial or, at least, ethnic violence along the way? Finally, one must ask: Does not Court- and Congressionally-mandated "special accommodations" for immigrants dilute precious resources - especially in the realm of education - better utilized to provide for an English-speaking nation?

These questions (and many others that leap to mind) do give one pause. As levels of immigration influx continue to rise and, in today’s "politically-correct" legislative climate, are we able to afford the costs of a balkanized nation?