"Illegal alien/immigrant" DOES NOT EQUAL "illegal person"

(UPDATE: My latest comment on this issue, and I would urge you to read the whole thread. Although there are some supporters, most of the comments lean heavily in favor of enforcing the law.)

How. Many. Times. Does. That. Have. To. Be. Said?!

I'm very tired of seeing this argument, but even more so from someone whose opinion I respect. Usually.

We neglect for a moment that 20 million people are within our borders because they want a better life for themselves and their family.  20 million people willing to work hard, build businesses, make money, and be a part of the community.  You know, the things America used to stand for?

That's wonderful! GREAT! America also stands for - or it used to - the rule of law. You want to come here? Do it legally!

Oh, but, Kat, those poor people are in such dire economic straits, they only want to better themselves, and it is great for the free market! Where's your Christian compassion?!

That's the logical fallacy of the appeal to pity. It's exactly the same fallacy as, "Baby, if you love me..." that some unscrupulous people use to get something to which they have no legitimate claim.

Folks, I have compassion for them, but compounding the wrong THEY do by flouting the law when entering this country with simply giving up on enforcing that law is insanity. Two wrongs do not - and can never - make a right!

Allow me to entertain a different idea.  Conservatives ideally believe in the power of the free market.  Instead of rounding up and deporting every non-English speaking Hispanic, why don’t we encourage work visas?  Extend business opportunities to Central America?  Take those 20 million “illegal” persons (as if such a concept existed) and recognize that 20 million potential Americans who believe in hard work and free enterprise are ready to enlist in the American Experiment?

As I said over in the comments, I have never heard of any conservative put forth the idea that people who have entered this country are "illegal persons" (i.e. - just so I'm absolutely clear - persons whose very existence is illegal). To phrase the argument that way is disingenuous and commits the logical fallacy of equivocation.

When conservatives refer to "illegal aliens/immigrants," we mean that these people have arrived in this country by illegal means - they have broken our law. That is, by definition, illegal. Period. Shall we try to keep that in mind?

Now.

Are our immigration laws broken? Yup.

Is enforcement of those laws a joke? Yup.

Are there opportunities for people from other countries to come here and work for a better life? Yup.

Would I - or any conservative - welcome people who show respect for our national sovereignty and culture by coming here legally? You bet yer shiny-white-hiney!

The answer is NOT to have open borders: there are people who want to come here so that they can - effectively - rape, pillage, burn, murder and destroy. They hate us. It would not be a good thing to let them in; on the contrary, it would be wise to make all efforts to keep them out.

Are all illegal aliens "out to get us"? No, of course not - but by the same token, not all passengers flying planes are terrorists. Does that mean we can have "open boarding" for everyone who has a ticket? Yeah, I know, TSA screening is a joke, too - does that mean we just throw our hands up in disgust and give up?! Good Lord, no!

Geeze, people, show a little common sense! (Oh, yeah, "oxymoron" - right [headdesk])

I have no idea who this commenter is, but when - in response to my comment, which is the first on that post - he says

Kat seems to again stumble into the legal positivism, rejecting natural law. Kat says “But I do not want, as a citizen, to welcome people who deliberately and intentionally break our laws”. Is one’s desire to come to America and live a better life now equated to a desire to deliberately break the law? Or is the breaking of the law the unintentional side effect of seeking self betterment in this case? One must assume from Kat’s comment that the position being taken is that the driving goal of illegal immigrants is NOT to live in land of opportunity, but to break laws. Seriously? That’s fundamentally ridiculous. Respect for the law is key. Love for your fellow man is far superior.

he sets aside the fact that

1. allowing your love for your fellow man to negate your respect for a law that does not contradict God's law (and shall we use the Ten Commandments, just to make this simple?) is allowing every man to do what is right in his own eyes - and leads to anarchy and total disrespect for your fellow man
2. I never said that the driving goal of immigrants was to break laws, but rather that they do so knowingly and intentionally to achieve their driving goal of entering this country
3. seeking self betterment is wonderful and breaking the law (again, I refer to laws which do not directly contradict God's law) may be a side effect, but the fact is that they DO break the law intentionall - and the ends do NOT justify the means
4. natural law requires that we have open boarders? Really? To which "natural law" does he refer? What "natural law" am I rejecting? Even when our Founders said out unalienable rights were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," they did not set aside the LAW so that everyone could do as they darn well pleased!

Good Lord, I've seen clearer thinking from rabid liberals!

... OK, maybe not, but it's a pretty close call.

People. There are a lot of proposed solutions out there, and I would love to see this broken system fixed, but rolling over and giving up is not reasonable, rational, wise, frugal, profitable OR compassionate. No market is completely free, no borders are completely secure. But one of the mandates of our Federal government is to protect the lives and rights of American citizens first.

Our laws can be changed by legal means. If you feel that passionate about the plight of the poor, beleaguered people who come here by illegal means, then use the existing system to change the laws and fix the bloody problem!!!!

But do not set aside existing law just to soothe your hurted widdle feeewings and make yourself feel better and morally superior because you waved your hand and helped those law-breakers in their lawlessness.

And, yeah, this is a pretty harsh post with strong language. I can do that you know - just because I prefer not to smack people upside the head doesn't mean I won't.

And, Shaun, I still love you.

Comments

[GM Roper]

1.

Ya' know Kat, when you choose to rant, you rant right up there with the best of them. And you did it with no foul language too. You are hereby awarded the A-1, Triple-good Atta-Gal as attested to by moi. So there!

[Kat]

2.

Aw, GMan, thanks! *blushes* *sends hugz!*

[Man of the West]

3.

Kat, I haven't looked at the comments over there (and may not--well over fifty comments at this point, and there's only so much time in the day!), but truthfully, I'm not sure that there's much point in engaging him on most of what he wrote. He pretty much gave the game away when he wrote:

Let’s not kid ourselves as to who these 20 million people are. 20 million Canadians, or Irish, or Europeans probably wouldn’t phase our American sensibilities so much. In fact, we’d probably welcome them with open arms to revive our manufacturing base, do the jobs nativist Americans simply do not do, or to reinvigorate our population replacement rates.

But it’s 20 million Mexicans.
20 million people of a foreign people (i.e. not European).
20 million people who don’t speak English.

…and so, rather than appealing to our logic, we appeal to baser instincts.

So, there it is: you want immigration laws enforced it's because you don't like Mexicans.

Heck of an argument. Seen if often before. Have to wonder why he didn't just openly call people raaaaaaaacists.

Times like this, I'm grateful for my wife's heritage (her grandmother immigrated from Mexico; her mom's side of the family is pretty much all Mexican-American, bilingual, the whole nine yards...). Grateful, too, for the opportunity to teach English to Mexican immigrants (legal ones, insofar as I know; I'm pretty sure...), as between the two, it makes it darn hard, in my case, anyway, for people to make the "you just don't like Mexicans" crapola stick.

I'm not at all familiar with the gentleman who wrote the original post. I have to wonder if he generally leans libertarian. Rather a lot of libertarians find themselves highly offended at the thought of laws limiting where a person can live; like globalists, they think free markets exist only where there is free flow of goods and people across borders. I noted that at one point, the man apparently confused free trade (it has a very specific definition) and free markets; if he did not, he was mixing his arguments somewhat...

It's fundamental to any nation to be able to say who and who should not be able to enter. If you cannot say who and who should not be able to enter, that is, in effect, the same thing as saying that everyone should be able to come--a practical, to say nothing of logical, impossibility. More consistent thinkers, in my opinion, recognize that not everyone can come here, for one reason or another, and further, that the determination who can come here rests not in the hands of would-be immigrants, but in the hands of the country's citizens.

Just my two cents.

[Kat]

4.

MotW, Shaun has been a staunch and supportive ally in the conservative cause, which is why this made me totally blow a gasket. This post is simply a codification - and a somewhat restrained version - of a discussion we held onlist in the Virginia blog group we belong to.

And, believe me, getting me to post replies and refutations and requests for clarification via my cellphone takes quite a bit of provocation! LOL Good thing I wasn't out of the house too long - otherwise, there was no way I would have written up this post *grinz*