What are the worst arguments supporting the proposition that the United States should tolerate illegal immigration? There are no good ones. I have been searching for years. Even otherwise intelligent commentators resort to logical fallacies, emotion, rationalization, nonsense and absurdity when trying to explain why laws protecting our sovereignty and borders, should, unique among all laws not pronounced dead letters, be shrugged, winked and waved away depending on the assessment of the needs and desires of the law-breakers. At the end of this post, I’ll include a poll asking for votes regarding the worst of the “justifications.”
First, however, let’s examine one of the worst, the supposed hypocrisy of opposing illegal immigration because all such advocates for the rule of law and sovereignty have an immigrant somewhere in their gene pool. Never mind that the same pureed-brain argument exists for most occupants of every nation and that it would, carried to its logical-illogical extreme, mean that no borders should be enforced worldwide. For some reason only the U.S. is saddled with this weird theory on an ongoing basis.
The website A Beautiful Perspective’s ironically titled “Ideas” section recently extolled a woman named Jennifer Mendelsohn in an article called “Meet the woman confronting public figures with their immigrant histories.” Mendelsohn uses census records and ship manifests to” put anti-immigrant hypocrisy on blast with #resistancegenealogy.” Yes, she’s an idiot, as her quotes make abundantly clear, though the “Ideas” writer seems to have no inkling of her disability, perhaps because she shares it:
A Baltimore-based freelance journalist, Mendelsohn is a passionate genealogist and the creator of #resistancegenealogy, viral Twitter burns in which she confronts anti-immigration public figures with their own family histories. The ancestors she finds often have plenty in common with the immigrants they’re now condemning.
She has turned her sights on Fox News firecracker Tomi Lahren, traced the tree of Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller and dug through enough newspaper archives, ancestry.com listings, marriage licenses and census records to know that if your ancestors came to the U.S. by choice, Scavino’s immigration story is your immigration story, too.
“For me, it’s very personal,” Mendelsohn says. “My great-grandmother was illiterate and my great-grandfather was a shoemaker, and they were given entry to the U.S. with their three children in 1892. Two of my brothers have Ivy League degrees. That’s what it’s all about in America. … [W]e take in people with limited opportunities and we give them opportunities.”
One reads the puff piece with growing sadness for poor Jennifer, who is so enthusiastic and passionate and works so hard, and what she is doing is so, so utterly stupid and irrelevant. Won’t somebody tell her? It would be kind. Like this..
I hate to break it to you, Jennifer, but it’s not 1890 any more. Conditions were different then. See, Jennifer, policies change. Nations change. We learn. Women once weren’t allowed to vote. Insurance was illegal. Doctors handed out opium without prescriptions. And once we had less restrictive immigration laws. In 1890, there were about 63,000,000 people in the United States. Last year, there were more than 324, 000,000. Would that suggest to you that policies involving adding human beings to the population might be reasonably expected to change?
Oh, probably not.
And Jennifer, where did you get the idea that an individual is ethically bound to approve of a process or policy that, through chance and chaos, happened to benefit him or her? Better yet, what fraudulent schools did you attend that left you so devoid of critical thinking skills that you would leap to such a batty conclusion? Go back far enough, and I guarantee there was a rape or six in most human beings’ lineage, without which they wouldn’t exist—you included. Why do you think Genghis Khan and his sons have more descendants on earth than anyone else? Do you oppose rape laws? Do you think rapists should be unpunished? Why not? Your argument about illegal immigration is no different, which is to say, no less moronic.
I’m sorry, but this is tough love.
The same is true of abortion, but in reverse. You exist because you weren’t aborted. Isn’t it hypocritical for you to support abortion, when you may have been the beneficiary, through your ancestors, of a great, great, great grandmother who didn’t have that “choice”? If a Jennifer Mendelsohn, call her Jennifer Hannity, showed up with proof that you owe your existence to an anti-abortion law somewhere in time, would you suddenly slap your forehead and become a Pro-Life zealot? I doubt it. Well, maybe.
We have free will, and are not bound by past circumstances over which we had no control, nor are we obligated to extol past policies simply because now, decades or centuries later, we have derived tangible or intangible benefits from them. Many of our ancestors benefited from slavery at some point: my grandmother’s family owned slaves, for example. Would it be hypocritical for me to oppose slavery? I don’t think so, but then, I think.
The key point that inexplicably seems to elude you is that legal immigration is materially distinct from illegal immigration. My maternal grandmother and grandfather came here from Greece via legal immigration, and became citizens as soon as they could. What is the same about them and the immigrants I oppose—that they both got here—is not germane. The fact that those past immigrants like Sophia Primpas and Basil Coulouris did not arrive breaking our laws, and the illegal immigrants you are promoting did, is what matters. That’s why all your work, all your passion, is foolish and misdirected.
But even if Basil and Sophia swam from Greece and snuck in through Boston Harbor in the dead of night, that still wouldn’t obligate me to cheer for today’s illegals, just as if Basil robbed a bank to feed his eight kids that wouldn’t obligate me to lobby for all bank robbers to be pardoned.
You really shouldn’t make a hobby out of accusing others of hypocrisy without learning what hypocrisy is. (Tell Sarah Feldberg, your interviewer, this as well.) It isn’t hypocrisy to oppose conduct that you once engaged in years before. It certainly isn’t hypocrisy to oppose conduct that your ancestors engaged in decades and centuries ago no matter how well it worked out for you. Now, if you discovered that an illegal immigration opponent was secretly assisting illegal immigrants as they entered the country now, that would be hypocrisy.
Is any of this coming through to you, Jennifer?
Jennifer?
Sigh.
Now the poll…and you can vote for more than one answer:
Ethics Alarms 
Erg…
I wanna devote time to rank the excuses instead of voting for the worst.
But I may be devoting several evenings to reviewing the history of partisan ramrodding of policy.
I’ll do that too, once the votes are in. The one that makes me the most crazy is the Emma Lazarus poem.
That’s the one I voted for. I find the general sentiment attractive, but it was never intended as a national commitment, and it’s not an actual argument for anything.
But you know, that’s the one I hear the most. I really do.
The poem comment is the one that annoys me most, too, but I consider it so stupid that I can’t believe anyone citing it actually considers it an argument, but is just tossing it out as a last-ditch version of “you’re mean!”.
I voted for “nation of immigrants”, as the most dishonest for deliberately ignoring the distinction between “legal” and “illegal”.
I went ahead and did it anyway, my review of partisan ramrodding will wait until I hear some feedback from the original comment.
Thoughts on my ranking?
I’ve presumed that the US has had immigration laws in effect from 1789 onwards. They may have been very lax and open, but there nonetheless. Is that incorrect?
I’m very much a immigrant welcoming person. I’m all for high numbers coming in. My opposition is solely in the lawlessness. So my most offensive rationalization is the racist / xenophobic one.
It’s complicated. Here is an overview I had bookmarked.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/30/how-u-s-immigration-laws-and-rules-have-changed-through-history/
Thanks. by the way—I fixed the vagueness on that point. There has always been some kinds of illegal immigration’ the laws have kept changing.
They were never lax or open. They limited by country, ethnicity, and religion. There was no welfare, no food stamps, no subsidized housing; immigrants had to have money and viable work skills. Anyone with so much as a cough at Ellis Island was sent back.
The idea that America allowed any and all comers is a filthy lie promoted by opportunistic politicians and a scheming media. It may be one of the worst propaganda coups foisted on the American people in the last century.
I am very offended by the thought of “You would do it too”. You aren’t me, and don’t get to speak for me. There are laws I routinely violate. I speed about 5 miles over, and jaywalk when streets are empty for instance. I don’t cross borders casually, and wouldn’t in their shoes. If a cop ever stops me for breaking those laws, I will take my damn punishment without complaint too.
I have been ticketed for driving with expired plates. It was an oversight, and I paid the damn fine without raising a fuss.
don’t get to speak FOR me….
Fixed.
We are a nation of immigrants mantra. Yes, we imported vast numbers of people until the 1920’s. Why, not some beneficient reason like giving opportunity for the huddled masses, but because America was a labor short nation and we needed the Irish and the Italians – or should I use the parlance of the day, “Micks” and “Whops” – to be used as disposable workers in high risk industrial and mining jobs.
Many do not know that the Irish from 1850 to 1865 were boilermen because slaves were too costly to replace. Plenty of Irish if they get killed on the job.
The concept and verbiage of give us the tired, the poor and the huddled masses engrained on the plaque on Liberty Island was not an American sentiment but a French one. It was the understanding of the sculpter/architect of the statue regarding liberty in America. So ascribing such an idea to American values no longer holds because OSHA regulates how many workers we need to kill each year. If you want to blame someone blame occupational safety standards and unions for laws limiting unskilled workers from coming here.
Sort of related is family reunification, otherwise known as chain migration.
If family reunification is vitally important why should they be reunited here after they or their parents ran away from their families voluntarily.
”Plenty of Irish if they get killed on the job.”
On that subject:
“In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York’s Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship’s hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish. Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker.
“ ‘Oh,’ said the worker, ‘the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.’ ”
https://pridecomethbeforeafall.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/the-irish-slave-trade-white-cargo/
Paul,
I was aware of this but chose the boilermen example. Boilers were notoriusly dangerous because technology of the day could not do non destructive testing. Boiler explosions were commonplace.
Thanks for the reinforcement
Never mind the fact that huge numbers of Irish and Italians stepped off the boats during the Civil War and were sent right to the recruiting stations. There were dozens of Italian-American regiments on the Union side in the Civil War, although the Irish units get all the press. The cavalrymen who won the west were 1/3 Irish, it’s not for nothing that the marching song of the 7th Cavalry is “Garryowen.” The thing is that after that we (I can say we because I have both Irish and Italian blood) started fighting the fires, arresting the bad guys, starting our own businesses, and getting into the professions. We didn’t stay separate and apart or moan about victim status. Now they want to take away our right to celebrate our heritage because someone else is offended.
Steve O
Unfortunately, much of American history is being relegated to the dustbin of American experience in favor of the history of Progessivism.
That history is what explains the process through which Americans of all origins melded to create the American culture.
The current historical context is designed to unravel our collective experience.
When we speak of bigotry and discrimination an examination of why many Irish joined the police forces will show there were very few opportunities for the Irish early on. The Nativists saw the Irish as a sub-human species- to quote Aliza.
Same with the Italians – you often had a choice of fire, police, or mob.
I knew of the Irish but not of the Italians
Thx.
Most of the 19th and early 20th century European immigrants brought something to the table. Most also could assimilate and chose to do so, even if we Italians got grief about the “virgin in the bathtub,” (garden shrines to the Virgin Mary, common in Italian households), some of the more unusual parts of our cuisine (tripe, calamari, etc.) and the tendency to “put-a da tile EVERYWHERE,” and we Irish got stereotyped as drunks who had trouble controlling ourselves, i.e. “Irish twins” for kids less than a year apart. I don’t think it hurt that all Americans took up arms together in WWI and by WWII both communities were producing heroes (marine MOH winner John Basilone, ace of the deep Richard O’Kane).
It also doesn’t hurt that, like it or not, Europeans can usually more or less blend in once a generation passes. Not so much New World Hispanics, who usually have enough mestizo (mixed Indian) blood to be darker than Europeans and not so much the various Semitic peoples (the only term I can think of that covers all folks from the Maghreb to the Arabian Peninsula), whose darker skin and distinctive features will always mark them out as different. It doesn’t help that the former are often stubborn about continuing to speak their own language, and it doesn’t help that the latter usually belong to the religion of this nation’s sworn enemies. What is more, those communities have produced few generally accepted heroes or contributors.
What also doesn’t help is that in the time when the Irish, the Italians, and so on arrived, an ocean was a much more formidable barrier than it is now. Once you got here, that was it, you had to learn to communicate, you had to learn how to fit in, and you had to network into new people. There was no flying back to the old country once a year and there was no skyping with your relatives and friends back home. You might hear the news from back home now and then, but in the era when mail only traveled as fast as a ship, news wasn’t news by the time you got it. By the time a generation passed, those ties to the old country were done (unless you still hated the enemies of the old country enough to send money to fight them).
These days, it’s relatively easy for Juanita to zip back to the Dominican Republic or to Mexico when she wants, and its a snap for Hamid to skype with his family and friends back in the small village outside Aleppo. They don’t need to be part of the community or the country where they are living as much. Combine that with liberal politicians feeding them the idea that they don’t need to change, assimilate, or try to fit in at all, and why should they even try?
You can also bet that Michael was laying rail and Patrick was pinning on his badge in the morning, while Giuseppe was digging ditches and Bartolomeo was checking the boiler on the engine to make sure it wouldn’t explode if the alarm came. They didn’t get a check every month just for being here, and they didn’t get subsidized housing or any of those other benefits. You can also bet the farm that they would have been ashamed NOT to be married to the women they were with, and if by chance Maria or Bridget had a child and no husband was in the picture, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts it’s because that husband was dead. You can be certain she wasn’t getting a check funded by taxpayers for breeding, or for the bad luck that took her husband. Her only hope was to work, or to remarry, and that’s just the way it was. These days it’s almost more profitable and a lot easier not to work than it is to work and a great deal easier to have a kid and take the state’s money than to try and live respectably.
In the meantime, those of us whose families did it the right way and who are doing it the right way are paying the bill, so that liberal politicians can create a permanent underclass dependent on them who will always vote to keep the checks coming. Eventually they won’t need us at all, but by then they’ll have taxed us into poverty too.
Solid.
Thanks.
One of the most compelling arguments for a number of issues. I did not get to read it when sent because I can only see some of the replies on my phone. By the time it posted it was it was a list of vertical letters.
I need to spend more time at EA on my computer and not on the phone. It will do wonders to eliminate my many typos due to my fat fingers. It also lets me see the poll – I kinda’ got confused as to what to rank.
“By the time it posted it was it was a list of vertical letters.”
Get out of “reader mode” or “mobile mode” and set the display to “desktop mode” and your phone won’t format the lowest nested comments as vertical strings of letters.
Followup: Jack, with all the Orwellian doublespeak occuring can we drop the word deport and substitute family reunification or is that cultural appropriation?
I should have attributed the actual words on the plaque to Emma Lazurus. It was the conceptual sentiment of the statue of Bartholdi to which I was referring.
Perhaps the talented Ms. Mendelsohn could make hers elf useful and shed some light on one John H. Crawford.
One of Crawford’s Great Granddaughters was Elizabeth Ann Herring, who became Elizabeth Warren.
Crawford was the maternal ancestor Warren claimed had real real high cheek bones and thus…well, you know the rest of the story.
What you may not know is Crawford once shot a Native American, and while this was not an uncommon occurrence in the early 1900’s, the back story is noteworthy
An article in the 08/17/1906 Muskogee (OK) Times Democrat referred to him as a “white man.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warrens-white-great-grandfather-shot-an-indian/
I can’t help wondering if the open borders folks would be just as happy if the people sneaking across the borders en mass were pro Nazi, white nationalist, descendants of the Nazis who fled to Argentina?
They just want a better life. Better than in Paraguay.
On my Dad’s side, the first family member in the U.S. fought in the Revolutionary War. Great, huh? Not so fast. He was a Hessian drummer boy (or drum major, not sure which). He escaped from the POW camp in Fredricksburg, Maryland to Berkeley Springs, then Virginia. Married. Had eight children. Left the eldest one there and headed over the mountains to Ohio with the wife and other seven kids. Thus, a Berkeley Springs family line and an Ohio family line.
On my Mom’s side, the first family member in the U.S. arrived from Ireland sometime after the famine via Canada. As a youngster, he provided for himself working as a dram boy on the crews constructing (digging) the Illinois canal. His job was to hand out the ditch diggers’ allotted two drams of whiskey each shift.
All of which is interesting and fun to share with the grand kids, but has nothing to do with immigration policy for a prosperous social welfare state in the Twenty-first Century world teeming with failed states.
I guess I voted for “We’re a nation of immigrants” not because it’s the dumbest, it’s the most widespread and commonly use AND the most pernicious.
Wow.
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/actually-its-lindsey-graham-who-is-out-of-mainstream/
Wait. I thought everyone wanted the Dreamers to be escorted onto an Ivy League campus and given a diploma and a job at Goldman Sachs. Even Republicans. How can this be? That’s what the Dems have been telling us during the conversation on immigration. Hmmm.
“We’re a compassionate people.”
Yes, we are. Americans should, when, 1st,Security can be ensured AND, 2nd, our internal needs prioritized and accommodated, seek to alleviate the sufferings of others. This alleviation should come firstly through affecting positive change WITHIN the suffering nation to lead it to a more tolerable condition and only finally through allowing the sufferers asylum within our borders. This is, however, nuanced. Depending on the originating culture and it’s similarity to our own, certain controls on incoming populations would need to be considered, such as observation, duration, mobility, until it can be reasonably established that the incoming population can be returned to its home or that it is assimilating smoothly into the greater population. But, this only applies to policies governing legal immigration. We cannot have “chronic” compassion for law-breakers…see the arguments related to Rule of Law.
“The words on the Statue of Liberty!”
There can be two or more interpretations of this. A low form argument is essentially an emotion-addled twit citing the line rote because they think that somehow the poem inherently has bearing on nation policy. A high form of the argument actually does take into consideration the values of compassion enshrined in the relevant verses, but it gets a slight bump up because of the line “yearning to be free”. It doesn’t completely go above “Compassionate People” because as a poem, “yearning to be free” is too vague, but it doesn’t go below because, interpreted correctly, “yearning to be free” comes with weighty baggage that implies we expect something out of the arrivals that will contribute to American liberty in a good way.
“We stole their country, so it’s really theirs to use as they please.”
I’ve never heard this in regards to immigration in general. I’ve heard it used in regards to Mexicans, and only in regards to the frontier states: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. So, this is another one I’ll refrain from ranking. Though it’s a pretty stupid argument.
“It’s a dumb law.” & “They aren’t really criminals.”
Going down this road, the next conclusion is that “It’s a dumb law” (though, in fairness, this conclusion will be reached if any of the other rationalizations from the list are believed). While this may be true, it is still THE law–it MUST be enforced, for the reasons already mentioned. Because this is a final conclusion rather than a supporting rationalization, I’m not certain where it can be ranked in the list.
“Our economy depends on them.”
This appears to be a rewording of “They do jobs American’s won’t do”, with the added flavor of being especially unethical. It does seem that the value each individual puts into the community does differentiate them from others on an individual level in terms of a value–that is a hard worker IS more valuable than a lazy worker, a creative worker is more valuable than a dullard. OF COURSE the intrinsic value of an individual human surpasses other entities by EXPONENTIAL leaps and bounds that we can never ethically disregard any one human as some sort of chattel or expendable item, so we should be leery of any claim that immigrants are needed because it boosts our economy.
It would seem that an immigrant who will put MORE effort into local commerce is MORE valuable to the economy than a native who will only half-heartedly do a task, but can we claim from a macro-level that we should let more immigrants in because “it is good” for the economy. That seems to be a policy that makes individuals a means to an end, and therefore a violation of basic Kantian ethics. But I am conflicted here, because what is good for the economy, is generally vicariously good for the whole community–the new immigrant included, since it’s inevitably a team effort. So I am still working out this conflict.
This ranks high on the list because at least it takes into account the interests of receiving population as well as the incoming.
“Opposing illegal immigration is racist/xenophobic.”
This is just a smear, it doesn’t seek to justify illegal immigration before impugning its opposition, rather it uses the insult to presume that illegal immigration has no valid opposition, that the only reason anyone opposes illegal immigration is because some people oppose immigration on racial grounds. Whether or not some people oppose legal immigration out of xenophobia, the argument is a complete non-sequitur for evaluating a stance about illegal immigration. This being an outright insult, earns it the lowest spot on the list, just below the low form argument “Words on the Statue of Liberty”.
“They just want a better life.”
This, like the economy arguments are stronger than most on the list. This points directly to our founding values of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Given that it’s evaluation doesn’t rely on how it benefits the receiving population and therefore doesn’t see the individual as a tool to better the rest, but on the individuals in question, this ranks above the two “Economy” arguments, contending with the “Economy depends on them” for the top spot (and only if the latter is reworded in a more Kant friendly manner).
“Illegal immigration is an act of love.”
I’m not sure I’ve heard this one before, and I may be classifying it incorrectly. This could be interpreted in two or more ways. The first way being: “Tolerating illegal immigration is an act of love”. If interpreted this way, it should be nested with the group clustered around “We’re a compassionate people” and fall much lower on the scale. The second way being a direct interpretation with no assumptions added: Illegal Immigration is an act of love on the part of the illegal immigrant for his/her family, which is why its nested it here.
“They aren’t hurting anybody.”
These three may as well be one argument, as they seem to be rewordings of the same idea: “No harm, no foul” and “If it isn’t unethical, it shouldn’t be illegal”. These are ultimately diversions and get bumped very low on the valid argument list. But at least that first one in the cluster starts on semi-ethical grounds…or better yet very shaky ethical grounds. In the best case scenario they immediately go to work and contribute to the community…but even in that scenario, they add unregulated competition to natives who are bound more solidly to regulations…this is a type of harm. Vicariously, tolerating their presence is an assault on Rule of Law, and no Republic lasts that doesn’t *religiously* guard Rule of Law against chronic violation.
“They do jobs Americans won’t do.”
This IS true to a degree. There are alot of low skill low pay tasks that our economy demands, and many natives are convinced they are “above” such work.
But there’s another side to this: They do alot of things American’s CAN’T do because we’ve regulated the hell out an individual’s ability to simply up stakes and start a business with little to no capital by simply ignoring the bureaucratic hoops and other governmentally imposed start-up costs. These are obstacles whose risks pale in comparison to the risk of being deported, so the gamble is worth it to make some scratch…to a citizen, the risk of just starting a business bypassing regulation vastly outweighs any other risk faced.
This ranks high on the list because at least it takes into account the interests of receiving population as well as the incoming.
“We’re a nation of immigrants.”
At worst this is a non-sequitur that analogizes my legally immigrated ancestors with modern illegal immigrants. At best it seeks to obligate the present nation to past practices. Though I am copacetic with the concept of the Debt Against the Living, it cannot be a principle that unwaveringly obligates the modern generation to practice the policies of the past if conditions have changed substantively enough that those policies are either detrimental or no longer beneficial. Because, at worst and, in this case, most likely analysis is that this is non-sequitur, it’s reliance on illogic gets it demoted to the bottom of the list, but since it isn’t outright insulting, it lands above “Racist” and “You Would Too”.
“Think of the children!”
This is the un-thinking man’s version of “Compassionate People”.
“You would do it too, if you were them.”
No, you have no idea what I would do if I were in a potential illegal immigrants shoes. Would I stay and fight the good fight in my home country? Would I desperately seek legal paths of immigration while doing so? Would I illegally immigrate if the conditions became such that I’d have to roll the dice with a receiving country’s laws? You have no idea. This is semi-insulting diversion and so ranks above the outright insult of “Racist” and below the simple illogic of “Nation of Immigrants”.
Results
All of this considered, here’s how I rank the list, from Stupidest rationalization to “Least stupid rationalization” for illegal immigration:
1 – “Opposing illegal immigration is racist/xenophobic.”
2 – “You would do it too, if you were them.” (ad hominem version of “They just want a better life”)
3 – “We’re a nation of immigrants.”
4 – “Think of the children!”
5 – “The words on the Statue of Liberty!” (Low interpretation)
6 – “Illegal immigration is an act of love.” (Low interpretation)
7 (tie) – “The words on the Statue of Liberty!” (High interpretation)
7 (tie) – “We’re a compassionate people.”
9 – “They aren’t hurting anybody.”
10 – “They do jobs Americans won’t do.”
11(tie) – “Our economy depends on them.” (If reworded to be more compliant with Kant)
11(tie) – “They just want a better life.”
corollary: “Illegal immigration is an act of love.” (High interpretation)
The two I don’t know how to rank, because I think they are the conclusions people derive after using the rationalizations above:
1 – “It’s a dumb law.”
2 – “They aren’t really criminals.”
The last one that I’ve never really heard in terms of immigration:
1- “We stole their country, so it’s really theirs to use as they please.”
Interesting, after voting, I see, though my list doesn’t perfectly match the vote ranks as of the time I voted, it isn’t too far off.
(And my ranking isn’t fully clear: Numbers 1-4 are ranked lowest because they don’t even pretend to be logical, they are insults or they are cheap-diversionary versions of higher ranking ones. Numbers 5-11 at least feign logic, so of that cluster, I share the disdain that most here have of that poem)
”“They aren’t hurting anybody.”
These three may as well be one argument, as they seem to be rewordings of the same idea: “No harm, no foul” and “If it isn’t unethical, it shouldn’t be illegal”. These are ultimately diversions and get bumped very low on the valid argument list.”
Casualty of rearranging the list as I originally formatted… I had clustered this with “Its a dumb law” and “they aren’t really criminals”. So if you can amend the first two words “These three” to the phrase “this, along with “it’s a dumb law” and “they aren’t really criminals…”
So basically, Jennifer uses legal immigration records to show that illegal immigration should be embraced? I wonder if she realizes without enforcing immigration laws, she won’t have those records to use in 20 years or so.
While times have certainly changed, one question I now have that particularly applies to the EU: are they maintaining borders anymore or any sort of identity? I’m genuinely curious if one country, let’s say Spain, decided to encourage their population to work and live in southern France, if they could overrun it and influence a shifting of borders. Or are there limits to EU Citizenship that prevent that sort of thing? Could Germany still conquer Europe without using a single bullet?
I really couldn’t choose the worst, so I voted for all of them. I’ve encountered all of them over the past 20 years, too. Most recently, “nation of immigrants,” “you have immigrant ancestors,” “you’d do it, too,” and “compassion is the highest human value.”