In the illegal-immigration debate, there are relatively few people who call for unrestricted immigration and say that America should literally allow anyone who wants to cross the border, to cross, entirely unimpeded. Even most of the people calling for amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants are still saying that illegal immigration should be classified as illegal. They are just saying that there shouldn’t be a crackdown on them or widespread deportations - some arguing on the basis of compassion, others arguing on the basis of practicality (ejecting 11 million illegal immigrants would be a colossally expensive and difficult task.)
So then what they are saying in essence is - “Illegal immigration should still be classified as illegal - but it should not be treated as illegal” - is that correct?
I am not trying to inject snark or some jab at all. This is a sincere straightforward question. I want to make sure I am understanding correctly and am not straw-manning it. Is the position of most liberals, in fact, “Unauthorized entry/immigration into this country should still be illegal by the book, but we should not treat it as illegal?”
It is treated as illegal. But the laws are the Feds’ laws, and the Feds want local jurisdictions to do the enforcing. Local jurisdictions are more interested in keeping a peaceful place for people to exist.
Treating something as illegal does not mean what you’re assuming it means.
Speeding is illegal, and treated as illegal. Not every case of speeding is caught, and not every case is prosecuted to the fullest extent. Murder is illegal, and treated as illegal. Every case of murder is caught, and every case of murder is prosecuted to the fullest extent, within the realm of possibility.
What people are arguing about is how complete and how harsh the enforcement should be. Obviously, moving to a country without the proper process is bigger than going 55 in a 50 zone, but smaller than murder.
Both “illegal” and “undocumented” carry the same weight of definition, except that “illegal” is loaded with extra trimmings. It is a word eager to condemn.
Take a man who has hiked the Sonoran desert, carrying his own water, at the mercy of a coyote smuggler, risking a difficult life over a miserable death…on the chance that he might find work to feed a family. There are words for such men, “illegal” is one, I suppose. I should be proud to have such a man, or woman!..as a neighbor. In fact, pretty sure I do.
A workforce that’s officially illegal, but practically speaking allowed to remain, is the best possible one for an unethical employer who wishes to exploit their workforce to the maximum possible degree. Your employees are much less likely to complain about pay, working conditions, or health and safety, if they have “I could get you kicked out of the country” hanging over them.
Who should be allowed into the country is an important question.
What should be done when someone is already in the country but never had permission to be there is an important question.
Right now in the US, a very large group of people are in essence playing make-believe, demanding that the second question should stop existing so that they don’t have to think about an answer for it.
Actually, I think he is. None of your cites contradict Velocity’s assertion that advocates for absolutely no immigration restrictions are “relatively few”. Especially since most of them explicitly acknowledge that pro-open-borders arguments are generally regarded as radical and controversial.
radical and controversial does not equal held by relatively few.
Universal health care is considered by some as radical and controversial.
Same sex marriage is considered by some as radical and controversial.
decriminalizing drugs is considered by some as radical and controversial.
equality for all is considered by some as radical and controversial.
When magazines such as The Atlantic, The Economist, and Forbes et al feel it’s a story worth reporting (and not in a “hey look at what the crackpots are saying now” kind of way) I think that gives credence to the belief that more than a relative few share the idea.
When the proponents of a particular idea are voluntarily describing it as radical and controversial, it’s generally safe to say that it’s not a majority view. Maybe you are interpreting “relatively few” in a different sense?
maybe. . .
and for the purposes of this thread, I concede that the vast majority of current discussions are not about open borders, but as bobot said in post 2 they are generally about what should be done about the undocumented immigrants who are already here (ie sanctuary cities, DACA, etc), and what to do (or not to do) about those who may wish to enter by their own rules.
There is a distinction to be made between criminal and administrative offences: for example, theft on the one hand, non-compliance with various forms of governmental processes on the other (from as low-level as parking offences or library fines all the way up). But where you draw the line between the administrative and the criminal is always open to debate: and when it comes to immigration rules, it’s affected by how complex and variable the rules and procedures have become over time, as well as wider historical circumstances (e.g., in this country, much immigration has been a consequence, one way and another, of having an empire that was itself established by what might well be considered “illegal immigration” these days).
There are obviously people who advocate for a complete elimination of restrictions on immigration (making the distinction between legal and illegal immigration largely irrelevant). With respect to those people, the question in the OP is pretty easy: it shouldn’t be classified as illegal.
There are obviously people who advocate for draconian enforcement of (and even expansion of) our immigration laws. Again, the answer for them is pretty easy: it damn sure should be treated as illegal.
I (obviously) don’t speak for the OP, but this is a question that I’ve wondered about: much of the rhetoric employed in support of illegal aliens (and in opposition to enforcement efforts) suggests that these advocates ought to logically fall into the first category (“No person is illegal”; “no more families torn apart”; “we are all immigrants”).* But I think that many of the people who employ this rhetoric would resist being characterized as open borders advocates. To the extent that this category of people exist, how do they think the immigration/immigration enforcement regime should work?
*I did a Google image search for “immigrant rights rallies” and took the slogans from the signs. It’s, of course, possible that these people actually do represent category 1. But, you see similar rhetoric from others.
I’m one of those who supports open borders, or something very close to them, but I’ll still acknowledge that, although I’m not alone in that view, my fellow travelers are, in fact, pretty rare. And it’s not a political fight worth waging, yet, because we can go a long way in that direction with the allies we already have: Let’s get the Dreamers settled, and set up guest worker programs, and amnesties, and so on, and then maybe we can talk about going further.
But more on topic, the OP is a semantic mess. Yes, of course crossing the border illegally should be against the law: That’s a tautology. But it doesn’t say anything about actual acts. Should, for instance, it be legal to cross the border to pick strawberries for an employer who’s already here and who will have a job for you as soon as you show up? Should it be legal in some circumstances but not others, and if so, what are those additional circumstances? Or should that be illegal in all cases, like it is now?
Precisely. I’ll believe that a politician is motivated by sincere concern that illegal immigration is bad for the country when he pushes for serious efforts to find, prosecute, convict, and punish (to a degree that cannot be written off as a cost of doing business) the illegal employers.
Just so you know, I’m hanging onto this extremely well-put observation, and I might wind up posting it in future discussions, both here, and elsewhere.
Should it be illegal to eat a strawberry that was shipped by a grower who had his strawberries picked by a human being who, being “illegal,” is not permitted under U.S. law, to exist?