The Twisted Logic of Open Borders Zealots

There are two truisms about the immigration debate: First, just because people suffer horrible conditions in their home countries, wherever they may be, does not give them the right to come to the United States. The world cannot empty out whole countries and relocate their populations to the U. S. and Europe.

The second truth is that open borders extremists are so blind to the human cost of crimes committed by illegal immigrants that they will manipulate statistics to support their agenda and regard victims with shocking insensitivity. For a party that claims to empathize with “the people,” especially the marginalized, the Democrats are all too happy to trample on crime victims in their rush to embrace illegal aliens – even those who rape, kill and pillage.

In a preposterous article by the American Immigration Council about the Republican Party’s immigration stance, Walter Ewing piles one dubious claim atop another. First, he claims that immigration law “does not work.” The amnesty statute passed in 1986 failed, but other laws certainly work, and could be effective. The only dysfunction is lack of enforcement, which creates a free-for-all.

He also decries the lack of a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. “For the 11.4 million undocumented immigrants now living in the United States, there is no ‘line’ for most of them to stand in and wait, and the ‘regular channels’ do not include them.” He also bemoans the poverty and violence in their home countries along with the inability of unskilled workers to get a visa. And, of course, many illegal immigrants merely want to reunite with a loved one here in the United States.

Just because people want to come to the United States gives them no right to settle here. If our national interest dictates that we find and remove those who overstay their visas or cap legal immigration at around 300,000 a year (which FAIR contends is a proper number), then merely enforcing the many immigration laws on the books will solve a lot of issues. The anti-sovereignty folks will dislike the outcome, but ignoring immigration laws erodes respect for our society.

The reason why there are few visas for unskilled workers is because there are too many of them and the presence of easily exploitable illegal aliens depresses their wages and contributes to the deterioration of working conditions. And, if someone moves here illegally and leaves a loved one behind, people must take responsibility for doing so. The real problem is that a porous border makes reunification so easy.

The whole idea that the U. S. immigration system “tears families apart” is absurd, since there are – or should be – consequences for breaking the law. Blaming the system absolves individuals of making conscious decisions. The open borders apologists harbor no sympathy for the real families that are torn apart – those who lost loved ones to illegal alien murderers, drunk drivers and sadists – which is a blot on their cause.

Then there’s the wall. “Neither the platform nor Trump reveal how they will prevent trafficking organizations from going over, through, under, or around this wall—as they presently do when it comes to the hundreds of miles of fencing already in place along the border,” writes Ewing. “No amount of (very costly) border enforcement is going to compensate for the fact that U.S. immigration laws are woefully out-of-date and out-of-step with today’s realities.”

Problem one: the border is two thousand miles and there are hundreds of miles of fencing. Problem two: the technology used to stop and catch illegal immigrants is “woefully out-of-date and out-of-step with today’s realities,” not the laws. Problem three: the wall slows people down, which gives the Border Patrol time to respond.

A lot of money is spent to police the border – a good thing. The main issue is that agents are told to stand down and neglect the laws, which are perfectly suitable for the reality on the ground. Apparently, this is not good enough for the open borders crowd, like AIC, who argue that we shouldn’t even try to interdict the cartels.

Walsh saved his biggest groaner for an appearance on Democracy Now!, where he promotes the notion that illegal immigration reduces crime. “For decades, study after study has established . . . that higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates,” he claims. “As an example, from 1990 to 2013, the share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent. At the same time, the undocumented population more than tripled, from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. But what happened to crime rates? They went down. FBI data indicate that violent crime dropped by 48 percent, and rates of property crime fell by 41 percent.”

To assert that Y is caused by Z, there must be a correlation to determine causation. The lack of logic underlying this statement is breathtaking.

In his article, Ewing writes: “immigrants in general and undocumented immigrants in particular are less likely than the native-born to be in prison or to commit crimes” and that “most undocumented immigrants somehow manage to stay out of trouble.”

Actually, 100 percent of illegal aliens have committed a crime, but what is astonishing about this gloss-over is that it ignores the actual impact of the crimes that are committed. In April, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) revealed that they released 19,723 illegal aliens onto the streets who had racked up 64,197 convictions, including 208 murders, almost 900 sex crimes and more than 12,000 drunk driving incidents. Isn’t one too many?

And since the Obama administration has stopped enforcing the law, ICE made half of the arrests in 2015 than it did in 2013. This affects statistics because crimes may still have been committed but the perpetrators are neither counted nor held accountable. How might Ewing’s stand change if an illegal immigrant who benefited from a sanctuary city policy killed his family?

AIC’s disdain for our immigration laws stems from the fact that the statutes stand in the way of open borders. “’The law’ needs to be thoroughly revamped before it is enforceable,” he writes. “The heavy emphasis of the [Republican Party platform] on undocumented immigrants as nothing more than ‘law breakers’ is misleading and insulting. Large-scale unauthorized immigration is a symptom of an immigration system in need of repair.”

If all the people who wanted to move to the United States did so, Ewing’s standard of living would plummet. He should be grateful that we have laws that try to protect our national – and his personal – interest.

If not for deadly sanctuary policies, thousands of American citizens would be alive today.

Ewing is fortunate that his family never had to bury a loved one and see his own family torn apart by a violent crime. The only thing wrong with our immigration laws is that this administration fails to enforce them.

Comments

  1. Enforsment and making E Verify manditory nation wide would solve much of the problem.
    Also refusing drivers licenses and any form of federal or state benefits would discourage further entry.
    There must be the will to enforce laws already on the books to send a message that we will no longer tolerate immigration crimes.
    Bill Bassett.

  2. avatar SecBorders says:

    Great article.

  3. avatar Kyle says:

    Illegal aliens are LAWBREAKERS & PARASITES, and along with their ilk are beyond reprehensible, period!

  4. avatar Leland says:

    First of all, virtually all illegals who are working are committing a crime because they either stole someone else’s SS number or made one up. Both are crimes and frequently those who have their number stolen have problems with things like applying for loans or passports. Even when the legal owner of the number has solid evidence it’s being used by others, the government refuses to give them any information because of “privacy concerns”. Whose privacy? Certainly not the legal owner, because they know what it has been used for. No doubt Walter Ewing would pass this off as another example of “our broken system”, but there is one and only one solution for this problem. Prosecute those who do it. {And citizens have been prosecuted for such crimes.}

    He also claims wall or fences don’t work. So Hillary was wrong when she voted for the Secure Fence Act in October 2006? Just in time of course to look tough before an election, like McCain, and then become an amnesty advocate again afterward. That act specified 700 miles of double layer fence, but was changed the next year and only about 50 miles of that type was built. The Clinton administration constructed a double layer fence along the California border in the 90s and crossings plunged to a fraction of what they had been. That’s why the crossings shifted to the far more difficult journey through the Arizona desert.

    If fences don’t work, why are they building a bigger stronger one around the White House? Do people get over it? Yes, but again, it slows them down so the guards have a chance to react. According to Ewing, we shouldn’t bother with that fence. Won’t work, he claims.

    As for the reduction in crime since 1990, illegals most be miracle workers to have caused such a dramatic drop in crimes, as Ewing suggests. Or there’s the real reason. The fact is that there is a small percentage who are repeat offenders and cause a large amount of crimes. The three strikes laws of the mid 90s put a lot of those people away for longer periods. In some cases it was perhaps overdone, but without a doubt those laws and the drop in crimes went hand in hand.

    • Now Hillary Wants Medicare available to 55 YOs

      Meaning, butcher ax existing retirees and disabled? If you’re retired you’re HORRIFIED now of Hillary.

    • avatar Peter says:

      Leland not true……..or they came legally and no status but paying taxes…..etc….. statements like yours are partially true