I’d say that at the heart of the illegal immigration issue is semantics. It’s the inability of some and the ability of others to interpret law. It’s being choosy at the buffet table of laws and often times letting emotion take over a very rational issue.
When we do something “illegal” in society, is it not also against the law? Surely you can’t go around all day doing stuff that is illegal without it catching up to you and eventually being reprimanded. Or can you if it plays to a party’s interest?
It is illegal to murder someone, therefore it is against the law to murder someone. It is illegal to rob money from a clerk, therefore it is against the law to rob someone with a gun. Our law has clearly drawn up borders with Mexico and Canada and we have deemed those that would cross this border to be treated as “illegal” citizens. The act of defending someone who does something illegal is really born out of emotion and little else. Most people who are “pro-immigration” put themselves in the others shoes and say stuff like “Well they’re just trying to give themselves a better life…doing jobs that americans won’t do…” or just soundbite arguing. Using clichéd sayings that do nothing to address the real issue of the millions of dollars that are essentially guaranteed to illegals that would find themselves jailed or in a hospital.
People that are “pro-immigration” should be storming through Washington and demanding that new immigration measures be made. Instead it’s more shocking or a lazier approach to put up a fight against states like Arizona that would try to do their jobs and ENFORCE existing laws. Why are we so picky as a people over what law enforcement enforces? (Umm maybe because these people got here illegally, or have family that made it over illegally. A kind of hidden guilt?)
Of course no one holds up signs saying “pro-illegal immigration”, but in fact this is their true sentiment. Pro “anything goes” in regards to having a recognizable border. But I also find fault with Washington, in that they simply want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to allow these risk taking individuals to continue and hop the border, in order that contractors have cheap labor to draw from. And also politically, if amnesty is granted down the line, this large group of Hispanics will mostly be the target of democratic candidates, as they will be primarily of a lower-income status, and government programs will be more aggressively presented by democratic candidates.
So I understand the neutral position washington takes. However, with the recent bill passed in Arizona which gives police more rights in gathering information from supposed illegals, the republican base is doing their best to secure votes in the future. They may sense the growing force behind the tea-party movement and realized that if they failed to make a bold move now, then later year elections may cause potential republican voters to swing towards a democrat out of frustration that nothings being done.
I see the actual illegals as political fodder for both sides. The democrats win by being lax on the issue, allowing more minorities to cross, eventually assimilate, then vote heavily democratic. The republicans are playing off of that great asset called xenophobia, which a lot of republicans do well in ginning up through their supporters fear-based religious mindsets. I see both sides, but still stand on the side of enforcing laws that would benefit us as Americans. (i.e. keeping people out of our country that would avoid paying taxes and still benefit from those that do pay taxes)
It’s a very simple argument which can be extremely threatening to those that allow emotion to blur the line of rationality.