There are two misunderstandings that are currently distorting our debate over immigration.
The first is that we bear some kind of compelling moral obligation to those who are in our country illegally apart from and beyond the minimal respect we should extend to any human beings simply by virtue of our shared humanity.
Illegal aliens aren't here in violation of our laws accidentally. They are not oblivious Martians who crash in the Arizona desert and begin walking about unaware of their legal status. Rather, they have deliberately chosen, in many cases many times, to cross the borders of a sovereign nation-state in violation of its laws. Their behavior is not born of necessity but entirely volitional; that they often come here seeking a better life doesn't absolve them of the need to pursue it legally (an injunction that, lest we forget, applies to all of us).
The second misunderstanding is to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration. The increasing tendency of a sympathetic liberal media to refer to illegal immigrants simply as "immigrants" is intended to glide over this distinction and to grant the former the kind respect accorded traditional immigrants in a "nation of immigrants."
By erasing the difference between those who are here legally and illegally, it becomes possible to dishonestly paint Americans who urge the securing of our borders as anti-immigrant xenophobes and nativists. From "illegal alien" to "undocumented persons" to simply "immigrants," the progressive distortion of language is a persistent tactic of progressives to delegitimize positions that conflict with the leftist agenda.
Such confusion culminates, of course, in the bizarre "sanctuary city" movement, which not only embraces a legally discredited and absurdist "nullification" position regarding federal laws, but also forwards the notion that the very enforcement of law in such instances is somehow unjust and oppressive.
To brazenly declare a policy of "protecting" those who have broken the law from any consequences for doing so is to reject not just the particular laws which have been broken but also the very legitimacy of the government that passed them.
In addition, by granting a special dispensation to non-citizens who violate the law, the mayors of sanctuary cities grant them rights the rest of us don't have and wouldn't think of asking for, thereby elevating them to a superior political status.
Crime always threatens the social contract that is at the heart of democracy, but it will become increasingly difficult to encourage American citizens to obey the law when they see public officials brazenly encourage law-breaking by non-citizens.
Embedded in the sanctuary city concept is thus a truly novel legal doctrine--the right of non-citizens to break the law, and then receive the protection of public officials responsible for upholding it.
In a democracy we don't get to pick and choose which laws we will obey because we have, as citizens, an equal right to determine those laws, and have agreed, by virtue of our citizenship and residence, to respect even those we disagree with due to the legitimacy of the process by which they were enacted. And we expect public officials to faithfully enforce those laws rather than subvert them through deliberate non-enforcement.
In the case of sanctuary cities, the assault on law goes still further--to the point of even refusing to cooperate with federal officials in cases where illegals have committed multiple crimes on American soil after illegally entering it.
Perhaps most curious of all is that the sanctuary city movement isn't actually built upon any articulated arguments regarding existing law; indeed, there are no claims put forth, at least publicly, that our immigration laws are unjust and should be done away with; rather, the sanctuary concept appears to be a rebellion against law enforcement per se, as well as against the idea of America as a sovereign country with borders to defend.
As a purely logical matter, one can't claim that we have no moral or legal right to tell others that they can't come here or to send back those who have done so illegally without endorsing the abandonment of borders and sovereignty altogether.
The cynic in us might conclude that what is involved here is little more than raw partisan politics--given that the future of the Democratic Party is thought to depend upon a demographic shift from white voters (who tilt Republican) to Hispanics (who tilt even more strongly Democrat), upon the emergence of that new "coalition of the ascendant," there is a powerful Democratic interest in encouraging a flood of Hispanics across the U.S.-Mexican border who might someday, through some approximation of amnesty, become votes for Democrats.
In the end, and contrary to liberal claims, it is entirely possible, indeed logically compelling, to both favor a permissive immigration policy that seeks to attract those seeking opportunity to our shores (what economists call "human capital") and the upholding of the rule of law through enforcement of existing immigration laws.
In a global marketplace, the future truly does belong to the country which can attract the best and brightest from around the world. But there also can be no country without borders and laws.
------------v------------
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
Editorial on 04/10/2017