On Friday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that requires local police to determine if a person is in America legally. Those who support it, including myself, understand the necessity to fight illegal immigration. Those who criticize it expect racial profiling to be the main method by which itâ€™s implemented.
Protestors of the bill do not seem to value American sovereignty. Instead, they value an idealistic, economically infeasible plan that opens the borders and excuses certain people from the constraints of the law.
In 2008, the Pew Research Center estimated that 55 percent of Mexican immigrants are here illegally and that out of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, 59 percent are Mexican. And in a similar study conducted in 2008, the Pew Research Center found that about 30 percent of Arizonaâ€™s population is Hispanic.
Apparently, we are a nation that can violently invade a country, practically at our very antipodes, but are unable to repel a civil invasion comprised mainly of Mexicans.
In 2002, the Center for Immigration studies estimated that illegal households generated a net deficit of more than $10 billion in the U.S. and that granting amnesty to illegals would drive this deficit up to $29 billion.
Legal citizens are paying the way for millions of illegals to get an education and free health care (i.e. the emergency room at your local hospital), and weâ€™re worried about offending them with â€œracial profilingâ€? Weâ€™re worried about stepping on the toes of criminals?
If we had 7 million illegal Canadians here, Iâ€™d say we should target anybody who pronounces â€œaboutâ€ as â€œabootâ€ or ends all questions with â€œeh?â€ But we donâ€™t have 7 million illegal Canadians.
We have 7 million illegal Mexicans. Logic dictates we should target the Spanish-speaking population, accusations of â€œracial profilingâ€ be damned.
The argument from open-borders supporters is that illegal immigrants â€œare people, tooâ€ and that â€œthere is nothing criminal about wanting to have a better life.â€ I agree with both of these statements, but they are merely lackluster appeals to emotion.
The rights of illegals were granted by their country of origin, not America, so the first statement is toast. The latter quietly ignores the distinction between â€œdesireâ€ to have a better life and â€œcriminal actionâ€ to acquire a better life.
If we were to follow the logic of those who support border dissolution, we would invariably require the admittance of anybody who wanted to reside in the U.S. If they so desire, we must transport the entire populace of Kenya into our borders.
To refuse them would inadvertently place preference over Mexicans, and that seems to be racial profiling â€” which, apparently, is a no-no.
Naturally, some of my opponents will utter the entirely predictable, conventional and asinine argument: â€œYour ancestors were immigrants, too.â€
There are two problems with this â€œargument.â€
First and foremost, this has absolutely no relevance to any current issues whatsoever. It is a blatant attack on my ancestors who entered this country legally. Second, it is an evident attempt to redirect my efforts away from current issues. Too bad emotional appeals bounce off me like .22 rounds on an M1A1 main battle tank.
Arizonaâ€™s bill openly defies the federal governmentâ€™s apathy toward illegal immigration without overstepping any bounds. Upon signing the bill, Brewer stated: â€œThe new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted verbatim from the same offense found in federal statute.â€
Still, ossified airheads like Al Sharpton, who made an egotistical proclamation of his own â€œaccomplishmentsâ€ while deriding the bill, are appealing to emotion and offering shoddy arguments against enforcing our borders.
Phoenix Gov. Phil Gordon, in an attempt to rally anti-border supporters, was quoted as saying, â€œWeâ€™ll go to the state courts and weâ€™ll go to the federal courts and weâ€™ll go all the way to the Supreme Court. I promise you.â€
I sure hope he lives up to this promise, because nothing would satisfy me more than to see him fail at every level of our judicial system. In the end, arguments against tightening our immigration policies are devoid of any qualitative substance and instead appeal to irrational emotion.
Josh Phillips is a legal resident of the U.S. His column appears Tuesdays in the Collegian. Logical, well-developed rebuttals can be sent to email@example.com._