It was the default accusation anyway, but ever since Trump made that (in)famous statement about immigration and crime, the accusation continues to swirl: “if you want secure borders, it’s because you are racist.”
And people who argue that position are adding up. Most Democrats, a smattering of Republicans, most of the MSM, various heads of state (although Angela Merkel might be rethinking it) and even the Pope. What strange bedfellows this issue makes.
There are so very many different angles to debunking this argument, and so many have been presented, that it’s hard to believe making this case is still necessary. I have already made the Biblical case for national borders. I’ve also argued that real immigration problems are mostly about new arrivals with no desire to integrate into the American culture. Remaining perpetual outsiders, hyphenated Americans, special interest voting blocks, they eventually fragment and weaken the country.
Others (like the LouderWithCrowder team) have made a different case, mocking the race-baiting Social Justice Warriors and shredding their “nobody is illegal” argument, while giving crony capitalists (and their Occupy Wall Street patsies) a solid beating.
But there’s an entirely different angle we can take. Pro-amnesty groups claim this issue is all about racism. They are actually right. This issue really IS dripping with racism. But the real racists want amnesty.
The amnesty crowd wants you to believe that refusing to throw open the nation’s doors to every immigrant that hops your fence is evidence of racial bias. That is demonstrably a lie.
In reality, those who argue for solid border security are not biased against any group. Quite the opposite, they insist on the rule of law — as existing in the law books — demanding that it be applied equally to all people.
What could possibly be more fair than one law applied equally to all people? Nothing. Unless you are a social justice warrior using unbalanced laws to intentionally tilt the playing field. Why? To favour whichever victim class to whom pandering is currently fashionable.
It’s easy enough to prove the Democrats are not so tender-hearted as they might claim. You don’t have to look any further than the Romeike family, and the DOJ’s aggressive attempt to strip them of the political asylum they sought and were duly awarded by American courts. The same administration that so liberally applies the word “DREAMers” to fence-jumpers aggressively tried to deport a law-abiding, family that actually followed the system’s rules.
Compassion my ass. It’s politics. But it isn’t just any politics. It’s racially-charged politics.
When legal applicants enter the States (I have known some) following the laws, and applying for permanent legal status, there are very complicated legal hoops. There are complications like travel restrictions during this process, and for a long time, you life is in limbo.
Legal entry, application for the coveted Green Card, and naturalization can cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, with exacting filing deadlines, and a lot of room for mistakes — which, if made — can completely kill your chances. Some applications linger unresolved literally for decades, before coming to any final yes or no resolution.
I know of a couple that began their naturalization process when their youngest child was in high school. That file is still pending a decision. That youngest child returned to the country of her birth, got married and had children of her own. Her eldest child is now in high school. Maybe it would be easier to give dates: the process that began in 1990 is still unresolved.
For a Spanish-speaking couple arriving from a different country than the above example, the scenario would be completely different. There are subsidized lawyers who take their case for free. The process — in at least some cases — is resolved more quickly.
Beyond that, why does nobody mention the impact of flooding the immigration system with people who couldn’t be bothered to apply legally? Let me put it in terms even the pro-amnesty crowd can understand.
Imagine someone lining up with his family on opening night for that Summer Blockbuster flick they’ve been dying to see. While they are in line, a boisterous group of fanboys pours in through the theatre doors, ignoring the line and pushing their way right to the ticket office. They buy their tickets, and disappear into the show. The ticket office puts up the “sold out” sign for the movie, and the family is left standing there with rest of the line.
Feel happy about that scenario? You should love it. It’s exactly what you are arguing for, saying the rule of law doesn’t matter. Some people have the right to push past the people patiently waiting in line, and if they miss out on the show, that’s actually a good thing.
Because the “DREAMers” (fanboys) intent on seeing that movie on opening night got in. And they are far more deserving than the family in line. Sounds asinine, right? Well, so do you.
If your liberal (or RINO) friends, need you to help explain this parable to them, break it down this way: the movie is America, the ticket line is immigration. Those in line are the legal immigrants. The fanboys that snapped up all the tickets, and made the family miss the show are the fence-jumpers you keep making excuses for.
And you don’t have any right to complain about it because you don’t believe in the rule of law being applied to all people equally. If you did, they’d have stood in line, waiting their turn like everyone else.