Catonic wrote:
Succinct and to the point.
Ok, I'll bite. This "illegal is illegal" talk on the part of the anti-illegal immigration movement, far from being "succinct and to the point," represents 3 basic logical fallacies, its a straw man argument, its an over simplification, and it represents circular reasoning. 1. The Straw Man Argument: "My opponent argues that illegal immigration isn't illegal. Clearly that position is wrong, as evidenced by the fact that illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal. Therefore, my opponent is wrong and my views on the issue are correct." No one is, in fact, arguing that illegal immigration isn't illegal. Demonstrating this rather obvious point does not collapse the debate, but rather, it avoids the debate. There are some who suggest that some kinds of illegal immigration shouldn't be illegal. As laws are a matter of policy, discussing what they should and should not be is, in fact, the purpose of political dialog in a Democracy. 2. The Over Simplification: All crimes are not equal. Both murder and jay walking are illegal, but they are not similarly serious crimes. Saying that "illegal is illegal" is precisely the same thing as saying that "jay walking is just like murder." Most of the debate regarding illegal immigration concerns the perception on the right that illegal immigration is a crime like murder, and we should devote huge amounts of resources to stopping it and severly punish those who commit it, and the perception on the left that illegal immigration is a crime like jay walking, which while illegal does not warrant severe punishments or huge investments in policing. The statement that "illegal is illegal" contributes nothing to understanding where in the spectrum between these two positions our policy should lie, other than to argue that the United States should treat all crimes exactly the same way and should hand out exactly the same punishments for all crimes, which is ridiculous on it's face. 3. Circular Reasoning: Many people in the anti-illegal immigration movement start their argument by claiming that they are upset by illegal immigration because it is illegal. A good litmus test is to ask whether they would support creating a legal process for short term immigration by manual laborers. The answer is consistently no. Which means the REAL problem isn't that its illegal, as we get to decide whether or not its illegal (see point one). The real problem is something else, and by focusing on the legality rather than on the something else that actually motivates them, they fail, again, to contribute to the discussion in a useful way. Now I'll be the first to agree with the general statement that "we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country." There simply should not be 12 million people living here illegally. It does not follow directly from that observation that the right answer is a "crackdown." There are other options and they need to be evaluated. For example, the speed limit on I-285 in Atlanta is 55 miles per hour, and nearly all of the 5 million or so people who live in this metropolitan area violate that speed limit every time they drive on that road. That is clearly a problem as well. I do not think the correct answer to that problem is a "crackdown." Whether or not a "crackdown" is warranted with regard to illegal immigration requires a demonstration of more than "its illegal" and "we have a problem with people doing that." It requires an assessment of why we have so many people violating that rule, what the costs of those violations are, what goals we're trying to achieve with the rule, and objectively what the best way of achieving those goals is, if the rule is not working effectively right now. IMHO, the vast majority of the people who are motivated by the "illegal immigration" issue are coming at it from an emotional place and not a sober analysis of the problem and the spectrum of potential solutions. RE: wde_IllegalsDontGetIt-520x414.jpg (JPEG Image, 520x414 pixels) | 
