The point I’m not trying to make is that this is necessarily good policy, but that the data you present contradict your interpretation of it.

I don’t think it’s naive to think that it’s the Mexican government’s aim is to help its own citizens. Perhaps they’re largely ineffective, but it’s their express purpose to do so. Likewise, our government (as with all or most others) was constructed to help its own citizens. It would be naive to expect first-world countries to willingly give up their resources so that less developed countries could catch up. On that same level, it would be naive to claim that countries would hold others responsible for their poverty. It’s hard enough to get other countries to step in for acts of genocide, let alone relative poverty.

As for the utilitarian argument – I’ve alluded to why I think it’s impractical. You can frame the utilitarian argument as the greatest good for the entire world, and you can frame the utilitarian argument for the citizens of a government’s country. Surely, the greatest good for humanity as a whole would involve at least some charitable concern toward less well-off countries. However, the greatest good for the citizens of the U.S. is to lessen the flow of illegal immigrants and minimize the economic damages of the migrants that are already here.

Lastly, I’m having trouble understanding what this means, exactly: ” Moreover, the only reason I bring the social justice issue up is only because it decimates the silly theft argument you present: how can you steal what you (and a large part of the global community) perceive as already yours?” Namely, who is the ‘you’ and ‘yours’ referring to?

E, above, underscores a few of the reasons for why it is naive to imagine that the Mexican government could or even would help the people of Mexico. It also begins to underscore why Mexicans, and people from all over the world, could argue for some entitlement to the American way of life (and Canada’s) (in America or Canada).

I agree with you that these rights questions are blurry, but this doesn’t make them non-issues. Moreover, the only reason I bring the social justice issue up is only because it decimates the silly theft argument you present: how can you steal what you (and a large part of the global community) perceive as already yours?

Moving beyond moral concerns: the poster above makes a utilitarian argument for illegal immigration (though I have misgivings about their argument in form and content). You haven’t made a convincing empirical argument to the contrary of the posters’ (and it wouldn’t even be that hard; given that their argument is kind of weak).

Best,

Now you’re associating restrictive immigration policies with racial discrimination. That’s not the case. The case is that many Mexican would-be immigrants and/or illegal immigrants don’t have enough to contribute to be allowed entry.

I think selection based on occupation and education is a just form of discrimination in immigration. We only let the best in, because they are likely to contribute to American prosperity (as opposed to sapping it). My immigrant parents were first denied entry to the US, so what did they do? They simply applied and received entry in another country – Canada. America doesn’t have a duty to care for the poor and impoverished of other nations. America isn’t granting a right to any freedom for any citizen of any other country but their own. If poor Mexicans can’t gain lawful entry into the US, they should look for work in other parts of Mexico or other countries.

More generally, a right to freedom of opportunity is a touchy and blurry subject. First, such a right (to my knowledge) doesn’t actually exist in any clearly stated form for anybody in the US, let alone for everyone across the world. Second, freedom of opportunity for whom? Positive liberty can and is often a zero-sum game – by letting illegal immigrants in, you’re infringing on the freedom of opportunity for other Americans. Resources that could have been allocated to the education of those poor Americans are divested into providing services to illegal immigrants. This argument for a right to freedom of opportunity can be spun back and forth both ways.

To plainly state my perspectives, I do think that poor Mexicans do have it bad. However, it’s the duty of their government (not ours) to take care of them, just as it’s the duty of our government (not theirs) to take care of us. Appealing to a sense of justice in allowing illegal immigrants in, to me, is backward – illegal immigrants are a sap on our resources without our consent.

What if instead of discrimination based on skin colour, discrimination was directed towards someone based on income or employment. Say that you felt that you had a right to freedom of opportunity, but people told you that if you wanted to exercise this right you would have to make more money than you could ever possibly make first.

I agree that the focus on strengthening borders is a tad mis-guided, as less invasive means (such as greater sanctions for the employment and recruitment of illegal immigrants) could achieve similar goals with less economic costs.

And as for your concluding comparison – if several illegal immigrants “snuck into the theater,” that wouldn’t be so bad. But the fact is, more are coming in than we can sustain. Hospitals near the border are the closing down, poor Americans are being out-competed by migrants who can work for less, and drug trafficking has been facilitated by this influx of illegal immigrants.

A better goal, rather than taking Mexico’s illegal migrants, would be to help Mexico help itself. Their government’s job to take care of their citizens, and our government’s job is to take care of ours. Just as a poor family wouldn’t steal from a rich one in times of need, Mexican immigrants shouldn’t drain our country’s resources in times of need. They should appeal to their own country’s resources, not ours.

As a sidenote, most people wouldn’t commit theft (or worse) to keep their family alive. How do merchants in extremely poor areas maintain financial solvency? Why do people let loved ones die because they couldn’t afford some drugs, instead of engaging in some sort of theft? How come people don’t regularly hold hostages in hospitals to get surgery done for a loved one (a la John Q.)? It’s because people are still committed to the social order. Just because the connect between illegal immigration and theft of resources is less salient, doesn’t make the impact any less deleterious.

This whole legal/illegal debate ignores the fact that low wage illegal workers are often recruited by American companies, helped to get here by American companies, have little work in their own countries because of trade agreements with us, and have little choice.

Everybody that would compare it to sneaking into a movie would probably do the same thing if it was the only option they had in order for their families to survive.

Even if it’s the case that entry without proper documentation is simply an “administrative fault,” residence without documentation is flat-out illegal.

Most people don’t know this, but crossing the border without proper documentation is not actually illegal. It is classified by the government as an “administrative fault”.

And yes, it would be counter to our system of laws to exempt illegal immigrants from past crimes. So in a sense, it is definitely an issue of principle versus practicality.