These are various arguments put forth to support illegal immigration here in the
Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal aliens are doing jobs that citizens do not want and are not willing to do.
Counter-Argument: There are two counter-arguments. First, anyone who lives in industrialized areas know that only a small percentage of illegal aliens are working in third-rate jobs and they are, in fact, seeking out temporary employment agencies that will place them in factories, which were previously filled with hard-working American citizens before the offer of cheap labor by these temp agencies.
Second, if these jobs were left vacant, and the criteria to qualify for government programming were more stringent, it would amaze us at how many citizens would “want” and would be “willing” to fill these jobs. When we get hungry, we’ll do these jobs. American Citizens were doing these jobs in the seventies and the eighties, and if we desire to eat and have any kind of quality of life, we can do them in the twenty-first century. Where did we get the idea that these jobs were beneath our dignity, only to be delegated to illegal aliens? “Pride goeth before destruction…”
Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal aliens provide cheap labor for
Counter-Argument: And who is going to purchase the products produced by the cheap labor? American citizens are the primary patron of
Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal immigration can be humanely curbed by enforcing the laws already in place on the companies hiring the illegal aliens.
Counter-Argument: This is what I call the “sour-the-milk” strategy. Eliminate the reason illegal aliens are immigrating to begin with and they will stop on their own. The theory is, if companies are faced with real, substantial penalties for hiring illegal aliens, they will stop wanting to hire illegal aliens, and the immigration will eventually stop. This has been circumvented in the past with the idea that illegal aliens were hired through a temporary employment service, making the temp service, not the company actually working the illegal aliens, liable. With such a demand for cheap labor by
Therefore I believe the enforcement of stringent laws with stiff penalties on the illegal aliens themselves, not the companies hiring them, is the only viable alternative. It is only when the risk of penalty outweighs the benefit of illegally immigrating to the
Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal aliens are acting out of desperation and on their natural self-preservation instincts, since they are leaving a nation stricken with poverty and a low quality of life compared with the
Counter-Argument: Very few illegal aliens flee their country to work in the
Illegal-Immigration Argument: The presence of illegal aliens in our work force stimulates our economy.
Counter-Argument: Illegal immigrants tend to hoard or electronically export their money to their respective native homelands and with the exception of the purchase of minor trivialities (i.e. clothes, food, jewelry, or used vehicles), and usually make few or no substantial purchases on
Illegal-Immigration Argument: Illegal immigration is only a misdemeanor, and should only be treated as such, therefore more stringent efforts to curb it, including making it a prominent political issue, greatly suggests racism against the Latino population.
Counter-Argument: This is spin. Most spokesmen against illegal immigration have friends and acquaintances that are of the Latino race. An act of immigration law enforcement against an illegal alien is no more an act of racism against the Latino race than the arrest of a Caucasian criminal is an act of racism against the white race.
Illegal-Immigration Argument: We do not need to exhibit animosity toward illegal aliens within our borders.
Counter-Argument: If someone breaks into my home in the night without my knowledge or permission, regardless of his circumstances which may indeed be desperate, I am going to regard the intruder as a threat, and take every action and precaution to neutralize that threat, even if it necessitates the use of physical force, before they can bring their intentions (whatever they may be) to fruition.
If federal law restricted me (and all homeowners) from being able to neutralize that threat, and we were forced to welcome with open arms those who have broke into our homes, the natural human emotion from homeowners would be animosity towards those who exploited such relaxed laws (as well as toward such asinine lawmakers).
What is taking place on our southern border is the same scenario taking place on a much larger scale. The
In conclusion, when our lawmakers enact laws that are contrary to the opinion of the majority of the citizens, is our government still to be considered a democracy? The popular (and excellent) novel by George Orwell, Animal Farm, suggests that laws made under such conditions indicate a Communist society where the government officials, instead of a “public servant” installed to enact the will of the people, consider themselves to be “elitist” who understand the issues better than the general public, and enact laws contrary to the opinion of the nation.