The ultimate paradox in the heated debate over illegal immigration is that while it’s the open borders crowd which seeks to claim the moral high ground on the issue, it is, in fact, the advocates for border security who are actually taking the more morally defensible position.
Among the arguments peddled by the Left is that of Texas University Professor Rogelio Saenz, who claims that whites seek enforcement of immigration laws because they oppose more brown people becoming part of our national fabric.
The Democratic Party, which is aligned with both the illegal immigration lobby and its sympathizers in the liberal leaning media, seeks to focus public attention on the plight of the foreigners making the dangerous and arduous trek for better pastures north of the Rio Grande.
A narrative has been written by the Left that anyone, anywhere in the world, who feels oppressed personally, or even economically, has the right to move into the U.S. and declare our nation theirs. Seeking to control who enters is not just cruel and inhumane, it is labeled an action of hate and intolerance. We must, they claim, absorb and relocate any unaccompanied minor who steps his toe over our border. We must give not only legal residency, but actual citizenship to children brought here by their illegal alien parents. We must grant asylum to anyone who lives in a crime-ridden nation.
It’s time for the Right to focus more on the fact that it is the illegal alien advocates who are promoting an immoral policy.
How is it moral to tell five million people waiting patiently to get into our country, that they cannot gain access, yet we will allow those who cut the line to be rewarded for doing so?
I find this particularly ironic when I hear it from the religious community. As a student at St. Pancras Elementary School in Queens, I recall my teachers admonishing students for daring to cut the line. The message was that it is immoral to seek advantage over others by willfully disregarding the rules. Yet, there is so little coverage given by the media to the “suckers” who continue to dutifully wait their turn, while the cheaters get free schooling and healthcare (not to mention the four billion taxpayer dollars given to illegal aliens each year through the earned income tax credit).
Is not there something immoral about telling a Hispanic or Asian American applicant to a state university that a seat is not available for her because the seat has been reserved for a person who is not in the country legally? How is it moral to tell a taxpayer that he has to subsidize the tuition of the illegal alien student, while his child pays full freight at a local private institution?
Is it not immoral to perpetuate an open borders policy that has stunted the job opportunities and wage growth for millions of African American youth? In prior decades, African American advocates from Rep. Barbara Jordan to Joy Reid of MSNBC fame, decried the effects of illegal immigration on the Black community. Today, in order to save her job, Reid feels obliged to apologize profusely for having taken such a stand, which was once considered mainstream and logical.
Social commentators as far back as Rousseau understood that civilization is held together only because each of us agrees to live under a Social Contract. We sacrifice certain freedoms to the state so that the state will protect us from violence, theft, and disorder. But when the state is the entity actually encouraging and facilitating the disorder — which is exactly what is happening with illegal immigration (see sanctuary cities) — the entire system can collapse.
When the public at large no longer feels confident that the state is going to provide protection from cutters, they will likewise, at some point, refuse to hold up their part of the bargain. The result is chaos. Contractors who try doing the right thing by paying Workers Comp and health benefits, stop abiding by these laws as an act of self-preservation, once they see their government refusing to take on their competitors who engage in the illegal underground economy.
This, more than any other reason, is why Americans deplore their government’s abdication of its responsibility to uphold our immigration laws. Why would they make sacrifices for the collective good, if the government they cede power to fails to protect them?
So, the next time the liberal media suggests that those Americans seeking enforcement of our immigration laws are bigoted xenophobes fearful of the browning of their nation, explain to them the concept of the Social Contract, and how the government’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws is not just expensive and dangerous, but, in fact, leads to the breakdown of our social order.
Steve Levy, former New York state assemblyman, Suffolk County executive, and candidate for governor, is now a distinguished political pundit. Levy’s commentary has been published in such media outlets as Washington Times, Washington Examiner, New York Post, Albany Times, Long Island Business News, and City & State Magazine. He hosted “The Steve Levy Radio Show” on Long Island News Radio, and is a frequent guest on high profile television and radio outlets. Few on the political scene possess Levy’s diverse background. He’s been both a legislator and executive, and served on both the state and local levels — as both a Democrat and Republican. Levy published Bias in the Media, an analysis of his own experience, after switching parties, with the media’s leftward slant. Levy is currently Executive Director of the Center for Cost Effective Government, a fiscally conservative think tank. He is also President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. To learn more about his past work and upcoming appearances, visit www.stevelevy.info. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.