There is an obvious problem with his argument. He conflates “immigrant” with “illegal immigrant.”
The obvious problem with Quick’s argument — and nearly every anti-immigration position I run across, including his — is that there are *two* questions at stake, not one.
The one Quick focusses on is illegality, which boils down to the rule of law. This is a position I can agree with — as individuals we cannot opt out of laws we don’t like; rather, we should make the case to change those laws — to make them right.
THAT is the second question at stake here — what should the law be? Should the border be open? Should it be closed? Should it be something in between — and if so, what standards are the proper ones for excluding some and permitting others to enter?
It is this latter question which makes one pro- or anti-immigration.
If your genuine position is anti-illegal immigration, that position itself gives you no reason to oppose the simplest solution to illegal immigration, as offered by Harry Binswanger — make them legal.
If, however, you do not agree with Dr. Binswanger, that is fine — but that disagreement has nothing to do with being anti-illegal immigration!
There do exist people who oppose illegal immigration on the grounds of the rule of law, but also favor removing legal obstacles to immigration. Theirs is an opinion I can respect.
But those of you favoring more immigration restrictions — i.e. are anti-immigration — but passing yourselves off as merely anti-illegal immigration — are dishonestly sailing under false colors, and deserve no respect.
