This is one of those annoying discussions that never goes anywhere, really, for fairly simple reasons. I agree with Mr. Navarette more this time than most, but he falls into the same trap most writers on this subject do: he asserts that “they” (illegal aliens) think or don’t think particular things. The fact is that this group isn’t monolithic in any fashion, and the group isn’t completely of one ethnicity or another, either (there are Chinese, Armenian, and etc., illegal aliens also). This makes if frustrating, because since the group isn’t monolithic in its views, some members of the group are probably more worthy than others. If you deal harshly with illegal aliens, you’ll risk unfairly impacting some working mother who’d jump at the chance to be a citizen, and who has a son serving honorably in Iraq or Afghanistan. If you coddle them, you’ll wind up helping a gangbanger from East LA who will promptly go out and murder some innocent citizen in thanks. The problem here is that one size definitely doesn’t fit all. The government needs to understand that, and try something that will distinguish between the one individual and the other. I’m opposed to illegal immigration, always have been. But I’ve also asked the question: what would you do, if you lived in some Latin American kleptocracy where any sort of advancement is unlikely, property rights are non-existent, and murder endemic? You can play roadkill, or break the rather mildly-enforced laws of the Land of Plenty to the north, where you can get a job, work hard, and raise a family. Hmmmm…I think in that situation I’d have a hard time standing on my ethics, and staying where I was, just to remain law-abiding, while laws are broken around you every day.
But what am I talking about? Everyone who’s a member of a group thinks the same way, right? Yeah right…
