Questions: How does one overcome the "logic" of the following statement or one of its variants? "I know they shouldn't have entered the country illegally but that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on them." And why is it important to rebut such benign sentiment? Answers: Because the statement is the ultimate in fuzzy thinking and the importance of rebutting it arises because, more than likely, it was voiced by someone seeking your vote [and the illegal votes of illegals].

To address the fuzzy thinking above, let's look at a few parallel constructions:

1. I know he shouldn't have stolen my car but that doesn't mean I shouldn't chip in for gas.
2. I know he shouldn't have robbed those stores at gunpoint but he cannot now afford ammo and we must help.
3. I know he has been convicted of rape but, if my sister won't date him, who will?

You might argue (and successfully) that the above are not strictly identical to the original which they intend to ridicule--but they are close enough. In each, a violation of law is noted only to be wiped away by an overriding "need."  The same logic that demands we not "turn our backs" on illegals (simply because they have needs) demands that we welcome (needy) trespassers, help escaped convicts evade the law, and open the doors of our homes to vagrants.

We must not accept that "need" automatically trumps, law, order, economics and common sense. It does not and should not, except to constituency-building politicians and the criminally inane. 

Immigration, 5 Years after 9/11.

Also visit The Immigration Blog, by Michelle Malkin, and Vdare.com.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion