Friday, June 27, 2014

Isn't it mean and hateful to deport illegal immigrants?

Matt Walsh writes:
Dear confused Americans who advocate for open borders,

I’m reaching out with a vain hope that I can help you understand the illegal immigration issue in America. You may have heard that it’s a complicated and controversial matter.

It’s not.

It’s easy.

Ahh, we start out with all the Matt Walsh Classics. "Anyone who disagrees with me is confused." And, "Social issues are not complex, they're simple as pie!"

See, there are some topics here in the US that are unavoidably complex and therefore naturally contentious. Topics where right and wrong might be difficult to discern. Breaking Bad vs. The Wire, for instance. Scholars and philosophers have spent years contemplating this dilemma, and none have come close to shedding any light upon it.

Illegal immigration, however, is not that sort of topic.

Illegal immigration is simple. Not simple to handle after decades of non-existent immigration enforcement, but simple to analyze. We have borders in this country. We have laws. Some of which may overlap in their application, some of which are open to interpretation, and some of which may conflict with each other. For example, there are asylum laws (including a recent law pertaining to children signed by none other than George W. Bush), by which the children coming up from Central America must be allowed to stay. (It is, by the way, the Leftist Dictator Obama who wants to deport the children and further secure the border.) We pick and choose how we want to enforce our laws. If someone is a white Cuban, then they can have asylum. If, however, they are a black Haitian... buh-bye. We must enforce those laws and those borders. If someone comes here in a manner not consistent with our laws, we must send them home. If your first act as a would-be citizen is to defy our laws, you cannot be a citizen.

Simple. Obvious.  To someone who has no knowledge of all of the myriad laws, or the social realities, sure, it's simple.

Every nation in existence has borders well, using the technical definition of 'nation' that is not true at all; if you mean "state" then it is true, but that is only because the particularities of the historical development and geo-political/economic functioning of the state makes it, tautologically, part of the definition; if we are more general and talk about "society" then once again, you are wrong and laws, and every nation, save ours, generally goes about enforcing both.  You honestly think the U.S. doesn't protect its border? Someone needs to get you a newspaper...  Mexico fortifies its southern border and has no patience or mercy for trespassers. If other countries don’t enforce their laws and borders, it’s most likely because they lack the resources and capabilities. Borders and migrations is a really hot topic in several of the social sciences right now.... TL:DR - borders are never enforced consistently, and it is the cracks, fissures, and failures in these programs that reveal more about the nature of the state than the laws themselves.

But here in this country we have a unique situation. We are able, but unwilling. So the proliferation of military equipment and drones on both of our borders, to you, equates to "unwilling"? Indeed, we may be the first nation in the history of humanity that actually has to argue over the basic concept of having and maintaining a border. Borders are always changing and contested (I will use the opportunity as an excuse to share a cool video). But you must be mistaken, dear Matt. No one is arguing about doing away with borders entirely. People are discussing changes to and applications of laws. I know you don't like it when things get complicated, but sometimes you could save yourself a lot of energy by listening to the debates before you get all upset.  Now we are dealing with a flood of third world (read: non-white) illegals - but first world illegals would be okay? Interestingly enough, some of my family came here illegally, but because they're white and from Europe, no one seems to care, prompting politicians and citizens alike to throw up their hands and say, “Well, I guess our choice to not enforce the border proves that the very concept of a border is obsolete. We have no other option but to become an amorphous blob of a geographical territory, virtually indistinguishable from the nations surrounding it!”  Exactly who said that? More of Matt Walsh Favorites:  constructing a hypothetical quote that no one actually said - i.e., putting words into people's mouth - in order to falsely portray the opposing views.

It’s really all quite insane. So I’ve decided to compile this helpful FAQ to answer most of the questions and objections commonly raised by people who don’t understand why America should have laws and borders:  Oh gee whiz, thanks Matt!

-Isn’t it mean and hateful to deport illegal immigrants?

Great question. No.

I can only speak for myself, I suppose, but I’d guess that many anti-illegal immigration folks echo my sentiments: I don’t hate illegals. I don’t even fault them for trying to sneak across the border. You just falsely assume that they are all Mexican, and that they are contributing nothing to society and engorging themselves on government welfare, and committing acts of voter fraud.

By the way, Mexican immigration has, in fact, been declining. The current influx is composed largely of children from Central America... coming from countries that the U.S. has repeatedly destabilized throughout the past decades through its support of coups, militias, dictatorships, and the way it wages the War on Drugs. And by the way, where does the demand come from that ultimately fuels this whole drug problem?  You guessed it. *big finger pointing back at U.S.*  Ultimately, we have, in fact, created the very conditions that are causing all these children to suffer. Don't we have any responsibility for our actions?

Despite popular perceptions, immigration enforcement is nothing personal. If I lived in Mexico (immigrants = Mexicans, check!), I’d sure want to leave. Mexico suckz guyz. Who could possibly want to live in that god forsaken place. Some in the hordes ouch! what were you trying to argue again? That you're not hateful or racist or something? might be unsavory characters, but many are, in fact, searching for a better life. I get it. I sympathize. Yeah, given that you just called them "hordes," I'm not sure you really do. But a man’s pure intent does not erase the law, nor does it negate the necessity of things like borders and organized, lawful immigration procedures.

A boy in the city might rob a liquor store because he honestly believes it’s the only way to help his mother pay the grocery bills. The fact that he committed this crime under duress and out of concern for his family may very well minimize his moral guilt. I’m sure that when he gets to those pearly gates, God will look upon him with great mercy and compassion. But in the meantime, let's throw his ass in jail just to make him suffer some more!

Now, does that mean that we should erase the laws against robbing liquor stores? Is the liquor store owner now a bully and a fanatic if he takes measures to stop future robberies, even if those robberies are also at the hands of kids in similar situations? Should the police reward the young man by letting him keep the money he stole? Ohh, I see. You think everything boils down to laws, and nothing else. How cute. See, we have this thing called "sentencing" which takes into account the circumstances in which the crime was committed in determining what the outcome will be. Among those circumstances is age, and - believe it or not! - children are treated differently than adults!

As a society, we have the power to choose how we want to arrange our systems and rules, and even to make laws and - gasp! - change laws. Laws are not immutable objects handed down to us by God. So, we might decide in the above example that the store owner gets her (I'm changing her gender now; I know you like that) money back. But we might also decide that the boy should not be punished. It's a possibility. Maybe we even use it as an opportunity to examine whether we are really functioning well as a society if a young boy has no other option than to rob a store?

By the way, have you read Les Miserables?  ...Oh, no reason.

No, no, and no.

Why? Because, for one thing, that would be anarchy. For another, robbery is still objectively wrong. For still another, store owners deserve protection from the law. But apparently children don't need protection? Without it, there can be no stores, and then we’ll all end up like the kid with the gun.  Wait.. what? I really hope you write a philosophical treatise someday. I promise you I will read it, eagerly.

Ack, my amusement is overtaking my annoyance.

-Isn’t immigration enforcement a right wing conspiracy?  Once again... who says this?

Interesting thought. But, as a member, I can assure you: the right wing in America can’t conspire to do anything. It couldn’t even conspire to win an election after four years of one of the most incompetent and disastrous presidencies in American history. I’ve been at the conspiracy meetings. Trust me, you have nothing to worry about. Half of the right wing conspiracy is still nestled close to Mitch McConnell’s bosom, smiling peacefully as he sings them to sleep at night. They are no threat to you.  Yes, it would be really silly to construe the views of a particular political party or movement as a conspiracy. You, for one, would never do that.

No, this is not a right wing thing. This is a common sense thing. A country cannot exist without a border, and a border cannot exist without laws, and the laws cannot exist without enforcement. It’s very logical.

The true conspiracy nevermind is among those who oppose immigration enforcement. That camp can be easily divided into two factions (with plenty of crossover):

1) Corporations.

One of the greatest and most easily debunked myths in modern politics is the one about left wingers hating ‘greedy corporations.’ In truth, their social agenda relies on the strong arm unethical tactics of those corporations, and immigration is a perfect example.  "Left wingers" = one, homogenous group; and "corporations" = one, homogenous group.

Big businesses love illegal immigration because it affords them undocumented slave labor. I used to live in southern Delaware. Do you know what southern Delaware is famous for? Nothing, really. Besides a thing they do ever year where they launch pumpkins from catapults for three days straight. But if it was to be known for something else, it would be illegal immigration. Southern Delaware is overrun by illegals because it’s also overrun by corporate chicken farms.

Coincidence? Probably not.

And all the corporations that are getting in on the booming border-enforcement business, complete with all its expensive, military-grade technology? Non-existent, apparently.

2) Democrat politicians.

Sorry, not just Democrat politicians. I should say Democrat politicians and stupid, self destructive Republican politicians (a large group, to be sure).

Democrats own the Latino immigrant vote because they’re really good at identity politics, while Republicans are really bad at politics in general. They actively recruit illegal immigrants and fight voter ID laws because that’s how they win elections. Pretty simple. Illegals aren’t people to them but they are totally seen as people by those who refer to them only, always as "illegals", they’re voters. Umm... yeah. We've been through this before. You have no proof that undocumented workers are voting in significant numbers... or insignificant numbers. And, in the minds of politicians, there’s a profound difference between those two creatures.

-But what about the children?  Cue a misplaced abortion analogy in 3, 2...

Yes, the children. It’s always funny (in a morbid, nauseating kind of way) when progressives pull the “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” card. Apparently, in their view, it’s immoral to refuse children entry into the United States, as long as they’re attempting to enter through the southern border. However, if they wish to enter through their mother’s birth canal (a southern border of its own, you might say), we can not only refuse them, but suck their brains out of their skulls and incinerate them for fuel.
Perhaps we should think of babies as ‘birth immigrants’ and then they’d be protected from murder with the same fervor that we protect born children from being put on a bus and brought back to their families in their home countries.

I feel great compassion for these kids, but the law can’t be put to the side for them.  Well, since you brought up abortion... abortion is legal. If you asked me to support changes to abortion laws, could I say, "I have great compassion for fetuses, but the law can't be put to the side for them." Would you accept that argument? Besides, maybe they’re better off elsewhere. We don’t exactly treat children with humanity and respect in this country. Okay, but if they think they are better off here than in their home country where they are, say, being targeted by gangs.... then your argument is? 

Maybe we should concentrate on granting human rights to our own kids before we worry about granting citizenship to kids across the globe. How are these mutually exclusive? And what does concentrating "on granting human rights to our own kids" entail? Just curious, because you seem to be opposed to measures that ensure they have enough to eat, and places to live.

I'm not buying your claim that you feel any compassion for these children. Not only have you not expressed much concern about all the children living in poverty and food insecure households in this country - and not only do you support policies that are detrimental to these children - but you have made clear in your radio days that you are much more concerned about changing demographics and what you termed the decline of "Anglo culture" than you are the well being of immigrant children.  Be honest, Matt. Your interest in this topic is driven by your fears about race.

-America is a nation of immigrants!

Sure. And?

Most nations are nations of migrants. Very few people, no matter where they live, can trace their ancestry all the way back through the millennia to the very location where they currently reside. Humanity spread and pioneered and settled across the world. And then have continued to move around and intermix with each other. Constantly. Most of us can follow our roots and find, buried somewhere deep, a nomadic heritage.

So what?

As far as America is concerned, immigrants came from all over. They settled here legally. According to their own laws. They may have broken a couple of Native American laws....or a lot. They forged a life.

Things were different then. Notably, there weren’t as many people here.  Especially after we gave them small pox blankets and then forcibly removed them. How is it that we hear so much about this mythical global overpopulation, but America is still viewed as the one place that can fit an infinite number of people? Of course, overpopulation is a ridiculous lie, so the problem with illegal immigration isn’t one of a lack of space. It’s more a lack of jobs, a lack of money, a lack of resources.  But you believe in the free market, right? In fact, you don't believe employers should be subject to any laws regarding discrimination or minimum wages. So, it is okay for the government to impede the freedom of the labor market? That is the one time where government interference is beneficial to society? (Just curious how you reconcile your beliefs.)

Not to mention, back in the old days, immigrants came here and helped tame the wild land. They pioneered. They dug in and did their part to build our once-great civilization. Illegal immigrants of modern times, on the other hand, are often coaxed over with Spanish language food stamp advertisements and visions of free education and free health care. Gee, I wonder why anyone would ever suggest that fears about immigration are tied to attitudes about race?

Once again, knowledge. Accurate information. Undocumented workers are extremely productive - they are precisely the ones "taming the wild land" (I believe you mentioned something about farms in Delaware?) and doing work that we would never want to do. I was born in and grew up near a city that is the paragon of urban decay. Aside from the small downtown area, and the neighborhood directly abutting a university, the one area that is well kept up also happens to be the area where most of the undocumented workers reside. They are renovating buildings and creating green spaces (where things actually grow!) - stuff that the city is not able to do. You can believe that undocumented immigrants are not contributing anything, but (as I always say) that doesn't make it true.

Furthermore, I also know from my involvement in another city, also home to many undocumented immigrants, that they are largely not benefiting from our meager social safety net. You have no evidence that people are coming here for food stamps and free health care. You say this, because it is racially coded and gets people upset.

Our great great grandparents came to make this country. Many illegals of today come to use it. No evidence to support this.

By the way, are the only two options having roots in the country that go back several generations, and coming here illegally? I guess I don't fit into this scheme.

I understand their desire to do so. I don’t fault them. But there is a big difference between then and now. A big difference.

-Isn’t it unfair to expect immigrants to navigate our immigration process?

Unfair? Isn’t it unfair to let them skip the immigration process while millions of others went through it?

Isn’t it unfair that legal citizens get treated like Osama bin Laden at the airport? Isn’t it unfair that the NSA has unfettered access to our phone records and Internet activity? Isn’t it unfair that you can’t even get your license renewed without producing five forms of ID, a vial of blood, and a stool sample? Isn’t it unfair that you are documented, tracked, counted, and monitored everywhere you go, all the time? Isn’t it unfair that it requires less identification to cross the southern border than buy cough syrup at Walgreens?  You keep bringing up cough syrup at Walgreens, haha. I suspect there is a story there.  Anyway, unless the Walgreens pharmacy has suddenly found itself in possession of lots of weapons and military equipment, I am going to say:  not an accurate comparison.

Yes, all of these things are unfair. Which means the immigration process isn’t unfair, because it’s very consistent with what the rest of us are dealing with on a daily basis. Let me recap your argument for you:  "Lots of things are unfair. Which means our immigration process is not unfair, because lots of things are unfair." Nice logical analysis there!

Now, tell me that the bureaucracy is out of control and everything is more complicated and less efficient because of it, and I’ll agree. Tell me that we need to cut down the government and force it to handle its essential functions with speed and competency, and I’ll agree. Tell me that this should happen with our immigration process, and I’ll agree but insist that we start the streamlining process elsewhere. I can see your dilemma:  "Ah! I support small government, but border enforcement requires larger government!"  And your conclusion is:  "Well, it is okay to let the government grow in this area, because we should start cutting it down somewhere else."  That's precisely why I had 2 doughnuts and a piece of cake today (that part is actually true, sadly):  because I need to start my weight loss with exercise, so why not eat cake in the meantime?

In the mean time, open borders aren’t the answer.

Open borders are never the answer. Unless the question is, “what’s the quickest way to bankrupt the country and ensure Democratic victories in every election from now until our society collapses and we turn into a lawless hell hole like Mexico?” Just in case you forgot that Mexico is a terrible, terrible place.

UPDATE:  I wanted to do a recap at the end when I initially posted this, but didn't have time. So here it is.

I generally expect Matt to make uninformed statements, but this just might be his record! His post is based on complete ignorance of where the immigrants are coming from, why they are coming, what laws are applicable, how borders are being enforced, what options are being considered, and what is actually being debated right now. In other words:  every single thing pertaining this issue, he seems to have absolutely no accurate knowledge of.

However, we do get another glimpse into the fabricated world that Matt lives in. In this world, the border is not being enforced at all. It is not being militarized. In fact, the central issue is whether we should enforce the border at all. Pretty much all the immigrants are coming from Mexico in search of welfare, and those who are undocumented are lazy, do no work, and commit acts of voter fraud when they get here. Mexico is hell on earth. There is nothing good about Mexico. The political left in is cahoots with corporations and the government. And it is impossible to change laws or take into account particular circumstances in their application, even when the lives of children are at stake. (Children are nice and all, but I'm pretty sure we have a law that says we should leave them to be hunted down by gangs... so, oh well.)


  1. Great post. In addition to not understanding the difference between a nation and a state, Matt doesn't seem to grasp what actual duress is. He misused the word duress in another recent post. That Matt won't take the time nor does it seem that he even has the inclination to properly understand the terms he uses confounds me.

    Thanks for another interesting post. Are you going to address his most recent abortion post?

    1. Thanks Jennifer! To be honest, I didn't read the recent post about abortion. I've been pretty busy lately and when I saw the subject my reaction was kind of, "Oh, another one of these." Since you bring it up, I am curious: did he say anything this time that he hasn't said before?

    2. Matt's most recent anti-abortion post consists of the same recycled, redundant arguments we can expect from Matt. He uses the trailer from a new movie, "Obvious Child," as a starting point for his discussion. Now Matt hasn't actually seen the movie nor does it sound like he has any intention of seeing it. This movie, according to Matt, is pro-choice propaganda attempting to convince us that abortion is constructive, positive and empowering. Matt derides the film that he hasn't actually watched and then gives us five reasons why abortion is never empowering.

      Matt pretty much relies on his tried and tested arguments against abortion, i.e.-it's child murder, women are depressed and ruined for life after having an abortion, Planned Parenthood doesn't really give women any choice but abortion, oh, and it's child murder.

      The fact that Matt hasn't even seen the film yet really bothered me. I realized though that this is Matt's MO. He takes a teeny, tiny kernel of something (a movie, a news story, etc.) and makes broad, sweeping statements based on his own limited interpretation of that small, incomplete source. It is lazy and reckless and purely self-serving.

      One gem from this post was Matt 's fourth reason that abortion is never empowering, "We are empowered when we claim agency over our own action." He states, "...A women who choses not to have sex because she is not ready to bear its natural consequences is a women fully in command. She is empowered because she is not a slave to her urges and she is not allowing herself to be exploited by a man who wants to use her like blowup doll and discard her 90 seconds later."

      I just had to laugh at this because it's so ridiculous. Of course any women who wants to have sex for the sake of pleasure/intimacy/stress relief, etc., is some crazed sex fiend who can't control herself. And any man interested in sex for the same reasons is just using some poor out of control female.

    3. It's just sad really. How can you defend the murder of innocent children? The fact that they are human is scientifically proven. They are their own human life form with their own unique DNA. Period. There's no arguing it because you can't. So to choose to end that life is to choose murder.

      And the fact that you laughed at the quote you posted is itself laughable. You completely missed the point of what Matt had to say. The whole part about being ready to bear the natural consequences of sex is critically important to the point and yet you conveniently neglected to respond to that so that you could attempt to mock Matt with your point (or lack thereof).

    4. Thank you very much for the summary and your comments. Much appreciated. Now I don't have to do a post about it. :)

  2. Matt is pretty much on the money here. It is a simple problem. If they're here illegaly, deport them when caught. It doesn't matter if they're productive or not, their very existence in the country is against the law. Don't detain them, deport them immediately. That's simple.

    If you want to talk about all the problems that have arisen due to lax enforcement, maybe Bella needs to read the news about what's going on down there right now, then it needs to start with finishing the fence. Making it a lot harder to cross will help eliminate a lot of the moral dilemmas that arise from this issue.

    And the author's next to last comment about the size of government is completely misunderstood. Most "small government" types prefer the term "limited government" because we believe the federal government's power and authority should be limited to the specific functions spelled out in the constitution. Protecting the border is one of those functions. The majority of the rest of stuff congress worries about today isn't their business to worry about. And most of the laws they pass are technically illegal.

  3. This isn't a social issue, it's a legal one. As you point out, there's problems with the legalities, however it doesn't help that Obama stated that he would stop deportations and is now trying to break up families to "give children a better home." I guess I don't have a better solution than Matt - deport the lot of them. It's not very creative but it stops the immediate problem and hopefully slows the influx of unskilled workers moving forward. If you think illegal immigration isn't a problem, go visit Los Angeles or any city near there and find out how the infrastructure is doing.

    I've got nothing better. That means it's up to you - what do you propose we do?