One of the most infuriating aspects of the open borders campaign is the extent to which it’s based on emotion-driven, rather than empirical, arguments. The physical expression of this tendency manifested itself in Utah recently, during a rally held in support of Rep. Stephen Sandstrom’s Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. Intended as a way of publicly demonstrating the support of ordinary American citizens for a bill that would allow local law enforcement broader authority in detaining illegal aliens apprehended in the commission of other crimes, the press conference and rally soon devolved into an acrimonious shouting match, which required the intervention of Utah law enforcement.
The irony of this confrontation, of course, is that the people who instigated it, i.e. the grab bag of Marxist/ethnic grievance organizations that went to the rally specifically to heckle the supporters of this anti-illegal immigration bill, accuse the victims of their harassment of generating the “toxic” atmosphere they in fact created. As someone who has attended many of these sorts of events in the New York City/Tri-State Area, and who has been assaulted by the same type of individuals who came out to denounce Stephen Sandstrom, I can attest to the fact that I’ve never seen anyone from our side attack a Marxist, anarchist, or La Mecha activist.
More often that not, what occurs is physical violence directed against Americans and attempts to suppress speech that contradicts the views of open borders, pro-amnesty radicals. Even though these incidents might seem like a sideshow to the broader subject of immigration enforcement and reform, I believe they cut to the heart of the matter in a way that their evanescent nature might not suggest. The call to invest tens of millions of illegal aliens with the rights of American citizens-in spite of the detrimental impact this will have both now and in the future-and to declare this country a refuge for anyone with enough cunning, money, or connections to insinuate themselves into American society, is at its very core an emotional argument.
From the hyperbolic rhetoric comparing Senator Russell Pearce and Sheriff Joe Arpaio to notorious Nazi war criminals, to the periodic outbursts of violence and riots conducted by the more seditionist elements of the open borders lobby, the opposition is driven fundamentally by a rejection of rationality and fact-based analysis, which is what has led the vast majority of the American public to recognize the dire situation this country faces if it doesn’t come to grips with the wreckage of this system. A system that was not designed to accommodate the millions of lawbreakers currently straining the social fabric and cohesion of states, cities, and towns throughout the country.
Personally, I think this is a point that needs to be emphasized in future discussions of this issue.
Recent Comments