I've heard and read a lot of talk about the rule of law in relation to the subject of immigration. Generally the argument goes along the lines of illegal immigrants are disregarding the rule of law and granting them amnesty or doing anything at all that might make their situation easier is to flout the rule of law. And I am sure if you agree with closed borders and/or tight immigration control then that argument seems perfectly reasonable.
As one who does not agree, I have an objection to that argument. It is an objection that is bound to get me in trouble for what will seem like an unfair comparison, but I frankly do not know how else to make my point.
When people had civil rights sit-ins and marches and all those things that sent people to jail for breaking various laws during the civil rights struggle, that was disrespecting the law. And most people accept that now because most people agree that those protesters were protesting laws that were wrong. And most people look back now on run-away slaves and the Underground Railroad as doing the right thing because most people agree that laws allowing slavery were unjust.
I can almost hear the knee-jerks and the angry protests already. But the immigrants are not slaves! But there is nothing racist about opposing immigration! Calm down. I'm not making direct comparisons. I'm just pointing out some of the more obvious situations where breaking the law has become considered not only the right thing to do but also something brave. Yes, I know the immigration situation is not something we can correlate to slavery or civil rights, and I'm not trying to do so.
Prohibition was the law of the land once. It was an amendment to the Constitution no less. And it was repealed. Did repealing it "reward" those who wanted to break the law? Or was it a necessary correction for a bad law?
The argument that we cannot repeal our immigration laws or do something that results in an easier time for immigrants who entered the country illegally because it flouts the rule or law or rewards law breakers, well, it seems a like a very shallow argument to me. Yes, I know, we can't go around rewarding thieves and rapists for breaking the law. But we're not talking about thieves or rapists. Being for repealing immigration laws or helping immigrants currently here illegally does not mean being for the break down of the rule of law. It does not mean the next step is giving murderers and burglars a free pass.
The point here is not to compare the immigration situation to slavery or to say that anti-immigration folks are racists. The point is that unjust laws can be opposed and changed without a disregard for the rule of law.
Supporting open borders isn't about flouting the rule of law or desiring chaos. I think (and hope) I don't need to make the argument that the rule of law is no good if the laws are not just. That argument has been made by people smarter and more eloquent than I am. Yes, we can change the laws without disregarding the rule of law. Yes, we can do something the benefits people unjustly burdened by a bad law without creating anarchy. Yes, people can argue for freer immigration and still be arguing for what they believe is right both toward our laws and our societal order.
So I'm just not buying the argument that legal changes which grant "amnesty" to illegal immigrants or make immigration easier disregard or flout the rule of law. And I don't buy that such changes reward lawbreakers. To remove punishment for something people should be free to do in the first place is not a reward.
