I know the last refuge of a philosopher scoundrel is in cooking up ominpotent-demon-related thought experiments — but …
Am I the only one who would take, hands down, an immigration compromise whereby all new illegal immigration was ground to a halt in exchange for eventual citizenship for all resident illegals?
I know, I know — “this is impossible;” “Reagan tried this, it failed — flamboyantly;” “so what if it did stop, you’re still rewarding bad behavior;” etc. etc.
Yet I think the thought experiment stands, because it fashions a colorful reminder that the collapse of the rule of law and the basic integrity of the sovereignty of America is the dominant issue, the issue that puts all the others in shade. Not that they aren’t present, because they are. And we could take those illegal-halting resources and aim them at illegal-deporting instead, but do we really want to do that? Or is it, quite simply, not worth the trouble — whereas sealing off the flood of illegals is? What does more damage, more inspirational damage to the rule of law in that regard? A sliding amnesty program, or a completely broken border system?
I’d be curious to see if anyone (else) would take the trade.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.