Anti-Illegal Immigration is not Racism

This past Wednesday while working out on the elliptical machine at the base gym, I saw a CNN story about a woman who entered the country illegally and the daily stress of her life. Realize, I had to piece this story together without the benefit of sound. Additionally, the television was across the room and I was reading the closed-caption translation which occasionally blended in with the video portion of the story.

She is effectively a single mother. I say effectively because she is married to an American. Unfortunately for her, her husband is a Marine who is currently deployed to the Middle East. She states she is always afraid that when she goes to the grocery store or some other place while her children are in school she might get picked up for being an illegal immigrant resulting in her children arriving at home with no one there.

The part of the story that rankled my emotions was when she said she tells her kids to ignore the racists who are against their mother. She wishes people would have a heart and understand she is trying to raise her children in a free country. Just because of what she is should not cause her to be separated from her children or deported. This was another ridiculous attempt to cull an emotional response of "oh woe is me, have pity."

I've stated before that the spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. Equating anti-illegal immigration to racism is more of the latter than the former. The spokespeople for the illegal immigrants have crossed the line into spreading half-truths, or as I will argue - out right lies, to make their case. This is a typical progressive move to sway the public to their side. So let's go about showing the untruth in their words.

We'll start with racism. What is racism? Webster (1997) defines racism as "a thought or belief that one race is better than another race" (pg 272). New Standard (1987) also confirms this definition by holding "belief in the inherent superiority of one's own race" (Vol 12, R-8). The subject of the story wants us to believe that deporting her because she entered the country illegally is equatable to believing she is inferior to Americans because of her race or nationality. Her premises are flawed. Racism is based on the race of the person. Illegal immigration is an action not a characteristic. Thus those against illegal immigration are not racist.

Some will argue that some on the anti-illegal immigration side are also against immigration because they feel Latinos are inferior to them. There is no valid argument against that stance as there is truth in it. However, what applies to a segment of the whole does not necessarily apply to the whole of the whole. For example, all firemen are human. Bill is human. Therefore Bill is a fireman. This logic flow does not work. Bill may or may not be a fireman. While Bill is a human, there's not a guarantee he is a fireman. If you try to flip the first premise around to state (all humans are fireman), you get a statement that is not true. So going back to our racism statement: racists are against illegal immigration. Bill is against illegal immigration; therefore, Bill is a racist. This does not work. The premises are incorrectly applied. The only way it does work is to make Bill a racist as a premise vice a conclusion. When that is done, the logic works. But the premise relies on Bill being a racist to begin with vice being a racist because of his anti-illegal immigration stand. So when we bring in Howard, what do we get? Howard is not racist. Howard is against illegal immigration. Wait! Our premises now don't support the conclusion of the progressives. This is why a part of a whole does not reflect upon the whole; instead the whole reflects upon the part. This is a classic example of all A are B; all C are A; thus all C are B. The progressive logic is all A are B, all C are B, thus all C are A - which DOES NOT WORK! If your head is spinning, one more example might help. All apples are fruits. All bananas are fruits. All bananas are apples is flawed logic. This is what the progressives are doing.

So let's look at their argument from another viewpoint - one of discrimination. Discrimination, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary (2005), is "the effect of a law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability" (pg 393). It is further defined as "differential treatment; esp., a failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored" (393). Illegal immigrants are not being singled out because of their race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability.

As a matter of fact there is a reasonable distinction between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant, and it is not based on what another person observes from looking at a member of each group. The distinction is based on what each member had done to be a member of that group. One violated a federal rule; the other followed the federal rule. One believes it is okay to violate law when they deem it in their best interest; one believes in following a law is in their best interest. Thus being against illegal immigration cannot be equated to discrimination because the stand is not based on an unreasonable distinction.

One cannot violate a law and then expect sympathy unrelated to the violation to escape the effect of the law. Our Country was not founded on this flawed principle; we are founded upon the believe of freedom but within the constraints of respecting the law which is created to maintain a free society. We welcome immigrants who follow the rules we established to join our society. We don't have to accept someone willing to do otherwise.

I am against illegal immigration and I am not a racist.

Mike

References:

New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.

Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.

Landoll's. (1997). Webster's Dictionary. OH: Landoll's Inc.

Gardner, B. (Ed.). (2005). Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 8th edition. MN: Thomson/West.