Response to reader comments to a NYTimes editorial about immigration

Of the first 105 respondents to your pro-illegal immigration editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/opinion/18fri1.html), 39% agreed with your position, 49% opposed it, and 12% weren't clearly on one side or the other.

So even in the rarified atmophere of the New York Times' readership a strong plurality appears to oppose your stance on illegal immigration.

In reading all the comments I also observed that a large proportion of those favoring your editorial seemed to think they’d proven their point by calling us nativists or some such—i.e. they tried to change the subject from illegal immigration to our motives. This is a common logical fallacy beloved by both the New York Times editorial board and Karl Rove. Talk about strange bedfellows.

News flash! My motives have no bearing on the quality of my logic or the facts I cite. Hitler advocated the trains running on time. That doesn't make train timeliness bad, nor does my agreement (about trains running on time) make me a Hitler fan.

Namecalling is a hallmark of bigotry—yet in the illegal immigration debate such namecalling has become a hallmark of those who claim to oppose bigotry.

So even among your readers, half vigorously disagree with you. That demands a better response than this editorial’s mix of straw man arguments and namecalling. How about responding to the real arguments made in these comments?

For example, you ignored the fact that every illegal alien is a citizen of some other country—mainly Mexico. And in your proposals you would have American taxpayers pay for the Mexican kleptocracy’s exploitation of its people and the Mexican Catholic Church's domination of social policy there, resulting in Mexico's population exploding from 20 million in 1940 to over 100 million today, with fully half born into poverty, with few prospects for improvement there.

How is this America’s fault? And why does Mexico uniquely qualify for our succor? Of the world’s 139 or so nations, Mexico only ranks 48^th in overall poverty. Frankly I’d rather help Iraq’s million Christians who, thanks to us, now mostly huddle in Syria and Jordan, with their money running out. Or how about the starving masses of the Congo, Chad, and Sudan, who face infinitely worse conditions than Mexicans do?

And how can you shill for the greedy plutocrats who mainly profit from illegals’ semi-slave labor? How can you urge the Democratic Party to further alienate itself from its traditional base of working-class Americans of every race and ethnicity in your passion for helping the citizens of Mexico? Illegal alien labor has depressed blue-collar wages 15-25%. Lastly, how can you propose the same amnesty+enforcement “solution” that failed 20 years ago? Another amnesty today will trigger another tidal wave of illegals. What then?

I could be like you. Heck, I speak Spanish. I've lived in Mexico. I'm comfortable in that culture. And I live in an affluent college town that isn't being inundated by illegals. What's happening affects me very little--just like you. But unlike you I care about Americans who don't have my advantages.