Letter writer Paul R. Schlitz Jr.'s scornful response to those who oppose laws and initiatives to help "New Marylanders" misses the point of why opponents of illegal immigration hold such views ("Immigrants and the blame game," Jan. 6).
Moreover, he champions being a liberal, while completely missing what the real problem with modern liberalism is — although in his defense, this is rarely articulated by the opposition.
His pride in "thinking of the welfare of the exploited" implies that tolerating and encouraging illegal immigration is morally right due to the exploitation of immigrant labor.
While he is correct in pointing out that employers are always looking for the cheapest labor and that illegal immigrants are exploited, like most liberals blinded by a sense of self-righteousness, he misses the fact that these people are able to be exploited because of their illegal status.
While claiming to stand up for illegal immigrants, supporting these kind of initiatives is simply attempting to redefine a problem as no longer a crime. These people are still undocumented, and will still be exploited. It's like saying there are too many muggers in jail being exploited and treated badly, so let's just make mugging legal — the trouble of course being that this doesn't actually solve the problem, but it sure feels like it will help.
While feeling morally right for standing up for "what is right" against the exploitation of immigrants, Mr. Schlitz espouses the quintessential problem with modern progressivism and liberalism. When liberals say "what is right," what they mean is "what is right in my view."
Positions like Mr. Schiltz's are based on primitive emotional feeling, rather than the principles and laws protecting the citizens of this state and country. The problem with this is that in a diverse land, people are different and hold different values.
Throughout history, the Democratic party has supported movements that seemed emotionally right at their time, which accounts for Democratic support for slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, Indian removal, and other blemishes on American History.
They base their politics on what "feels right" at a particular point in history rather than the core principals underlying the laws of this country.
It should be noted that passing a law does not change these principals of law. For example, Mr Schlitz's argument about the justification of in-state tuition for illegal immigrant because of voter approval is moot. Californians voted to ban same-sex marriage, but I think Mr. Schlitz would not support that law.
What Mr. Schlitz and many other liberals fail to see is that there are not many conservatives who want to ban immigration; we want hard workers in this country. States cannot legalize undocumented immigrants, and conservatives are just able to see the harsh truth that you can't solve a problem like illegal immigration by a state passing a few conciliatory laws that attempt to redefine a problem as not being a problem.
B. Auer, Baltimore
To respond to this letter, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include your name and contact information.