Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Liberals' response to illegal immigration isn't grounded in reality [Letter]

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 talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Immigration is not a zero sum game
    Immigration is not a zero sum game

    Commentator Geysar I. Gurbanov argues that offering relief to undocumented immigrants forced to live in the shadows "offends legal immigrants" ("Obama's immigration plan offends legal immigrants," Nov. 20).

  • Executive orders are a bipartisan pastime
    Executive orders are a bipartisan pastime

    House Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that he intends to block the Obama administration's executive order shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from the threat of immediate deportation ("Congress scrambles to avoid Homeland Security shutdown," Feb. 26).

  • Immigration reform, yes, executive action, no
    Immigration reform, yes, executive action, no

    Is the looming battle over immigration really about Congress' power to legislate immigration policy or about the president's power to set policy by executive order? I think it's the latter. But what really is at stake is the ability of Congress to deal effectively with the millions of illegal...

  • Who do the Democrats think they're fooling?
    Who do the Democrats think they're fooling?

    I am disappointed but not surprised by the furor over whether to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security ("Congress OKs deal to avoid shutdown at Homeland Security," Feb. 27).

  • Let veterans patrol the border
    Let veterans patrol the border

    Recently I heard President Obama's wife, Michelle, express her concern about veterans ("Give a veteran a chance," Nov. 10).

  • Obama casts himself as a dictator with immigration action
    Obama casts himself as a dictator with immigration action

    On Thursday President Barack Obama granted amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens even though he declared it is not amnesty ("Obama makes his case for immigration action," Nov. 21). He has lost credibility with all the lies he has said in the past six years as president. What he did was...

  • Immigration reform can wait
    Immigration reform can wait

    The Sun's recent editorial, "No lame duck president" (Nov. 16), made the editorial board look a little ridiculous.

  • What is immigration costing Md.?
    What is immigration costing Md.?

    I read with interest The Sun's article, "More school money sought" (Jan. 12). The article notes that the superintendent of Baltimore County Public Schools is requesting an 8.7 percent increase in the school budget. In part, the increase is needed due to "an influx of children in need" and "to...

Comments
Loading