1. Everyone talks about the rule of law as some sort of totem. Once upon a time, we had a SCOTUS "Justice" named Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He was the successful proponent of the remarkable civil heresy that the law is simply what the judges say it is, regardless of its specific provisions. This theory is known in law schools and in philosophical circles as "Legal Determinism". In his time on the SCOTUS, Holmes was "The Great Dissenter." That is because there was still a recognizeable adherence to the rule of law. Legal Determinism has it that we are ruled by men and NOT by law as written. This is a markedly different and far more degenerate proposition than mere honest and principled differences among SCOTUS justices or other lower judges as to the meaning of an enactment or statute. Holmes advocated the naked rule of those in judicial power and, since the mid-1930s, we have been living under the thumb of his theory. Roe vs. Wade is an example but only one example of the results of the abolition of the rule of law. Unfortunately the dead victims under that one decision total 45 million. The rule of law is not only dead but, if it were still alive and producing dead babies X 45 million, it would be time for an alternative less deadly.
2. It is patently unfair and a lot harder on the victims that 45 million kids have been sliced, diced and turned into bleeding hamburger under Roe vs. Wade. It is also unfair that the INS stores unread immigration applications by the hundreds of thousands on warehouses in Kansas and the government itself has a lot higher obligation to obey its own laws than do those foreign nationals applying to come here. The government is setting a very poor example.
3. Lysander Spooner wrote extensively on this social contract theory, noting that most of us are imagined to be bound by it by circumstance of birth and not by personal agreement. Our social contract includes, presumably, the constitution and the laws not just those immigration laws that tell people elsewhere not to come here without INS approval. We recognize, as do virtually all civilized nations, that children, regardless of parental nationality, who are born in our country are also American citizens by birth. George Romney was born in Mexico when his parents were American citizens doing Mormon missionary work there. He was American by parentage and Mexican by birth. Lowell Weicker was born in Paris of American citizens. Many of us in Connecticut when he was Senator or Governor would like to have deported him to France or anywhere so long as it was permanent but the law made him a citizen. We were stuck with him. Now, our law has other provisions. Some here refer, I believe accurately, to a child born here of "illegals" as an "anchor baby" meaning that the child's American citizenship will facilitate the parents' acquisition of American citizenship under "family reunification" provisions of our immigration laws enacted in the "reforms" of the 1960s and later. Congress knows the result and is presumed to know the law as are we all so presumed but Congress does not change that law. It too is the "law of the land." Our social contract is in disagreement with itself. There are other examples.
4. The studies and what not are produced by all sides. Some say the immigration of "illegals" is beneficial and some that it is detrimental. In any event, the studies are not the law. You say potahto and I say potayto. Let's call this part of the argument off. Furthermore, temporary detriment is often the parent of long term gain. Would anyone say that the immigration of 1880 through 1930, let's say, was on balance, and in view of history, a detriment? Perhaps, but I am not agreeing with them and most will not agree with them. Yet, as you can see in the movie Gangs of New York which covers an earlier period of Irish immigration when there were no laws on the subject, there were a lot of native stock Americans who reacted rather strongly against immigration and objected to welcoming the Irish (Catholics, oh my!) to our "social contract." Historically, the Irish won. I am accusing the Know Nothings and NOT you of anti-Catholicism.
5. The size of the incoming "illegal" immigration is minor as a percentage of all population compared to the percentages represented by the earlier 1880-1930 waves of immigration. This is a portion of argument dealing only with numbers and percentages and not with legal or llegal.
6. Our standard of living is far more affected by the WTO and GATT than it is by immigration. Capitalism and its "invisible hand" makes economic analysis more difficult and less superficial than most of us imagine. Nonetheless, there are always unexpected and unintended consequences. If the Mexicans have a larger birth rate, diaper-makers will benefit as will baby-food producers, infant clothiers, etc. All these businesses provide jobs. The more jobs compared to population the higher the wages. Some of the "illegals" will work and some will not. Some will burden social services because our society has chosen to have a welfare state. Those who work will lower wages by competition. Get rid of WTO and GATT and see how fast that adjusts wages upwards. Buchanan argues for immigration restriction but also for tariffs and against WTO and GATT. If wages are the measure, it is not primarily the "illegals who cause the problem. If welfare costs are the measure, remember that there is a general remedy, conservative dictrine, of abolishing the welfare state programs, which will save all of us a lot more than will be saved by simply cutting off "illegals" and probably make for a much better society in the bargain. In any event, materialism is not a good standard to govern society, dialectical materialism or any other kind. If material considerations were the trump card, we would kill the no longer productive elderly and disabled and chronically ill and consider killing children after birth if we decide they are too much of a burden. I am not willing to go there. I would hope that you aren't willing to go there either.
This nation is filled with wide open spaces. There are places in Iowa, I understand, which will actually pay people to homestead. Towns are being abandoned for lack of population all over the prairie. These places have drained population to the excitement of the coasts. My family had been quite excited enough by living in coastal New England. We moved here and we do not look back and we wonder why anyone would not move here. Plenty of Mexicans have moved here and have done very well indeed. Send us your surplus. They are welcome here. We ask whether people are honest and law-abiding in ways that count (i.e. are they good neighbors?), willing to do a good day's work to earn a good day's wage. We can judge a man or woman's character without seeing a birth certificate. America as it used to be. America as it ought to be.
Changing demographics, by whatever means necessary, is my solution until someone has a better idea. The Junior League is not agitating to make abortion illegal. Rule #1: The holocaust ends. We have waited long enough and too long for 45 million of us who are now slaughtered. If the demographic changes do not produce the desired result (everything else is secondary), then maybe America's demise is at hand. That would not be my choice. The fault will lie with SCOTUS and with us for tolerating SCOTUS in its tyranny. An iron or cobalt curtain around America is no answer to anything and we ought to feel shame that it is suggested. If our lifestyle depends upon a continuation of the holocaust, then the lifestyle will suffer.
None of this post is in disrespect to you. Simply disagreement and respectful disagreement at that.