Illegal Immigration: Rhetoric and Reality

One question from the ABC/WaPo poll on immigration was, “Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?”
To my surprise, 57% would support such a program, with 40% opposed.
These results, which as with all poll results should be taken with a grain of salt, reminded me of the case of Eric Balderas, the Harvard sophomore and illegal immigrant (when he was four years old) who was detained by authorities and threatened with deportation, and who has now been granted a reprieve.
I noticed that a lot of comments about this case on the Harvard Crimson’s site were along the lines of “we all need to follow the law,” “what don’t you get about ‘illegal’?,” etc. etc. Or, as the Right Brothers once sung, “Tell me why do we allow the illegals? After all, they’re illegal.”
This sort of rhetoric is extremely common in the right’s immigration discourse. Now, I don’t think that political rhetoric always has to conform to the highest standards of philosophical rigor, but “illegal immigration is against the law” is incredibly shallow and meaningless rhetoric. And still conservatives remind us that illegal immigrants are, in fact, illegal as if they have hit upon some profound truth that everyone else ignores or denies.
So let’s be clear: The question of legality versus illegality doesn’t begin to answer the question of punishment. Parking on my street without a permit is illegal. In New Jersey, pumping your own gas is illegal. And yes, coming here illegally makes you an “illegal immigrant.” Now, in the absolute simplest terms, the government cannot and should not punish people who have done nothing illegal (of course, a lot hinges on what is meant by “punish”). Conversely, doing something illegal gives the government the right and even the duty to treat you differently than it treats people who have done nothing illegal. We are dedicated to equality before the law, but that entails differential treatment of people who behave differently.
It should be obvious where this is going. Paying a fine and “meeting other requirements” are actions not required of legal residents, but, if the poll’s amnesty program were initiated, they would be required of illegal immigrants. This satisfies the terms of the right’s own rhetoric: it treats illegal people as if they were illegal. Of course, we already do that. In most places, for instance, illegal immigrants can’t get driver’s licenses or other government-issued IDs, can’t open checking accounts, etc. Some people think the punishment for being an illegal immigrant should be more harsh. But conservatives often seem to take for granted that the mere fact of illegality necessitates a particular punishment: immediate deportation. They present no argument. For them, “what don’t you get about ‘illegal’?” suffices to establish their rightness on all questions regarding immigration. They are wrong, and, if this poll is close to right, they’re in the minority.
Photo credit: Flickr stream of Katerkate