Matt Walsh is Confused about Immigration

While I often find myself agreeing with Matt Walsh on a lot of issues, I have to say I disagree with him on his stance on immigration laws and border security. Walsh recently published his blog post Isn't it mean and hateful to deport illegal immigrants? Here are my thoughts.

Walsh starts by saying, "We have borders in this country. We have laws. We must enforce those laws and those borders."
But here, Walsh is committing two logical fallacies: an appeal to law fallacy and a begging the question fallacy. The appeal to law fallacy equates legislation with morality. If his logic is valid then I can say, "Of course it's wrong for little girls to sell lemonade in New York without a license. It's the law!" But of course, that's begging the question. The law is the very thing in question when arguing about immigration. Simply restating that it's the law isn't news to anyone nor is it even remotely convincing.

"If your first act as a would-be citizen is to defy our laws, you cannot be a citizen."
Here Walsh is confusing two issues. The issue of citizenship and being here legally versus illegally are two different things. And shouldn't breaking laws mean you go to jail, not be deported? If you're a citizen, you go to jail, right? Or did I miss something? I mean, if you're really that kind of law-breaker isn't jail a better place than being free in another country. If they have a habit of breaking laws, wouldn't they just break the law again and come back?

"Every nation in existence has borders and laws, and every nation, save ours, generally goes about enforcing both."
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy also known as tyranny of the majority. What everyone else does has nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong. What made America such a great and free nations is that it broke the conventional wisdom of how governments and laws work. Remember when you were a kid and you'd tell your parents or your teachers, "But everyone else is doing it!" and they'd respond, "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you do it too?" Sometimes, we don't grow out of it.

"But here in this country we have a unique situation. We are able, but unwilling. Indeed, we may be the first nation in the history of humanity that actually has to argue over the basic concept of having and maintaining a border."
This is an assumption which has no basis in fact. How exactly would one know if we are able to do it. How exactly do you secure the border? It's 1,989 miles long. What are you gonna do, put a soldier on every foot of the border and have one standing there 24/7? A fence? Like people can't make holes in it, or bring a ladder.

There's also the assumption that we need a border. But why? For security? We already have laws against violence and other criminal offenses. Why is that not enough? Who exactly is the border keeping out? More government isn't the answer.

"A country cannot exist without a border, and a border cannot exist without laws, and the laws cannot exist without enforcement. It’s very logical."
This is yet another logical fallacy: the fallacy of equivocation or a bait and switch fallacy. It is true that a country cannot exist without borders, but the second time he uses the word "borders" he loads the word with a much broader meaning that includes implications of a certain level of border security, a fence, etc.

Then he says a border cannot exist without laws. But why? What laws? And are our current laws matching the ideal of what those laws should be? Walsh claims this is all very simple, but he must forgive this simpleton because I need a lot more clarity on such a broad statement.

"The true conspiracy is among those who oppose immigration enforcement. That camp can be easily divided into two factions (with plenty of crossover): 1) Corporations. 2) Democrat politicians."
Well, I'm not a corporation and I'm definitely not a Democrat politician... Though it's more of a straw man to characterize them as not wanting to enforce the border. The actual position is wanting immigration reform.

"Personally, I do feel great compassion for these kids, but the law can’t be put to the side for them."
Actually there are already laws on the books that allow children to come here legally (see: Brit Hume on The O'Reilly Factor).

"Besides, maybe they’re better off elsewhere. We don’t exactly treat children with humanity and respect in this country."
 Umm... what? Yeah, let's just throw logic out the window. They wouldn't be coming here if they weren't better off. It's pretty simple. Is he really saying we treat children worse here than in the corrupt, poverty-stricken countries they fled from?

"Of course, overpopulation is a ridiculous lie, so the problem with illegal immigration isn’t one of a lack of space. It’s more a lack of jobs, a lack of money, a lack of resources."
This represents a terrible ignorance of how the economy works. The free market regulates those things, not the government. No politician or legislator is all-knowing enough to figure out how many jobs are needed and where. The fact that they are able to come and get work means the free market is finding ways around the laws that hinder it.

You can make the same argument about new people being born or about people moving from state to state or city to city. "You have to stay where you are because there might be a lack of jobs, money and resources somewhere else." "You can't have more than two kids because there might be a lack of jobs, money and resources for them."

"Not to mention, back in the old days, immigrants came here and helped tame the wild land."
Back in the old days there was no border security and insane immigration laws. This they have this:

back in the old days?

And immigrants do help our country immensely. Both legal and illegal.

"Illegal immigrants of modern times, on the other hand, are often coaxed over with Spanish language food stamp advertisements and visions of free education and free health care."
This is an argument against food stamps and welfare, not against a free labor market. It has nothing to do with immigration.

 "Now, tell me that the bureaucracy is out of control and everything is more complicated and less efficient because of it, and I’ll agree. Tell me that we need to cut down the government and force it to handle its essential functions with speed and competency, and I’ll agree. Tell me that this should happen with our immigration process, and I’ll agree but insist that we start the streamlining process elsewhere."
I agree with him on this, but then why isn't he emphasizing those things which would be the solution? Why not focus on fixing the problem instead of whining about  "open borders" which very few people are arguing for anyway, and then justifying his argument against open borders with arguments that sound more like they're against the very things he just said he said he's for?

This rhetoric only seeks to make Republicans less likely to support much-needed immigration reform. There should be free trade in labor as well as goods and services. By making legal immigration so difficult, we've created a larger "black market" of people coming here by more degrading means. More laws and aggressive enforcement of bad laws are not the answer.