GIVEN ICE RAIDS, THIS EXTENDED EXCERPT FROM MY 2018 BOOK, "Ideas Afoot," IS APPROPROS

Attempts to equate contemporary American immigration law enforcement with discrimination against 1930s German Jews and civil rights-era American blacks are crippled by a logical flaw.

In each historic instance, national citizens were denied rights due them by virtue of existent citizenship. The Rev. Dr. King, for example, argued persuasively that the US government needed to live up to promises our Constitution makes to citizens. He didn't advocate that non-Americans be elevated. Advocates of granting legal citizenship to illegals sometimes argue that such has become their rightful due, as illegals may have lived for years in the United States. Consider the principle of ownership in another context: Five years ago, Roy stole a blue car, in Philadelphia. Today, he is still driving it. Because five years have passed, is the car now legitimately Roy's, or does it remain stolen property? Voices demanding that citizenship be extended to scofflaw non-citizens point to possible past economic contributions, like taxes. They further insist that illegals brought into this country when they were children are without culpability, and know no other life, no other country. Consider, then, another hypothetical: After having stolen the blue, Philadelphia car, Roy gives it to Pete. Though initially unaware that Roy had stolen it, Pete later realizes that. It is the only car Pete has ever had. And over the course of several years of driving it and enjoying its benefits, Pete spent considerable cash on gas, oil, and general mechanical upkeep. Do those factors make the car no longer the bounty of criminality, and somehow Pete's rightful property? Should the original owner of the blue Philadelphia car simply absorb the loss and exempt Roy and Pete from applicable laws against theft? No, and no. Do the American people have both legal and moral rights to maintain citizenship standards? We do. Some might dispute my comparison. In the blue car instance, a piece of property was stolen from an owner. But a non-citizen entering a country illegally doesn't take away anyone else's citizenship. But in each case, the Rule of Law holds. Whether protecting ownership of private property or articulating national sovereignty -- in this matter, through citizenship standards and statutes -- the governing authority of democratically enacted law is acknowledged. One can't support that concept, selectively. Whether someone believes current laws are sound, broken, or will be changed, is irrelevant to this point: People today should obey laws as they exist, today. And by enforcing laws we chose through the electoral system, our government is affirming self-rule. That benefits every actual citizen.