I am trying to understand the nature of the protests over proposed immigration legislation.

We must allow, I think, that the details of the legislation are perhaps debatable. A friend suggested to me that one implication is that it would be illegal to feed someone in a soup line who lacked proper identification. I don’t know whether this is true, but would be the first to challenge any legislation that did have such an immoral implication.

But I take it that the claim is that illegal immigrants would somehow be wronged by the more general proposal to put some teeth in existing immigration laws. But if they are wronged, then this implies that their rights would somehow be violated.

Which rights? We cannot be speaking of civil or constitutional rights, as, by definition, these are extended to citizens. The whole point, of course, is that illegal immigrants are not citizens. They are here illegally. By definition, no one has a legal right to do something that is illegal.

Then perhaps the appeal is to a higher law. Is it that enforced immigration laws would somehow violate their moral rights, as grounded in natural law? This would imply that illegal immigrants have a natural right to tenure here.

Of course, one might wonder why anyone should think such a thing. Is it because they are already here? As a teenager, I used to sneak friends into the drive-in movies by hiding them in my trunk. Were they entitled to stay and watch the movie without paying simply because they managed to get past the gatekeeper?

But, further, to say that illegal immigrants have a moral right to tenure implies that existing immigration laws, which say otherwise, are immoral. And, if this is so, the logic of the protests would seem to imply not only that existing laws should not be enforced - which is the point of the proposed legislation - but they should actually be stricken.

But then there is nothing unique about American immigration laws in this respect. The implication would be that all such laws worldwide should be abolished. Anyone from anywhere is morally entitled to take up residence and find employment in any nation of their choice without so much as applying for a visa or a green card or seeking citizenship.

Perhaps, then, the logic of the protests is that nationalism itself is a moral evil. We are all citizens of the world and the very existence of national boundaries violates important rights of citizenship.

Perhaps. John Lennon seemed to think so and, as he observed, “I’m not the only one.” But this at least calls for a splendid argument that I have yet to hear. And I suspect that far fewer people would argue for this conclusion than there are protesting the enforcement of standing laws.

Mark D. Linville
Fayetteville, Ga.