They shot John Lennon

Academia is filled with very liberal people, and yet in my personal life my family and friends tend to be conservative.  I'm usually in the middle, which I guess makes me a moderate, but in reality I probably lean right on economics issues and left on social issues, but the two are often in conflict.  The issue of illegal immigration is just such a conflict.  

If I had a family in a foreign country and had a difficult time supporting and even protecting them, I'm pretty sure I'd do all that I could to help my family, and perhaps coming to the United States would be a real option.  I really can't hate people for trying to better their lives, and in fact were I in their shoes I might also be here illegally.  I have no problem at all with the number of immigrants in the US.  Our country is a country of immigrants, and every one of us are or are descended from immigrants (and that includes "native" Americans, who just immigrated here earlier than most and then were unconscionably exploited and mistreated by many that came later).  I very much admire how many that immigrated to the United States have overcome so much, and frequently worked very hard to do so.  I am proud and in awe of people who have worked to become US citizens, people who actually chose to be citizens rather than just becoming one by birth.  I can further appreciate how difficult it is, particularly with quotas and the legal system, for people to immigrate here properly.  But what I see, often personally (especially when I lived in Southern California), is a large number of people who have made little or no attempt to obtain visas and later green cards.  But what really burns many people's cookies is when someone who is here illegally expects and even demands public assistance as their "right."

One measure of a society is the compassion that its people have for those less fortunate.  I agree with that, but like most things, putting the principle into practice is a complex exercise.  Yes, it would be great if we lived in a Utopian society.  "Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace."  But people are people, resources are limited and competing, and issues associated with illegal immigrants aren't always black or white.  Illegal immigrants are people and like almost all people deserving of compassion and respect, but illegal immigrants are criminals that by many measures are net economic liabilities, at least in the short term.

I think that most of us would agree in principle that in almost all cases a person bleeding to death should receive some basic level of care regardless of his/her immigration status.  But even in that instance, in a world of limited and competing resources, it's easy to construct scenarios that create moral and economic dilemmas.  And the questions get tougher as we move away from life-and-death emergency needs, and the allocation of scarce resources, along with often conflicting moral standards, make issues associated with illegal immigration controversial ones.  I think in general, though, when a person has made little or no attempt to meet the entry requirements of the host country, that illegal immigrant is not entitled to most of the benefits afforded that country's citizens.

So I was truly amazed if not dumbfounded when many of my colleagues were outraged that our state legislators would consider cutting payments for illegal immigrants to attend college (not even barring illegal immigrants from going to a state college, just not paying for them to do so).  Really?  I must confess that when I saw the TV video of illegal aliens protesting against the possibility that they would not receive this "right," that the thought crossed my mind that it seemed foolish for those who are by definition criminals to not only congregate but do so in a very public way, as it seemed to simplify the task of immigration officials to find, detain, and deport them.  I know that seems harsh, but there is something very distasteful about seeing those who do not play by the rules, even if there is some question about those rules, profit illegally, particularly to the detriment of those who do play by the rules.   But even if you argue that the rules are so severely flawed that the moral imperative outweighs the legal directive, we simply cannot afford to pay for everything that we'd like to have and do, especially when we are taking money from citizens (taxes), and then spending that money in a manner not necessarily favored by those citizens.  Maybe it's jingoistic, or maybe it's just hard choices, but I have not seen any particular outcry by the citizenry of the government of, for, and by the people to spend the money of the people in providing a substantial level of involuntary charity to those who are not of the people, especially those who violate the laws of the people.

More simply, we as a people believe that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But is it our obligation to sacrifice (and many would argue beyond our means- and therein lies the rub) to provide that right to others, and more pragmatically, can we afford to do so?  Some would smugly argue that we cannot afford not to.  But then, we've spent a lot of money and lives trying to impose our values in Iraq and Afghanistan, with dubious benefit (and how'd that Vietnam thing work out?), so maybe it's cheaper and more efficient to just let the people in repressed and impoverished countries come here.  Imagine that.

image from greatdreams.com