Help Katherine Fennelly with her moral reasoning (University of Minnesota, immigration)

Katherine Fennelly of the University of Minnesota offers "What Does the Morality of Americans Have to Do With Immigration in America?" [1]. Summary: illegal immigration is all your fault, because you're too childlike to have achieved the proper state of moral reasoning. In fact, the person lacking in reason is Fennelly as she supports bad, immoral public policy and smears Americans who are opposed to illegal immigration:

...Analysis of much of the recent angry rhetoric over "illegal immigration" suggests that many Americans are stuck at the conventional level of moral development, in which the statement "they broke the law" becomes the main criterion for crafting policy responses. If you Google the phrase "what about illegal don't you understand," you will find thousands of adherents to this level of reasoning...

That phrase is generally directed at those who try to mislead by, for instance, saying that Arizona's immigration law is "anti-immigration". While sometimes I've seen that phrase used alone, it's usually accompanied by other arguments such as those involving border security, employment and spending issues, and so on. Fennelly is in such an amnesty-supporting bubble that she thinks that illegality is the only argument "many Americans" have when that's provably wrong.

She then goes into the standard far-left excuse for illegal immigration: there aren't enough visas for low-wage workers and thus:

...our government policies have led to a ritualized game of "Gotcha," in which immigrants are drawn to the U.S. because of the prospect of jobs that have gone unfilled by American workers; but once they cross the border, they are increasingly victimized by public anger and by mean-spirited local ordinances and laws.

She's missing the point: if most Americans had their way, there would be millions fewer illegal aliens in the U.S. and the border would be secure enough to prevent more people coming here illegally. The only reason there's a conflict is due to political corruption: those like George W Bush and Barack Obama only enforce the laws to the extent that they think they can get away with. Their actual policy is to allow as many people to come here illegally as they can. The situation Fennelly describes isn't due to de jure policy, but the de facto policy brought about by a conflict between the wishes of most Americans and the wishes of corrupt politicians.

Further, what Fennelly supports would make things worse for both countries, hollowing out Mexico even more at the same time as making the illegal/massive immigration situation in the U.S. even worse. Her policy is to prop up a corrupt government rather than to force them to reform and support their own citizens. And, her policies are even more immoral in that they'd encourage even more people to try to come here illegally, with many not making it; see the false compassion page.

If you have a Huffington Post account, link this post in comments there or make an argument in comments there showing her readers how she's wrong; her post currently has 624 comments with at least some disagreeing with her.