"Immigration excuses need some work"

David Harsanyi of the Denver Post gets it right (denverpost.com/news/ci_2751244):
Did you know some consider it racist to oppose illegal immigration but perfectly reasonable to support a system that casts illegal Mexican immigrants in the most menial and undesirable jobs?

The enlightened, it would seem, need someone to wash the dishes when they are done with their seared ahi and pinot noir in the finest Cherry Creek bistros.

Makes you wonder, though: Who are the bigots here?

...Colorado provides illegal immigrants free use of hospitals and city homeless shelters, while they make up around 20 percent of the Colorado jail population. And the state affords tens of thousands of immigrant children free schooling.

Is it racist to point out these facts? Or do open-border advocates cleverly equate rational immigration control with irrational bigotry?
He goes on to discuss Denver's sanctuary for illegal aliens policy and their current and former mayors John Hickenlooper and Wellington Webb. For more information on that sanctuary policy, see this.

Comments

Unchecked, illegal immigration is causing an economic catastrophe in many states, including my home state of California. 84 hospitals have closed in the past 13 years because illegals cannot be denied care and have no money to pay. This is merely one example. I am for removing the opportunities for jobs by cracking down on employers who hire illegals and then exploit them with low pay, meanile driving down wages for citizens. Around and around we go. It's a joke and if someone is not legally entitled to be here, off they should go. Back to Mexico and the scores of other countries they leave to pursue the American dream -- at the expense of Americans.

That is the typical ad hominem approach used by the left for so long now that even the most ignorant conservatives have learned to ape it. They get away with it because no one points out sharply enough, that having to use ad hominem abuses indicates lack of rational arguments for their cause, and loses the debate for them. Why would the mass immigrationists, in a welfare country, have to use such equivocations as immigration restrictioist=racist=nazi=mass murder advocate? If any rational arguments were forthcoming, they would use them, wouldn't they?