,

To Deport or Not To Deport: in South Florida

To deport, or not to deport – that is the question.   The straightforward answer is to deport if a foreign born individual is apprehended in the United States illegally.  This is especially true if the individual in question has committed a criminal act.  However, the very fact that they are here in violation of the U.S. laws governing proper immigration is in itself a criminal act, hence the term illegal alien.  Sugar-coating this undeniable truth by referring to them as “undocumented workers” changes nothing.     Actually, most of the arguments that I have heard against deportation would be considered red herring fallacies in a formal debate.  Basically, a “red herring” is any misleading proposition that is presented in place of any real evidence to the contrary in an attempt to negate the implicit truth of the opponent’s position.  The most common examples of this as applied to the deportation debate are Ad Hominem Attacks, Appeal to Consequences, Moralistic Fallacy and the Appeal to Emotion.  In order to make my point, I will elaborate on these separately in the paragraphs below.

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) attacks are made against the opponent and not the position that they hold.  Concerning the act of deportation, this tactic uses racially charged slurs directed at those who just want to see the laws enforced.  If the slanderer can get the accusations to stick in the minds of a gullible public he has successfully achieved what is commonly known as poisoning the well.  After that, anything else that the law abiding citizens might put forth will be tainted by labels such as “racist” or “xenophobe”.   The ironic part is that many deportation proponents are immigrants who came to the U.S. legally to work and are pursuing citizenship according to the established laws and regulations.

By appealing to consequences, the opponents of deportation assert that by removing the so-called undocumented workers there will somehow be a marked shortage of those willing to perform the jobs usually filled by illegal immigrants.  The absurdity of this position lies in the assumption that American citizens simply will not pick fruit, landscape, do construction or clean hotel rooms.  The truth is documented workers are more than happy to work in these jobs but just not at slave wages that forces them to live in poverty as virtual indentured servants.  The actual consequence of allowing illegal aliens in for this purpose is to perpetuate this inhumane treatment while the corporations line their pockets with even more profit.  The usual retort when one demonstrates the flaw in their reasoning is to say that the companies will invariably pass the added expense of paying living wages on to the consumer thereby inflating prices considerably.  The only thing left to do at this point is to question their morality.

The funny thing is, this is exactly what the opponents of deportation assert when they claim that America has a moral obligation to take in every immigrant that reaches our soil.  The morality fallacy is not only unfair to the taxpayer it is economically unsustainable.  The U.S. currently has a national debt of approximately 20 trillion dollars and unfunded liabilities of 106 trillion (USdebtclock.org).  The debt this country has accumulated and is under future obligation to pay is staggering.  It is blatantly unfair to subject a nation to this type of financial burden.  This especially applies to upcoming generations who will bear the brunt of our reckless decisions.

Finally, the most popular fallacious attempt to sway popular opinion is by tugging on the citizens heartstrings.  This is known as the appeal to emotion and involves showing dramatic scenes of families being ripped apart accompanied by stories of how unfair they are being treated by our government.  The obvious goal is to manipulate the feelings of the observer, relying on creating a sense of pity rather than presenting a valid position based on reason.  I believe this to be the lowest form of deception but is frequently used by politicians, organizations and advertisers due to its inherent effectiveness in altering perceptions of reality.

In conclusion I would like to state that the laws governing deportation are there for the safety and economic stability of the legal citizens of the United States.  The bottom line is that if an immigrant wants to come to America they need to play by the rules or face the consequences.    I guarantee that if I were to be caught in a third world country illegally, especially in the commission of a crime, I could only hope for deportation.  More than likely I would be spending hard time in some godforsaken prison while they embezzle as much cash from me as humanly possible.   Critics will state with a misplaced sense of pride that this is America where we treat people according to the rule of law.  To this I would emphatically agree and reply that my position of supporting deportation is an attempt to ensure that we keep it that way.