Closed Borders: Yay or Nay? Is It Even That Simple?

So, I was watching a rerun of Boston Legal the other night and a case involved a priest who was on trial for harboring illegal aliens in the sanctuary of the church. I'm all too aware of the controversy and varying opinions on the subject of immigration law, especially being a resident of Southern California. What struck me was the arguments both sides were making. Alan Shore, on behalf of the defense, argued that by convicting his client of harboring who is, in essence, a criminal, she would be deported. The problem with deporting the woman is that she is a mother to an eight-year-old who was born on American soil, and therefore a citizen. Essentially, deporting his mother would either force him to give up his citizenship and flee to Mexico, or stay in the U. S. without his mother. You may see the problem in this. Opposing council, the prosecution, stated that it is illegal to harbor law breakers and since the mother was illegal...well, you see the point. Simply because he is a priest and doing something charitable does not make him any less a criminal. In the end, she was offered a green card in exchange for her testimony against the priest, which she took, and he was convicted. The result isn't really all that important. My question, though, is who is right?

Here is my opinion for what it's worth. I don't think it's fair that anyone traipse in and out of the U.S. (or any country, for that matter) benefit from health care, education, and opportunity but never bother to become a citizen. Further more, I am highly irritated by anyone who spends a great deal of time in a country and never bothers to learn the language. Before any immigrant-rights activists or the ACLU gets on my ass for this, let me express plainly: I wouldn't be allowed to occupy any other country for that length of time (in this case, eight years) without being jailed, deported or punished in some other matter. I cannot work in Canada without a work visa, background check and if I decided to pursue and education there, I would have to become a citizen of at least one year and pass a citizenship test. I cannot go to Mexico and buy property. I can't go to Europe and seek health care, for free, for a period of more than one approved visit. You see my point. In the aftermath of September 11, and the "new" world in which we live, amidst the former President's administration's wire tapping and horrific holding of prisoners without charges (Guantanamo) border control is something that needs to be considered seriously. We need to reevaluate a system that, quite frankly has never worked and make it harder for people to come in to the country illegally and develop a more straightforward way of gaining entrance for those that do want to become legal Americans. I am in no way suggesting that the government not allow not Americans entrance, I'm simply suggesting that those seeking a better way of life or asylum of some nature follow the same rules as everyone else.

There is another problem inherent in the unruly nature and behavior of all those involved. I suppose we cannot kick people out of the United States if we're using illegals, working them to death, living off of their sweat and tears and paying them pennies on the dollar for their work. We cannot have it both ways and there is a lot of blame to go around. We also cannot kick out the parents or guardians of those that are citizens. It is not their fault and in reevaluating the citizenship question, we must take this in to consideration.