by P. Giselle Hale

Created on: August 04, 2008

The answer is in the question. As the late entertainer, mayor, and U. S. Rep. Sonny Bono said, "What's to talk about? It's illegal." If we can put aside emotions and personal connections, we can see this question as a clear behavior-consequence issue. Those who choose to break the law, at that very moment of decision, also choose to face the law. We should make that happen.

Because we have allowed these law-breakers to stay without negative consequence, far too many of them have further denigrated our laws by expecting demanding constitutional rights owed only to U. S. citizens. This is ludicrous. Presence does not equal privilege. A sleepover does not make a guest an heir. Yet, instead of punishing these immigration law-breakers, we have coddled them. This unreasonable behavior of ours is then followed by its own natural consequence: more law-breakers expecting, not just clemency, but favors.

Most citizens of the United States believe that we live in the greatest country on earth. (For those of us in Texas that goes double!) We understand why people from all over the world yearn to move here. And it has been indeed people from all over the world who have made us great. Understanding this, we have established laws facilitating and governing the process of entering our land and of becoming full-fledged citizens. These laws are the invitation to the banquet that is America. Those invitees who did not RSVP and pay for their meal, but chose instead to crash the feast, do not deserve seats at the table. Just because they barged in and made a lot of noise, they did not thereby earn the right to be served a meal. The intruders are not hungry; they just heard about a meal better than theirs at home, one they did not want to have to pay for, and decided they would impose.

But, continuing the banquet analogy, our current practices in dealing with illegal immigrants dictate that we, as hosts, order all the invited paying guests to crowd closer together around their respective tables to make room for the intruders. We drag in folding chairs. Everyone has a seat, but no one is comfortable. We order the cooks to add more water and more potatoes to the soup so it will fill more bowls, but it will be thin and tasteless and unsatisfying. We also tell the cooks to use all pieces of the lettuce heads for the salads, not just the choice leaves. So all present will get salad, but it will contain tough core pieces and brown edges. We direct the servers to allot smaller portions to all the diners so that everyone can eat the same amounts. These amounts are less than the invited guests expected, less than they paid for, and, thus, less than they deserve. Because the kitchen staff and servers are stretched beyond efficient capacity, service is slow, and diners receive their food cold and dry. This scenario cheats everybody legitimately involved.

Our question does not address the logistical complexities of deporting millions of illegal aliens. However, we are already seeing the deportation problem shrinking as some of the hordes of invaders are choosing on their own to return to their home countries. They are reading the handwriting on the wall; they see that hordes of Americans are tired of being treated like suckers. I welcome the re-entry of today's illegals after they have worked their ways through official procedures, going to the back of the line in their own country, behind those already waiting legally.

So, should illegal immigrants in the United States have a legal path to citizenship? No. They have already rejected the legal path. They should return to their country on their own, or, yes, be deported.

Learn more about this author, P. Giselle Hale.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.