Thread: "Grossly immoral" to enforce our laws ??

I've excerpted part of the debate in the National Review between John Derbyshire and pro-amnesty Richard Nadler. This is part of Derbyshire's response:
---

National Review Online
the corner
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Responding to Nadler [John Derbyshire]

Richard: Thanks for yours. To take your points in turn, starting with your four "serious objections to kicking 7 million illegals out of the workforce":

"It's not going to happen": Six hundred thousand people, most of them presumably citizens, lost their jobs in January, and a similar number in February. At that rate, the economy itself will have kicked 7 million people out of the work force by year end. I wonder how they will feel about your efforts to keep 7 million illegal workers at their jobs? There are many futures, Richard.

...

"I-9 verification laws": I agree that you could drive a coach and four through the I-9 employee-verification process, and some employers undoubtedly do. Note a couple of things, though. (a) Huge numbers of employers — the ones I have watched cruising past my town's "day laborer hiring compound" around 7:30 any morning would be representative — do not bother with I-9 verification. (b) The E-Verify system, which the open-borders lobbies are doing everything they can to obstruct, is intended to improve verification. If you are as disgruntled as I am over the inadequacies and traps of the I-9 system, will you put your voice behind E-Verify?

...

"grossly immoral": Here you lose me. It's immoral — no, grossly immoral — to enforce the people's laws? I really think you do yourself no service here by hyper-moralizing the immigration issue. (That is not even to mention your implicit insult to federal law-enforcement personnel.) Immigration is an aspect of public policy, that's all. We ought to discuss its costs and benefits. By writing in this style, you reinforce the impression that for many on your side, immigration is a sort of emotional cult, fired by passions originating in some place not accessible to reason.

If we must make room for sentiment and morality in our discussion of immigration, why not as a sentimental attachment to the ideal and privilege of U.S. citizenship, and a moral imperative on our elected leaders to frame and execute national policy with regard to the interests of citizens and lawful residents, not foreign scofflaws? Beyond the simple imperatives of humane treatment and the terms of international treaties, our authorities have no obligations to foreigners. Foreigners have governments of their own to protect and advance their interests.

...

Full response here:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... EzMTUwZTM=

If this is how Nadler feels, then he won't mind if I electronically clean out his savings accounts. I would like a better life also.

Maybe Nadler would like to explain to the 7,000 kids from Puerto Rico, whose identities were stolen by illegal aliens what they think about the "gross immorality" of enforcement?