As it is 4:31 in the morning, I'm afraid my answer won't be fantastic so bare with me here...
im‧mi‧grant /ˈɪmɪgrənt/ Pronunciation[im-i-gruhnt]
1. a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
2. an organism found in a new habitat.
3. of or pertaining to immigrants and immigration: a department for immigrant affairs.
The first definition doesn't state whether it's legal or not. Immigrant merely means a person who moves from one country to another to seek residence there. You may want to pretty up your argument with words that dehumanize these people, that takes the face off them, but these are PEOPLE. Cubans flee from their country for much the same reasons and are only extended asylum because Cuba is a communist nation. It's actually a very similar situation to what caused the Hutu-Tutsi Conflict in Africa that led to that genocidal conflict in Rwanda. I should also point out, again, that YOU are most likely an immigrant, and anyone who has ancestors stretching back more than 200 years actually came here just as the Mexicans did: Coming to America and getting a poor job to support their family. Oftentimes, they didn't even get processed, they just came here. That's right. Most likely the oldest residents in America were what is defined today as illegal immigrants. Funny how that works in retrospect isn't it? Should we back-work all immigrants now? Find those who're descended from immigrants that didn't go through the processing and kick them out? Because if that's the truth, there's a good deal of certainty your sweet land of liberty would fade over the horizon line for you.
Oh yes, another thing, you said they should enter legally... You DO know how hard it is for Mexicans to enter legally, right? You need several thousand dollars in a bank account to apply for immigrant status so you can provde you will not be a drain in society. That is more money than most Mexicans EVER see in their lives. You are asking them to do the impossible. The options are being destitute in America, where they can give their children a better chance, or they have the option of being destitute in Mexico, where their kids will grow up in slums and probably either end up dead, forced into crime, or in the same boat as their parents. You may want to consider that not every Mexican that comes over the border is a lazy, non-working idiot rapist or thief. About 99% of these people are hard workers, often parents, who want to try and earn money so they can escape poverty and get into a better life. These people do not take jobs, they work as the bottom of the food-chain, working at places like McDonalds, they work as Janitors, they work in Slaughterhouses, Chemical Plants... Quite often in unsafe conditions because, after all, who are they going to complain to? You? You'd throw them out. Maybe you should put a face on these people and understand their problems, and actually wonder just why they're coming to your country where they know they're going to live in squalor, hm? If the action is so counter-productive, why do it?
And as for Abortion, not too much to say here. It's not murder if it's before a certain point, because the baby is not alive yet, and hence has not been given a soul by God yet. It is, at this point, just a bundle of cells that focus on reproducing themselves. A tumor basically. So unless we're denying Cancer Patients treatment, we have an issue. If you feel killing mindless tissue harms a soul, does that mean I break off a piece of yours if I accidentally cut off your arm? It's essentially the same argument. Maybe you should actually take a moment to think of when the soul enters the body, and if it's at conception, what about babies that never become alive? Stillborn children have no soul because they were never alive, but they developed, didn't they? Could it be that the formation of the body and the entry of the soul are two entirely different things?
Now to counter a few arguments real quick:
They'll fight to save the rapist's life, but advocate the summary execution of the rapist's innocent child.
Well, the rapist is the person, the "child" is not a child yet. Once brain activity begins, it's a child. Until then, it is essentially a tumor. As to the rapist, he deserves whatever comes to him. I'm no Democrat. I find it harder and harder to see any centrist party left in the world, but we do alright in Canada. But anyway, as I was saying, the rapist deserves whatever comes to him. I have no respect for criminals, and though I will add leniance for things like street-kids who steal food so they can eat, Rape is a crime I cannot abide by. It is a crime with a 100% certainty (Or as close as is possible) of who committed it thanks to DNA identification, and as such I think it's one of the rare few things where you can have the death penalty.
There have been one or two other empires that advocated eliminating "useless eaters." We fought a world war against one of them, and a cold war against the other. You'd think we'd stay consistent.
But were not they living, breathing people who were walking around and that had souls? These were people who were born, not an unliving (On the barrier of life and death) fetus. And by the way, you fought in World War II and the Cold War? Can you send me pictures of your servicemans medal please? How about your rank stripes? Oh, that's right, you didn't fight in either. World War II was fought for by people who were willing to die to defend their country and the people in it AND their freedoms. You have to recognize their rights and choices, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I will recognize your opposition to my opinions but you have no right to impose yours on mine. That was the whole point of your nation forming I believe. I suggest that if you oppose Abortions, maybe you should just provide information on alternatives and why you think it is amoral. That way, your views are equally represented, and those that want abortions can get them.
And by the way, I suggest not bringing up the Cold War. America doesn't have a shining record from that. Wasn't the whole reason America went into Iraq to get WMD's from Saddam Hussein that your nation sold him in the first place? Osama Bin Laden was once a friend of the US as well, and he was given money and weapons by the US to fight off Russia in Afghanistan and Khazakistan. Soooo, it's really not a good war to mention
Are there not adoption agencies in every state of the Union? Does not even the rotted socialist wasteland of Canada have adoption agencies? Is there not a waiting list millions of names long of married couples who are willing to adopt, of even full families with several children willing to do the same? Of people who take in children who are blind, lame, retarded, grievously crippled, terminally ill?
I'd thank you to not insult my country, I've not insulted yours. And Socialism is not a bad thing. America was founded on the ideals of Democratic Socialism, and your Senate (Not Congress, the Senate) is a remnant of this time. It exists to ensure every state has an equal voice in the end, regardless of proportional representation. But that's not the issue here so back on track. Adoption agencies, as any child psychologist can tell you, are woefully underfunded, of poor quality, and terribly debilitating on a childs psyche. Those that grow up there are usually bitter people, and many turn to crime, as I stated in the Unwanted Child thing. I'd say your idea could work if more money was placed in social programs to help parentless children, but then again, I don't see you supporting such things.
I don't particularly want YOU in my life. Does that give me permission to stab you in the base of your skull with an icepick?
"Unwanted Children" is a myth. And the sanctity of human life is not measured by how much people are "wanted." You do not measure whether or not to save a life based on their utility to another person.
Well, you do realize I'm not a fetus, right? Otherwise my ability to type here sorta invalidates my argument. I don't see how a collection of cells with the potential to become a person is the same thing as a fully grown human. Otherwise, wouldn't that mean that castrating a man or removing a womans ovaries is the same as killing thousands? I believe it is in line with your logic, as both organs contain the potential for life, do they not?
And Unwanted Children are not a myth. They are children that parents do not want. Who said this is a comparison with another person or their use? It's merely that these children are not wanted by their parents which lead them into becoming wastelands of people. By your sense, would not letting a child grow into a life of sin and Godlessness lead to them going to hell? Isn't that a bit cruel?
Maybe if morally worthless people weren't given the "easy out" of murdering babies they don't personally want, you'd see fewer of them out there F##king like retarded monkeys in the first place.
The same moralists, the same GOD who said "thou shalt not kill" also said "thou shalt not commit adultery." SHAZAM, there's your solution to BOTH problems in a nutshell.
I find it funny you say that, but have you been through the process of having and raising a child before you yourself have a high-education degree, you aren't married, and you don't have a house? I'm pretty certain that if your situation was changed, you'd change your words pretty fast. You're only given your pedestal to sit on but by the Grace of God.
And by the way, Adultery means you shouldn't have intercourse with a person that isn't your spouse when you're married. It's so funny that the same people who preached Thou Shalt Not Kill also marched on Jerusalem and killed every Arab in the area that didn't agree to work for them. Religious texts only work if people follow all things. Jesus Himself did not judge others; He was a kind man, who went around telling of His word and letting those interested come to Him. He did not go to others and tell them to change their ways, but merely went to help them and let them listen if they chose to.
Astronomer. Sketch Artist. All-around generally creative and useless guy.