In Favor of Prohibiting Prohibited Conduct

I’m firmly in the open borders camp when it comes to both immigration and trade. Borders are fake and we shouldn’t worship at their altar. But a curiously common refrain on the other side of this issue is that they’re not against immigration per se, but rather they’re only against illegal immigration.

To me, this is a thoroughly vacuous and meaningless statement. If you're against illegal immigration specifically, the easiest solution is to legalize all immigration. Now illegal immigration literally doesn't exist anymore and the problem is solved! Why don't opponents of illegal immigration advocate for that?

I’m being facetious, of course. Standing on its own, the phrase “I am against illegal immigration” tells us nothing.

If you are primed to read in between the lines, it could potentially tell you is something along the lines of "I support the system as it stands", but doesn't explain why, or what could cause you to change your mind. Because the stance would presumably apply equally well to a country which legalizes all immigration, and a country which forbids all immigration. Theoretically someone who is against illegal immigration would be equally happy with either.

I think I know what’s happening here. If someone said "I am against illegal drugs", I doubt they would maintain that stance if caffeine suddenly became illegal, and I doubt they'd embrace heroin use if that was legalized. What's happening here is that the professed statement is a red herring. They're not against illegal drugs per se, they're against drugs which just happen to also be illegal. Their blanket statement doesn't tell us anything beyond "I like the system the way it is now" and doesn't ascribe what, if anything, would change their mind.

Presumably (again, reading in between the lines) the folks against illegal immigration are advocating for some sort of vetting process. But again, this tells you nothing about what kind of vetting process is appropriate. The immigration "vetting process" in 1907 for instance was basically just checking for dangerous contagious diseases and accepting verbally provided information (no passports or visas were required). How many people who are against "illegal immigration" today do you think would be mollified by such a system?

Of course, the uncharitable interpretation is that the folks who claim to be against only “illegal immigration” are actually lying. They’re either against all immigration, or are only in favor of immigration if it passes through a filter or requirement they’d rather not repeat in polite company (e.g. only white immigrants allowed). Under these circumstances, claiming that you are only in favor of prohibiting prohibited conduct is a fig-leaf cover to your true motivations. It’s also disingenuous.