I'm finished (for the time being) with trying to convince people that there are legitimate arguments that are made every single day for non-support of ILLEGAL immigration.
The latest attempt I made to discuss a legitimate argument related to immigration, legal and/or illegal, came in the form of sharing a legitimate reason why Missouri's language law might NOT be "nothing but talk," as the Springfield News-Leader presented it.
That attempt was a perfect example of what I wrote in this blog piece in summation of the intentions of the News-Leader, but it is much broader than just the News-Leader, this attitude applies to just about any non-discussion of the issue between just about any two debate opponents, I wrote:
"By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens."
For a further example of this in play read the exchanges in the comment section here.
No matter how I tried to stick to the general topic of non-English speaking legal immigrant voters, my opponent, "hillbilly," tried every way possible to insert Hispanics or, as he called them, "browns" into the discussion, as if it was my intention to single them out when that was never my intent.
In my own opinion the entire discussion on his part was an effort to somehow turn the conversation in such a way as to be able to call me a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe. By doing so he had the luxury of ignoring my legitimate argument supporting an English language law in Missouri. If he could manage to find a single reason to call me a racist, a bigot or a xenophobe then my credible argument would not stand, it would no longer be credible. So instead of taking the argument I made at face value and addressing it, he worked to discern a less than honorable motive for my support of such a bill (and failed).
The discussion was going nowhere and never would have gone anywhere. There can never be real discussion about the ILLEGAL immigration problem we face in the United States or in Missouri when the argument cannot even begin to be about the argument but, instead, always becomes about the motive of the debate's opponents.
Dr. Andrew Cline is continuing his discussion on "What a Quote Means" at The Rhetorica Network, for those interested in that aspect of the discussion. I plan to continue to read his entries, he's a good "source." ;)
UPDATE: For another example of how the immigration debate always turns to anyone who opposes the current comprehensive immigration reform bill is a bigot, read the comment section here.