A man and woman have a sexual encounter. If both say “YES” it is sex. If one says “NO” it is rape. One person has forced him/herself upon/into another–which is deplorable and illegal.
Much like immigration.
Both parties must consent to perform legal immigration.
If the United States sent teams to Columbia, El Salvador, Venezuela, etc to grab citizens of those countries off the street and bring them back to the U.S. without their consent–that would be wrong. Such acts would be condemned by the media, world leaders and, well, those being abducted.
If bringing people into a country against their will is wrong, how is it “right” for people to enter a country against the will (written laws) of that country?
Furthermore, both parties to a sexual encounter must have the “capacity” to provide consent. A woman becomes intoxicated and wakes up to find a man in her bed quipping, “It was good for me, was it good for you?” Odds are good he will be charged with rape because she did not have the capacity to provide free consent.
Much like a man sneaking across the US border, then surrendering to Border Patrol agents so he can seek asylum. There are many means by which one can legally request asylum.
How is a man entering the country illegally, against the expressed will of that country, to then seek a service or support from that country unlike the same man sneaking into a sleeping woman’s bed, then seeking sex when she wakes up?
Magnitude does not change principles.
If 5,000 men/women spent three weeks marching to the sanctuary city of San Francisco with the intent of demanding non-consensual sex from 5,000 city residents, the city of San Francisco would undoubtedly erect barricades and do their best to repel the onslaught. Who in their right mind would stand aside to allow five-thousand persons to commit acts of rape announced weeks in advance?
If 5,000 men/women march towards the United States border with the intent to cross that border against the expressed objections of the United States, what is the United States to do? Immigration requires consent from both parties. The United States has every right to say “NO.”
As with sex, there are legal and proper means to go about things. Obtaining consent might be difficult, expensive and time consuming. Rape is often easier, cheaper and faster. But rape is wrong. No matter how desperate a man/woman might be for a sexual encounter–rape is not right.
Neither is illegal entry into a country. No matter how desperate a man or woman might be, they should not be allowed to break the laws of the country they enter.
If a man beats on a woman’s door demanding sex, should she yield because he is being loud, violent and threatening? If he prostrates himself in front of the door begging for sex, should she give in because he is desperate, weak and pitiful? No matter what, her right to say “NO” is morally and lawfully respected.
The man has no right to break down the door or sneak in through a window to “get around” the “NO.”
If San Francisco allowed 5,000 men and women to enter the city to force themselves upon residents of the city without consequence, that would be just the beginning. The next day another 5,000 man/woman troop would begin their march towards San Francisco. And another 5,000 the next day, and another 5,000 the next day, and another 5,000 the next day, ad infinitum.
That ladies and gentleman is not immigration.
That is invasion.
David Morse
Pima, AZ