All of your arguments are based on emotions, not logic. So lets assume for your arguments sake we allow everyone south of the Border to come to America. Now what do we have? Nothing, there would be no difference in their living conditions and you would be living in poverty. It all has to do with resources, scaling infrastructure and a finite amount of money.
Based on emotions, not logic? How is it an emotional argument that our country's founding principles are those of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? We recognize people have certain enumerated and unenumerated rights, among them freedom of association and freedom of movement. Moreover, we have a constitution which states that the federal government may control naturalization. It is only since the great depression that the federal government, at the urgings of those such as yourself, has decided to overstep those bounds and control immigration as well.
Hypothesizing that by allowing another to engage in free movement and association I will end up living in poverty is an appeal to fear, an emotion bit of illogic that you are employing. It's a specious claim and one that you have not upheld. Consider for a moment the reasons people flee - political corruption and government instability can lead to a market where jobs are either unavailable or unsafe. Looking to move to a place where a person can work is merely exercising the capitalistic idea of free-trade, in this case of labor. The realities of the emigrant's pre-move plight cannot be reasonably inferred to affect or destroy that place to where they move.
In fact, speaking to resources, scaling, etc, one could make a case that labor willing to make minimum wage is a necessity to remain competitive in the global economy. We currently exist in a state of competitive advantage of mind versus manufacturing, exporting the design of products while we import the products themselves. However, such a state could and arguably should be transitory. Those industrializing countries such as China will better educate their populace as time goes on, and the ability of our country to maintain competitiveness may again revolve around being able to both design and manufacture here. When the education of the Chinese workforce results in an increase in their per-unit cost (reason: education leads to better social outcomes for the worker - i.e. more pay), we again may find ourselves in a position to hold competitive, if not absolute in some areas, advantage in manufacturing - provided we have the labor base.
That is why immigration must be controlled legally. Problem lies in the fact that many of those illegals are criminals. Well that was a loaded statement, all those that cross our border illegally are criminals. But I was referring to the fact that many crossing over are committing crimes here on U.S. soil.
It depends, many are not actually criminals, but committing a civil tort. And you're engaging in a bit of circular logic by equating the present state of the rules with the right thing to do. In other words, you're saying it's wrong because they're criminals by coming here because they're breaking a law barring them from doing so. Remove the law, and that argument loses its weight, because it is a circular bit of thinking. Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal (this is what I referred to earlier as "Hume's guillotine" - the
is-ought problem of illogically justifying what
ought to be based on what
is). To restate your point, imagine an anti-carry person said the following in a state that practically bans carry (e.g. CA where it has historically been nearly impossible for the average person to get a carry license, much like it's nearly impossible for the average person to immigrate here):
"That is why guns must be controlled legally. Problem lies in the fact that many of those carrying are criminals. Well that was a loaded statement, all those that carry firearms without a license are criminals. But I was referring to the fact that many carrying are committing crimes here on California soil."
What would be your response to that person?