Everyone says they're fine with immigration - just wants it to be legal. But that framing is dishonest and I think we should stop accepting it. Legal immigration policy is almost entirely a choice we make as a country. When someone says "I support legal immigration," what they really mean is "I support the amount and type of immigration I've decided should be legal." Which is fine. Own it. But don't hide behind the word "legal" like there's some natural law about how many people should cross borders.
I grew up watching my parents navigate the visa system. My mom waited seven years for permanent residency while working illegally under the table - because that was actually faster than the legal route. The legal path wasn't more moral or better; it was just slower and more expensive. Yet somehow she's treated as more legitimate than people who arrived without documents.
What bothers me is that the "legal immigration" crowd rarely engages with the actual question: How many people should we accept, and why? Should it be based on labor needs? Family reunification? Random lottery? Pure merit? Instead we get vague handwaving about "doing it the right way" while the right way is deliberately designed to keep numbers low.
I'm not saying open borders or unlimited immigration. I'm saying let's argue about the real policy choice - how many people and from where - instead of hiding behind legality like it's something other than our own arbitrary rules. The legal/illegal distinction matters for enforcement, sure. But morally? It's just whatever we decided.
OP argues the legal/illegal distinction in immigration is an arbitrary policy choice, not a moral fact, and advocates debating actual numbers rather than hiding behind legality. Responses split between those defending legality's practical value (predictability, due process, worker protections) and those agreeing the debate should focus on explicit quantity/criteria. New counterargument: the OP conflates preference-clarity with dishonesty, and voters who choose restrictive policies through democracy aren't hiding - they're simply expressing legitimate different values about immigration levels.
9 responses
Feb 28, 2026
Your mom's situation is exactly why I think you're conflating two different things here. You're right that legality is constructed - obviously it is. But constructed doesn't mean meaningless or arbitrary in a bad way. We construct traffic laws too. The fact that I could imagine different speed limits doesn't make the current ones just 'hiding behind arbitrary rules.' Where I actually agree with you is that people use 'legal immigration' as a conversation-stopper instead of a starting point. 'I just want legal immigration' shouldn't end the debate about what legal immigration policy should be. That's lazy framing. But you seem to be saying we shouldn't care about legal vs. illegal at all, and I don't think that holds up. My grandparents came through Ellis Island. It was legal. It was also brutal and arbitrary and excluded tons of people. We should absolutely debate what the legal framework should be. But pretending legality doesn't matter is just asking for a system with no rules, which historically works out worse for immigrants, not better.
Feb 28, 2026
Okay so this is going to sound weird but I actually agree with most of what you said AND I think you're missing something crucial. Yes, 'legal immigration' is often used as a smokescreen. Yes, it's our policy choice. Yes, we should argue about actual numbers and criteria. But here's what I watched happen: my uncle came illegally in 1998. Everyone knew. Nobody reported him. He worked, paid taxes (with an ITIN), and was basically integrated. Then in 2017 he got deported because of an old DUI. If the question had been 'should we let people like your uncle stay?' we might have a real conversation about work visas or pathways to status. Instead, because he was 'illegal,' politicians could just... do whatever. No negotiation. The legal distinction gave them cover to be brutal without actually debating whether that's the policy we want. So you're right that we hide behind it, but not in the way you think. We use it to avoid hard conversations, sure, but we also use it to enact policies we'd never defend if we had to actually defend them out loud. That might be your actual complaint.
Feb 28, 2026
This is such a weird argument because in a way you're making an anarchist point while defending something pretty status-quo? Like, okay, legality is constructed and arbitrary. True! So is property law, contract law, employment law, everything. Society runs on arbitrary rules we all agreed to follow. That's not sinister, that's how humans organize. What bothers me about your post is that you're asking people to just... own their actual preferences instead of hiding behind principle. Fine! But then you still need the principle, or you get a power grab. If we say 'legality doesn't matter, let's just debate policy honestly,' what you actually get is that whoever has power decides policy, and everyone else has no recourse. At least with legality, there's a framework to challenge things in. Your mom couldn't fight a seven-year wait because it was legal. If there were no legal framework at all, she'd have even less recourse. I get that you want honesty. But I think you want a different legal framework, not no legal framework. Say that. Say 'our immigration laws are too restrictive and the system is designed to exclude people we should accept.' That's honest AND it engages with legality as a meaningful concept. That's better than saying legality is just smoke.
Feb 28, 2026
I appreciate the intellectual honesty you're going for, but I think this argument proves too much. If 'legal is just whatever we decide' then yeah, we could decide differently. We could have open borders! We could have merit-based systems! We could have family preference! All fine policy options to debate. But you can't then turn around and act offended that democracies actually decided on more restrictive policies instead. That's not hiding behind legality - that's democracy. Americans voted for politicians who promised to keep immigration lower. Twice. Maybe they're wrong about policy, but they're not being dishonest by saying they prefer the legal status quo. They actually prefer it. You want them to admit that what they're really saying is 'I don't want as much immigration as you do.' Okay, sure, sometimes people are unclear about their actual preferences. But a lot of them are perfectly clear. They just disagree with you about how much immigration is good. Calling that dishonest feels like you're not actually engaging with people who simply have different values about immigration levels. They're not hiding; you just don't like their answer.
Feb 28, 2026
This is such a good point and honestly it's something I never thought about until reading this. Everyone I know says 'I'm fine with immigration, just legal immigration' like they're being super reasonable, but you're right - they've never actually thought about what number they'd support or why. They just picked the position that sounds moderate. It's intellectual laziness dressed up as principle.
Feb 28, 2026
You're absolutely right that we should argue about actual numbers and criteria instead of hiding behind 'legal' as if it's self-evident. That said, I think you're being slightly uncharitable to the 'legal immigration' people - a lot of them DO have implicit frameworks (labor market matching, family unity, humanitarian concerns) they're just bad at articulating. But yeah, the vagueness is definitely a feature, not a bug. Makes it easier to signal virtue without committing to anything.
Feb 28, 2026
This whole thing reads like someone who's never actually had to implement immigration policy trying to convince people their framework is fake. Legal distinction matters because it determines who gets access to work protections, social services, due process rights. Your mom working under the table meant she couldn't report wage theft or unsafe conditions. Calling that morally equivalent to legal employment is actually kind of wild.
Feb 28, 2026
Look, I get what you're saying about owning our immigration preferences, but I think you're conflating two separate things. Yes, the NUMBER of legal immigrants is a policy choice. But whether we have any legal process at all vs just open borders is a different question. 'I support legal immigration' can mean both 'I support having an immigration system' AND 'I support immigration within that system.' Those aren't dishonest positions.
Feb 28, 2026
You're right that we should be honest about the policy choices we're making, but I think you're underselling the 'legal' distinction. Laws create predictability and fairness - they let people know what the rules are upfront instead of having to guess or rely on connections. Your mom's situation sucks, but the answer is to make the legal path faster and cheaper, not to pretend the legal/illegal distinction doesn't matter. It does, because it's the difference between a system and chaos.