To me, the topic of illegal immigration involves how the issue is framed. Is the issue framed in terms of "human rights" or "rule of law?"
If the issue of illegal immigration is framed in the broad general term of "human rights," then how does it not also
endorse anarchy?
No doubt all aliens are human, and humans break laws.
Defining the issue in terms of "human rights" ignores a fundamental issue: "Who benefits?"
As workers, these people are exploited for profit by corporations and other employers who pay them substandard wages, without benefits, sometimes in cash, avoiding taxation. In advocating for ending workplace enforcement of federal immigration laws, human rights advocates also unwittingly advocate for continued worker exploitation and support the 9th characteristic of fascism,
Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Advocates of "human rights" for illegal aliens place those "rights" above the legal citizens' rights to live in a lawful civil society, often employing accusations of
xenophobia. Those accusations only ignore or cloud the myriad of issues involved with illegal immigration by lumping together any pragmatic issues under the disparaging umbrella of "racism" and "xenophobia."
Some of the pragmatic issues involved include:
to name a few.
That linguistic framing of the issue as critical to obscuring the pragmatic issues is evidenced by a recent enigmatic event when it initially was reported that the Arizona Supreme Court banned
numerous immigration-related phrases, including “illegal alien” and “open-borders advocates” only to have that recanted in an update.