The term “illegal” is being used here not merely as a technical fact but as a moral judgement against other people, specifically Latinos. I watched with horrified amusement as a friend first poked racist fun at a figure he called “Joe Tijuana” and then turned around to endorse the Dream Act. The logic is telling: if the law changes to allow a person to become legitimized, then that person is no longer illegal and therefore no longer morally suspect. The question which must follow is this: if the only thing that has changed is the status of the person under the law and not the behavior, why declare them morally reprehensible in the first place?

The ethical error being made here is holding that to break the law is immoral. I counter by pointing out that laws can be immoral, that legal acts can be immoral….