Speaking of listening to different sides of the debate. I have almost no dogs, not even a cat, in the whole immigration debate. Who am I fooling? Right now my wife and I are looking for employment, and it wouldn't help to have almost any job held by illegal immigrants. We'd lose our home if we took such jobs. Because of that, I've offered few opinions, and have spent little time actually following the back and forth. I do know the debate is not the usual one framed by the media: beautiful people who care versus racists who don't like non-whites.
I'm sure some want amnesty for the best of reasons. I'm sure some want it for more underhanded ulterior motives. But I'm also sure those who are opposed to just opening the doors or letting bygones be bygones may have reasons that are not racist at all. For instance, it turns out that some on the GOP side may actually oppose some of the reforms, not because of evil racist ways, but because they are opposed to the economic policy assumptions of many Latino immigrants. Read it here. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I am saying that there can be other arguments than 'the way of holiness vs. the way of evil.' It's also worth noting that the argument is made that Obama's health care bill, which includes the dreaded HHS mandate, is supported heavily by these same immigrants Whether that would matter or not, I don't know. That might fall under that trend I've mentioned in the past of the modern Catholic tendency of arguing for the trees rather than the forest.