Whenever the issues of immigration, amnesty, DACA, etc., come up, I ask a simple question that usually ends the discussion:

“How can you have a border if its immoral to deport people for violating it?” Amnesty supporters oppose all deportations (“Not One More!”) but they can’t admit that because that means they support open borders–and they know that’s a losing argument. So they hem and haw and change the topic to illegal immigrants who’ve committed felonies, etc. Anything to keep from admitting that, yes, they oppose the practical existence of borders

Well, they used to avoid mentioning it. In my podcast, George Mason University’s Ilya Somin admits right out that his support for making DACA permanent is based in part on his belief that immigration deportations are, in fact, immoral and borders are largely a coincidence.

Maybe amnesty advocates are right, and maybe the great international order is upon us and we are all–like President Obama–“citizens of the world,” not mere Americans. But I, for one, don’t agree, and I’m willing to bet most of my fellow Americans don’t either.

Listen to the conversation and tell me: Is there a way to square the amnesty circle that doesn’t involve undermining America’s national sovereignty?