Leftist Moralization of Criminality and the Immigration Debate.

the difference between left and right is that the right understands the economic aspect of breaking the law but doesnt' make moral arguments for it.
for instance, if someone steals, we understand that he wishes to get something for free. a leftist would argue that he--if he belongs to an 'oppressed' group--has a moral right to steal(for past injustices or present oppression and inequalities).

in the 'illegal immigration' debate, american businesses hiring illegals and illegals entering illegally are breaking the law out of mutual economic interest. the right understands this and sees it for what it is. some on the right say there is no real harm being done. some say it has terrible social consequences.
the left, on the other hand, makes a MORAL argument for breaking the law. the darkies have a MORAL right to come to the US...
because (1) US stole land from mexico so SW belongs to mexicans just as much to americans.
(2) mexicans, like most third world or developing countries, are poor because of western imperialism. since we rob from them and invade their nations with our neo-imperialist enterprises, they have a right to invade us and rob from us.
also, the immigrants in the US are still seen as victims who are being exploited for their cheap labor by american businesses. the left tosses around the idea of capitalist exploitation and see all these illegals as potential proletariat to tap in the future guevara-ist war against the US.
now, if these illegals are only being exploited in the US, why let them come?
why not let them stay home in mexico? because things are worse back home and why?
american imperialist-capitalism.
this is the grand moral narrative of the left.

it's like this. suppose someone breaks into your house periodically. suppose the burglar not only takes stuff but does some housechores, so it's not a total loss. there is some gain on your part. now, suppose the house has 2 rightist roomates and 1 leftwing roommate. suppose one rightwing roommate says it's an outrage that some guy is breaking in and so it must stop! the other rightwing roommate agrees that breaking and entering is wrong, but as the burglar seems to do housechores and keeps the house tidy, why not let him come and go? this roommate agrees that it is a crime, and he doesn't defend it on any moral grounds. but, he sees some practical benefit in it.
but, the leftist roommate says the burglar has the MORAL right to break in since society owes him. the burglar is poor and 'oppressed', so why shouldn't he enter the house? and maybe the whole idea of private property is inherently evil and so there should be no walls or barriers of any kind.
it is for this reason that the leftist stand on 'illegal immigration' is far more dangerous than the rightwing stand. some rightwingers tolerate illegal invasion because they see some pragmatic benefits from it. but, they would not make the radical case that borders don't matter or that entering illegally is NOT breaking the law. but, the leftist defense of illegals is much more fundamental. it doesn't see national borders as legitimate or american laws as meaningful.
rightwing support of 'illegal immigration' where such exists is apologetic, practical, and timid.
leftwing support of 'illegal immigration' is righteous, enraged, and radical.