By Randall Smith.

I don't suppose I'm the only one who has noticed that, on immigration, Americans are largely talking past one another. By that, I don't mean merely that they disagree, which they do - with a vengeance. I mean that the arguments of the two sides are incommensurable, making any agreement or compromise inconceivable.

Let me illustrate with a different example. If you start with the premise that "justice" means "getting to keep what you work for," then you can easily craft a valid argument that taxes should be lowered. But if you start with the premise that "justice" means spreading the benefits of the society around more equally, then you can easily craft an argument that taxes should be raised.

The problem is both senses of "justice" are defensible. But since the two sides are starting from different premises, they will always be talking past one another, and their frustration is likely to give way to anger. "They just want to take the hard-earned money of good working people!" "They just want to give tax breaks to the rich!"

What if we import the language of "rights"? "Rights," in modern parlance, are taken to be absolute. They "trump" any social cost-benefit analysis. If I have a "right" to something, the government needs a "compelling interest" to curb it. So, let's say some people are worried about the social problems caused by pornography. If a group of pornographers can convince a court that they have a "right" to publish pornography, then that "trumps" - it outweighs - any calculus of the social problems it may cause.

Conservatives understand this because many of them make the same claim about gun rights. When someone says, "Widespread gun ownership causes all these social problems," one need only say, "Owning a gun is a right," and that seems to be the end of the argument - for them, at least. Thus people who assert a "right" and people who enumerate social costs are simply talking past one another. If I have a "right," I have a right.

The way people on the other side often decide to respond is by creating an opposite "right" of their own. "I have a right not to have my children encounter pornography." Or, "We have a right not to have our community endangered by guns." So then we get people who say, "I have a right to smoke," arguing with people who say, "I have a right not to breathe second-hand smoke." Try getting those two to compromise - or even talk to each other civilly.

Now insert "immigration" into the above examples. "Justice," for one group, means "not breaking the laws of immigration." "Justice," for the other, means sharing the benefits of the rich with the poor. Yes, and yes. So now what?

Countries have a "right" to secure their borders. People have a "right" to migrate. Okay, now what?

Some people say, "there are so many social problems caused by illegal immigrants; it costs so much." Maybe so, but if they have a "right," then it's like owning a gun or the freedom of expression. The "right" trumps the social costs. They have a right, and so we have a duty to them.

Others insist that if the country has a right (and indeed an obligation) to secure its borders, then we can't let immigrants violate that security or else the border is meaningless. Try to get those two groups to compromise or even talk with one another civilly. "You just want to flood the country with illegals!" "You people are selfish and don't care about the poor!" And it just gets angrier from there.

Person A lists all the horrors caused by some illegal immigrants. Person B lists all the benefits of immigrants and all the horrors they suffer in their home countries, If Person A doesn't listen with enough sympathy to Person B's horror stories about immigrant suffering, and if Person B doesn't seem to care about Person A's horror stories about problems caused by illegal immigrants, each concludes the other must be ignorant or heartless.

Now let's say we introduce "religion" into the mix. How's that going to work out? Cleric...