Illegality cannot become a right

I have written on this subject before. I return to it on seeing businesspeople, on television and in other media, lamenting that their businesses are losing customers because foreign nationals in an unlawful situation are afraid to leave their homes in the face of ICE enforcement. When that argument is used to defend tolerance of illegality, my answer is direct: they should be ashamed. Commercial interest is no grounds for demanding that the State stop applying the law. As a businessman, I find it reprehensible to place revenue above legality. The rules of entry and stay must be known, respected and complied with. Accepting the consequences of failing to comply with them is an elementary matter of responsibility and common sense.

I reject the inversion that turns enforcement into blame and non-compliance into a right. Anyone who remains in a country in violation of the applicable legislation is in a situation of illegality. The expression “illegal aliens” designates foreign nationals in an unlawful situation. Public debate should acknowledge that reality, rather than conceal it beneath generic labels that conflate legally distinct situations.

Legal immigration presupposes authorisation, procedures and obligations. Unlawful entry or stay amounts to a failure to comply with the applicable rules. Placing both under the same label, without clarifying that difference, deprives the debate of the precision it needs and shows disrespect to those who chose to obey the law.

I write as a Portuguese businessman resident in the United States. My defence of legality also springs from respect for the country where I live. I consider that living in a country requires recognising its authority, respecting its institutions and accepting that remaining on its territory depends on the conditions it has legitimately established.

No one should acquire a right of residence by the simple fact of having managed to circumvent the control mechanisms. Elapsed time, economic convenience or media pressure should not automatically turn an unlawful situation into an authorisation. To admit that principle would be to teach that persistence in non-compliance ends up defeating the law itself.

It is precisely here that certain narratives fail. They highlight the consequences of enforcement while leaving in shadow the conduct that gave rise to it. Individual responsibility disappears, and the State emerges as the guilty party for carrying out the rules it has a duty to uphold.

Family hardship deserves human consideration. That consideration, however, should find its answer in the competent legal mechanisms. The existence of personal ties cannot confer a general immunity from lawfully determined removal decisions. If it were enough to invoke painful consequences in order to prevent the law from being applied, public authority would become subordinate to the emotional pressure of each individual case.

I therefore support a firm response to illegal immigration, effective enforcement at the borders and the carrying out of removal decisions, with respect for procedural safeguards. I support the work of the authorities responsible for that mission, including ICE. Their officers must answer for any abuses, as any public authority must, and they should equally receive support when they are lawfully carrying out their duties.

Enforcement should rest on each person’s legal situation and on verifiable procedures. Firmness demands rigour. A State demonstrates authority when it correctly identifies an infraction, allows it to be assessed by the competent mechanisms and carries out the resulting decision.

I also consider unacceptable the attitude of employers who publicly condemn illegal immigration while seeking to benefit from labour in an irregular situation. Responsibility must reach those who facilitate, exploit or profit from non-compliance. A free economy needs legitimate contracts and competition grounded in common rules.

There is also a deep injustice towards those who immigrated legally. Those people waited, bore the costs, submitted documents and accepted conditions. Indiscriminate regularisations send them a corrosive message: the effort of complying may count for less than the ability to remain outside the rules.

A serious migration policy should offer legal routes compatible with the interests and the reception capacity of the country. It should also make clear that breaking those rules has consequences. Without that consequence, the border loses credibility and the authorisation to enter ceases to serve its purpose.

My position is unequivocal: I am in favour of legal immigration and against illegal immigration. I defend respect for the dignity of every person and the responsibility of each one for his own acts. That dignity does not confer an automatic right of residence in a foreign country.

The law must be clear, enforcement must be firm and decisions must be carried out. A State that tolerates illegality ends up penalising those who comply and rewarding those who break the rules. No free society should accept that inversion as a principle.