In the aftermath of any gun-related tragedy — such as the mass shooting event which took place in Boulder, Colorado — there is a resurgence in a familiar form of logic from the Left.
“If it saves one life, it’s worth it.”
This logic is used to sidestep any criticism of gun control policies proposed by the Left. Banning so-called “assault weapons” is necessary, because it would save a life. Banning large capacity magazines is necessary, because it would save a life. Banning semi-automatic weapons — in other words, the majority of weapons — is necessary, because it would save a life.
All counter-arguments, including those based on the U.S. Constitution, are dismissed as synonymous with calls for those hypothetical lives not to be saved. If you don’t want an assault weapons ban, for example, you are seen as endorsing those who may be killed by such weapons in the future.
The same logic was applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. Any and all COVID-19 policies pushed by Democrats at the state or federal level were justified not with “the science,” but with a call to “save lives.” The extreme outcome of this argument was that the national economy was voluntarily brought to its knees — with undeniable physical, emotional, and societal impact — because such actions might “save lives.”
While conservatives will correctly criticize this argument as utterly preposterous, there is a deeper hypocrisy which further invalidates the Left’s argument.
What about illegal immigration?
While there are, of course, illegal immigrants who do not go on to commit violent crimes, it’s dishonest to claim that no crimes are committed by illegal immigrants.
The Left often tries to apply a subtle statistical trick in response to such questions by arguing that the rate of crime is lower among “undocumented” communities compared to legal immigrants or citizens. They will cite studies like “Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas,” which claims that “Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.”
But do not forget — by the Left’s own logic — it’s not about proportionality. This would imply that we can compare two policies and choose the optimal option. No, for the Left, the framing is simple. It’s about raw count. One death is one death too many, and according to their own arguments, a policy is worthwhile, ethical and just if it saves even a single life.
Based on even the most conservative estimates provided by government agencies like ICE, the number of violent acts committed by illegal immigrants is more than zero. In other words, there is at least one violent crime committed by someone who — had the nation’s laws been enforced — would not have been able to commit the crime. This means that there is one victim who — had the laws been enforced — would not have been victimized.
If immigration laws were enforced, this life would have been saved.
Of course, the sensible response here is that the “if it saves one life” argument is absurd in any context, whether it be justifying gun control, COVID-19 restrictions or immigration policy. It is a flawed argument which defines a singular and often implausible objective at the expense of pragmatism or realism.
However, it is the Left who continues to use this flawed logic.
So, if the Left truly cares about doing whatever it takes to “save one life,” why doesn’t this include closing the border to all illegal immigrants? After all, isn’t it worth it if it saves one life?
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.