We always slow down at crosswalks, and exercise extra vigilance for pedestrians there. We love crosswalks, not only because we depend on them ourselves on occasion, but also because we hate jaywalkers, and believe that the existence of crosswalks reduces their number.

If crosswalks did not exist, it would be impossible to cross the street without jaywalking. This would impede the flow of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, as well as result in injuries and deaths. We have been to many cities where such a situation is prevalent, and we do not find it acceptable.

Jaywalkers are the enemies of pedestrians. They exacerbate the conflict between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. If jaywalkers did not exist, there would be no conflict, and fewer injuries.

Jaywalkers and pedestrians who use crosswalks lawfully are not the same class of people. Although they both have the same objective (getting to the other side of the street), their methods of achieving that objective separate them in a fundamental way.

Similarly, a person who cuts into a queue at a ticket window is a different class of person from one who arrived earlier and waited patiently. To classify both both types under their common trait (patrons) unfairly and misleadingly ignores the more important distinction between them.

If all of this seems logical, why is such logic ignored when applied to the matter of immigration?