thank you for providing a careful and well-moderated retort. It is a highly emotional topic and you could have tried to take off my head with your keyboard strikes.
Think of my point using a much more innocuous situation even: keeping a library book for too long. Who could argue that this is a capital offense or even one worth mentioning for too long.
But if a library is a kind-hearted and valuable offering by a government to try to make sure knowledge and entertainment are not withheld from people just because of poverty or wealth, then what if behaviors happened that could shut the library’s charity down. What if people regularly kept their books for longer than they were agreeing to? Wouldn’t this seemingly low offense eventually kill the attempt to bless people with easy access to the reading they needed, wanted and came to depend on? Of course it could, or maybe would. I think you’d agree.
So the point is the merit and importance and even criticalness of law.
Even when the breaking of it seems small and reasonable, or even kind-hearted. We break it at our own peril
That’s why the claim that people who are impassioned to “protect the borders” are likely racist is so heinous. Sure there are those who prefer their own race (not horribly unakin to preferring your own family, I guess, but still selfish and potentially dangerous). But many fight and argue in the now less popular way (for border control), in huge part to keep some sanity of law and protection about us.
For when people are as capable of coldness and wickedness (as even you might imagine they are for being callous to the plights of others) then we need governance to guide and cover us.
A lot of it comes down to our preferring the laws we get and understand. And de-preferring the ones we don’t.
I suppose that’s one of the problems with democracy at the end of the day.