The Two Poles of "Urgency" on the Immigration Debate

On CNN, I recently saw an article (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/gomez-immigration-column/) regarding the moral urgency to take action to help  immigrants stay in this country in light of the rounding up of 120 people including women and children for deportation. I believe allowing them to stay is a matter of moral urgency. Many of these  people who come here from overseas are people who see the American dream - in spite of the dismal reality of their quality of life. They work long and hard for little pay - and yet they see the American dream in that. But with that side of the argument of "moral urgency", there is an opposite group - they also believe that there is an urgency. I hesitate to use the term moral for their argument - because their argument has anything but compassion. It lacks a sophistication of a properly established political idea, the practicality of governmental policy and any sort of compassion that would allow it to be referred to as a "moral urgency" or "ethical urgency". In actuality, it is a sentiment of fear-mongering, hate, and cowardice - fear of something new and unknown and due to that fear, hate. I had been speaking to Dr. Fitzgerald and I had expressed my surprise that there could be such rhetoric in a nation that is so heterogeneous in comparison to countries like Pakistan - that are more homogeneous. But when you look around internationally, you start to realize this fear of immigration is not an American problem as much as poverty or illiteracy is not an American problem. This is at the end of the day - a human problem. It is a matter of the lower self - something that we must overcome at both a national and international level.