From the comments of Citizen Orange on the videos of Robb Pearson, the ANTI gone PRO.
1. Rule of law: Restrictionists know they are on their strongest ground when they talk about this. I like to talk about the history of racist immigration laws propelled forward by nativism and the importance of changing unjust laws, just as MLK did in the civil rights movement. But I feel there are ways for us to sharpen our arguments on this point that we might have overlooked so far.
2. Passion: Pearson says at one point he considers himself to be a "person of conscience." He changed his views on this issue, but fundamentally he is the same person now that he was two years ago. Of course there are some unreasonable restrictionists. But many of them are passionate about their cause because they believe they are on the right side of an important moral issue. Many feel this way because they are taught to do so by parents, church leaders, school teachers, politicians, and pundits. In the "nationalism/patriotism" frame that so bewitches our country and others, protecting group solidarity is a natural response. I think we will get further by respecting the passion that many people feel on this issue and challenging the frame that leads to that feeling of moral certainty on the other side.
As per the "Rule of Law", they admit they know they are in the wrong about it, ethically and morally, the "Rule of Law" wins every time. Their equating their movement to that of the 'Civil Rights Movement' from the 1960's is whimsical at best. First, the peoples that fought and attained 'civil rights' were in fact 'legal' American Citizens that were, to an extent, oppressed by our own Government and denied the equality they truly deserved. "Deportable Aliens" do not fall into the category of Citizen, thus what the PRO side is in fact arguing is to give away our sovereignty and cheapening what it means to be a Citizen of the United States of America.
Second, they wish to frame the debate into a moral argument of doing what's right. The only problem is the type of morals they are choosing is from their beliefs from the Bible passages they choose to use or the church doctrine they seem to be able to make up due to the freedom of religion thing we have in the USA. They seek to impose their moral values onto society.
The definition of Morals is: conforming to a standard of right behavior. This can and does pertain to the morals of our laws just as easily as it does to their moral values. It seems they want the distinction of church and state only when it is of convenience to them, but wish to impose their moral values on all who do not agree with them.