THE SHINING SUN didn't produce much illumination as the New Sanctuary Movement and Juntos, both illegal-immigrant enablers, hijacked a protest in front of the Mexican Consulate at 11 a.m. Friday.
By noon, Juntos and New Sanctuary (and the press) were gone, leaving several dozen members of the Independence Hall Tea Party to protest in front of the Bourse, where the consulate is located, above the food court filled with visitors from many lands. The visitors from many lands are here legally, I believe.
Both sides had their say peacefully, each ignoring the other.
I asked Teri Adams, president of the Independence Hall Tea Party, how she felt about being hijacked.
She said that it was expected, that she was supporting a protest called by the Americans for Legal Immigration group. "I am not unsympathetic to immigrants," Adams said, "but we can't allow our borders to be overrun."
The Mexican Consulate was chosen because it allows "tens of thousands" of people to pass through unmolested on their trek from Central America to El Norte, she said.
Juntos supporters, who outnumbered the tea party for the first hour, made speeches in English and Spanish (because they are co-equal?), and handed out bread and water. Someone carried a sign asking, "What Would Jesus Do?" (Note to self: Check out Jesus' position on border enforcement.)
Mexican consular official Juan Espejo Ceballos greeted me warmly in the consulate, provided me with agua and also a statement that Mexico "promotes human rights" and "cooperates with other countries."
Is it doing all it can to stop the flood from Central America?
"Mexico decries any expression against the immigrant community" and "condemns xenophobia."
He could not tell me how many refugees Mexico has accepted from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, the source of the current crisis. I called the embassy in Washington. My call was not returned.
Lynn Hoffman held a sign that read, "No Creo en Fronteras." I asked him what it meant.
"I don't believe in frontiers," the Mount Airy resident said. He believes in the "free flow of people and commerce."
"That's open borders, isn't it?" I asked. He tentatively agreed. Open borders for travel is one thing, but permanent residency?
"It would mean I go to France any time I want, start living there and not tell the government," I said.
"That's reducto ad absurdum, do you know what that means?" he asked, casually insulting my intelligence because no one who disagrees can be as smart as he is.
It's OK. I am used to being called a nativist, a Know-Nothing, a xenophobe and a racist because I believe in U.S. sovereignty, U.S. law and mathematics.
Hoffman's Latin translates to reducing the argument to the absurd, which I wasn't, just giving an example of what "no frontiers" means. It means "freedom" to float wherever you want, with no encumbrance by government. No customs! No taxes! No security! (Channel your John Lennon "Imagine.")
Open borders is an open ticket to pandemonium.
When I told Hoffman that Gallup reported that 150 million people would move here if they could, he refused to accept the numbers and then called it another example of reducto ad absurdum.
If only 10 percent showed up in a year, that would be 15 million. Where would they find jobs, housing, school seats, medical treatment? And then another 15 million show up the next year?
When you cut all the bull, the big difference between my side and his is simple. My side believes in humane and orderly immigration. His side believes that anyone who gets here, no matter how, ought to be made a citizen and given a hoagie.
On Twitter: @StuBykofsky