When Chris Fitzsimon refers in his recent editorial to the term "the children of God" when describing the offspring of illegal aliens in his justification for providing them with in-state tuition, he is disingenuously trying to use the language of the Right as a rhetorical device to appear sympathetic to their values and still advance his anti-American agenda.

Using the language of your opposition is a valid rhetorical technique, but in this case it's not very persuasive. I don't recall Mr. Fitzsimon being a particularly religious person or using the concept of God to support his arguments before. And Mr. Fitzsimon seems rather selective in who he is willing to consider the "children of God." For example, I have not heard him use the term "children of God" for those who have not managed to get born yet. And I somehow doubt that he would be in favor of education vouchers, or even school prayer, for the "children of God."

Even if we accept his argument, being a child of God does not render you exempt from the law. I would have to tell those "children of God" that I'm sorry that your parents thought so little of you that they chose to break the law and leave you at risk, but because of their actions to enter the country illegally and take advantage of taxpayers, we cannot honor your claim on the money or property of law-abiding, genuine American citizens.