Mark Parent 
Opinions Editor 

Early last week, I decided to write on Pope Francis’ decision to hold mass near the Mexico-U.S. border in an effort to show solidarity with migrants.

Well, I think it’s safe to say that my plan hit a minor road-bump.

As I’m sure many of you have already heard, the Pope hurled some insults in the direction of insult-machine, Donald Trump. Specifically, the Pope responded to a question about the republican front-runner by saying, “A person who thinks about only building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not a Christian.”

Clearly, the Pope is taking a veiled swipe at Trump; however, the whole “not a Christian” point of the sentence is clearly the conclusion of a metaphor, rather than a definitive statement about Trump’s faith.

Nevertheless, Pope Francis learned a very important lesson about American politics: never get in a sparring match with Donald Trump.

And since Trump already gets enough attention from know-it-all collegiate columnists with a meager following, like myself, I’ll just go ahead and move on to the real significance underlying Pope Francis’ decision to hold mass on the Mexico-U.S. border: the folly of political correctness on the issue of illegal immigration.

That’s right; the issue is immigration and entering into the country without the proper documentation is illegal; hence, we all should classify those who broke our immigration laws as “illegal immigrants.” There is nothing inhumane about that term.

Put simply, this term applies to all immigrants who enter any country by illegal means; it is preposterous to claim that it somehow labels an entire person as illegal — that’s what abortion really is, by the way.

With that being said, the dialogue surrounding illegal immigration on campus is troubling — and not in the way that you would expect.

Given our obscene culture of political correctness, this issue has become highly divisive, polarizing and one-sided. Anyone in favor of stricter border controls is almost immediately labeled as backward, racist and xenophobic. This argument, of course, is fraudulent.

In fact, it should be a maxim of debate that whenever one side of an argument begins lobbing harsh insults at its opponents, the evidence is seldom on their side. Suffice it to say, this rule applies perfectly to illegal immigration.

For starters, the Pew Research Center estimates that there are a total of 11.3 million — or 3.5 percent of the total population — illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Certainly, no reasonable person — yes, I’m talking about Trump again — can advocate a policy of deportation for all of these individuals; in a nutshell, such a plan would prove to be a logistical nightmare, while also costing a fortune.

Additionally, it must be noted that not all illegal immigrants are Mexican; in fact, only about 49 percent are, according to Pew Research Center.

On top of that, Politifact reports that roughly 40 percent of all illegal immigrants arrive at such status because of a visa overstay; it is not solely the result of a porous southern border.

Nevertheless, the southern border should remain a top U.S. concern. Despite increased security efforts — mainly initiated by state governments in Texas and Arizona — Mexican drug cartels continue to wreak havoc on both American and Mexican citizens, which poses significant risks to the entire country.

Of course, the construction of a giant wall is insufficient to solve this problem; for instance, natural barriers, like the Rio Grande, make a wall unnecessary at certain points along the border.

Yet, it must be said, the primary reason for the potency of this issue is its economic relevance — especially to working-class voters. In fact, the Wall Street Journal points out that illegal immigration has a negligible impact on wages, except in professions, such as construction, agriculture and landscaping.

With that being said, common sense should point us toward a rational solution. The imposition of an E-Verify system for employers would ensure that only legal workers are hired and would provide desperately needed accountability to the process.

Additionally, the southern border must be adequately defended — through a greater presence of Border Patrol forces and strategic fencing — in order to prevent the intolerable humanitarian cost of drug and human trafficking that is commonly traced to the porous Mexican border.

After these steps have been taken — and fulfilled — American policy must shift to the 11.3 million individuals residing here illegally.

As I previously noted, deportation is not a realistic solution; however, illegal immigrants who have committed a felony should face deportation immediately, and sanctuary cities should be deprived of federal funds until they reform their ways.

For the remaining population, a path to legal status — not citizenship — should be put in place. Put simply, a path to citizenship is not only a forgiveness of wrongdoing, but also a reward. American citizenship is incredibly difficult to attain — it’s at least a five-year process — and should not be granted first to those who chose to forego the traditional process.

Nevertheless, we still have to acknowledge that America needs migrant workers, especially seasonal workers. So the restructuring and expansion of visa programs must be a vital piece of any immigration reform package.

Now, I’m well aware that my views on this issue — despite their inherent rationality — will be labeled as xenophobic. That’s fine. It’s not true, but it’s fine.

You see, it’s this type of attitude toward debate that has led to a poisonous political environment that continually prioritizes demagoguery over sanity. After all, I’m sure the top complaint about this article will concern my use of the term, “illegal immigrant.”

And, honestly, if that’s what you get out of this article, then I have one simple message: congratulations, you’re officially out of touch with reality.

Please, let’s have real debates and discuss real solutions.