S-S-KThere may be some parallels between the two topics, but it is still apples to oranges. If "Kate's Law" would have been a signed law there would have been no possible way Francisco Sanchez could have murdered anyone, because he would have been locked up. For gun control you can have the highest restrictions signed into law and you will still have shootings.
It isn't as straightforward as Law A will prevent B from happening with gun control. With illegal aliens that commit crimes, it is for the most part that straightforward...
I don't want to get into a gun control debate in this Trump thread, you probably know where I stand
Your argument is based on a causal chain of events, not negligence or immoral will, and therein lies the problem.
To say that "If Kate's Law would have been signed, she would still be alive" relies on you removing one causal event from an absurdly large amount of causal events in order to be made true. Moreover, all causal events have the same necessary value in that when you remove one causal event from the equation, the equation fails. Causal events are like a recipe - without one ingredient, your recipe (equation) falls apart. You could just as easily say "If Kate wasn't there at that time, she would still be alive" and it is just as equally true as your original statement. You could equally say "if Francisco was never born, she would still be alive". All of those are true statements, but none of them actually address the actual problem: the immoral will of Francisco Sanchez.
You can also demonstrate this idea with a car accident. Two cars collide, one runs a stop sign and unlawfully hits a car in the intersection. Causally, both cars need to be there in order for the accident to occur and without one of them the accident is avoided. BUT one car is at fault and the other is not. This is called negligence and what you look for when proving blame or guilt and how to actually solve the problem, not band-aid it.
Francisco Sanchez killed someone who was innocent and it was a terrible tragedy. But to solve the problem by saying "if Francisco wasn't allowed in the country, then Kate would still be alive" is unfortunately
missing the point of the problem.
Gun Control involves almost the same exact argument, and, moreover, gun-rights activists use my above argumentation to allow guns to exist in this country: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Anti-gun people say that "well, if we don't have guns, then we can't have any more gun violence". They are making the same exact causal argument as your anti-immigration argument, which is true but also
missing the point. A gun sitting alone on a table will never murder anyone, which is 100% true. It requires the immoral will of a person to do that. Good people (of their own volition) will not murder anyone, but bad people will/can and this latter group of people is the real problem of the gun debate- keeping guns out of the hands of bad people.
I'm not trying to draw a gun debate into this topic, but people should be aware of the argument they are using against immigration is the same "missing the point" fallacy used by people who want to remove guns from the country based on the argument of "if we remove it from the equation, then the problem is solved".