Is it okay to use the same argument on immigration as anti-gunners use for gun control?

That is just a silly argument. The Constitution guaranties Gun Rights. Immigration is a privilege. Why is that so hard to understand?

One is a Constitutional right and one is for the security of the nation. They are not the same.

As I mentioned in an earlier post when you brought this up, the Constitution covers gun rights for American citizens, whereas the immigration ban is not covered under the Constitution.

I strongly dislike the "if it can save one life" argument. It is a logical fallacy that requires the ability to see into the future of what "might have been" in determining consequences.

Immigration is the legal process of entering a country to become a permanent resident and citizen. Illegal immigration is circumventing a nation's laws and entering a country illegally. It boggles the mind how people forget that little illegal part.

As a service member that brought home a foreign bride through the long and expensive legal immigration policy I have been very upset about the lack of illegal immigration enforcement. Immigration is not a right. I am not against immigration however it must be done the same across the board. The argument of "if it saves one American life whether it be anti gun or immigration is a piss poor argument. The right to bear arms is a right not a privilege, immigration is a privilege that must be taken seriously and investigated and only granted to those worthy of such a privilege.

No. I would never use that argument because it's such an utterly crappy argument. It's especially crappy when gun controllers use it because there are so many documented instances of guns saving lives, but it would be equally crappy in any other context. All that has to be shown to discredit the argument is that more than one person could be harmed by whatever it is that's supposed to save just one life.

Good point! I'm in as long is it's for the children.

Immigration to the USA is not a right. To keep and bare arms is a right. Apples and door knobs.

There are laws in place for both subjects. We don't need new laws, just enforcement of existing laws. What makes anyone think that making new laws that won't be enforced either will do any good?

No. The main reason is gun rights are expressly written out in the Constitution whereas immigration not so much. Firearms are a right. Coming to this Country from another sovereign land is a privilege we allow... much in the same manner as driving is a privilege and not a right.

Honestly, I've never heard the anti-immigration argument you speak of until I read this question. I have heard that anti-gun argument many many times, but not in the name of immigration.

If you are looking for a better argument in favor of this temporary ban on immigration, then this is what I usually tell people.

We've been shown our vetting processes are ineffective. We need to create and implement better processes to ensure the safety and security of our people. This is not a permanent ban. It is a temporary hold until we can identify the failures in our own system.

If you have a car with faulty brakes, do you continue driving it, or do you wait until you get the brakes looked at and fixed. Sure we could continue to risk driving on the faulty brakes, but eventually we'll be driving down hill and our luck will run out.