The plan to (maybe) end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has spurred plenty of moral indignation on the Left. And it's that especially weird sort of moral indignation -- weird, given the source -- that involves Leftists complaining about alleged injustice and cruelty towards children.

According to them, the "Dreamers" who were born to illegal immigrant parents deserve to stay in this country, even if they are not citizens. "Think of the children!" They cry. A slogan they trot out only on select occasions. They are always ready to quickly return their "But the children!" posters to the shed, should the conversation switch to a different and specific topic.

That topic, of course, is abortion.

I'm often accused of bringing every discussion back to abortion, just as I've done here. Perhaps I am guilty as charged. It's just that I can't help but think it a rather big deal that we kill a million children a year. And I can't help but see how that mass slaughter inevitably links to everything else in our society. There is just so much blood soaking the ground that it tends to bleed into every area of our lives, even if we prefer not to notice it.

I am especially unable to ignore the connection when the defenders of illegal immigration are so blatant in their hypocrisy. Just consider the most common arguments made in favor of allowing illegal immigrant kids to stay:

-"You can't punish a child for the sins of his parents!"

-"They're already here! They should be allowed to stay!"

-"It's not fair!"

-"Immigrants are people, too!"

-"This is cruel!"

Pro-abortion Congressman Adam Schiff sent out a tweet today that said this: "Donald Trump again shows that no child is too young or vulnerable, no step is too low, and why he is the worst President in modern history."

I mean, come on. "No child is too young or vulnerable" you're worried?

Even if I wanted to, how could I possibly take these arguments seriously coming from folks who just got through explaining why unborn children should be executed because their mommies and daddies made a mistake and didn't mean to conceive them? How could I sit with a straight face and listen to lectures about "cruelty" from people who think it's cool to butcher a human being and sell his body parts to a research lab? How could I make any sense of the idea that a child has the right to remain in America because he's already here, but no right to remain on planet Earth despite already being here? How is that even logistically possible?

There are respectable arguments a person can make on either side of the immigration debate. Personally, I'm in favor of enforcing our immigration laws, but, theoretically, a reasonable person could articulate a coherent case in favor of showing "mercy" to these kids. I think he would have some mistaken ideas about mercy and how mercy should be applied in terms of the law, but I wouldn't laugh at this hypothetical reasonable person. But most of the people insisting on open borders are not reasonable. They expect us to believe, on one hand, that children in the womb are worthless sacks of lifeless matter, yet children outside -- if they are immigrants or members of some other favored class -- are so special and precious and endowed with such dignity that our immigration laws ought to be abolished for their sake.

It is consistent to be against abortion and in favor of applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. It is consistent to be in favor of abortion and in favor of applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. It is consistent to be against abortion and against applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. But it is total stark raving lunacy to be in favor of abortion and against applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. Every argument you make for one counteracts your argument for the other. There is no discernible ethic connecting the two positions. In one case, the lives of children are worthless, they should be forced to bear the consequences of their parents' choices, and we need not worry about being cruel or unfair to them as we sever their limbs and toss them in the hazardous waste container, while in the other case, the opposite is true on every point. How can you hold both beliefs at once? How can you expect me to take either belief into account when you are so willing to abandon either belief depending on the topic at hand?

This is not a gotcha thing, Leftists. I'm trying to help you. This is why your appeals to morality fall on deaf ears. Nobody is able to listen to your arguments because they're too distracted by the blood on your hands. You are standing on a mountain of dead kids while you sermonize about being compassionate to kids. It's like a Klan member delivering a stirring homily about the evils of racial bigotry as he fastens the lynching rope to a tree. If history has proven anything, it's that you really have to choose between compassion and genocide. You can't really have both in a society.

So, to summarize: stop killing babies and then maybe we'll take you seriously when you pretend to care about them. Until then, save the theatrics. I don't buy it. Sorry.

To see more from Matt Walsh, visit his channel on TheBlaze.