Legal process isn't always an option for people who are fleeing persecution. Added to that some may have a very understandable fear (terror) of authority, leading them to try slipping under the radar.


[eta] and if you had a pregnant wife in the back going into labour, he may not be a bastard about it.

There is a process by which people can seek protection and legal immigration in those cases. By breaking the law and entering illegally they pretty much negate that process and diminish their chances.

Incidentally, I doubt many illegal immigrants are asylum seekers. I am just suggesting that cases need to be taken on their merits and regardless how black and white your perception of the law they deserve the same human consideration as anybody else.

I appreciate your concern Dana. I also would like to give personal, individual consideration to each person, but that isn't how laws work. I do believe in black and white enforcement even if it is sometimes harsh on some individuals. I can think of nothing more fair in life than applying the exact same rules to every single person.

If he gives me treatment outside of his guidelines then he isn't doing his job however beneficial it may be for me.

Again, I don't care about the why someone broke the law, only that they did.

They would if another car is behind me shooting shotgun shells at my car. But for the sake of the example, the law can't always say that his reason for illegal entry is just, whether we think it is or not.

If our legal system was built on morality, we would of course allow everyone into the country that came from a tougher background but it isn't and for good reason. A moral legal system cannot exist and even if it could it would be the most hypocritical system in existence. No matter what happens in this situation, someone is going to be fucked and there is no way around that. The question is just who will get fucked over and how bad.

For the most part, laws should be made on what is practical and what works best in the interests of the country (yes that it is still completely subjective), even if that means openly screwing a group over. A very large amount of illegal immigrants are not bad people even with the label of criminals but there is nothing that can be done to solve the problem, so it will continue.

If someone came in illegally, it must be enforced. Throwing morality into the matter will only overly complicate the situation to the point of absurdity. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed.

Most of them are good people who weighed the risk/reward scenario and decided the risk was low enough. good people/bad people isn't the issue, playing by the rules is.(they're a hell of a lot of fun to play soccer with too)

...till then enforce it.

Seems like an awful waste of money to deport perfectly good bio-diesel material.

Tunnels Beneath U.S. Borders Proliferate

Continues:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/tunnels.html

Great. So let's go back to Jim Crow.

"Can't let those dirty Mexican brown babies have citizenship, now can we? That's for White people."

Why do you hate Mexicans?

Then they should get due process.

Or is that only for white people?

The US Constitution applies to US Citizens. Illegals get three hots and a cot, a hearing, and a ride home.

Bullshit. You've never even read the US constitution.

Amendments from the BoR that only apply to citizens are called off thusly (for example, amendment II). Those that apply to anyone in US jurisdiction or custody call off "any person" or "no person" (ie, amendment V and VI).

Under your little fantasy, which has never been the view of SCOTUS, you could just point at any Hispanic and say they were illegals. With no due process, they would be unable to clear their name, even if their family had been citizens for 5 generations.

But they're only brown people, right, Merc? In your eyes they aren't "persons". Right?