re: #664 loppyd

I support marching them back across the borders, but I know that isn’t realistic. Why are we looking for ways to reward or exonerate those whose first act upon entering this country was to break the law?

All the McCain-Kennedy bill called for with respect to securing the borders was that DHS had to do little more than to document efforts underway.

I’m not sure if the point is to reward bad behavior or to “reward” at all. The point is to do what is best for the country (whatever that may be) given the facts that exist. In the immigration debate people seem to be stuck on unfairly rewarding illegals. No one questions that entering the country illegally is illegal, but let’s not pretend the illegals are committing a MORAL transgression on par with stealing or assault, etc… . These people are trying to feed their families. That doesn’t mean we are obligated to them, but it does mean that rewarding an illegal is different from rewarding a person who commits an assault. If we are not going to remove them (and I’ve not heard anyone say that we will) what is the detriment of “amnesty?” And by granting those here amnesty, the politicians will then be able to strengthen and enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring new illegals. Amnesty would give business time to prepare for a future with no more illegal workers.