[franksolich]

Right; and I agree.

No legitimate entry, no "rights."

That is after all the law.

But who the Hades is bothering with enforcing the law?

This reminds me of when the Clinton-Hillary administration was pushing for more gun-laws, and an assistant Attorney General, when questioned how many had been prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms under the old law, alleged "none" had been, much to his embarrassment; the Department of Justice had not been enforcing the old law.

The laws are on the books.

We should use them, instead of passing more "feel good" laws. We should demand that our desk-sitting broad-bottomed bureaucrats do the work for which they are very well paid.

[azhenfud]

"But who the Hades is bothering with enforcing the law?"

Vigilantes?

[BohDaThone]

Perhaps "no legitimate entry = no rights" should be the law, but it just isn't now. Immigration law is very complicated, and don't take this as gospel, but just think of: 1. Cuban boat people (Elian, if older) -- their entry isn't "lawful", but they usually get asylum.

2. I think that one can apply for asylum within a year of entry, lawful or not. It's then up to the INS/ICE to decide if you qualify.

3. I know of cases where minor aliens show up from god knows where, and are placed with/by church groups and ultimately adopted, leading to legal status.

4. The general process known as "adjustment of status," which can have many, many reasons, is very frequently available to turn illegal entrants into legals, depending on the rules that are written into the law.

Maybe the law should be changed, but it's a long way from being as simple as you state.

[kstewskis]

We should demand that our desk-sitting broad-bottomed bureaucrats do the work for which they are very well paid.

Gee, who would'a thunk-it?

Enforce existing laws. What a concept.

Thanks for sharing your insights to a disgusting cancer in our bureaucracy.

Sloth, being one of many.