Yep, guilty of protecting you. (if you are an American)
The more immigration reform advocates cling to these two losers, the more unhinged and less focused they become.
You've got it completely backwards as usual. We don't advocate reform. We advocate enforcing the law vis-a-vis immigration.
You can't really enforce some laws and not others though. A jury of their peers found them guilty. I can accept that. What bothers me about this case is the stupid firearms law. The reason they got ten years is because they were convicted under a firearms statute for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. Obviously this was not the sort of conduct Congress intended to punish with this law, and ten years? They got more time then the drug smuggler who got caught twice. The only reason for this is because of that darned firearm statute with the ten year mandatory minimum. The jury found them guilty on the much lesser crime, and therefore they were found guilty of using a firearm in the commission of a crime. One thing we should take from this is that we need to really rethink long mandatory minimums because often they result in unintended and tragic consequences like we saw in this case. If not for the mandatory minimum the judge never would have given these guys anywhere close to ten years.
Because of their incompetence, an illegal drugrunning criminal escaped prosecution.
They endangered me - the only people their actions were designed to protect were themselves. But that also backfired due to their incompetence.
You've got it completely backwards as usual. We don't advocate reform. We advocate enforcing the law vis-a-vis immigration.
The existing Democrat-crafted immigration laws are stupid and counterproductive. They reward sloth and punish industry, and they prioritize blood instead patriotism.
Those laws need to change.
If you advocate nothing more than enforcing the existing broken laws, you're not much help.