Replies

Ergo, anyone who exceeds the speed limit while driving has no respect for the law and will violate other laws as they do the traffic laws.

Comparing a minor traffic violation to an issue involving national security couldn't be a worse comparison. By your line of reasoning sanctuary cities are acceptable since you assume they are all law abiding citizens other than the fact they are criminals just by entering the country.

I am also smart enough to know that the laws were not written with any intent to enforce them, so collectively they are not enforceable.

Ergo we shouldn't charge anyone who commits murder since laws addressing murder weren't really written to prevent such a crime.

It is, however, posssible to modify the laws to identify qualified individual who would be a benefit to the country, value the opportunity presented to them and are willing to make an enforceable commitment to be law abiding, tax paying, English speaking residents of the United States. Isn't that really the end goal?

Why bother modifying laws that aren't meant to be enforced in the first place as you claim? Just ignore them. The existing immigration laws don't need to be modified. Our existing immigration laws cover all you describe. If they aren't willing to obey current immigration laws then they won't abide by any future immigration laws. The end goal is to strictly apply current immigration laws!

By your line of reasoning sanctuary cities are acceptable since you assume they are all law abiding citizens other than the fact they are criminals just by entering the country.

Ergo we shouldn't charge anyone who commits murder since laws addressing murder weren't really written to prevent such a crime

I based my statements on your exact words. Now please provide where I indicated either of the above concepts. You can't because they could not be farther from the truth. You have assigned those positions to me without any basis.

Why bother modifying laws that aren't meant to be enforced in the first place as you claim? Just ignore them.

I would think that answer is rather self evident. To establish a set of laws that are coherent one to the next; that have specific intent and enforceable outcomes. Apparently you have never taken a close look at the existing laws. If you apprehend an illegal alien and establish, without violating their civil rights, that they are in fact illegal, what can be done? Deport them. So, they simply reenter the country. You catch them again and what can you do. Deport them. So they simply reenter the country... Get the picture? It costs more to apprehend, investigate and deport them than it does for them to get back in. The laws are not coherent. Among other things, the consequences do not adequately escalate with recidivism. At any given point, the laws might be clear on the actions to be taken at that time. However, those actions are not part of a comprehensive package to incentivise correct behavior and dis-incentivise bad behavior.