The rule of law is the reason. The exceptions and nuances you argue for are just that, exceptions and nuances. Are you one of those elites that suggest the exceptions define the norm?
The only thing pathetic is your lack of understanding as to what the rule of law is and why it is not defined by the exceptions.
Illegal is illegal -period. Maybe the exceptions you champion could go to the head of the illegal line petitioning within the law for citizenship, but that is as far as they should go. They sure as hell should not bump any that follow the law.
Dbeers; 10th Amendment Guy ... What precisely is the rule of law when all law is made by politicians and interpreted by judges? Spend a little time in a courtroom and you’ll soon realize that the law is nothing but exceptions and nuances. Have you ever been involved in trying to enact legislation or testified in front of a legislative committee? It’s worse than watching sausage being made. Today’s law is tomorrow’s afterthought. Your prattle about the “rule of law,” a concept you need to define, is more soliloquy than argument.
Its sophistry to state “illegal is illegal” as that which is illegal today may not be tomorrow (how’s that 18th amendment doing?)
The “exceptions” I “champion” (I prefer to think of them as people) may very well be allowed to jump to the head of the illegal line petitioning within the law for citizenship (Werner Von Braun) or we could with a new law change the illegal appellation to legal status and bump to the back of the line the dolts that followed the law.
While I agree with the claim that amnesty for illegals’ is blatantly unfair (as opposed to subtly unfair) to those people waiting in line to enter this country, I have reservations concerning the sincerity of those who claim concern for those waiting in line. Assuming an honest concern for the fairness, well life isn’t fair. If the line waiters don’t like being bumped, they can head for France. But you may be on to something with your suggestion we let everyone who wants to come to this country come here (though a background che
Extremism gets you an Obama administration ending deportation as we know it, instead of a McCain and a less (slightly? much?) generous approach to undocumented immigrants. Who meets your litmus test instead of Perry? Bachman (though she’s not a witch). Ron Paul (what does a libertarian do about a border)?
My friend, you would do well to remember Ronald Reagan’s quote: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor.” The practice of “single-issue” politics and demanding strict adherence to a rigid ideology from candidates is more destructive of this country than a RINO.
I cannot paint all illegals with a broad brush. To me the issue is not how someone got here but instead whether or not that person’s presence has added value to this country. ck may help...no more Tony Montanas!)Dbeers; 10th Amendment Guy ... What precisely is the rule of law when all law is made by politicians and interpreted by judges? Spend a little time in a courtroom and you’ll soon realize that the law is nothing but exceptions and nuances. Have you ever been involved in trying to enact legislation or testified in front of a legislative committee? It’s worse than watching sausage being made. Today’s law is tomorrow’s afterthought. Your prattle about the “rule of law,” a concept you need to define, is more soliloquy than argument.