I think you failed to read my post - I mentioned an area of disagreement with his general approach, while mentioning it was closer to what I'd favor.
I'll outline the key paragraph:
"My only difference with him is that I feel there are situations where people ought to be cut some slack for coming here without dotting the Is and crossing the Ts - fleeing things like Castro's dictatorship in Cuba, the dictatorship Chavez is trying to establish in Venezuela, the ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe, and the barbaric population control policies of the People's Republic of China, or situations where they felt that they, or an immediate family member was in physical danger from a group designated on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations."
Now, look over this thread, posted just over a month ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802153/posts
This article shows how far the ChiComs GO with their barbaric policy:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/14/202119.shtml
It is very simple - cut them slack, let it slide in this case. They entered illegally, but at the same time, if we send them back, and she's pregnant without ChiCom authorization - there's going to be state-sanctioned infanticide. For me it's no contest - they ought to be allowed to remain in the United States of America, because the infanticide is far worse than their jumping ahead in my book. It's application of the legal principle of "competing harms" - Maine's definition is at
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec103.html if you want to look it over.
It is very simple - cut them slack, let it slide in this case. They entered illegally, but at the same time, if we send them back, and she's pregnant without ChiCom authorization - there's going to be state-sanctioned infanticide. There are existing INS procedures to seek asylum for people afraid of forced abortion persecution - I know this area quite well, because two good friends of mine are immigration lawyers. That is a far cry from deporting an illegal here for economic reasons, be it from Mexico or Ireland.
I think you failed to read my post - I mentioned an area of disagreement with his general approach, while mentioning it was closer to what I'd favor. However, you also said you did not favor Tancredo's approach - which is very much in line with what Luis states, other than Luis did not mention the right to pursue asylum if persecution as abortion is feared upon return. So I'm really not sure why you are opposed to Tancredo but in favor of what Luis says.