ok, I get it-you're a law and order guy. I'm just trying to get you to start from a foundation. Starting from-"he broke the law" is pragmatic. There are many laws you break, probably you don't even know it. If you are going to be so firm on THIS law, you will have to be firm on ALL laws without more reasoning and that reasoning needs to be consistent. If for example, you believe you own yourself, then it would be contrary for you to stand morally behind the law that says by just being in a country you were not born in constitutes force or immorality or an automatic punishment. Really, you are upset about something much deeper but you want the argument to end on the pragmatic or procedural. Fine, but you are missing the forest for the trees, respectfully.

I see your point and will say this. At the point where that person that you brought into your home causes any burden on someone legally here. Even something as simple as occupying a spot on a bus that could have been used by a legal. Of course that person will have to use some resources and do something outside your home. Otherwise they are but a prisoner and you are violating their rights.

Obviously in our current world we need borders. I fully agree with that. We need immigration control and monitoring to keep Americas economy in balance. But, if you think that that people should are SUPPOSED to own their own property, and do with it whatever they see fit, then what gives a group of people (my fellow country men) the right to tell me I can't bring a guest from another country into my home? If he manages to get to my property through voluntary trade with others, at what point does the fact that he is foreign impede any ones individual rights? Again obviously in our current world the act of doing anything effects everyone because everything is taxed, but in a moral world, immigration laws are considered immoral. N'est pas?

I think it would be better for immigration to stage a raid at his first court case and deport him.

Always knew lawyers could break the law and get away with it. The perfect scenario would be this one getting arrested after being sworn in for being an illegal and perjury(lying when taking the oath).

As I commented: Liberalism is a mental disorder. As such, you can expect any kind of irrational insanity to be put forth with a straight face and a sincere voice. No use railing against trying to correct a psychotic person. Just fight to keep them out of power.

Native Americans per capita are the richest group in America these days. The casinos have changed the dynamics. It’s why Harry Reid and Obama are always in private meetings with Native Americans. They got loot..

Hey it is slow here at work today. Have at it.

Well first let me say I LOVE the idea of no welfare.

Currently the world has borders and each person is a citizen legally of some country. Persons who are in a country other than the country that they have legal citizenship in either have a valid visa or are in that country illegally. It is my position that being in a country illegally is a criminal activity and people who are illegally occupying a country should be deported.

Now I would dearly LOVE to see immigration officials deporting the illegals by the train load but I understand that this is somewhat impractical. However, if an illegal is unabashedly advertising that they are here illegally then that individual most certainly should be gathered up and sent on his way.

This man freely admits to being an illegal. This man has challenged the legal system and rubbed his illegal status in the face of the courts. This man should be IMMEDIATLY DEPORTED!

Remind me to argue with you about voting sometime lol.

except in most countries this is the case.If there was a free world, citizenship would not be a big deal. It would be about voting, which is procedural and secondary to natural rights. Acknowledging natural rights would mean you can walk across a border without showing ID or being stopped. Unless you break the law, a govt should not stop you. Of course, there would be no welfare.

I agree that name calling is inappropriate but I understand the frustration and the possible desire to do so. Even though I understand it, it is still unacceptable.

I agree this is about expanding the welfare roles which correspondingly expand their voter base. True illegals cannot vote but it only takes time before the illegals have children and then those children (who in my mind are wrongly legal) eventually grow up to vote.

why the name calling?
Notice how none of these aclu groups focus on Asian immigrants in the US. Why is that? There is a strong agenda to support and nurture getting more and more on a welfare roll. This encourages illegal immigration more than anything else. This isn't about immigration policy-this is about welfare.

Couldn't an illegal immigrant who became a lawyer be immediately disbarred for breaking the law? Just a thought...

That depends, would this theoretical illegal immigrant be a registered Democrat?

That was my thought. They swear to uohold the US and state constitutions and laws. According to the CA bar the first duty of a lawyer is to uphold the laws of the US and CA. As soon as he swears in, somebody should file a complaint to have him disbarred.

WOP (from) W.O.P.: without passport. Wops sit on the Supreme Court, dude.

When Shelly and Byron toured the Continent, as English genty had done and would do until World War One, passports were not required. The passport was invented by the belligerents of World War One.

The diploma given to scholars is like the credentials given to diplomats: a folded and sealed safe passage across all borders, even in time of war.

Short of that, no one ever needed permission to travel.

It was in Germany, especially after Unification under Prussia, that it became habit for visitors to a city to register with the police. If you watch old 1930s movies, you will see that the hotel graciously took care of that for the better sort of traveler.

Show me the American entry visa for Jan Sebelius or Nikola Tesla or James Stuart Kennedy.

Nationalism is a form of collectivism. America was always intended to be CAPITALIST nation of open immigration.

Yes, immigrants get welfare. So does everyone. Welcome to America. The solution is to get rid of welfare, not to get rid of immigrants -- unless of course, you happen to be a Native American, still fighting for Homeland Security since 1492.