Allows a driver to legally register, smog, and insure their car against any mayhem that may be caused by it, for one thing.[/quote]
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to own a car and drive. But they aren’t. They aren’t allowed to be here at all. It seems very inconsistent to spend millions chasing them through the desert, where many of them die, but, when they make it through, say, “ok, you made it. Good on ya. Welcome to the USA. Here’s your driver license. Have a good day. Off you go.” I mean, if we’re going to welcome them here, let’s let them in. If we’re not going to let them in, let’s deport when we find them.
[quote=spdrun]
The “it’s only a phone call” argument doesn’t hold water. Ordering an action is morally the same as being a participant. I mean, if you called up your uncle Vinny and told him to break my kneecaps, would “it’s only a phone call” defend you against charges of assault and battery?[/quote]
I wasn’t implying that “it’s only a phone call” defends against moral responsibility. Yes, they would share moral responsibility, but the “moral” aspect of who is responsible for detaining and deporting the illegal immigrant is not the point. You said, “local police deporting illegals on sight doesn’t necessarily serve law enforcement purposes.” I assumed you meant as opposed to ICE deporting them, and that you thought that was a problem primarily for logistical reasons. ICE obviously wants to deport illegal aliens. Otherwise, why would ICE be doing that as part of their daily operation? So deporting them, it would seem to me, would serve law enforcement purposes. My assumption that you thought “local police deporting illegals on sight doesn’t necessarily serve law enforcement purposes” was for logistical reasons has been shown incorrect. So now I ask, why would you say that deporting them wouldn’t serve law enforcement purposes?
There are plenty of arguments on both sides of let them in/don’t let them in. I think they’re an important part of our economy, and the laws need to be changed in some way. I’m just not sure ignoring some laws is the way to go about fixing things.
Or maybe it is. Maybe that’s the answer to my original question. Maybe ignoring the law in this case is easier/faster/works better than changing the laws. Maybe we really want them here, but politicians can’t admit that to the voters. So we make “them being here” work by ignoring some laws (such as the law that prohibits them from being here) sometimes, but not other times.
