Because you are using a logical fallacy, relying on an example with the absurd, using quite twisted analogies.

Actually, I can make a moral case for someone breaking a law for the benefit of others suffering injustice.  Little harder to justify breaking a law for one's own benefit or gratification.  Nothing hypocritical about that.

Sure that's exactly how liberals justify their positions. I was hoping someone left of center would respond, thank you for helping illustrate my point.

It's the same, you say trust all people to do the right thing. This is a common liberal way of thinking, though few practice it when it comes to themselves. Most conservatives believe even good people, can do bad things when presented with an opportunity to do so and no apparent consequences for doing it. Not all, but enough. Don't believe me? Put a twenty in an "open" (just like the border) envelope with your name and address, on the sidewalk outside your home, and tell me how many times it comes back to you on say 10 occasions. Someone may return it (those that would empathize if they had lost the money). I'm willing to bet most would keep it. Probably not normally "bad" people, they just don't care how the loss will impact you, just that they gained something for little or no inconvenience.

The folks coming across the border also don't care about the impact on those all ready there, they just want something for themselves. Human nature, but that still doesn't make it right.

this is true.  It takes hard work and discipline to do right.  It's much easier to do wrong than right in most instances.  Human nature, such as it is, is self centered.  That's why biblically speaking, when we come to Christ, we are "new creatures."  Instead of  being self-centered we are God centered and it does make a huge difference in one's life.  Motivation changes. 

tonight on the local news they profiled a mexican illegal who bore four children (a fairly large family by most standards today) here over the last ten years or so.  Since Florida is thinking about following Arizona's law this is making the Mexicans a bit nervous here.   So they interviewed this lady and of course she opined about how hard it would be for her to go back because legally she could be deported and her children could stay here. 

I just don't get it.  Why don't they just work at becoming legal instead of staying illegal?  Either make it legal or leave.  That's the law. 

Let's enforce it.  It's not a hard concept.

 For crying out loud.... Why do the politicians have to make it so hard? 

Andy McCarthy has some thoughtful things to say about the judge's decision here.

The thing is: ITS NOT LIKE WE HAVE A LAW THAT SAYS NO MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS.  We have a quota system in place where only X number of people from a certain country can come in.   When get X number of people from that country then no people are allowed.  Every country has immigration laws.

I wish someone would name one country that doesn't have immigration laws.  I can think of a bunch that don't enforce them like Sudan and Somalia.

I have a lot of friends that are from Eastern European country.  Most of them have either a college degree or sometime of industrial trade skill.  We have a low quota that are allowed from Eastern European country.  You know why most of them have a trade skill or college degree?  Because during the communist times to get any where you need to have one of those two. 

To be honest I would rather have a college educated individual or someone with some type of trade skill over an individual with no trade skill or no degree.

I don't see why its wrong to enforce the quota system.

On another point: No research is needed to show that most of the U.S. drugs come from South of the U.S. border.  U.S. has a drug problem. 

No, it is not - "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking." JC Watts

I am starting a thematic blog that deals with this issue.  Watch for the latest - on John Kerry.

regardless, if you are willing to break the law to get what you want (they did), what makes them different from a bank robber?  Very little.

You do not know that.  I doubt it was a white lie that Clinton told.  Of course being a democrat, he can convince himself of anything.

There are 7 billion people on this planet.  No one has the time to get to know all of them.  You have to go on what you do know, so while you are defending those that your country will arrest on site, the simple truth is that you do not know what or who they are.  We have only their actions to go on, and that is damning of them is it not?

That is kind of like saying you define a deity as a god.  DUH!  We can redefine (and have in some cases) murder as a non-crime.  So a murderer would not be a criminal.  Of course a criminal is a criminal because he broke a man defined law!

Yes we do.  It has been quantified.  The cost - $113 billion in public money (Federal state and local).

Really? Maybe you should read SB1070 and the USA v Arizona case filing and ruling

Do you want to give government another way to do warrantless searches of your property?

They are doing something and actually enforcement has continuously increased since 911. I would agree more needs to be done and states should be able to enact laws as long as they don't interfere with existing federal law or infringe upon our constitutional rights.

And how would you like to pay for increased enforcement? Are you willing to let the Bush Tax cuts just expire so that more rapid enforcement and expansion of federal law doesn't simply add more to the deficit?

I have, have you?  Apparently not if you are asking the question.  Do you know on what basis the judge issued the injunction?  And most of all, do you know the SCOTUS standard for such a ruling?  I doubt on both counts again.

Yea, that is why Sister Denise Mosier is dead.  If they keep up this way, we will all be before the declare the issue resolved.  But then again, I guess that is the plan.