Reply #11: Not a realistic analogy. [View All]

There are generally two kinds of criminal acts - those that are inherently criminal, and those that are only criminal only because we define them to be criminal. Robbing a bank, killing, or raping someone fall into the first category. No matter who commits the act, it is criminal. The latter category are things which are not inherently criminal - such as running away from home. Running away from home is not crime in general - it only becomes a crime based on the age of the individual doing the running. This is the category which includes making it illegal to live and work in a country of which you are not a citizen.

I am not suggesting committing a crime as a remedy to having the "wrong" citizenship. I am suggesting that citizenship(over which I have little control) should not be the determining factor in whether otherwise legal activities (living and working in a particular geographical region) are treated as crimes. It is that simple, as far as I am concerned. Making the multi-cultural nation that such a philosophical sea change would create a into a functional and healthy society is not necessarily simple, but issues such as ensuring everyone is fairly paid, creating an environment in which businesses choose to stay and manufacture goods here, and integrating multiple languages and religions into the fabric of the US have nothing to do with where the current residents of the country happened to have been born (or where your parents were born).

It disturbs me that the party that claims to be the compassionate party is limiting that compassion based on an artificial line in the sand. It appalls me that we have been vocal enough about our willingness to scapegoat "illegals" for all sorts of evils (stealing jobs, driving down labor costs low, etc.) that we have handed Bush an issue that is popular enough - even among people who are otherwise compassionate - that he may be able to salvage the November elections.