[JAlpert]

I disagree, Daniel LaFleur.

See, the thing that's so persuasive about your argument is that on the surface it seems logical. You say, "So we should break the law anytime we see an injustice?", and it makes sense. We have laws, those laws govern our society, so breaking those laws is wrong.

The reality of the situation, however, is that a balance must be struck. When a law is unjust, blindly following it is just as bad as breaking it. Teach your kids to follow the rules, but also teach them to think about why they're following them. Teach them to make their own decisions.

The question becomes, then, where do you draw the line? Which laws should people follow, and which should they protest? People immigrate to America illegally because a demand exists for them. Illegal immigrants fill a void - they fill jobs and opportunities that we need them to. If there was no demand, people wouldn't come here. If you want to stop immigration, you have to stop the demand. The government does this by passing laws making it illegal for unapproved immigrants to fill those voids.

Sometimes, though, the demand for something is more powerful than laws. A prime example would be prohibition. When this happens, the law doesn't make sense, and needs to be changed. Now I understand you propose "If the laws are injust [sic], then we need to work to change the laws, not break them." Do you really believe that the primary engine for rectifying bad policy is to sit back and wait until the government changes it for us? You don't need to a scientific study to show that the government moves intolerably slowly on its own. While the government is "working to change" its policy, people will continue to immigrate illegally. It will never go away as long as the demand exists. That's why sometimes people need to force change. That's why this country has a rich history of civil disobedience and protest, as pointed out by artdutra. [As a corollary, it turns out your 'overweight robot' argument does not apply here. The rule is cut and dry, and there exists no demand to break it.]

Did Amadou break the law as some sort of civil disobedience? I won't speculate, because I don't know (even though you seem to have made up your own reason). However, I do believe Amadou's case highlights one problem with current immigration policy. As US society approaches (slowly) a meritocracy, a premium exists for citizens who take an interest in academics and pursue higher education. Amadou wants to educate himself, get a good job, and contribute to our economy and society. We have a very difficult time convincing our own population to do this. Yet our policy says we should deport him immediately (talk about sending jobs overseas!). This makes no sense.

The point is, it's obvious something needs to change. Yet, you continue to respond dogmatically.

Jeff