[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by JAlpert

Daniel, it seems like we can all agree that immigration laws need to change. I also believe we agree that illegal immigration is also not inherently bad (as I mentioned earlier, people like Amadou may actually contribute positively to the country).

We disagree that Amadou should be punished because he broke the law.

Correct. Also, seems some dont understand that the punishment need not be deportation. If the individual is of good character (which Amadou seems to be) then community service (as well as getting legal papers to be in this country) could be a proper punishment. Especially if that community service included getting his story (and the mistakes he made) out.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

There are four reasons why the government punishes people ("the purposes of punishment"): deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Many laws contain portions of each of these purposes. But some laws are made purely for deterrence - like laws against carrying loaded guns. Carrying a loaded gun doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, but it probably has a high correlation with bad outcomes. A subset of deterrence laws are regulatory laws. These are laws where the action isn't inherently evil, like speeding or jaywalking. Speeding or jaywalking may be correlated loosely with bad outcomes, but obviously carrying around a loaded gun is much worse than doing 5 over or crossing the street while there is no traffic.

First of all, I won't comment on your gunlaw analogy...seems we don't agree here either
Secondly, the reason 5 MPH over the speed limit is not enforced has more to do with manpower and the accuracy of the speeometer in your car than how dangreous an issue is.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

In my opinion, because we both seem to believe that illegal immigration isn't inherently evil, we would both interpret the law to be regulatory in nature. That means illegal immigration is really no worse than speeding. To an illegal immigrant, they're doing 5 over. Any possible harm to anyone else is so remote that it probably doesn't matter.

And what about 6 MPH over the speed limit?...maybe 7? How about 20? where do you draw the line? Is speeding 6 MPH over the limit that much worse than 5? Here is where we have to stop thinking with our hearts and start thinking with our heads. The harm lies not with the particular outcome of a specific act but the precident you set forth when it is really dangerous. 5 MPH over the speed limit might not be dangerous on the highway, but it most definately can be dangerous on a crowded neighborhood street.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

This brings me to my point. By your logic, we should bring the maximum weight of the law on everyone who goes over the speed limit ("Without consequence there is no rule"). Would that be OK? You can't just say that everyone who speeds deserves to be punished. That would mean pulling over half the cars on the highway. When nearly everybody breaks a regulatory law at one time or another, and the chances of harm are so remote, it's probably OK to do so. The point of the law is deterrence, not incapacitation or rehabilitation, and is interpreted as such.

Your speed limit example is an excellent example of "without consequence there is no rule". Because no one is pulled over on the highway unless they are going more than 5 MPH over the speed limit everyone travels 5+ MPH over the speed limit. Should they be punished? Yes, but it will not happen due to manpower (Number of police officers) issues and calibration (of the speedometer) issues. In this case the law is rigid, but enforcement is more lax.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

In Amadou's case, the argument is even more powerful. This is a case of necessity. Not only is he not hurting anybody by being here, he needs to be here because he had no choice (and furthermore, he's probably actually helping the country by being here). It's like going 5 over because you've got someone in the back of your car who needs to get to the hospital. It's clearly OK to cross the street even though the sign says 'don't walk' if your grandmother is having a heart attack and you've got to get her medical attention. Yet by your logic, the law should come down hard on any and all jaywalkers.

You say Amadou does not hurt anyone. Lets look at the bigger picture. If all of the illegal immigrants in this country were to leave, that would leave a hole in the economy. Jobs that people dont want to do and Very low paying jobs would go unfilled. I will use your 'law of supply and demand' arguement.
This would have 2 effects:
1> Low paying jobs would need to up their salaries to attract workers.
2> Corporations (with thier big pockets and lobbiests) would be asking the government to loosen the immigration laws to allow more immigrants in.

So by him (and others) being here (and breaking the law) they actually hurt thier own cause to become citizens.

It is my belief that the immigration laws need to be Loosened up, to allow more legal immigrants. This will remove some of the 'demand' for illegal immigrants. I also believe that the punishment to corporations who hire illegal immigrants should be stiffer and enforced more (also removing the demand). Peaceful revolution

P.S. I want to thank the CD members. Most forums I've been to would have flammed me down by now for putting forth a dissenting view. What I have found here is enlightened discussion on what could be an emotionally charged subject. Your adult and informed posts make it a joy to be a member.