John VanSickle wrote:
> The same principle applies here to the immigration law.  If you don't 
> want your children to suffer the indirect consequences of your 
> lawbreaking, then don't break the law.

You miss my point. Where would you deport them to?

> Believe it or not, there is no basic right to remain in the country.

I think you'll find that there is such a right for *citizens.*

> you are here in violation of our laws, you must go. 

And what law did the children break?

> The fact that your children are lawfully here does not alter this.  

You've missed the point. They want to make it such that your children are 
*not* lawfully here.

 > You have no lawful recourse but to leave.

Sure.

> You can take your kids with you or you can leave them behind.  

You're missing the point. The nutcases want to send the children out also. 
It's not up to the parents whether to take the children. They're talking 
about deporting the children who *are* legal US citizens who never broke the 
law.


Sure, it
> is not their fault that you broke the law, but if that didn't stop you 
> from breaking the law, why should it stop us from enforcing it?
> 
> Regards,
> John


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message