Well I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this particular issue, but I do respect your opinion.

I do not think I have done a very good job of laying out what I think about the issue, so I'll try to do better, and I'll try to be brief at the same time:

I think that our system coaxes these people here with one hand, while motioning them back with the other. The one hand (coaxing) is pretty constant, and for all the reasons that make good sense--people do want to live and thrive, after all.

The other hand (motioning them back) is not at all consistent, and frequently in the service of people of power and position, who find it expedient once every election season to mouth the law of the land, as long as they can do so with a wink and a nod any time said powerful people need their own lawns mowed or mattresses turned.

This is why I think Ethics does enter squarely into the picture. Our system sets a trap that seems to spring each election year, then go dormant again once the news cycle has moved on; meanwhile, lives are wrecked, many of them quite innocent.

And the enablers, the people of power and position . . . well don't worry, they're doing just fine.

You mentioned that you don't think the economic side of this argument has much substance (I recall the term boogeyman) . . .. I can tell you of one instance where the county and its charitable organizations are pretty hard put to deal with what even this one deportation has done.

Maybe that is more clear than what I wrote before. Then again, maybe not.

Herring405