The ruling by the federal judge in Arizona, striking down the harsh immigration law leaves the field open in terms of dealing with issues of immigration. Emotionalism reigns on both sides of the aisle politically and much is not understood regarding immigration law. Ultimately people's lives are at stake. There is a balancing of those who want stringent enforcement of immigration and prosecution of illegals. The arguments range from national security, ti burdening overburdened medical, benefits and educational systems, to fear of illegals taking jobs. On the other side are those who argue from humanitarian roots--that perhaps 90% or more of those seeking refuge in this land are honest, hard-working people who cannot be blamed for being born into poverty (just as we cannot take credit for being born into priviliege. Those on this would argue that rather than throwing up 1500 miles of wall (ironic given that Reagan told "Mr Gorbachev to take down his wall,") use those funds to help illegals come, work, stay and leave leagally--make it easier and more trackable.
where do you all weigh in on this matter?
Post new comment