Ethics Trainwreck At The Border


Eight ethics observations on the army of child illegals clogging the Mexican border:

1. I predicted this would happen four years ago, and anyone who was paying attention should have been able to as well. Both the actions of President Obama, in essentially enacting the unethical “Dream Act” by fiat, and the rhetoric surrounding the “Dream Act” itself, constituted a national invitation to parents to send their children to the border. A nation cannot provide incentives to break the law, celebrate those who break it, and then credibly tell us that they are dismayed when a flood of law-breakers appear.

2. Even more influential in attracting desperate children to the border has been the loud, reckless and irresponsible messages coming from all quarters that the U.S. doesn’t regard law-breaking as anything but admirable and forgivable when children are involved. California, to the applause of lawyers and most of my colleagues in the legal ethics establishment, has allowed an illegal immigrant, brought here as a child, to practice law. Jeb Bush, proving himself to be muddle-headed, a rank sentimentalist, or a coward, pronounced illegal immigration with children as “an act of love.” Come on—the United States of America isn’t going to make love illegal, is it? Didn’t we just go through this with gay marriage? Democrats and illegal immigration advocates use the term “comprehensive immigration reform” as a code for “open borders,” and the code has been cracked in South America.

3. Yes, the anti-child trafficking law, the Wilburforce Act, was sloppily written and carelessly conceived—aren’t all our laws of late?—but it was also drafted and signed in 2008. The Obama Administration had six full years to figure out that this wave was coming and to close the loophole: it didn’t want to. How do we know? The spending bill Obama has sent to Congress to deal with the current crisis includes no request to amend or eliminate the law. This is one of the more audacious and dishonest of Obama’s “duck accountability and blame Bush” excuses.

4. Obama has shown with the Affordable Care Act that he is  willing to defy the Constitution and unilaterally disobey laws, refuse to enforce them, or amend them —when he wants to. His response to the objections of narrow-minded Constitutionalists is, and I quote, “So sue me”…which the Republicans are. Now, as we are overwhelmed by children streaming across the border due to a “loophole” that Congress would dearly like to see closed as well, he is arguing that his hands are tied. Speaking of hands, let’s have a show of them, please. What is inconsistent here?

5. The news media is disgracing itself , but with more brio mixed with gall than usual. Almost no outlets call this illegal immigration any more; it is always “immigration”: all the better to paint those cruel sticklers for enforcing laws and taking national sovereignty seriously as racists, and to recite the inscription on the Statue of Liberty ad nauseum.

6. The next ploy is a full-throated “Think of the darling children!” assault. NPR’s Cokey Roberts, reminding us that she is a mother, went full-bleeding heart on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, passionately condemning those who won’t help these poor children, and the law be damned—which is 1) the message that the Democrats, California, Maryland, and mushy Republicans like Jeb Bush have been sending for six years or more, 2) illogical, emotional, and irresponsible, and 3) appealing and persuasive to the large number of Americans who have trouble tying their shoes every morning. Monday, Chris Cuomo on CNN made essentially the same “argument,” which can be paraphrased as “Oh the humanity!”

7. The fact that Assad is killing children in Syria somehow never moved these same sensitive souls to support U.S. military action that would strengthen our national security and interests, but they nonetheless feel a moral obligation to admit a mass of instant, non-English-speaking orphans, with some adults, criminals, and gang members mixed in, costing the U.S. in taxpayer dollars, creating social upheaval, over-burdening social services, and motivating more of the same indefinitely. We can’t be the world’s policeman; we should just be the world’s foster care facility.

8. The President harps on the fact that the GOP controlled House won’t pass the Senate’s immigration reform bill. It’s far, far from a perfect bill—among other things, is it laden with the kind of procedural and bureaucratic complexities that are doing in the ACA—but it is an improvement over what we have now. Where immigration is concerned, we are beyond the “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” stage and well into the “Don’t let the flawed but comprehensible be the enemy of the putrid but still better than Hell” stage….except for one thing. The Senate Bill includes the Dream Act, which gives an incentive to break the immigration laws. Will Obama promise the House that he would sign a bill that omitted the Dream Act? Of course not.

That would require compromise and responsible leadership.

I did not specify the ethical principles being breached in these enumerated examples of misconduct, so let me do so now:

1. Competence, integrity, responsibility, citizenship

2.  Ditto, plus fairness and respect for the rule of law.

3.  Competence, accountability, honesty

4. Honesty, integrity, consistency

5. Journalistic integrity, competence, and objectivity.

6. Ditto.

7. Responsibility, citizenship and integrity.

8. Competence.

Oh yes…it’s an ethics train wreck, all right.



60 thoughts on “Ethics Trainwreck At The Border

  1. If I understand the foster care system correctly, anyone relying on it to be a safe place for any child is seriously deluded. Now we should extend that to the world? It makes me wonder how bad things are where these children are coming from that their parents think sending them as illegal aliens to the US is a better life.

  2. I was under the impression that this site was about ethics. This conservative screed with little ethical thinking involved is not ethical — it is unethical carping under the guise of ethics. Ethical trainwreck, indeed. I suggest changing the name of this site to: Paranoid Conservative Alarm.

    • Yes, Kevin, I believe the technical term for this kind of empty comment is “crap.” If you have an argument, make it. If you have a rebuttal, I’d love to be enlightened. This issue’s development and cynical exploitation—over decades— is well-documented and undeniable, as is the deceitful use of language by advocates who simply want to either exploit illegals as cheap labor or stuff ballot boxes. The next comment that is substance free, like this one, gets banned. Or can you do better? Do you have any facts to back up your ideological fervor, or are talking points and name-calling all you have? Based on this pathetic note, I have to guess the latter.

    • To be clear of course, if a certain political policy or political stance is by definition unethical and generally accepted by one political flavor, then opposition to it would happen to appear partisan while being completely ethics based.

    • Kevin,
      Perhaps maybe the reason that you find this blog to be conservative is that conservatives prefer laws to be consistently applied in a fair manner. What I have experienced among sympathetic individuals (progressive and conservative alike) is that they often fail to consider the economic consequences of a choice; this is especially true when third parties bear the burden of the cost. If the costs were to be paid only by those sympathetic to the issue then the per capita cost would be much higher because fewer people would bear that burden. Why do these sympathetic people require government to care for these children? In a nation of 150 million households I don’t see many lining up to take in a child or two at their own expense. If the well being of that child is that important to you put them up in your home, at your expense

      I don’t consider myself to be paranoid or xenophobic. I simply ask that we are asked to bear the costs then we should have a say as to what the rules are and abide by them. What Jack is saying is that we must deal with the issue honestly and not resort to emotional appeals, intellectual and legal dishonesty in the debate. I could make the same emotional appeal to allow unfettered immigration to middle eastern Christians who are being murdered daily simply for their beliefs.

      Perhaps if you evaluated the question whether it is ethical to impose a cost on a third party to pay for benefits that accrue primarily to a citizen of a foreign country whose government fails them- based on our standards – you may come up with a different decision. If your answer is yes then you assume that our way is the right way and the other country has not lived up to our expectations. If that is the case, why are we so quick to want to draw down troops overseas, not engage in Syria or other hot spots to save the children? Why don’t we send our troops into Central America, take it over and impose our rules on them? If we can’t put troops on the ground to make life safe for them do you think our lives are more valuable than their lives? If we wanted to we could make it a safer place for children to live and they would not want to come here. Hyperbole, conjecture, speculation and emotion does not promote a fair and ethical evaluation of a given situation.

      What if the terms and conditions for giving asylum to an individual that feared persecution or violence would preclude his/ her ability to obtain citizenship at any point, would that be agreeable to you? Such a condition would effectively eliminate a political motivation for deciding one way or another.

      If I took an action to protect a child from immediate harm that does not mean that I also wanted to care for the child indefinitely. Would you agree to a condition that for every undocumented child alien permitted to reside in the US then one less person from that same country be admitted legally or that one undocumented adult found would be immediately deported? I would estimate that such a condition would be economically detrimental given that we would lose the value that could be created by a more skilled immigrant or one that has established some roots here.

      Yes we are a nation of immigrants. We have a long history of being the land of opportunity. Because of our industrial and technological growth since 1800 we have always been short of needed labor. But, during the waves of immigration from Europe and other parts of the world we had a process to accept them, the type of labor coming was appropriate for the technology of the day and could be easily absorbed, and those already here were not compelled to provide the necessities of life for the newcomers. Today we have a surplus of labor with obsolete skills or few skills at all. For the society to improve economically and socially we must add to the skill sets not dilute them with large numbers of unskilled illiterate people dissatisfied with their own country. We should welcome anyone that comes to this country wanting to create value and not those that simply come to take value.

      I close with one final thought. Will you tell the parent of the children that drowned in the Rio Grande, died enroute or were raped in the process getting here that it was worth it? Can you look them square in the eye and say it was worth giving them the belief that all would be OK and sending their kids would lead to a better life? That is the ultimate ethical question.

  3. It makes me wonder how bad things are where these children are coming from that their parents think sending them as illegal aliens to the US is a better life.
    The parents don’t have the facts.
    Their own home governments are spewing out misinformation to them non-stop.

    A president with half a brain would be down there in Middle America with his Secretary of State
    getting those in power under control – if diplomacy doesn’t work, perhaps sanctions will.
    Instead the fool is wringing his hands and drinking beer in Austin, and, of course, showing his naysayers how powerful he is by line-jumping. @@

    How far the mighty have fallen.

  4. The information lockdown is what’s got the hairs on the back of my neck standing up over this. Rumor has it that the conditions and procedures may range anywhere from ‘downtown bus terminal’ to ‘Lubyanka’. If only there were some way to put these rumors to rest… by prohibiting inspections, muffling reporters, and threatening whistleblowers?

  5. One thing that needs to be said is, that by allowing this fiasco to continue, our government is enabling human trafficking. These kids are sent north via paid “coyotes” (human traffickers) on a perilous journey where rape, kidnapping and murder are not uncommon. The message we need to send is not merely “no”, it is “hell no!”.

    • Exactly. Now explain to Kevin why there is nothing conservative about properly allocating responsibility for this mess to those on whose watch it has occurred, and who have been, quite literally, asking for it.

      • Agreed, Obama owns this mess. That said, the influx of kids from central America (that he enabled) is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe the criminal immigration problem will continue in various forms until we call out ALL of the entrenched special interests that want it to continue. Those interests include, but are not limited to: Democrat apparatchiks who want an influx of reliable voters (i.e. dependent underclass), chamber of commerce right wingers who want cheap labor to exploit, middle class hipsters who want cheap nannies and gardeners, radical Cloward-Piven followers who want to overwhelm and crash the “system” and usher in a socialist utopia, etc…

      • We are the ones buying these drugs already. We have already been corrupted. Keeping it illegal is what is creating all the violence in these countries.

    • “Legalize drugs.” Huh? Beth?

      Legalize drugs, and the coyotes will just make mules out of the youngest human-trafficking exploitees. Coyotes never fail to find a way to profit.

      “Kill the coyotes.” That’s the best we can hope for, but even if that became the policy, all that would result is emergence of more coyotes. The human trafficking will continue for as long as the interests of enough criminals both inside and outside the U.S. are served sufficiently by it.

      • The theory is that legalization of drugs will undermine the cartels and traffickers as producers would be completely free to operate in the USA with no need for organized crime to provide infrastructure.

        • I think there is something to be said for what Beth is saying – prohibition breeds corruption and violence. HOWEVER, I think that’s out of the scope of the current crisis. Its my understanding that violence levels in these countries has not gone up recently, anyway.

          Jack is right – they are crashing the party because they think they can get away with it (and get some free party favors in the process). And, who gave them that brilliant idea? The Great One.

            • And before the lefties tell me to read the poem at the statue of liberty, we want our national pull to draw the kind of people who want to be free to pursue their own efforts to benefit themselves and society. We don’t want the pull to be free crap paid for by taxpayers.

              I’d urge those naysayers to actually read the poem and meditate on what it means to ask for masses who “yearn to be free” and understand that eliminates those who “yearn to be on the dole”.

              • That was written before the advent of the welfare state. 1st world societies are coming to the realization that you can have a generous welfare state OR you can have open borders but you cannot have both.

        • I’d submit that the cartels would either put renewed emphasis on the many other criminal enterprises in which they’re involved or seek to dominate the legal market by deadly coercion. Probably both. Criminals like that don’t turn honest. All we’d be doing is making the poison flow more easily obtainable to dumb kids who think its cool. Nothing else would change.

          • They would still dominate the market. Johnson & Johnson and Merck aren’t going to play hand grenade catch with the cartels. Even so, a lot more would change, like accident rates going up as drugged up idiots get behind the wheel or decide to go target plinking in the street, and subsequently insurance gets so expensive as to be unobtainable, like death rates going up as casual users decide to have one e-tab at a party, thinking trying it once can’t hurt and find out otherwise, like general slowing down or breaking down of productivity as drugged-up people use more sick time and can’t perform 100%. The joke is, during all of this, the people will keep coming north. The idea that legalization of drugs will stop this crisis is a pipe dream.

            • That about covers it, Steve. The usage rate will NOT go down, either. Furthermore, health problems will increase to overburden the medical system… which will already be in the tank if Obamacare prevails for long. Nor is it just a matter of the brain damage caused by the long term use of THC. Marijuana leaves a lung residue that makes tobacco look like breath freshener! So many damn reasons not to do this. But they’re trumped by the Big One. Politics. Dumb kids just turned 18 will vote for the guy who gives them an easy high.

              • And the back up argument to that from the Libertarian angle is, so what if they destroy their bodies and increase their personal health costs? They ought to shoulder the burden of those costs in a Free Market.

            • After alcohol prohibition was lifted, the organized criminals were all beaten out of the alcohol industry. The same would happen with the drug cartels… more efficient business models with no security or power projection overhead would clobber the cartels solidly on the market.

              No doubt the cartels would try to intimidate their way on the market, but it wouldn’t last long.

              No, economically speaking, lifting the drug bans would destroy the cartels and would reduce expenditures for law enforcement (as it relates to drug laws).

              The conflict arising in making this decision is between Personal Liberty, Privacy, Free Market on one side, and Community Security, Civil Order, Interpersonal Safety on the other.

              External threats arising from black markets should have nothing to do with it, as external threats have tried and true methods to handle them if we insist on having a certain law that gives rise to those external threats.

              • I’d say the big reasons that the the Prohibition gangs fell wasn’t the repeal. The main reasons were the already plentiful availability across the Canadian border, small scale competition (moonshiners), the fierce intergang warfare, the destruction of the Purple Gang and the takedown of Al Capone.

                But this is not a good parallel to the present day drug cartels, much as it’s now being used as such. Alcoholic beverages are one thing. Drugs- in their myriad and ever more dangerous forms (to include marijuana)- are something else again. It’s not the equivalent of denying someone a cold beer or after dinner cocktail. It’s poison for dumb kids who haven’t matured to the point where they look beyond their “feel good” impulse. I’ve seen too many burned out wrecks that were once people. Sure, there are the long term alcoholics that look just as bad. But consider the incidence of drug destructiveness in comparison with the number of “imbibers”.

                Speaking as a former M.P., I can tell you that I’d have rather faced a whole room of G.I.’s making merry than one guy wound up on some unknown drug who could turn into an ape on the rampage at any time. Don’t think, either, that if pot is legalized, that’ll be the end of it.

                • Let’s also add that alcohol had been a legal part of society for centuries and prohibition had been the exception, not the rule. Also, when alcohol wears off, you are sober. Cocaine and morphine had briefly been a part of society, but never achieved mainstream acceptance and were made illegal for several reasons, including the fact that side effects hold on longer. With newer drugs like LSD the user never knows when he might trip out again. Legalization is a recipe for further damage to society, not fixing it.

            • Do you think a drug cartel in South America is going to go after J&J? That’s absurd. I can assure you that each of the drug companies already have a plan in place to mass produce drugs if and when they are legalized. It would mean multiple billions of dollars for them — they can hire a private army if need be.

              There also is a misconception that suddenly everyone will start using drugs. Just because drugs are legalized doesn’t mean that an employer can’t prohibit them as a condition of employment. I’ve been subject to random drug tests for most of my career and they test for alcohol — not just drugs.

              • How do you control for counterfeit drugs manufactured and sold for less by the cartels. Do you believe that our government won’t want its fair share of the profits. Look at what the price of legal MJ is in Colorado. Untaxed goods are always cheaper than taxed goods. The violence is a result of maintaining market share to protect profits. There is absolutely no evidence that the suppliers would end the violence if the product was legal, they would fight for control over the supply chain. If legalization is the answer to rid us of illegal drugs why is software and music piracy such a big business?

                • Chris — Is there a huge black market now for booze? No. Same story with drugs. The only reason why drugs are expensive now is because they are illegal — all those guns, mules, and airplane tickets cost money. Drug companies can do it much more cheaply and more importantly, safely. I’d have a lot more faith in my cocaine purchased from J&J than the person on the street corner.

                  • The person you purchase it from on the street corner is not happy to hear your scathing condemnation of the quality of the product he pushes. He considers it primo and feels your dissing him requires a beat down on principle.

                    • The sickest I have ever been in my life is off of gin that I swear must have been brewed in a bathtub at a hole-in-the-wall bar in DC.

              • If they already have a plan in place (which I don’t believe) then why aren’t they pushing for legalization? And no, it is not absurd to think the cartels might not try to keep their lock on the market by bombings, shootings, you know, those terrorism tactics that are hared to defend against. I think you are as bad as Paul Wolfowitz with his idea that the people of Iraq would automatically rally to the US when we arrived. Insistence that an idea HAS to work because you can’t envision it happening any other way is what gave this world the political pestilence that was Communism and enabled a failed paperhanger and the son of a peasant to lead major nations into genocide. We already have 2 drugs that we can’t control and we are working on the third. To open the door to more is just idiotic.

                • Well, I have evidence that my idea would work. It worked with alcohol — which is the most widely used drug in the world. You are the one relying on beliefs.

                  • Apples and oranges. See my post above. Alcohol and hard drugs simply are not comparable. And you didn’t answer my question. If legalization would be such a big benefit to big pharma, why aren’t they pushing for it? Have you seen these plans of which you speak? Can you hyperlink to one?

                    • Steve — just because they would profit from it doesn’t mean that they would spend money or political capital lobbying for it openly. It would hurt their public image and stock price until the concept is more widely accepted.

                  • So you really don’t know why. Can you hyperlink me to a plan for legalized production, or is this just more “I know it because I know it?”

    • Beth, I fail to believe that removing yet more of our laws to “control” the breaking of our law could ever solve anything. In this case, the only realistic solution is true control of our border. After the border is closed to illegal traffic, then we could discuss further actions.

      • The primary impediment holding up Democrat cooperation on advancing a solution on this debate. How can such an obviously *correct* component of a solution be the primary stumbling block for them?

        Hm. Baffles me why they refuse to be part of solving the problem over the issue of border security.

      • I wouldn’t be against a strong border if it were possible. It’s just too large. The amount of manpower and money needed would completely erode our economy. And, unless we are going to somehow eliminate all shovels and ladders in the western hemisphere, a wall on our borders is meaningless. A better solution is to enforce jail time for CEOs, managers, etc. if it is found that there companies are hiring illegal aliens. Not only would this be more effective but it also would be a cheaper solution.

        • “It’s just too large”

          Sorry, that argument is nonsensical. That’s like saying Jack can do 100 pushups but he can’t do 40. Huh?

          If we can build multiple interstate highways the complete width of the country (i.e. I-80, I-10, etc…) with all of the attendant bridges, overpasses, tunnels, and so forth then we CAN build a fence, hell a WALL, the entire length of the US Mexican border. Hey, Keynesians are always looking for an excuse to spend more money, and this is shovel ready!

          How do we pay for it? Its paid for out of future savings resulting from NOT having a flood of dirt poor dumped in our country.

        • Beth,
          I’m confused. In one of your posts here you said making drugs legal would reduce the push of immigrants fleeing from violence but you want to make illegal the demand for illegal immigrant labor. If drugs were legalized the penalties would go away resulting in increased demand and potentially increased supply. Price will only plummet if the increase in supply is far greater than the increase in demand or prescribed by government. Given that legal marijuana in Colorado is far higher that the street price I don’t see the cartels being undercut by cheaper products.

          The legislated price becomes the price ceiling but it will have no effect if the price ceiling exceeds the market price. All the ceiling can do is raise the price for the cartels that will use violence to maintain market share. Because the good is fungible, users will quickly find out that they can buy the illicit version cheaper and nobody is the wiser. In fact, violence may spill into Colorado when the cartels begin to eliminate unarmed legal farmers. When that happens the locals will need to get out or arm themselves to the teeth. If the latter occurs then we imported the violence along with the illegal immigrants.

          If prices do in fact plummet then the value of the cash crop fall to levels that cannot support the farmers that cultivate the marijuana or cocoa in the geographical regions that can grow those crops. Where exactly will the farmers go to make a living? Will Columbia, Honduras, Mexico and the others create a jobs program for them? Probably not so these people will seek work where they can find it. They will come to the U.S.

          Exactly how many large firms hire illegal immigrants? I keep hearing this argument. How many of these businesses are operated by foreign nationals who are here legally but are serving as illegitimate sponsors, exacting slave labor from their own in exchange for “protection” here?

          If as a CEO of a small firm, someone presents to me the required (but forged) documentation for the I9 form upon hiring, should I do jail time or should the person passing the counterfeit documents go to jail? If I investigate or call into question the validity of the I9 documentation I will be called a racist and be subject to DOJ scrutiny. Is that ethical?

          A large number of people that are hiring illegal immigrants are households that don’t ask for any documentation when they hire someone to care for the baby, tend to the garden or other domestic activities. Should all those be jailed as well?

          If we accept your proposition that the border is too large to patrol economically and that people will find a way in, why do you want to deny them the ability to work by jailing the CEO if they are hired. People coming here for work will find work somewhere – work is kind of like a drug when you are starving. Take away the work they will resort to less honorable ways to survive. Is it our responsibility to support and educate all persons that are legally not permitted to work in the US if they are legally incapable of supporting themselves when the present themselves to us? Would it be the better ethical solution to transport these people to areas in which they are legally able to work productively?

          There are no simple solutions to these geopolitical problems. One thing I do know is that when things get bad enough and government is not doing what it needs to do to ensure its citizens have the structure to prosper the people will take action on their own. That statement can be taken two ways. My intent is to say that if life is so miserable in Central America then it is up to the people of countries of Central America to make it better not the U.S. Instead of running away they should demand action from their governments. I do agree that that we should create disincentives for people coming illegally. Perhaps, losing the hard earned money they paid to get here when they are sent back will be a powerful disincentive instead of giving them each $200/day in benefits while they relax in relative comfort and security.

          • The only thing I am advocating for here is legalization of drugs. I do think we should have higher penalties for hiring illegal immigrant labor, but those penalties would be for a knowing crime, not a negligent one. The burden would be on the employer to show good faith though. As for illegal immigrants turning to other means, I agree. We SHOULD let them work here. So I guess I am the one who is confused by your statements. I’ve offered a solution to illegal immigration, but I’m not necessarily advocating it. It’s just such an easy and elegant response to those who say “Shut Down the Borders at Any Cost!” Are you saying that we should close the border BUT allow everyone who is here illegally to work wherever they want?

            Oh, and as for your reference re households hiring illegals, I assure you that right now that is something that is looked into. There are lots of people who have lost their government jobs or were unable to run/hold office because it was discovered that they had hired undocumented workers to tend the baby, the garden, etc.

    • A lot of these kids are being trafficked because perverts are willing to pay people to help them rape children and adolescents. There is no way sex with underage people is going to be legalized.

      • I only hope that you’re right, Michael. But we’ve all seen the legalization of things we would have never dreamed possible before. And now, it seems, the pedophile groups are starting to stir, sensing that their time is approaching. What frightens me is the possibility that they’re right.

    • Why not export the convicted users and dealers to Central America. That would eliminate part of the pull. If you think that organized crime goes away because something is legalized then we must legalize everything because the cartels will just find another product with a very low price elasticity value that people can’t seem to live without that is illegal. We might just convert all the drug cartels and their dealers to arms dealers or they might just increase the level of human sex trafficking.

      Keep in mind that every dollar expended on providing for illegal immigrants seeking protection from drug dealers in their home countries is one less dollar available for treatment of our addicts or incarceration of those that perpetrate violence here. This is the choice. There is no perpetual money tree.

  6. Compassion for those who made the perilous journey north. It’s not their fault that they are pawns in this chess game.

    • Yeah and we shouldn’t have shot Germans in battle during WW2. After all they were just pawns.

      Nope sorry, the compassion argument doesn’t fly. We can’t treat them with respect and dignity as we send them home. The end.

    • That’s true, we should see to the basic needs of these children while they are here. This does not mean that these kids should be allowed to stay …..or that more should be allowed to cross the border. To do so just invites the “crisis” to grow. Americans have always been pushovers to the plight of children, which, in my opinion, exactly why they are being used to further this one.

  7. There are enough exceptions that I cannot accept either citizenship or respect for the rule of law as ethical fundamentals rather than things that apply only in certain cases. I don’t even have to breach Godwin’s Law to find them, e.g. Rosa Parks is enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.