Here's my take: the relative justness of a law and the consistent enforcement of the rule of law in general are two totally different animals. That is, enforcing the legal code - regardless of whether the defendant is a politically sympathetic figure like this fellow, or Lloyd Blankfein - consistently and without regard to the interested party's clout is not only virtuous, but it's a necessary condition for a functioning and just legal system.

Everyone is interjecting political sympathies into what - to me, anyway - is an apolitical issue.

I was dismissive of the intent of his article, which was to ignore the fact laws were broken, because of his story and his perceived contribution to society. There are a lot of illegal immigrants (id venture to say most) who have far more compelling, and reasonable reasons to feel trapped by our laws than a man brought into a family, and who likely could have stayed legally at any one of a half dozen junctures.

I have sympathy for the position he's in. What I have contention with is the whole tone of "living my life in fear" aspect of the article. Living that life in fear was a choice you made, with a tangible benefit to you. Don't complain about something you could have changed at any moment.

I'm going to throw a devil's advocate bone to CHUD: the Obama administration has made a policy of not enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis when consumed for medical reasons. Given what we've said, should it be enforced?

Yes. Why is it okay for politicians to pick and choose what laws will and will not be enforced? How is that okay?

Good question.

So what's your guys take on this issue at the local level? There are entire cities in the country that refuse to abide by these laws (Sanctuary cities). New York City and New Haven come to mind. Are "illegals" who move here still criminals?

oddly enough, I don't view the coming into and being undocumented as that criminal. Its the blatant forging and fraudulently obtaining of documentation that I view as criminal.

Unless you're a tourist overstaying a visa that has access to a rich bank account, it's pretty much impossible to avoid fraud.

And to Sandler, your question gets into the tricky waters of federalism, and whether enforcing immigration law is a federal, state, or local task (or a combination of the three).

I'm pretty sympathetic to the view that states and localities should be able to basically arrange laws as they see fit, and that citizens and immigrants alike will vote with their feet. Maximize the available alternatives and what not.

Provided that they abide to the Constitution, of course.

I think you're looking at the wrong forest. The issue as I see it isn't whether or not laws should be followed/enforced regardless of our opinion of them. It's whether we need to revisit the foundations of immigration laws specifically. When this guy lived his life in the past he was merely a law-breaker, perhaps of a system of misguided laws, perhaps not depending on your politics. But now, with the publication of this article he begins to step into the world of civil disobedience, in which his actions now have a broader purpose, namely to be a voice for immigration reform. In such a position I don't believe he is advocating the breaking of laws one disagrees with or finds inconvinient, but rather is offering himself up as an example to as wide an audience as possible to show the injustice of his situation. But he must be willing and ready to accept the consequences of his actions.

Since MLK was brought up earlier, does anybody believe that he was breaking the law for the sake of breaking the law? Or doing so only because certain laws were a mere inconvinence for him? Of course not. Not that this guy is MLK, but he's attempting to do the same exact thing: start a public dialogue and sway opinion until there is popular pressure for immigration reform.

But aren't they both against the law?

You act as if the "change" he could have made--moving back to a developing nation-- would be as simple as quitting a job at Burger King because the manager is a jerk and getting hired at the McDonalds across the street.

I just took for granted that we all agreed on the need to revisit the foundations of those specific immigration laws.

I'm not sure if you two really disagree.

I certainly agree with you.

Should they work without documentation, be paid under the table and not pay income taxes instead?

Yeah, So?
So is speeding and I do it. Laws always having varying degrees of importance to different people. Getting in the country illegally doesn't bother me all that much. I have a bigger problem with all the different types of fraud engaged in just to stay. Find a way to do it legally.

When I first heard the story, I thought the same thing...that's a long time to avoid the laws. But honestly, the immigration situation is so intense, difficult, and not very clear cut. While his grandfather owned up to what he'd done, at 16, what kid is going to know what to do with that information? Even at 18, I find it hard to believe that he's going to know what the next move is. Lots and lots of research and I'm sure he'd have got set on the right path, but the point remains - at this moment in time, there is no real legal recourse for a 'kid' (I'm thinking of him at 18 or so) to try and remain here legally. His mom made a decision for him that he had no real choice in. So if at 18, 19, 20 years old, he tries to do the right thing, he's deported to a country he doesn't even really remember well for a law that at that point he wasn't really willingly breaking.

He hit adulthood, probably saw the hill he had to climb for a very, very small chance that he'd get to remain here and continue on the path he was on. He started doing a fair amount of work to cover it up. I guess there's just a huge part of me sympathizes with the guy. You get a taste of this life, by no fault of your own, you have big dreams and aspirations, you pay into the system... it's going to be extremely hard to give that all up and know that you're likely going to get punished/deported for a decision your mom made in your youth.

Then again, I think the immigration laws here are complete shit, so it's no wonder I feel for this guy.

Just to explain why, I think the easiest way to shoot down my devil's advocate is the concept of corruption. I doubt anyone would advocate that a prosecutor should be allowed to not press charges against, say, a mobster who paid him off.