We're discussing those who were illegally brought to the United States as children who "lacked the intent to violate the law," and pose few national security risks. In our courts we make a distinction between those who chose to violate our laws and those who had no choice.I love it when Obama jerks the tea party's chain and they start frothing at the mouth.
The INS needs to concentrate on securing the boarders and deporting those that are actually doing harm. We should not deport people that were brought to this country by their parents and are now productive members of society or are attempting to be. These people should be documented as all legal residents are, taxed, and monitored by the INS, and given a chance to make something of themselves in the country they call home.
Really? And so what do you say to all of those people from other countries who are still waiting in line to get in LEGALLY?
No, we don't necessarily. It is entirely possible to commit an unlawful act without intending to do so. And in the civil arena, intent is often totally irrelevant. Illegal status does not need to be intended. If someone overstays their visa due to an extended illness, do you think that should qualify them for a work visa?
Also, based on your irredeemably stupid if heartfelt basis for supporting this virtual amnesty, why the hell should a criminal history have anything to do with the decision? Your basis is that they did not intend to be brought here illegally, and so should stay. Why should a conviction for, say AggDUI change your position?