Because you are using a logical fallacy, relying on an example with the absurd, using quite twisted analogies.

Sure that's exactly how liberals justify their positions. I was hoping someone left of center would respond, thank you for helping illustrate my point.

It's the same, you say trust all people to do the right thing. This is a common liberal way of thinking, though few practice it when it comes to themselves. Most conservatives believe even good people, can do bad things when presented with an opportunity to do so and no apparent consequences for doing it. Not all, but enough. Don't believe me? Put a twenty in an "open" (just like the border) envelope with your name and address, on the sidewalk outside your home, and tell me how many times it comes back to you on say 10 occasions. Someone may return it (those that would empathize if they had lost the money). I'm willing to bet most would keep it. Probably not normally "bad" people, they just don't care how the loss will impact you, just that they gained something for little or no inconvenience.

The folks coming across the border also don't care about the impact on those all ready there, they just want something for themselves. Human nature, but that still doesn't make it right.

Andy McCarthy has some thoughtful things to say about the judge's decision here.

No, it is not - "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking." JC Watts

I am starting a thematic blog that deals with this issue.  Watch for the latest - on John Kerry.

regardless, if you are willing to break the law to get what you want (they did), what makes them different from a bank robber?  Very little.

You do not know that.  I doubt it was a white lie that Clinton told.  Of course being a democrat, he can convince himself of anything.

There are 7 billion people on this planet.  No one has the time to get to know all of them.  You have to go on what you do know, so while you are defending those that your country will arrest on site, the simple truth is that you do not know what or who they are.  We have only their actions to go on, and that is damning of them is it not?

That is kind of like saying you define a deity as a god.  DUH!  We can redefine (and have in some cases) murder as a non-crime.  So a murderer would not be a criminal.  Of course a criminal is a criminal because he broke a man defined law!

Really? Maybe you should read SB1070 and the USA v Arizona case filing and ruling

Do you want to give government another way to do warrantless searches of your property?

They are doing something and actually enforcement has continuously increased since 911. I would agree more needs to be done and states should be able to enact laws as long as they don't interfere with existing federal law or infringe upon our constitutional rights.

And how would you like to pay for increased enforcement? Are you willing to let the Bush Tax cuts just expire so that more rapid enforcement and expansion of federal law doesn't simply add more to the deficit?