David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

But, either way, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, by merely applying, an applicant should immediately and automatically be given a "temporary ID."

Likewise, people crossing your border and invading your country in droves numbering in the millions can be viewed as an "act of war," and meeting them with machine gun fire would be warranted.

After that, all assets [the illegals] own will be confiscated and their sorry carcasses will be buried in mass graves. Their choice, ya know?

layman wrote:

But, either way, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, by merely applying, an applicant should immediately and automatically be given a "temporary ID."

Who said that? By applying, they subject themselves to some sort of non guaranteed scrutiny and approval process. It is up to the U.S. to approve the quantity and individuals who apply. It becomes our decision; not their's.

A person or family should be able to go online or a local consulate and start the process, a statement of intent if you will, and the next stop should be a boarder where they are issued temporary IDs...

That said, do you believe that you, your city, or your state, is only obligated to comply with federal laws that they don't "oppose?"

And... Bill DeBlasio has chanllenged the Trump administration to explain what Federal law Sanctuary Cities are defying. The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has yet to answer that question.

In the legal battle between my local government and the Federal government, I am personally rooting for my local government.

Of course the look on Jeff Session's face will be completely worth the effort.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

Additionally, in De Canas v. Bica the Supreme Court held that any state law or policy related to immigration will be per se preempted if it is a regulation of immigration because the “power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” A state law or policy is a “regulation of immigration” when it determines who should or should not be admitted into the country, and under what conditions they may remain. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies regulate immigration because they essentially decide who may remain in the United States.

What do you think of Layman's comparison of "illegal immigration" with bank robbery and with invasion? Neither of these arguments make very much sense to me.

The big difference between illegal immigration and bank robbery is that banks don't derive any benefit from being robbed. There are no bank employees or bank customers who want bank robbery to happen, and no one not involved in the robbery who benefits. This is quite a bit different from illegal immigration; farmers and tourism businesses desperately need the labor, churches want to protect family members, and parishioners and family members and the American citizens in many communities are rising up to protect these "illegal" immigrants politically, financially and legally.

Of course the differences between an invasion and immigration are even greater. We invaded Iraq with cruise missiles, tank shells, and M1s. The image of our Marines going into Iraq to do landscaping, cook and take care of their children is ridiculous.

Are you making any attempt to understand the other side of the argument?

I am quite certain that if none of them had ever crossed our borders, our economy would have found a way to thrive.

You don't understand Layman, I am not arguing with you. I am using you as a foil. You are saying things that are clearly illogical. I don't need to point this out, it is obvious.

Other people reading my arguments here understand that. They are the real people for whom I am writing this.

I understand the arguments from both sides, I could switch sides if you want and make a pretty good anti-illegal immigrant case.

We are a nation of laws.

While our immigration laws may present unnecessary hardship for would-be immigrants, this is not a reason to break, ignore or flaunt them. If you want to open our borders to all the nice, poor people in the world work to have it accomplished legally.