Jason, you criticize the ISO for “stubbornness” and making use of human beings as “political tools.” You accuse them of putting principles and “philosophical talking points” before working toward a better solution for everyone.

And yet, it is really your political philosophy that has gotten in the way of achieving what is most pragmatic and human in this very concrete situation. To you, the law - even when obviously unjust, as you admit is the case here - should always be paramount. Thus, a person who has just as much of a non-legal claim to be here as yourself should be deported.

To be clear: your only argument for deportation is that the law was broken.

And yet you, like all the others on your side on this debate, never give us any reason why the law is so sacrosanct. That it has been obviously immoral, historically at least even you must concede, is obvious. Your logic would imply that an African-American who drank from a “Whites only” fountain in the Jim Crow Act was, whatever it else it might have been, ultimately wrong. Some people, including ISO members, think this is a bullshit approach to solving political problems.

Some people - crazy radicals mostly - even believe that human beings should come before the law. Some believe the law should serve human beings, not the contrary. Some go so far as to desire a society where the ultimate worth of a human being isn’t valued in his or her legal status. These are the type of people you state are infected with a “diseased notion of progressivism.”

While you undoubtedly think this piece is a clever stand for sanity and a commonsense “middle-ground” approach, the truth is that it ends up with some distinctly unsavory implications. Aside from that, it’s just downright cruel.

But more interestingly, the argument you present is a self-defeating one. By conceding that the current enforcement policy is highly problematic, and that this specific deportation case is “meaningless,” you show how bankrupt your argument really is, since most people don’t think quite so highly of the law as you do. In this sense, your piece does a better job in disproving the case for Tope’s deportation than any sympathetic one ever could have. So, as a humble progressive, I offer you my thanks.

Best, Kyle

I FUCKING LOVE YOU.

*Jim Crow South

Kyle’s argument only applies to political agendas he supports. Let’s look at issues of murder, genocide, rape and how the law is applied to humanity by the criminals there.

“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?”

Henry David Thoreau

What you two blow-hards need to realize that life isn’t always so black and white.

Does the law generally serve the greater good? yes

Has it failed miserably here? yes

Smathers makes a good point, but in doing so he throws and individual - albeit his friend - to the wolves. I’m sure that wasn’t an easy decision to make (and I’m not sure he’s right,) but his opinion does reflect the thinking of a fair slice of the American demographic.

Kyle’s dissent, although somewhat disingenuous, makes a strong argument via the logical humanistic angle.

I suppose both are valid. Even so, you are both guilty of spinning a relatively isolated incident into a theoretical platform based on your world views - ironically, a charge which both of you levied against the other.

Perhaps we should see that this circumstance is greater that 800 words on an editorial page can encompass. Perhaps, instead of arguing the relativity of right and wrong through a long and fruitless series of retorts, we should just recognize that this incident is detrimental to the hopes and dreams of a precocious young woman who happens to be in defiance of an often contested and rigid federal law.

If nothing else, perhaps it’s a better place to start this argument than from atop your perspective soapboxes.

Jason probably doesn’t even realize how pathetically unoriginal his attack on the ISO is. His nonsense about “being willing to make people into political tools” is an atavistic recapitulation of the most lowbrow elements of early twentieth century anticommunism. It speaks volumes about the quality of Smathers’ intellectual output that he has to borrow rhetoric from HUAC in order to support an already asinine argument.

Wait… her father came in on a tourist visa, then stayed? Why the HELL are we building walls in Texas and Arizona?

America, how retarded are we?

Somehow I don’t think the “it’s only a law” crowd give much thought to the ramifications of allowing everybody to ignore any laws they don’t agree with.

I’d sure like to ignore the IRS, and the sales tax, and the property tax.

Just what would happen if there were no laws concerning entry into the USA?

I can’t agree with equating Jim Crow with immigration laws.

Kyle & Jason, go f* yourselves and your bullsh!t socialist ideology! You deserve to be taken out and shot!

The major point you miss Kyle is that everyone who has advocated the breaking of the law in the past has also advocated accepting the consequences. MLK, Thoreau and Gandhi all did not put up a fight or try to flee when they were sent to prison. Therefore by your logic illegal immigrants should overstay their visas but willingly be deported.

Does Tope Awe pay the (much higher) non-resident tuition?

Does no one care about the US citizen or legal resident who was not able to attend the UW Pharmacy School because Awe took that place by ignoring the law?

Kyle, without laws there is no order, we’d be living in chaos. Humans are not capable of living in a society without laws, even animals have a form a social order. If we don’t uphold those laws, then what’s the point of having them?

I agree immigration laws need to be modified, but i think jason failed to ask his friend tope why on earth did she not apply for a student visa? or a resident visa for that matter? This case angers me because it shows a family of immigrants who had all the resources needed to come and stay in this country legally, yet they chose to do it illegally. Her dad has a PhD, went to school in the states, had a good job, how then could he not afford to apply for a regular resident visa? We fight to have the law changed bc an exceptional student broke the law when in my eyes, she was ignorant and deceitful, how exceptional is that?. The immigrant doing dishes and sending money back to support his wife and kids deserves to be here just as much as she does, if not more. IF we’re going to change the law, it has to be changed so it can benefit people from all demographics, not just middle class families.

I can hardly believe that a person who considers himself a friend of Tope would argue for her deportation. Have you no soul?

i agree with the smath myster here. and i totally disagree with kyle smarzashazzalawic. why? well lets pose it this way:

say toke’s mother was drinking a lot while she was pregnant with toke, then birthed her and uh-oh, look what happened, she has fetal alcohol syndrome now.

my point is, it’s not God’s fault in that scenario. We can’t shake our fist at the superstructure — though we may want to. but the reality is, mommy knew the consequences. so in that case, toke should shake her fist at mommy.

likewise, here we are, we have tokes daddy who stayed around in this country illegally, knowing the consequences. he knew the rules, but he chose to ignore them. so why are we shaking our fists at the government? it ain’t the gov’t’s fault yo. it’s mr tokes. we all oughtta shake our fists at him, including toke herself.

yeah its soo sad. she was a great person. FINE! but u dont always have to go after the government first, sometimes, we ourselves can be held responsible. oh my gosh, REALLY?

and im a socialist with greasy hair, stubbles, and those black plastic frame glasses too, so dont argue with me.

Wow, could you be an ever bigger douchebag than you already are?

thank you!

I agree that this is not good law, and it’s sad that it happened. And yes, others have pointed out that you shouldn’t just blindly obey the law. However, what’s happened has happened and you can’t really retroactively “fix” this - this had to be made an example of so that people stand up, protest to their legislatures, and try to make change for future immigrants! No, you cannot bend the rules for those individuals who we think are “better” than some poorer immigrants - those who protest, do you have any idea how many other poorer immigrants have been deported in the past month or year under this exact same principle? And yet, no one is complaining about that. Once again, people finally realize that some laws and government practices are ridiculous only when someone middle to upper class becomes a victim. So instead of complaining about how unfair this is, do something about it! Write to your legislatures and ask for change in immigration and citizenship laws!

“But it is the law. Pathetic implementation is certainly grounds for reform of our current immigration system but is not adequate justification to bend the rules, “just this once.””

While I agree that rule of law is important, and an unjust law is often better than no laws, there’s an important distinction to be made.

There’s a difference between advocating against the law AND against its enforcement, on principle, and trying to bend the rules “just this once.”

It really comes down to the principles one is advocating. If you just want Tope to be left free to stay and have no further, principled, view on the issue, then it amounts to arguing that laws can be violated whenever they don’t seem just. But this undercuts the entire purpose of law.

On the other hand, if you argue that Tobe’s case is unjust (and should not be deported) and the law itself is unjust (and should be repealed), then this is not bending the rules “just this once,” but is a principled stand against the law, with Tobe as just one example case.

I think this is partly Jason’s point.

If you think our immigration laws are so unjust kyle, then why don’t you illegally immigrate to another country?

Venezuela maybe? I hear Chavez is a great dictator.

Hi,

Anyone here old enough to remember Eddie Ben Elson? He ran for Wisconsin Attorney General on the slogan “Only obey the good laws”.

He lost.

But consider the consequences of his slogan. Of course each person has their own idea of which laws are “good”.

I say a better slogan is “Only pass the good laws. And repeal or change the bad ones”.

On illegally immigrating to another country, don’t try it in Mexico. They are much tougher on illegals than the US. (Which does not stop them from complaining about US policy ;-)

Tope took no one’s seat, she entered the school and worked hard. Know what you are talking about first! This isn’t Tope’s fault!

“Tope took no one’s seat, she entered the school and worked hard.”

BS, a limited number of applicants are accepted. She absolutely DID take the seat of a legal applicant. How hard she worked is not related to whether she had a legal right to be there.

Or do you think they upped the number of applicants accepted “just this once” to accommodate the law breaker? Or perhaps in your fantasy world there were more spots than applicants “just this once”?

The Mexicans rob, rape and murder people trying to get into THEIR country. But then they have plenty of maids and gardeners already.

Jason, I’ve lost all respect for you as a journalist.

“This isn’t Tope’s fault!”

Well she is 18. Which does give her the right to apply for a visa of her own and as far as I know she hasn’t tried to get any kind of legal immigration status or permanent residency for herself.

According to about a million broken US treaties this land belongs to the native americans anyway, so Jason, why don’t you leave.

Sam Finesurrey

1)Jason has a soul 2)this is an opinion piece, don’t go attacking his journalistic merits 3)he makes a good point 4)it was really hard for him to write this piece (I know Jason and Tope, there was genuine friendship between them)

Jason I am impressed with your clarity of thought. There is hope.

Jim_NH

Vanessa, you make a good case for immigration reform, which I think the majority of Americans would actually support.

As to those of you who disagree with the immigration laws, and don’t think they should be obeyed:

Eliot Ness of ‘Untouchables’ fame did not necessarily agree with Prohibition laws, which merely shifted the liquor industry from legitimate brewers to gangsters like Capone and all that entailed. But he was sworn to uphold the law, and he did to the best of his ablitity. I’m sure he may have tipped a few himself when Roosevelt repealed Prohibition in 1933.

The point being, you CANNOT choose which laws to obey and which laws to disregard, no matter how much you dislike them. That can only result in chaos, which is exactly what we have in this country vis-a-vis illegal immigration.

This is not an abstract argument for me. I am close friends to two Brazilian families who are here illegally. It would break my heart to see them deported. They’re great people, and few work harder for less. But the law is the law. They know the risks, as does every other illegal who jumps the fence.

This nation has had some horrendous laws over the course of its history, as most nations have. But some of those laws, like Prohobition and Jim Crow, were changed through sheer force of will by millions of Americans just like you.

If you strive and work to change the laws to be less draconian and more fair to those already here, I’m behind you one hundred percent, and have nothing but respect for you.

But if you tell me that it’s okay to break any laws you choose because you don’t like them and do exactly that, then you are no longer an advocate for change. You are an outlaw.

And that includes YOU, vanessa merton, no matter how much you lawyer the point to death.

Says Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 1:32am):

“This isn’t Tope’s fault!”

“Well she is 18. Which does give her the right to apply for a visa of her own and as far as I know she hasn’t tried to get any kind of legal immigration status or permanent residency for herself.”

No, Mr. Anonymous again, you don’t get it, do you? Being 18 doesn’t mean a goddam thing. SHE HAS NO BASIS TO APPLY FOR A VISA. You can only get an immigrant visa, a visa that allows you to live and work here (as opposed to a temporary visitor visa) if you fall into one of an extremely narrow set of categories of either family or employment, which I very much doubt she qualifies for, because if so, that would have considered simultaneously with her asylum application. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve lived here (unless you’ve lived here since before 1972). She quite possibly did qualify for a resident visa through the family asylum claim, but if that’s been denied and the family has exhausted whatever appeals they could afford, then she’s toast (unless someone in Congress introduces a private bill on her behalf, which is one part of the legal process that doesn’t seem to have been fully explored — but those applications are very far and few between.)

Again, please don’t make these sweeping statements (“I’m SURE the lazy so-and-so could do something under our law, she just didn’t BOTHER”) when you are totally uninformed, you know nothing about the complexity of the matter, and you betray your ignorance more with every comment you make.

Paul Heideman said: “[the author’s] nonsense about “being willing to make people into political tools” is an atavistic recapitulation of the most lowbrow elements of early twentieth century anticommunism.”

Well, the argument worked to defeat your communist anscestors, so why not use it again. Not reinvent the wheel and all that.

Oh and Paul, rather that using the word “atavistic”, use the word “uncivilized” in future postings, so that people dont need to get out a dictionary to figure out what a condescending ass-hat you are.

Ms. Merton,

Speaking of learning something before you speak… you might want to take your own advice. Tope and her family overstayed their tourist visa and then repeatedly ignored deportation orders for years.

I agree, this is a crummy deal for Tope. But, the law is the law. You can’t just ignore the ones you don’t like, and this country would be far more at risk of another 9-11 if we had open borders like some are advocating.

Jim C

Wow; after the gratuitous right-wingers-are evil at the beginning of his piece, almost obligatory for a UW-Madison student to keep his good standing, Master Smathers had something close to an epiphany: enforcement of laws is actually necessary in a civil society, and the length of time one continues to break the law does not impart any more nobility on the lawbreaker than if he just caught his breath after robbing a bank.

It reaffirms my belief that most of these college kids will eventually outgrow their well-meaning - but no less ill informed - beliefs, and that those that don’t probably won’t leave the embryonic womb of academia anyway.

A thoughtful piece indeed, but another point to consider:

There seems to be a widespread assumption that the laws requiring deporation must therefore be draconian and unjust merely because they do have an effect upon productive immigrants for whom we would like to make “exceptions.”

There are indeed valid reasons to not instantly grant citizenship to unlimited number of applicants even if ALL of them are “good” people. For example, case in point, utilities and public works. Huge influxes of immigrants naturally create huge demand on public utilities and services such as electricity, water, emergency services, and traffic management as just a few examples. Municipal districts can only expand their capacity so quickly, and it costs money to do so. Fresh immigrants rarely produce significant tax revenue, and even when they do, it takes time for that revenue to be generated and invested. Cities can not build multi-billion dollar public works projects overnight to supply the skyrocketing demand when they haven’t even yet collected the funds to do so. This creates an unreasonable burden on all prior residents to face rising costs due to scarcity as well as footing the bill for new services. This burden is especially hard on the poorest, including the legal immigrants.

It is short-sighted to simply repeal our annual limitations on immigrants because they’re all “nice people”; the government of the United States has a fiduciary duty to provide for the common welfare of its own citizens which is above any duty to pander to individuals who are not citizens yet. This is true in ANY country.

There are many other reasons for restricting levels of immigration that are not inherently “racist” nor “nativist” as many open-borders activists like to paint dissent with a broad-brush. Even the amazingly verbose vanessa merton inadvertantly admits this:

“As for the race/national-origin-based quotas — yeah, they’re called something different but they’re still there — do you think it make sense to offer the exact same number of immigrant visas every year to the country of Mexico, on our southern border, that we offer the country of, say, Belgium? ‘Cause that’s what we do.”

Actually, this is the very definition of fair. We do not give any potential immigrant an advantage or disadvantage based upon their country of origin, and we do not take race into consideration at all. It does not matter if Belgian, Mexican, and Morrocan immigrants are black, white, and hispanic, nor which came from where. Nationalities are not races, and rather than hyperventillating otherwise I would simply ask vanessa what she thinks the American “race” is supposed to be?

By and large, changing laws which are good for “the rule” because of how they apply to “the exceptions” is rarely a good idea. Good law by definition is written dispassionately, and is only applied to cases with compassion by the judicial system. Being overly emotional only leads to distortion and bias as vanessa clearly demonstrates in that lengthy “diatribe”

“I predict that this post will be followed with diatribes from smug self-righteous people who have literally never, ever, not once in their lives, faced the prospect of not being able to get enough food and clean water — and who are undeterred by their profound ignorance… blah blah blah”

I’m sorry but smearing dissenters by questioning their hypothetical motivation without ANY consideration to the factual basis of their arguments is an disingenuous and downright reprehensibly debate tactic. If Adolf Hitler rose from the grave and said “The sky is blue,” should we disbelieve him because we are predisposed to dislike him and question his motivations?

Similarly I take exception to the rhetorical devices in Jason’s article characterizing Malkin as a “rabid … demogogue” whom one can only agree with “regrettably.” What is the purpose of demonizing an opponent before presenting arguments? Either the arguments they make are sensical, or not, and readers can make their own determinations of the character of people who make absurd hysterical statements.

It is understandable to have empathy for your fellow man who had the misfortune of being born outside the U.S.A., however open borders does create strains on the very system that makes the U.S.A. a preferable place to live. Forcing your fellow citizens to suffer a reduced quality of life to help others robs them of their choice to do so; and no matter how “right” helping others might be, it should still be THEIR choice not YOURS to willingly hurt their self-interest to do so or not. Because the only ones empowered to over-rule our choices in life are those duly elected by us to legislate our laws.

vanessa, I looked up the words “insufferable twit” and there was your picture. Congrats! To the remainder of you supercilious gits who have a stupendously over inflated opinion of your intellect, you would do well to consider the consequences of your liberal agendas.
I predict that if this country continues on its present course, in a few years you will be either “dhimmis” or you will have converted to Islam and will be facing Mecca five times a day and praying to allah. Those few of you who do have your head screwed on correctly should offer some positive incentives to those who are lacking in their thinking ability. A positive incentive would be something like “play ball with me and I will not shove the bat up your ass”, whereas a negative incentive would be “play ball with me or I will shove the bat up your ass”. The time for all talk and no action is over…….

“the normally rabid right-wing demagogue” “her characteristic swaggering vitriol”

Vitriol: bitterly abusive language

Perhaps you have some examples of the rabid right-wing demagoguery and vitriolic langauge she that Ms. Malkin has employed in her talks. I understand she spoke for quite some time the other night so I’m sure she has supplied you with many examples that you can easily recite. If not, you hacve a great deal to learn about journalism and honesty.

Excuse me, but even native Americans are not true natives of this continent. The man who sifted through the 9/11 remains to help identify them, studied ‘ancient’ native American remains from around the country, and lo and behold, they can be traced to other continents….even the ones with caucasoid markers. America has always been a land of immigrants. So, try again, grievance mongers.

Well written, sir.

Wow, this site’s comment policy is “We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.”

I see zero comments that are all three of thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Hey, calling someone names just doesn’t add much to the conversation. Even if the writer’s arguments are “recycled,” they are an argument. Are you able to engage on issues when you disagree, or do you just like to call names? Yeah, I’m talking to you.

“To you, the law - even when obviously unjust, as you admit is the case here - should always be paramount. Thus, a person who has just as much of a non-legal claim to be here as yourself should be deported.

To be clear: your only argument for deportation is that the law was broken.”

—Kyle, Badger Herald op-ed columnist and noted supporter of killers of US Servicemen and women.

Hey, if it was a good enough argument for Socrates, it’s good enough for me.

So in other words: Deport illegal aliens… unless they are friends of Jason Smathers. Then they are OK to stay.

How many Jason Smathers does it take to change a lightbulb? Just One. One to hold the lightbulb while the world revolves around him.

What people fail to realize these days is very simple. Our federal legislature does not write laws for the people. They write laws to put money in the pockets of lawyers.

In Washington DC there are 535, mostly millionaire attorneys, that are responsible for writing U. S. Law. Laws are purposely written in a confusing vague, legal mumbo jumbo.

Since 1992, the most powerful lobby in DC has been the Attorney Association. They do not want laws that give rights to the people, they simply want laws that give people the right to hire a lawyer.

As mentioned, Ms Awe’s family spent 20 years appealing and failing to comply with deportment orders. Because the law allows for several diffent appeals. Why, lawyers have to get paid.

In the US, there are over 30 lawyers to every one engineer. In Japan, there are 30 engineers to one lawyer. In China, there are hundreds of engineers to one lawyer. Now ask, why do we get our butts handed to us in manufacturing.

Lawyers control every agency of our federal government. The VA is a perfect example. Designed to ‘assist’ a veteran with claims, care, education, etc.. they would basically walk a veteran through the process. Today, a veteran has to have a lawyer, else, the VA ‘cannot’ respond.

As to the enforcement of law. The public can and does influence law. Normally by public outrage. However, it is not up to individuals to decide what law is just. We need immigration law. We will not survive as a country without it. Plain and simple. Do the immigration laws need to be reformed. Yes, most definetly, but until they are, we cannot allow people to simply ignore them. That is anarchy. Then what laws do we obey. Some would say, murder, rape, robbery, drinking & driving, assault are bad laws. What then?

We must do a better job holding our public officials accountable. We must insist laws be written to protect people and not be used for the purpose of making others wealthy.

Among what Vanessa Merton writes (and writes and writes ..) is this “[I]t is not legal, but not a crime, to enter the United States without documentation.” Uh-uh. See the U.S. Code, Title 8, section 1325a [aka 8 USC 1325a]:

“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”

So even for the first time, you can get six months in jail, so it’s a crime. (Hardly ever happens, unfortunately, but it could.) There can be civil penalties in addition; see 8 USC 1325b.

Immigration lawyer Merton apparently also thinks that if conditions elsewhere are tough and people want to escape them, we’re duty bound to let them in. Not at all. The sole purpose of the U.S. and of its immigration laws is to benefit its citizens (recall the phrase from the Constitution’s Preamble: “ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity” …). Most immigration benefits us not one whit.

Regarding refugees and asylees, Jan Ting, who was Assistant Commissioner of the INS under the first Pres. Bush, has acknowledged that 95% of requests for asylum or refuge are fraudulent. (See http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2006/09/16/jan-ting-a-us-senate-candidate-we-dont-need-to-educate/ ) Ting teaches law at Temple U in Philly and is a real expert in immigration law and policy.

Why do people think anyone who wants to immigrate to the US should be able to? We are the only nation that allows nearly unfettered immigration. If you don’t have a criminal record, you get to come (within necessary quotas). Try to immigrate to Canada, Mexico(!), the UK, almost anywhere else and there are explicit requirement to ensure you will be a productive member of society who will be able to support yourself. Go sneak into a wonderful, liberal, country like France and see what happens. Hell, ask them to make street signs and govt forms in English for you and see what happens. The US is an extremely generous and accomodating nation, both the govt and the individuals (liberal and conservative both). Unfortunately, that can also be our downfall if we aren’t careful.

v merton (April 10, 2008 @ 7:16pm):

“You can only get an immigrant visa, a visa that allows you to live and work here (as opposed to a temporary visitor visa) if you fall into one of an extremely narrow set of categories of either family or employment, which I very much doubt she qualifies for, because if so, that would have considered simultaneously with her asylum application.”

Actually, no it wouldn’t have, the process is completely different. And she doesn’t have to fall into the family or employment category to qualify for an immigrant visa, she could apply independently from her family. And if she was denied asylum year after year her father should’ve known to apply for an immigrant visa instead of continuing to claim asylum. Sounds to me like he wanted a quick and easy way to get his green card and thus pressed the issue further. If you go to the U.S immigration website you’ll find their definition of what constitutes as asylum

“Asylum is a form of protection that allows individuals who are in the United States to remain here, provided that they meet the definition of a refugee and are not barred from either applying for or being granted asylum, and eventually to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident. Every year, thousands of people come to the United States in need of protection because they have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Those found eligible for asylum are permitted to remain in the United States.”

I agree with the government in given the evidence provided she did not qualify for asylum. I don’t understand how her father and their lawyer continued to press the issue. Pure ignorance in my opinion. And i agree with Blake Dunlop, the majority of requests are fraudulent, what’s to say hers wasn’t? The story is very fishy to me, first they were here on a medical visa bc the dad needed medical care, then she was here on a tourist visa, and now its bc she was claiming asylum. Pick a story and stick to it if you want people to believe and support you. Could be bad journalism too, but whatever the reason is, just bc Nigeria might not be the most democratic republic in the world, is not reason enough for you to stay here illegally.

Thank GOD for higher education! You Jason, like the rest of us, will ultimately graduate and start looking for work. Once you’ve landed your job and put in some hours you’ll get a paycheck. If you actually look at your pay stub, you’ll see an insane amount of money missing. This money will support programs for other people who didn’t work hard or go to college.

That’s right, one day YOU will be required to help pay for the criminal border hoppers that you give lip-service to supporting now. When you have achieved that realization (that being financially responsible for someone else’s actions is profoundly immoral and unjust) you will become Conservative.

Unless, of course, you have already become educated beyond your intelligence…

Let’s focus on the real problem. Daddy, Samuel Awe, ignored the law. His bad choices caught up to him and the family.

I can see how it’s difficult for most Americans to understand this real issue - How can Awe be wrong, wrong, wrong since we are all taught that everyone is right, right right 100% of the time.