I see all over the place, people who are completely against what is considered 'illegal immigration', but fail to understand some of the non-drug, and non-criminal states that may drive this. It has become a crime to spend time with your loved ones. It's a crime to be a good father, a loving spouse, and in general to be in love with someone from another country. It's a travesty that would situate a family to a point where it's impossible to be together, or to reunite...
Hypothetically, you and your spouse are banned from each others country... What if it was impossible to do things correctly and the only alternative to divorce, and losing your family forever, was to immigrate illegally? Would you? Why or why not? Or would you give up and just accept defeat? Move on... let wounds heal, consider the lesson learned and hope you find love with someone from your own country?
2006-11-26
18:24:18
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Vandel
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
I understand the detrimental consequences of either side... but in a juxtapose... why? What is the correct of these choices? What is the basis for their correctness? What is the point of the scale where the balance of indecision becomes self-defeating? When does it get to a state where having to weigh which of the detriments causes less damage? Do you impact the children? Lose them in the fray and hope they recover after already being abandoned?
I could situtate... the right choice being suggested is just to ignore the disarray with the state of immigration and do as the INS states... "Marry someone from your own country"... then why grant the laws for immigration, only to make certain states implausible, where only the route of crime is considered pliable to correct a situation? Here, the cycle repeats, where the right choice, supporting your spouse, and children, becomes the greatest detriment to what they are. Does the irony supercede cause? Does it become foolish to consider?
2006-11-26
18:49:57 ·
update #1