I think there are approximately 30 million illegals in the US. Our business interests want them here to build houses and pick crops and work in restaurants. Now some want to try and round up thirty million people and return them to numerous countries. We can't even do that for the few bad Arabs that are here. Sure they will protest, and much more than that if the roundup starts. Just another mistake by the administration over the past six years to add to the atrocious list. Build the wall like the Russians did in Germany and they will come in by boat in the Gulf of Mexico. THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM IS TO PUT A FEW BUSINESS MEN IN JAIL WHO HIRE THEM! That would stop it in 90 days and they would all go home with no paychecks coming.

It seems to me that the logical implication of the protesters' position is that we should strike immigration laws from the books and install revolving doors at the borders. Either they are here legally or not. If so, then no problem. If not, then either the laws should be enforced or stricken. But the latter seems to me to be unreasonable.

We might as well see speeders protesting the enforcement of existing traffic laws. Speeding truckers might argue that, because they get goods to their destinations more quickly by speeding, the economy is boosted by their illegal activity.

What is particularly absurd is the charge of racism on the part of the protestors. Look, suppose that there is an illegal practice-- let's say cat juggling--and it happens that the vast majority of people engaged in the practice are of one race--let's say Hobgoblins. Should society decide to enforce the existing laws that are being violated it simply does not follow that it is due to racial prejudice, even if the crack down affects one particular race exclusively or nearly so.

By definition, no one has a legal right to continue engaging in an illegal activity.

--
[Nietzsche had] the strange notion that the greater and stronger a man was the more he would despise other things. The greater and stronger a man is the more he would be inclined to prostrate himself before a periwinkle. --G.K. Chesterton