[gottorf]

I assume your point is that not all laws are just only by virtue of being laws. I agree with this. And of course, not all lawbreaking is equal in severity. We all can tell that jaywalking is not the same as vehicular homicide. At the same time, we should also be able to agree that selective following and enforcement of laws is disparaging to the spirit of a nation of laws.

Do you find the current American immigration laws, and the enforcement thereof, to be unjust? Do you see it as your moral duty to abrogate them, and help others do so? If so, can you explain why?

[lenkite]

Yes, the current American immigration laws are dysfunctional and thus unjust - they do not offer a clear path to citizenship for folks who have been here for multiple decades, who are productive members of society, who have obeyed (non immigration) laws and paid tax to the American government.

Sure, you can kick out the criminals and gang-bangers - no issues there. But kicking out restaurant owners and other tax-payers is ridiculous.

Also, unilaterally revoking Temporary Protected Status for folks is also a bridge too far. Those were originally issued by Obama for very valid reasons - the catastrophic 2010 earthquake and later humanitarian crises.

Sure, you can argue that Americans elected Trump and so he can do whatever he wants, but the cruelty has gone off the deep end now. The power given by his electoral win has not been applied judiciously.

From a constitutional point of view, I also see this App as simply representative of the right given by the First Amendment. If you block this app, one has set an extremely dangerous precedent.

[JuniperMesos]

> they do not offer a clear path to citizenship for folks who have been here for multiple decades, who are productive members of society, who have obeyed (non immigration) laws and paid tax to the American government.

The question of whether it is good to give a path to citizenship for people who immigrated illegally and have lived illegally in the US for many years is a major point of partisan political disagreement in the US. There are huge numbers of people who think that it is very bad that these illegal immigrants weren't arrested and deported many years ago, and want immigration enforcement to make up for the lax polcies of previous administrations, not give a path to citizenship to people who were by law not allowed to be present in the US to begin with.

> Also, unilaterally revoking Temporary Protected Status for folks is also a bridge too far. Those were originally issued by Obama for very valid reasons - the catastrophic 2010 earthquake and later humanitarian crises.

If you think that the presence of people given Temporary Protected Status many years ago by a previous president is bad for the united states, then not only do you want your elected officials to remove this temporary protected status, you probably want your legislators to repeal the law giving presidents the authority to grant this status at all. In any case, there are many voting citizens in the US who clearly do not believe it is a bridge too far, and want the president to revoke this status and not offer it in the future.