Originally Posted by Carl Johnson

What on EARTH kind of argument is that? It's not even an argument. The point you originally made was, you would have made choice B; Ms. Parmely made choice A and therefore made the wrong choice.

Then some of us, including me, piled in on that, and you radically overgeneralized my argument and then brought up drugs and crime and open borders and things, and I expanded my argument and gave more details about Sophie Scholl and Traudl Junge and reiterated my point, which was that Ms. Parmely acted according to her own conception of justice and her own obligation to her fellow human beings and the concept of liberty in the United States, and I contrasted that with what I would have done in Sophie Scholl's place and in Ms. Parmely's place (acted less bravely in each instance, but might have stepped up in the same situation as Ms. Parmely, although with more hesitation).

My point was, Ms. Parmely is entitled to make her own choice, no matter what any of us says about it.

And NOW, you present this irrelevant false dichotomy. We are not faced with a choice of [null] or [roving bands of border patrol agents swarming around the countryside]. And I have already SAID what I'd do. I'd very much reduce hunting for undocumented entrants, and overstays, and I'd police employers - and when I found an undocumented worker, I'd process that person for a portable work permit. Drugs, I'd do what Portugal is doing.

But that is NOT in any way relevant to whether or not Ms. Parmely should be free to make her own choices and live according to her own values.