On PBS today, I heard a report about a man, can't remember his name, who is the new U.S. Czar for immigration. Before that, he'd been with the INS in San Diego, where he brought order out of chaos. However, some people don't like him or what he did. Here's what he did: He focused on the San Diego area, where most of the border crossings were. Why is this bad? Well, the focus on San Diego, which is a relatively easy and safe crossing, forced illegals to resort to other, less safe crossing spots. Because of this, a number of them died or suffered.
There are people who think that this man is little better than a murderer. After all, he forced those poor unfortunate people to risk life and limb (and sometimes to lose them), by cutting off the easy routes into the United States.
Is there anyone else out there who thinks people like this should be lined up against a wall and hit with rancid cherry pies? I mean, what sort of logic are these folk deviating from to come up with such conclusions. By this logic, I should be locked up because I lock my door at night, making it hard for the poor burglars to break in.
I can just see a scene in the courtroom. The judge asks, "Did you or did you not lock your car door?" "I did, your honor." "And are you not aware that this makes it harder for car thieves to steal your car, strip it, and sell the parts in Mexico?" "I don't know, your honor. I guess I just lost my head." "Well, since this is a first offense, I'm going to let you off easy, but I don't want to see you in my court again." "No sir. And you'll be happy to know I'm taking up pickpocketing."
That type of argument, by the way, is called reducio ad absurdem - taking a silly argument and making it really silly.
We will never run out of stupid people, will we?