Steal this essay!

Nancy Pelosi sees no point to enforcing immigration laws.  These laws were made by Congress, mind you, wherein she holds the title of speaker of the House.  To be fair, she refers to "interior" enforcement of the immigration laws.  She knows full well that the immigration law regarding asylum allows people to walk up to the border and request asylum and be allowed in.  Without interior enforcement, there is effectively no immigration law.  It's the definition of open borders, and it doesn't take an intellectual giant to understand that.

As an engineer, I'm accustomed to self-enforcing laws — e.g., the laws of physics.  Human laws lack that feature.  So since it takes human beings to enforce human laws, I have to wonder: why limit lack of enforcement to immigration?  And it appears that this approach to law enforcement is spreading.

Shoplifting enforcement in Chicago is not being treated as a felony anymore as long as the shoplifter steals less than $1,000 of merchandise.  Kim Foxx is reluctant to prosecute shoplifters at all.

Rapists generally aren't being prosecuted, at least not successfully.

Fraud like that perpetrated by Jussie Smollett is swept under the rug, at least in Chicago.  Ilhan Omar is accused of having lied about her marital status involving two men, another kind of fraud.

Murder?  Ask Kate Steinle's family.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, "... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  This is definitely a "person," not "citizen" reference.  You do not receive any protection derived from laws that are not enforced, and the protection isn't equal if it's enforced with respect to some people and not others.  The easiest way to achieve the referenced equal protection is not to enforce any laws whatsoever, lest you enforce one of them more heavily against some people than others.

Think of the possibilities.  Student debt ceases to be a problem because all the people who have high student debt can knock over banks and pay their loans off.  If the banks close, students can shoplift in Chicago and fence the stuff to pay as they go.  We can all join the lines to see doctors at hospitals and doctors' offices, wait our turn, and then not pay.  Murder is obviously on the table as long as you claim that you found the gun and it spontaneously fired, or that you mistook the victim for a "clump of cells."

You can commit any crime you want as long as you have kids, because it isn't humane or civilized to separate anyone from his family.  Pretty much the only crime that will be enforced is the thoughtcrime of thinking liberals and their leftier fellow travelers are certifiably insane.  The mere allegation should be sufficient, which will enormously streamline the judicial process.

O Brave New World, that has such creatures (as Pelosi) in it!

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.

Nancy Pelosi sees no point to enforcing immigration laws.  These laws were made by Congress, mind you, wherein she holds the title of speaker of the House.  To be fair, she refers to "interior" enforcement of the immigration laws.  She knows full well that the immigration law regarding asylum allows people to walk up to the border and request asylum and be allowed in.  Without interior enforcement, there is effectively no immigration law.  It's the definition of open borders, and it doesn't take an intellectual giant to understand that.

As an engineer, I'm accustomed to self-enforcing laws — e.g., the laws of physics.  Human laws lack that feature.  So since it takes human beings to enforce human laws, I have to wonder: why limit lack of enforcement to immigration?  And it appears that this approach to law enforcement is spreading.

Shoplifting enforcement in Chicago is not being treated as a felony anymore as long as the shoplifter steals less than $1,000 of merchandise.  Kim Foxx is reluctant to prosecute shoplifters at all.

Rapists generally aren't being prosecuted, at least not successfully.

Fraud like that perpetrated by Jussie Smollett is swept under the rug, at least in Chicago.  Ilhan Omar is accused of having lied about her marital status involving two men, another kind of fraud.

Murder?  Ask Kate Steinle's family.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, "... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  This is definitely a "person," not "citizen" reference.  You do not receive any protection derived from laws that are not enforced, and the protection isn't equal if it's enforced with respect to some people and not others.  The easiest way to achieve the referenced equal protection is not to enforce any laws whatsoever, lest you enforce one of them more heavily against some people than others.

Think of the possibilities.  Student debt ceases to be a problem because all the people who have high student debt can knock over banks and pay their loans off.  If the banks close, students can shoplift in Chicago and fence the stuff to pay as they go.  We can all join the lines to see doctors at hospitals and doctors' offices, wait our turn, and then not pay.  Murder is obviously on the table as long as you claim that you found the gun and it spontaneously fired, or that you mistook the victim for a "clump of cells."

You can commit any crime you want as long as you have kids, because it isn't humane or civilized to separate anyone from his family.  Pretty much the only crime that will be enforced is the thoughtcrime of thinking liberals and their leftier fellow travelers are certifiably insane.  The mere allegation should be sufficient, which will enormously streamline the judicial process.

O Brave New World, that has such creatures (as Pelosi) in it!

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.