Because crdaily.com seems to have a policy of allowing anyone to comment regardless of his/her opinion. YWC apparently doesn't have that policy. I figured it was simply an error on their part and I wanted to remind them that I had stuff pending. But it's their website. They're more than welcome, of course, to make whatever policy regarding commenting that they want. YWC has nothing to do with what they choose to do.They could have responded by saying, "Hey, Riley, you're no longer welcome here," and I would have left without attempting to argue.

Trying to pick a fight, are we?

Your argument certainly makes sense, and perhaps the example you provide could prove problematic, but I'm with you on your point that "[t]he best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration." With time, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to solve the practical problems associated with determining legal status. I'm in favor, for example, of a national ID card that tells a person's citizenship/legal alien status.

I will also say that illegal immigration, from a practical perspective, is not a problem because it's illegal but because of the problems that come with the illegal immigrants themselves. I am therefore hesitant to agree that we need to make it easier to become a citizen. See, part of the problem is that the hardships of not being a citizen of this country are not equally shared by all aliens, legal or illegal. Third World immigrants, for example, have a notoriously easy time in this country. They oftentimes get in-state tuition, welfare benefits, access to public education, and they can always have "anchor babies" that will ensure that they can remain indefinitely in the country. They also, by virtue of the fact that they are in this country, have dramatically increased their standard of living. This is not the case for, let's say, Europeans, Australians, the Japanese, or Canadians, whose standards of living are not dramatically better. In order for it to be worthwhile for a First World alien/immigrant to come to the U.S., they need to have come into a situation that is at least equal to the situation that they left. Admittedly, these people have to jump through all sorts of fiery hoops in order to stay in the U.S. while maintaining their (and their peers') standard of living.

I had a taste of this personally when I was in college. I looked into moving to the U.K. for a year after graduation to teach Latin because I had heard that there was a severe shortage of Latin teachers there. I quickly gave up on the idea because of all the complications I would have to endure. It simply wasn't worth it for me. Of course, assuming that the British value Latin in education, this is bad for them, because they have a shortage that I could have helped them fill. I wouldn't have been living on welfare, I wouldn't have been irrevocably changing their culture (nay, arguably I would have been helping them preserve it), and I wouldn't have been causing social unrest. Instead, they would rather import and pay for Third World immigrants who are doing nothing but their menial labor, irrevocably changing their culture, and causing all sorts of social tension.

The point is that not all immigrants are equally good additions to a country's well-being. Even immigrants who are not criminals are not necessarily good additions. We need to be sure that the immigrants whom we accept are beneficial to us. If they are not--and it doesn't matter how innocent they are--then we shouldn't accept them.

I agree, NJR, except on one point. As I understand the Arizona law, Arizonians won't have to carry around their birth certificates. According to Pat Buchanan's column:

"Before there can be a 'reasonable suspicion' an individual is here illegally, there must first be a 'lawful contact.' This means no cop can halt and challenge a man on the street, or sitting in a restaurant or bar, or driving a car.

"If an individual is caught running a traffic light, the police must first ask for his license. Only if the individual lacks a valid ID or driver's license, or his behavior causes 'reasonable suspicion' he is an illegal, can he be brought in. Then, a call must be made to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to determine his status."

It's quite possible, NJR, that you have a better understanding of the law, but I've not heard that everyone in Arizona basically has to carry their papers around. Here is an interesting video from CNN. Notice in the video that most (if not all) of the "controversy" surrounding the bill has to do with allegations that the bill is racist (which are obviously ridiculous). No one really seems to be complaining that the bill is cumbersome for all people in Arizona. Most people seem to be saying that determining legal status is as simple as a phone call. If you're without your ID, then you may have problems (you may be detained), but, in my opinion, that's perfectly reasonable, considering the circumstances, as you have already said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYHh88qTvYQ

I don't have to explain what I mean, and I won't, simply to show you that I won't be given the third degree unless I choose to accept it.

Yeah, I'm the dummy. Calculators can crunch numbers, by the way. What they (and you) can't do, however, is make a logical argument.

Perhaps you're right, though. Maybe you are just trying to be a pain in the neck (but I wouldn't call it "taunting"...). Well played.