Liberals don’t believe natural consequences should apply to illegal acts *UPDATED*

One of my favorite parenting tools is “the law of natural consequences.”  For example, on a cold day, I can force my older child to wear a jacket, which engenders a big fight and a lot of lingering resentment.  Alternatively, I can advise my child that it’s cold and suggest that a jacket will be a good idea.  If my child ignores my advice and spends a miserable day — voila! a natural consequence.  I don’t have to play the heavy, and my child learns a valuable lesson about hard information (“it’s 50 degrees out there”) and taking advice from someone trustworthy.

Natural consequences arise a lot if you intentionally take a risk or break a rule.  If I speed on the highway, I know that, statistically, I’m not likely to be caught.  However, I also know that, if I’m caught, I have no recourse.  “You pays your money, and you takes your chances.”

Except that, if illegal immigration activists have their way, the whole deal about natural or inevitable consequences becomes irrelevant  because “it’s not fair.”  You see, if you come to this country illegally, knowing that you might get kicked out, and you marry and have children, still knowing that you might get kicked out, and you get caught — you shouldn’t get kicked out:

Immigrants’ rights advocates brought forth a family of five Monday to illustrate what they called the human consequences of San Francisco’s deportation crackdown: a Muni driver, his Australian wife and three children soon to be separated because a 13-year-old boy punched a schoolmate and stole 46 cents.

“I feel like they’ve taken my right to have a family,” Charles Washington, 42, said at a news conference in the San Francisco office of the Asian Law Caucus.

Beside him sat his wife of 11 months, Tracey Washington, holding her 5-year-old son. With them were Washington’s 12-year-old daughter from a previous marriage and his 13-year-old stepson, his wife’s child.

On Friday, Tracey Washington and her two children are scheduled to be deported to Australia for staying in the United States after their legal status expired in May. They applied for legal residence in December based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen, but a lawyer said those hopes were doomed by the 13-year-old’s schoolyard folly and the city’s crackdown.

If this “it’s not fair to the family, even tho’ I knew going in that this was a risk” argument is the new gold standard for illegal activities, I think it ought to be applied in other areas as well.

“Yes, I knew it was illegal for me to commit armed robbery, but it’s not fair to the family if I go to jail.”

“Yes, I knew it was illegal for me to assault Nancy Pelosi, but it’s not fair to the family if I go to jail.”

“Yes, I knew it was illegal for me to run an illegal and dangerously explosive meth lab out of my home, but it’s not fair to shut it down, because it’s how I support my family.”

And, as always, the Jews have a joke for it:

What’s the definition of chutzpah?  The man who murders his parents and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.

UPDATE: Eric Odessit makes an extremely important point about the facts of this case, and I agree with every word he says:

Bookworm,
I think this is the first time when I happen to disagree with you. I am not a lawyer, but, as a naturalized American, I am somewhat aware of the issues involved. From the article you linked to it seems that this family did follow the rules. Apparently the immigration authorities told them that there was no deadline to apply, and that was why they waited, just saving the money. Now, as a natural consequence of belated Government crackdown, they are being penalized for playing by the rules. The Government needs to demonstrate action in the aftermath of the murder of that family in San Francisco by the illegal alien gang member. So, they are doing the easiest thing possible: going after people who are out in the open, those filling out applications. Reminds me of another story, right after 9/11. Back then they were also demonstrating action and went after a British woman who was married to an American killed in the Towers. She did have a Green Card, but the first 2 years of marriage a Green Card is conditional: the marriage has to last longer. But the guy was killed before the 2 years were up, so they were deporting her. There was also a similar situation fairly recently in Massachusetts: a woman was married to a soldier that was killed in Iraq. Luckily, in that case someone helped her and their baby, so they were allowed to stay in the US.
This is in no way a defense of illegal immigration. But ridiculous enforcement of the rules and a situation when sneaking into the country illegally is easier than immigrating legally are a big part of the overall problem. And I completely agree with David’s comment above.
By the way, I don’t like calling those who come to this illegally or legally country and then refuse to assimilate “immigrants”. Here is my proposal for solving the problem:
Reclaiming the Terms, Part 2: Immigrant
Eric.

However, now that I’ve said I agree, let me add here my response to Eric, because I was actually focusing like a laser (admittedly a slightly blinkered laser) on a different notion, which is the way in which advocates for illegal immigrants, rather than trying to fix what’s broken about the law, want to do away with it entirely, and how they use the aberrant sob stories to achieve this goal:

You make an excellent point, Eric, about this specific case and the others in which people get entangled in bureaucracy and then attacked. As you know, I hate bureaucracy, considering it an invariably trap for the unwary, as well as an unconscionable expense and drag upon the body politic and economic.

The problem, though, is that these legitimate exceptions are always used as a wedge issue to drive through the liberal agenda.