True or not?

[skylark]

The whole point of having laws is so that they deter undesired behavior. If the deterrent against breaking the law (being shipped back) isn't as bad as the reality of following the law (staying in an unsecure, impovershed state with little to no hope of something better), then why do we expect that people will choose to follow the law? Sure, it's easy to say that following the law is good in itself -- from our relatively privileged positioning in socioeconomic status. I tend to say that, too. I think back to times that I've taken the higher, ethical road instead taking an easier route and am proud that I played by the rules... but then again I was in a relatively privileged position to start with and had the option of following the rules. I wasn't in a position of starving to death or not having the ability to protect and provide for my children as a consequence of taking the high road.

I don't know, I think it is hard to put ourselves in such an incredibly different position and ask whether we would hypothetically make the ethical choice over the choice for a better life. At some point when there seem to be so many people in violation of the law, you have to ask yourself whether enforcing the law is going to be more expensive than revising it to make it easier to follow.

And I'm not sure how I feel on illegal immigrants not getting the refund. I tend to agree with you that it tends to reward people whose presence in the country breaks the law, but on the other hand isn't the whole point of the stimulus to give more to the people who are likely to spend it, thus reviving OUR economy? So wouldn't it hurt our economy more to not give them the stimulus refund? I'm just not sure I follow that the reasoning behind the refund changes whether you are here legally or illegally. I could honestly go either way on it, though.