In the online version of Snoozeweek, they profile a couple of Cambodian immigrants who came to the US as a refuge from the violent and genocidal Khmer Rouge regime but were sent back to Cambodia because of a 1996 law that states that any immigrant that is convicted of a felony must be deported. The subject was convicted of armed robbery.
Snoozeweeks' take on it is that we should feel bad for these criminals because they don't know anything about Cambodia, grew up with Big Macs, Ronald Reagan, and MTV, and the law isn't fair.
Of course it's not fair, at least from the liberal media eyes anyway it's not. Anything that actually sets a standard and requires people to actually FOLLOW RULES wouldn't be fair.
Snoozeweek also has a romantic photo-essay at the various immigrant communities around the country and basically a poke in the eye at anyone who actually wants laws to be enforced saying "How dare we break up these communities" (ok, I paraphrased, but I'm sure that was their intention)...
This is why when people start looking at the requirements for the new proposal for illegals and thinking that 'hey, these are pretty tough, I can live with these', they need to think again. Despite the fact that they may be written tough, you know as well as I do that all laws, no matter how toughly written, can be leniently enforced, depending upon the edicts from upon high. If the government says "bah, it's ok if people don't have jobs, or don't learn english, nevermind what that LAW says", that's what happens.
So remember when you start thinking about supporting these new proposals, accepting the people who've broken the law to get here has to also carry an understanding that the majority won't follow the 'eleven year plan' to citizenship, but will probably still get offered it because of the spineless politicians and complicit media who want to see these people in their back-pocket.