There are two possible points of view in this debate: pro-illegal or anti-illegal. On the Pro side, you’ve got the people who have no problem with illegal immigrants being in this country. Since they take no issue, then they wouldn’ t be participating in this debate: to discuss whether or not landlords should be punished assumes that some sort of wrongdoing may have occurred. Pro-illegals don’t see any wrongdoing to begin with. That leaves us with the anti-illegals. On this side, you have the argument that illegals don’t belong in the US, and need to be shipped back to wherever they came from, be it Mexico or Singapore. The premises that underlie the argument are too numerous to list, but a few of the highlights include ‘they’re taking our jobs’, ‘they’re leeching off our social system’, ‘they’re taking up beds in our hospitals’, and ‘they’re screwing up our schools (which already have some serious problems without throwing Spanish into the mix).’But, ‘they’re taking up our housing’? That’s a bit of a reach.Those who feel that illegals have no place in this country seem to be leaning towards a literal interpretation of that notion. By penalizing employers, we take away their work. Now, if we penalize their landlords, we’ll take away any chance for them to have a place to live.This is where the bleeding hearts come in, saying ‘then YOU will be condemning them to live on the streets.’ To which, the predictable reply is ‘no, they’ll be doing it by refusing to go home.’It’s easy to see where this can get off topic.The issue at hand deals with landlords, not where the illegals are going to live. Certainly, that is a consequence that should be considered, but it is hardly the whole of the matter.We could also apply the same argument used to defend businesses that hire illegal workers, like farms: ‘you wouldn’t want your lettuce to rot in the field, would you?’ In this case, it would be ‘you wouldn’t want apartment buildings to have to shut down for want of tenants, would you? If they did, where would our American poor live?’Again, this is off the topic. We’re dealing with consequences, not the primary issue.What this boils down to is the question of whether we should start holding one person accountable for crimes another person committed. So the illegal broke the law — given. Perhaps we should be punishing the illegal, then? Should we fine pharmacists for selling them medicine? Should we imprison doctors for healing them? Should we start terminating firemen for extinguishing flames, if they happen to be in said illegal’s apartment?Penalizing employers has something of a reasonable basis — by hiring illegals, they’re breaking a host of laws and regulations. But, see, there is the key: it is the employer breaking the law in that case. Fining a person for doing business with another person, based wholly on that person’s individual acts not only sets a dangerous precedent, but is outright ridiculous.How about we start fining people who buy produce that was picked by illegals? “How should I know if an illegal picked it?” you say? Well, you’d just have to do a background check on every person who might possibly be involved in the transaction, wouldn’t you? Just like our landlord friends would have to do. Not such a good idea when it’s YOU paying the fine, is it?This one’s a no-brainer. You just have to think it through. Come on, people! I know, it’s hard when Rush, O’Reilly, or one of their cronies isn’t there to tell you what you think, but you can do it! You just have to cut through the rhetoric, and believe in yourself.As they say, a person who doesn’t stand for something will fall for anything. Your choice. Category:Home › Other • Pomegranates: A newly discovered superfood • Where did the joke why did the chicken cross the road come from and why is it funny? • Can mothers diagnosed with bipolar disorder make good parents? • Spiritual evolution of human consciousness • Tips for getting a college basketball scholarship • Living with Pseudotumor cerebri (PTC) • Caring for the caregiver • Technologys impact on society