Last I checked, there were plenty of “real Americans” breaking laws too, but no efforts to deport them. Every Anglo-Saxon drunk driver does more potential harm to society than sending money to overseas family, but we don’t send them all back to the U.K. as traitors to patriotism. That’s a really absurd argument, but beyond that I’ll take Scott’s cue and just leave well enough alone. One of those issues that people are destined to disagree on.

The words “these foreigners” shall marketh the end of any conversation we were having.

It’s time that these foreigners realize that if they choose to live in the United States, they have to follow our rules. If they don’t like the rules, they can go back where they came from. It’s pretty simple.

What Scott, and I and many others argue, is that it is more financially and socially rational to reserve jail for people who are actual dangers to society, and use other methods of punishment for people who have done wrong but are still valuable members of society. It’s a cost-benefit analysis.

As someone who leans conservative in many ways, it’s not a bleeding-heart issue at all for me. It’s a “don’t waste my tax dollars putting a successful businessman in jail” issue. Leave him out, and he’ll generate revenue and jobs through his business, even if lots of it goes to a large fine (double-benefit for the government & society). Lock him away, most of that benefit vanishes and we have another expensive inmate on our hands.

Assess a large fine, potentially so large that they have to move back into a small house and scrimp the way they did through the “donation” years, and he’s clearly being punished yet the family remains together and the business remains open and profitable. Assess significant community service and we all benefit in some non-financial way. Do both of these and a strong message is still sent. Send him to jail and you just gutted a business and raised our taxes. Makes no sense to me.

Is the satisfaction of “lock ‘em up” politics worth the fiscal & social price in a case like this? I find it fascinating that it does seem to be, loosely, liberal-minded people supporting the Hamoodis when there is a very strong fiscal and family-values conservative case for handling their case gently.

We’re helping support the family precisely because we feel this is a case of government run amok and don’t want to be a passive part of that.

Interestingly, in my understanding Roman law (and thus much European law) was more judge-based (no jury) and gave the judge broad powers to interpret or even ignore law to meet the circumstances in individual cases. Of course this has downsides, but our system even when it involves judges takes a much stricter interpretation of law and punishment, also with up and downsides. Is the fervor of “the law is the law, lock ‘em away” in this case a reflection of that, or is it a specific reaction to something about the Hamoodis?