Politics is a game of unintended consequences.

One needs to look no further than the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

As a San Bernardino immigration lawyer, it is not uncommon to hear immigration activists praise the virtues of the Act.

Yet, a retrospective review reveals that it was politics as usual.

Benevolence was not the foremost consideration of most in Congress.

By the middle of my first year of law school, I considered writing a book about the absurdities of legal logic.

Even from my rookie standpoint, I discerned legal reasoning often led to incompatible results among factually similar cases.

Now, having practiced immigration law for a few decades, I can attest that even legal policies regarding the same subject matter can move in contrary directions.

For months, the signs were clear.

A revival of an anchor baby attack was on the way.

Most colleagues scoffed at my warnings. They claimed the battle against xenophobic terminology had been won. The era of using mean-spirited terms, like anchor babies, for political purposes had passed.

I was a town crier, a few said, over-reacting to isolated news events.

Sure, just like the building of new detention cells is unrelated to future arrests and deportations.

Alarmist or not, here’s what I saw.

By now, every immigrant reform advocate in the U.S. has heard about the murder on a San Francisco pier allegedly committed by an undocumented immigrant.

Questioned a few days ago, the parents of the young woman who was killed were asked if they supported stricter punishment for immigrants who break our laws.

They responded affirmatively.

I would not expect them to answer otherwise.

I understand and respect their sentiments – though I disagree with some of the rationale underlying the options presented to them.

Unfortunately, the public discussion on this emotionally excruciating issue has not attempted to reconcile differences of opinion, or tried to outline a balanced and enlightened solution. Instead, much of it has been rude not reasoned, inflammatory not insightful.

As often happens on immigration issues, the social discourse is being swayed by political demagoguery. Those who want to be our leaders fail to exhibit the maturity, much less the aptitude or desire, to forge a consensus.

And not solely from one side of the political spectrum.

When one is caught up in the details of day-to-day skirmishes, it is not uncommon to lose sight of the greater battle being waged.

Following the president’s announcement last fall that he had set the stage for immigrants to come out from the shadows, supporters bathed in the warm glow of political delusion. Now many advocates seem astonished by the recent news that his executive orders are likely to be derailed by a federal court ruling.

In reality, this development is no surprise.

Open any newspaper, listen to any talk show, or watch any television show on immigration, and you’ll hear about immigrants crossing the border from Mexico to enter the United States.

The American public rarely, if ever, hears about U.S. citizens crossing the border to live in Mexico. However, our immigration live hangout special guest today provides that perspective for you.

Meet Bob Drews, one of the most prolific immigration commentators on the internet.

Bob regularly posts articles, news stories, and reports, adding his unabashed opinions on immigration affairs in Unjust Legal Immigration Laws And The Rights Of All People, a grassroots group of over 8,000 active followers on Facebook.

In this chat, you will learn why Bob is not happy with either the U.S. media or the U.S. government on issues near and dear to his heart.

It was my first immigration law office in Escondido.

I was barely in my third year of private practice. After winning some complicated cases for North San Diego County clients, I decided to open a full time center for local residents.

About three months into my lease, the building manager stopped by to talk with me about co-tenant complaints.

They were upset because my clients “made the waiting room look like a bus stop.”

The word immigrants was not mentioned.

The meaning was clear.

Once again, the possibility of immigration change is in the air.

This means immigrant sympathizers must get ready for internal warfare. The battle against immigration fraud.

A battle which exists within every immigrant community in the United States.

For each time the mere hint of a new immigration program arises, unscrupulous con artists spring into action.

There are no winners in wars.

It’s just a matter of degree.

Both sides lose. One side loses less.