in article 3KDGc.88300$4j7.4005@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, necoandjeff at
spam@schrepfer.com wrote on 7/7/04 5:13 AM:

> "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
> news:BD11255E.1E4EA%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ernest, I don't think anyone is arguing technicalities of the law here
> except you. I think the point everyone is trying to make is that, whatever
> the law happens to provide now, it should allow for this kind of situation.
> If it doesn't, it should be changed. In fact, public outcry in response to
> situations that the initial drafters of the law failed to consider
> carefully, are often precisely why laws are amended.

I think that there was/is some confusion about the law, not really
"technicalities" but more like basic concepts.

For instance, there is there is a lot of confusion about the nature of
citizenship, the nature of residence status, the nature of the relationship
between family law and immigration law, the nature of the relationship
between law and morality, and the nature of morality. I don't expect laymen
to have an complete understanding of these concepts, but I would hope that
they would have a basic understanding of them.