What annoys me the most, about this so-called anti-immigration debate is the selective appreciation of the rule of law. First, labeling these protects as "anti-immigration" is inflammatory. At the time of conflict, reconciliatory language is necessary. Second, illegal immigration is unlawful. Protected protect marches are not, unless otherwise the protesters break the law. Third, human dignity is the cornerstone of all human rights. However, this appreciation must be balanced against the need to uphold and enforce other laws, including rights and titles. There cannot be peace when the appreciation of the rule of law is selective. Because, while the law is meant to protect the weak and vulnerable, it does not give the weak and vulnerable license to break the law.