If you walk into a food store and walk out without paying for your food—and store management and law enforcement, well aware of the theft, does nothing to stop you—would it be a lie to say the store disallows shoplifting?

Similarly, if the House bill version of the health care legislation contains the line:

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

does that not demand an enforcement of the grandiose wording and without such would be a lie, as Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina called Obama on? For what is law without enforcement?

Is it not true that when a riot occurs in some city and no police are present to uphold the law that the area is considered lawless? Would not the same be said of some of the old western gunslinger towns where, despite laws being written down on paper, the lack of a strong Sheriff or deputies resulted in a lawless town of criminal rule?

Therefore, without law enforcement, criminal rule quickly comes to weigh on the citizens. Also true is that the reality in which we interact with one another is based on meaningful action and not foolish thought.

In other words, we live in a practical world, one which asks: How would government, schools, and employers know if an interested party to their services is an illegal immigrant if no genuine practical effort is taken upon such a query?

Answer: They wouldn’t

And so their interest in preventing illegal immigrants from gaining certain services is disingenuous. It is a false interest. It is a lie.

Factcheck.org gets this particular issue quite wrong despite having Joe Miller on staff as a writer with the following credentials: B.A. in philosophy from Hampden-Sydney College, his M.A. in philosophy from Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from the University of Virginia.

Is below the culmination of Factcheck.org’s political philosophy understanding?