> Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." I don't feel I need to. I think it's pretty apt.

> Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." I don't feel I need to. I think it's pretty apt. > ...broadening the discussion to include whether legality should apply at all... I didn't do that, you did. I maintain legality is society's decision to make, and that infrastructure should serve society's goals. Infrastructure that makes it dead easy to undermine societies goals is not something I want to encourage. > Even if that infrastructure primarily serves (or was created to serve, you choose) the purpose of smuggling, for example, asylum seekers? This is why I suggested it was a tortured reading. Again, it only really matters what it's actually used for. Asylum seekers need not be smuggled through tunnels because it is lawful to apply for asylum at a port of entry. You show up and ask for it.