In the past David E. Kelley has always struck me as a writer / executive producer who doesn't usually leave gaping holes in his defense arguments within his own television shows. In the Harry's Law episode about political asylum for albinos, Kelley appears to want to ram home the point that since america can no longer take care of its own, than the lid must be put on ALL illegal immigration.
Several worldwide examples of peoples who in the past would be worthy of political asylum in the United States are now cited as examples of peoples who would no longer be eligible for political asylum in the United States. These examples include people persecuted for being gay or for their religious beliefs. The judge apparently uses these examples to slam the door on the albinos.
To this I say...huh??? I don't recall all the examples of persecution victims that were cited in denying the albinos their chance for asylum in the U.S., but NONE OF THE EXAMPLES CITED were technically the same as being an albino.
I waited for Harriet to expose the difference, and she did not, and the albinos were denied their asylum. The storyline is being continued, but that is no excuse for not giving the ultimate argument rather than avoid it.
The argument that Harriet failed to make is that both gay and persecuted religions can choose to mix in with their society for survival sake, whereas an ALBINO IS AN ALBINO 24/7. I'm really disappointed that this argument was not made and it makes me feel like Mr. Kelley is trying to lay a huge guilt trip on american citizens for demanding more control of the amount of illegal immigration that is occurring on a daily basis.
If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...
info at alexlogic.com
You can also view more
by Alessandro Machi at