[However, he sees both sides of the issue. In defense of the states,] if you accept the concept of sovereign immunity as a valid doctrine, it's a reasonable exercise ... States aren't like a business; they don't sell software.

[The issue of state immunity to year 2000 errors is generating a swell of controversy.] What incentive will [states] have to make sure systems are compliant? ... And how can a person be protected if someone has acted irresponsibly?

I am going to accept the recommendation of both the government and the defense and impose a sentence on the low side of the range, ... But I will tell you that your offenses will no longer be tolerated. If you return (to court for a future offense), the sentence will be more severe.

I accept there is an issue which we have to confront.

No state is free from militarism, which is inherent in the very concept of the sovereign state. There are merely differences of degree in the militarism of states.

The problem with the whole issue is that both sides need to be accommodated. There does need to be better border security for national security purposes, but in my view you cannot have better border security until you deal with the problem of finding a way for people to immigrate legally. People are not crossing the border risking life and limb to do so because they're too lazy to go down to the visa office and apply legally.