First failed state?

[Killian Kalthorne]

The Law is the Law. Just because you do not agree with the Law does not give you the right to break the Law. If you do not like the Law on a given matter seek to change the Law within the confines of the Law.

[Humodour]

The Law is the Law. Just because you do not agree with the Law does not give you the right to break the Law. If you do not like the Law on a given matter seek to change the Law within the confines of the Law.

 

Do you rock from side to side every time you repeat that to yourself or what?

[213374U]

You gotta admit, the brainwashing is pretty good.

[Killian Kalthorne]

No brainwashing, just common sense. Do I agree with all the laws out there? Of course not. Does that give me the right to break them? Nope. I can do what I can to change the law, but until the law does change I have to obey it or face the consequences of breaking it if I get caught.

 

For example I am for the legalization of marijuana. Hell, there are some cops in my town that are for the legalization of marijuana. However, if these cops saw me smoking marijuana it would be their duty to arrest me.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Gorth]

I knew I had heard those words before...

 

 

Just kidding. I always found the spirit of the law more important than the letter of the law. Why is it that people always want to argue the latter?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Because it is the letter of the law that matters most in our legal system.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[213374U]

Where's the common sense in smoking pot in front of the police, Hades?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Where's the common sense in smoking pot in front of the police, Hades?

 

Hey, that was just an example. Besides, maybe they wouldn't arrest me if I shared.

[Walsingham]

 

This thread had great potential but it kinda fell down into one of the old thread sinkholes that pops up around here and everyone takes the usual, predictable, and God knows tired old positions. Ho hum.

 

In fact reading some of the posts here I get the strangest feelings of deja vu. I could swear we've all said the exact same things before.... and after a quick forum search...we all have!

 

I know that wasn't just pointed at me, but I nevertheless just got poked. I apologise.

[Gorgon]

If they are illegal they aren't a citizen.

If they are illegal then they don't respect our laws and are criminals. They deserve to be treated as such.

It's kinda pointless arguing with someone who doesn't understand the concept of nuance and shades of gray, so I'm just going to let it go.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You either break the law or you don't break the law. If they are in the country illegal they have broken the law. Where is the "gray" in this?

[Amentep]

I think it's pretty sad that you have come to regard them as a kind of second class citizen (illegal citizen, but the distinction is not important). Whether you like it or not they live and work for decades in the US, part of its economy and its demographic, but without political representation because they don't vote.

 

But there's a fallacy in your argument - they're not citizens, second class or otherwise. If they were citizens they'd be legal immigrants. Not being able to vote and being in fear of the law deporting them (because they're breaking the law) allows the unscrupulous amid the US citizenry to exploit these people instead of turning them to legal immigration.

 

(Someone mentioned a wall to block people getting into the US - but that won't help when people use tunnels to get through already).

 

Mind you none of this would be an issue if our government and Mexico's would just agree to make Mexico a state already.

[Humodour]

You either break the law or you don't break the law. If they are in the country illegal they have broken the law. Where is the "gray" in this?

 

Curiously, which law did they break exactly? Since you seem to be so keen to speak authoritatively about this law, one would expect you have a thorough understanding of it. Otherwise that would be rather hypocritical, no?

[Amentep]

You either break the law or you don't break the law. If they are in the country illegal they have broken the law. Where is the "gray" in this?

 

The shade of gray is that the US government and the state governments has allowed these people to remain in the US, offered them education and services without deporting them. Which means either the law is unenforceable or the federal and state governments have not done their part in enforcing the law. The end result is a significant population of people who are free to be exploited by US citizens and US companies with the federal and state government tacitly accepting - if not approving - of that exploitation.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Being in this country without proper documentation or expired documentation.

 

What we need is immigration reform for our immigration laws become enforceable. So that those who come into this country can easily be rounded up and deported and target companies that exploit illegals, while at the same time make it easier and fairer for those who seek entrance into this country legally.

[Amentep]

You either break the law or you don't break the law. If they are in the country illegal they have broken the law. Where is the "gray" in this?

 

Curiously, which law did they break exactly? Since you seem to be so keen to speak authoritatively about this law, one would expect you have a thorough understanding of it. Otherwise that would be rather hypocritical, no?

 

Something in here, I believe.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Thanks for the Link, A-Man.

 

Immigration reform that I want to see is not about closing the borders against all immigration. What I want to see is fairer immigration laws that allows people, regardless of education and nation of origin, to be able to come into this country without bias and without fear of being exploited by companies and businesses. To make sure that they do pay their fair share of taxes and services that they use. Simply put, make our laws easier for people to come into this country legally, but make the consequences for coming into the country illegally harsher. Not only for the immigrant, but also for the business and landlords that exploit them.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Guard Dog]

I lost interest in this thread when it became the illegal immigration thread. But this is too funny not to post. It came to me via email some time ago.

 

I make no claims as to the accuracy of the numbers or anything else and I am posting it for humor and discussion purposes only!

 

Joe vs Jose

 

Joe is a regular American worker

Jose is an illegal worker

 

Both have a wife and two kids and live in California

 

Joe works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted....

 

Jose also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

 

Joe...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year

Now take 30% away for state federal tax Joe now has $31,231.00

 

Jose...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00

per year Jose pays no taxes...Jose now has $31,200.00

 

Joe pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage

$1000.00 per month $12,000.00 per year Joe now has $19,231.00

 

Jose has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year Jose still has $31,200.00

 

Joe makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare. Joe pays for food $1,000.00 per month $12,000.00 per year. Joe now has $ 7,231.00

 

Jose has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose still has $31,200.00

 

Joe pays rent of $1,000.00 per month $12,000.00 per year. Joe is now in the hole minus (-) $4,769.00

 

Jose receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy. Jose pays rent $500.00 per month $6,000.00 per year. Jose still has $25,200.00

 

Joe now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

 

Jose has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

 

Joe and Jose's children both attend the same school. Joe pays for his children's lunches while Jose children get a government sponsored lunch.

 

Jose's children have an after school ESL program.

 

Joe's children go home...alone.

 

Joe and Jose both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

 

Any questions?

Edited October 8, 2009 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

(Someone mentioned a wall to block people getting into the US - but that won't help when people use tunnels to get through already).

Yes, having to dig a mile long tunnel is totally as easy as waltzing across an open border. And there are ways of detecting tunnels also. When someone doesn't want to solve a problem, there are always a million excuses for why it can't be done.

[Amentep]

(Someone mentioned a wall to block people getting into the US - but that won't help when people use tunnels to get through already).

Yes, having to dig a mile long tunnel is totally as easy as waltzing across an open border. And there are ways of detecting tunnels also. When someone doesn't want to solve a problem, there are always a million excuses for why it can't be done.

 

My point is crossing the border via tunnels is already happening with the current border; I don't see building a wall stopping that.

 

And yes they still find the tunnels which doesn't stop them being made.

 

In general while a giant wall might be a deterrent to some, I think evidence exists that it would stop the problem. The debate could be whether it'd significantly drop the numbers, but it wouldn't stop it.

[Killian Kalthorne]

That is why we should have border patrols look for these tunnels and collapse them when they are found.

[Wrath of Dagon]

(Someone mentioned a wall to block people getting into the US - but that won't help when people use tunnels to get through already).

Yes, having to dig a mile long tunnel is totally as easy as waltzing across an open border. And there are ways of detecting tunnels also. When someone doesn't want to solve a problem, there are always a million excuses for why it can't be done.

 

My point is crossing the border via tunnels is already happening with the current border; I don't see building a wall stopping that.

 

And yes they still find the tunnels which doesn't stop them being made.

 

In general while a giant wall might be a deterrent to some, I think evidence exists that it would stop the problem. The debate could be whether it'd significantly drop the numbers, but it wouldn't stop it.

Of course nothing is 100%. But 99% is a hell of a lot better than 9%. There are border walls that work quite well btw, so it's not even a debate.

[Hurlshort]

It is fairly surprising how open folks are here with the discrimination. Deporting children, really?

 

There are better solutions to the immigration issues than simply locking the borders and deporting everybody. Heck, it isn't even economically feasible to do so, as you can see if you read a few articles at www.cis.org.

[Killian Kalthorne]

No one here is saying to lock the borders, Hurlie. I see more people here saying they want to open the borders more for LEGAL immigration.

 

If we do not deport the ILLEGALS then how do we deal with them. Leaving them in the country undocumented is not an option, and neither is giving amnesty.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Walsingham]

Jane's Intelligence Review did a feature on security barriers. The short answer is that they only work on short stretches when aided by terrain. They were quite guarded on the US Mexican issue, but even if you did seal the land border you are NOT going to stop them at the ports. We only have a handful of large ports and thousands get in. Hell all tehy have to do is cross on legitimate tourist visas and decamp.

 

Of course Killian 'Clemenceau' Kalthorne woud never accept this. Great moustachioed 'compoop.