Enough about guns, what's with all the illegal immigrants!?

[ParsedOut]

the much bigger concern!


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...r-face-arrest/

Ahhhh fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. More gov't doing whatever they want at the public's expense without repercussion. It'll all be ok when King Obama decides to go around Congress to "do something" about this problem while the rest of the mindless population are distracted with nude pics of worn out Cameron Diaz.

[Vedubin01]

the much bigger concern!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/01/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/

[The Dark Side of Will]

Anarchy. No rule of law. No principles. No property rights. Where does it end Will?

Everyone has a right to what exactly? Health Care? Electricity? Water? Food? Cellphones?

You've read my posts before...

Everyone has the right to do whatever they have the means to do which doesn't violate the rights of others (most simply, cause others harm, which in its most basic form includes death, injury or property damage.)

No property rights? That's cute.

[marshallnoise]

Anarchy. No rule of law. No principles. No property rights. Where does it end Will?

Everyone has a right to what exactly? Health Care? Electricity? Water? Food? Cellphones?

[Vedubin01]

[The Dark Side of Will]

By definition, a law does not speak to the morality of the law, just that the law is a rule to be followed. Laws, right, wrong or indifferent, are laws. The Rule of Law, no matter how crappy the laws are, should be enforced. If they need to be changed, then the people should demand their change. If their methodology is to protest, disobey in mass or start a revolution, then that is fine. But the people in this case are the citizenry, not illegal aliens deeming that the country they are invading's laws are wrong and therefore merely illegal. This is not for them to decide.

http://www.lewis-kappes.com/CM/FSDP/PracticeCenter/Business/Immigration-Employer-Focus.asp?focus=topic&id=1

I disagree, there are VERY good reasons for the immigration laws as they stand. You disagree with my opinion and I disagree with your opinion. That is fine, but the government does not have a right to not enforce the laws as written and neither to illegal aliens have a right to break the law because they feel it is unfair and doesn't benefit them.

I agree. Still doesn't change the rule of law or the way society needs to adhere to the laws even though they may be temporarily unjust.

To make laws that man can not and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. It is very important in a republic, that the people should respect the laws, for if we throw them to the winds, what becomes of civil government?
—Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1860)



Again, I disagree and more importantly, the Lincoln quote you gave is the best reason to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders. If it is indeed ridiculous, then it will be obvious. Until then, it is clear that zero attempt has been made at enforcing these laws in the first place.

Moreover, the clamor you hear for immigration reform is not immigration reform, it's amnesty. That isn't reforming shit. That is merely the government's way of hitting the reset button on an issue where it has failed to enforce laws and border security.

The laws are on the books Will; enforce them and let's see if they are proven to be silly or not. Until then, illegals continue to come here and squat waiting for "immigration reform" to happen to codify their theft of citizenship.

It's clear to me that the lack of principles in your argument means that literally anything goes. That's a dangerous proposition. That is not civilized society, that is anarchy.

Chuckle at calling my argument unprincipled.
The principle at work is that people have rights because they're people. Among those is the right to live wherever they have the means to live.
Since governments derive their authorities from the people, a government can't do anything the people can't do, which means a rightly conceived government doesn't have the authority to prevent people from living anywhere they have the means to live.
In that regard, borders and citizenship are a throwback to monarchical Europe, just like sovereign immunity.

Should the Third Reich's laws discriminating against Jews, resulting in their disenfranchisement, the theft of their property and finally their murder have been enforced just because they were the law?
The Rule of Law isn't absolute because all governments are capable of making horrifying laws.

So if amnesty allows people to "steal" citizenship, from whom did they steal it? Who is now without citizenship because of them?
If there's no victim, there's no crime.

You said there are good reasons for the immigration laws we have, then linked a page of immigration related terminology.

Regarding the Lincoln quote, we can see that strict enforcement of a law can lead to mass disruption without said enforcement. It's obvious to me that enforcing the speed limit on the beltway would be disastrous for commute time in the D.C. area. Enforcement just drives that point home to the people who don't see it ahead of time.

The drug war is the obvious parallel. Possession and use of those controlled substances is illegal. After 50 years of obsessive enforcement, the drug war is thoroughly lost. Given no other option, people do what they are going to do no matter what the law says. Given a legal option, almost none of those same people would seek out illegal sources. The same will be true of immigration.

Amnesty will be an integral element of admitting we were wrong about immigration law. Correcting the consequences of your mistakes is one of the most rudimentary elements of conscience. The hypocrisy involved in saying an activity is no longer illegal, while at the same time keeping people in prison for it would be staggering.

The bar association is an interesting choice to lecture anyone about the rule of law. Society isn't orderly because we have laws. Society is orderly because most people recognize it as wrong to harm each other. Deterrence doesn't work against violent crime because most violent crime is committed in the heat of the moment, when people aren't thinking about the consequences. Society ends up being nonviolent because most people aren't violent, not because of enforcement.

[mrsleeve]

In the spirit of the thread about how the UN is decrying the fact that detroit residents that dont pay their bills get their water turned off.

I wonder how long till we have some kind of UN assets or "personal" on the ground on the US/Mexican boarder to "monitor" the "humanitarian crisis" of all the unaccompanied minors flooding across the boarder????

[marshallnoise]

What about the fear of consequences when laws aren't followed? We all know that if everyone decides to not care about traffic signals we'll all get in horrible accidents, that's a good deterrent. We don't have any sort of penalty (should we?) for illegal immigrants other than trucking them back across the border so they can try again while we're not looking. As a citizen we're forced to endure certain consequences for our actions against the law, they are immune to a degree. I still think my idea is the best I've heard so far, it's what seems like a realistic reform. Amnesty is not an option in my mind, follow the channels put in place. Currently they are broken, if we fix them and they still aren't willing to follow the rules, then we build better walls and make the penalty for illegal entry a bit more painful.

Apparently passing the law is supposed to do the deterring. And since the laws themselves don't deter, we might as well give up and open the borders.

[ParsedOut]

What about the fear of consequences when laws aren't followed? We all know that if everyone decides to not care about traffic signals we'll all get in horrible accidents, that's a good deterrent. We don't have any sort of penalty (should we?) for illegal immigrants other than trucking them back across the border so they can try again while we're not looking. As a citizen we're forced to endure certain consequences for our actions against the law, they are immune to a degree. I still think my idea is the best I've heard so far, it's what seems like a realistic reform. Amnesty is not an option in my mind, follow the channels put in place. Currently they are broken, if we fix them and they still aren't willing to follow the rules, then we build better walls and make the penalty for illegal entry a bit more painful.

[marshallnoise]

It is very difficult for a nation to maintain the rule of law if its citizens do not respect the law.

Assume that people in your community decided that they didn’t want to be bothered by traffic laws and began to ignore stop signs and traffic signals. The ability of police officers to enforce the laws would be overwhelmed and the streets of your community would quickly become a chaotic and dangerous place. The rule of law functions because most of us agree that it is important to observe the law, even if a police officer is not
present to enforce it. Our agreement as citizens to obey the law to maintain our social order is sometimes described as an essential part of the social contract. This means that, in return for the benefits of social order, we agree to live according to certain laws and rules.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s quote also highlights another important aspect of the rule of law. People must be asked to obey laws that they can and will obey. If laws become impossible—or even difficult—to follow, the respect of citizens for the law will begin to erode.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/features/Part1DialogueROL.authcheckdam.pdf

[marshallnoise]

And as for the speeding analogy, what if you could get a ticket, then get the state legislature to change the law and grant amnesty to everyone pending trial under the old law. Your case gets dropped because the legislature directed statutory amnesty.

Is that "wrong"?

It certainly does not make speeding at that point in time legal, it just gets you out of the fine. The law was still broken.

[marshallnoise]

Look up the difference between mala prohibita and mala in se.
Even lawyers understand the difference between wrong and merely illegal.
Most laws are just bad ideas with government guns backing them up.

By definition, a law does not speak to the morality of the law, just that the law is a rule to be followed. Laws, right, wrong or indifferent, are laws. The Rule of Law, no matter how crappy the laws are, should be enforced. If they need to be changed, then the people should demand their change. If their methodology is to protest, disobey in mass or start a revolution, then that is fine. But the people in this case are the citizenry, not illegal aliens deeming that the country they are invading's laws are wrong and therefore merely illegal. This is not for them to decide.

Immigration laws do exist for a reason, but that reason is *NOT* to provide intelligent framework for immigration.

A more accurate statement of that reason might be "Because someone who had a problem with the way things were before current immigration law was enacted saw thought there was a problem that may or may not have been a problem (or even existed), but was able to get together enough funding to wage a lobbying campaign to make one or more someone's in Congress believe this is an important issue to their voters and maybe if they address it the way the lobbying organization wants it addressed, their voters will like them and they'll be re-elected."

Notice that no where in that reason is "Because it was good for the country" or "because is was the right/intelligent/reasonable thing to do".

http://www.lewis-kappes.com/CM/FSDP/PracticeCenter/Business/Immigration-Employer-Focus.asp?focus=topic&id=1

I disagree, there are VERY good reasons for the immigration laws as they stand. You disagree with my opinion and I disagree with your opinion. That is fine, but the government does not have a right to not enforce the laws as written and neither to illegal aliens have a right to break the law because they feel it is unfair and doesn't benefit them.

The EPA can charge you with a felony for killing a beaver, whether or not you knew it was against the law (no mens rea requirement).

Most laws are complete stabs in the dark that have absolutely no relation to the "problem" that they are intended to "solve" and are usually just bandaids on symptoms.

Fortunately, they're made by Congress and not God, so we're free to get them changed. Unfortunately, it's usually the loudest rather than the most reasonable people who's ideas are made into law.

I agree. Still doesn't change the rule of law or the way society needs to adhere to the laws even though they may be temporarily unjust.

To make laws that man can not and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. It is very important in a republic, that the people should respect the laws, for if we throw them to the winds, what becomes of civil government?
—Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1860)

Lawmaking is a messy process. There's no dishonor in disobeying a ridiculous law.
Lincoln said "The surest way to the repeal of an obnoxious law is its strict enforcement". Given the clamor for immigration reform NOW, can you imagine what would happen if the laws were enforced?
What's going on is the clearest indication that our current immigration system is screwed up beyond belief, invalid because it doesn't serve the needs of the people and needs to be changed.
Government serves the needs of the people. If the needs of the people change and what they now need is illegal, it's the responsibility of government to change to meet the needs of the people, and NOT a requirement for people to keep from doing what they need to do.

(I think it's pretty obvious that this applies to what people do peacably without harming others, so don't try reductio ad absurdum with mass murderers or reductio ad hitlerum because those are logical fallacies.)

Again, I disagree and more importantly, the Lincoln quote you gave is the best reason to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders. If it is indeed ridiculous, then it will be obvious. Until then, it is clear that zero attempt has been made at enforcing these laws in the first place.

Moreover, the clamor you hear for immigration reform is not immigration reform, it's amnesty. That isn't reforming shit. That is merely the government's way of hitting the reset button on an issue where it has failed to enforce laws and border security.

The laws are on the books Will; enforce them and let's see if they are proven to be silly or not. Until then, illegals continue to come here and squat waiting for "immigration reform" to happen to codify their theft of citizenship.

It's clear to me that the lack of principles in your argument means that literally anything goes. That's a dangerous proposition. That is not civilized society, that is anarchy.

[The Dark Side of Will]

And as for the speeding analogy, what if you could get a ticket, then get the state legislature to change the law and grant amnesty to everyone pending trial under the old law. Your case gets dropped because the legislature directed statutory amnesty.

Is that "wrong"?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Immigration laws are not stupid. You feel they are stupid, so do illegal immigrants, but they exist for a reason.

As far speeding; if I get caught, I pay the fine because I knowingly broke the law as arbitrary as it is, it's still the law. I don't go into hiding and wait until the government says it is ok for me to come out from hiding.

You are still making excuses for breaking the law because you don't find it convenient. That's not the way laws work. You might as well not have a legal system if you get to break them as you see fit, then demand that they be changed.

I am confused in your line of reasoning.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Look up the difference between mala prohibita and mala in se.
Even lawyers understand the difference between wrong and merely illegal.
Most laws are just bad ideas with government guns backing them up.

Immigration laws do exist for a reason, but that reason is *NOT* to provide intelligent framework for immigration.

A more accurate statement of that reason might be "Because someone who had a problem with the way things were before current immigration law was enacted saw thought there was a problem that may or may not have been a problem (or even existed), but was able to get together enough funding to wage a lobbying campaign to make one or more someone's in Congress believe this is an important issue to their voters and maybe if they address it the way the lobbying organization wants it addressed, their voters will like them and they'll be re-elected."

Notice that no where in that reason is "Because it was good for the country" or "because is was the right/intelligent/reasonable thing to do".

The EPA can charge you with a felony for killing a beaver, whether or not you knew it was against the law (no mens rea requirement).

Most laws are complete stabs in the dark that have absolutely no relation to the "problem" that they are intended to "solve" and are usually just bandaids on symptoms.

Fortunately, they're made by Congress and not God, so we're free to get them changed. Unfortunately, it's usually the loudest rather than the most reasonable people who's ideas are made into law.

Lawmaking is a messy process. There's no dishonor in disobeying a ridiculous law.
Lincoln said "The surest way to the repeal of an obnoxious law is its strict enforcement". Given the clamor for immigration reform NOW, can you imagine what would happen if the laws were enforced?
What's going on is the clearest indication that our current immigration system is screwed up beyond belief, invalid because it doesn't serve the needs of the people and needs to be changed.
Government serves the needs of the people. If the needs of the people change and what they now need is illegal, it's the responsibility of government to change to meet the needs of the people, and NOT a requirement for people to keep from doing what they need to do.

(I think it's pretty obvious that this applies to what people do peacably without harming others, so don't try reductio ad absurdum with mass murderers or reductio ad hitlerum because those are logical fallacies.)

[marshallnoise]

Do you obey the speed limit every where you go, every time you drive?
No?
Why not?
Oh... yeah, because the law is stupid and enforced only to bring revenue to the government. In fact, enforcing that law during rush hour would double the length of everyone's commute, so enforcement is actually counterproductive and pisses voters off.

You're argument seems to be that immigrants "owe" obedience to a stupid law. How can you make that argument when you don't obey a stupid law in your own country?

The system does *NOT* work fine. It barely works at all. If it worked, people would never have started immigrating illegally in large numbers in the first place because there would never have been a reason to immigrate illegally.

If people could get into the country easily and effectively through proper channels, they would. They do it illegally because they CAN'T reasonably do it legally.
To cover your buying a car analogy, it would be like the dealer insisting you pay in cash instead of financing, and named a price that required you to save up for a period between 7 years and never.

Immigration laws are not stupid. You feel they are stupid, so do illegal immigrants, but they exist for a reason.

As far speeding; if I get caught, I pay the fine because I knowingly broke the law as arbitrary as it is, it's still the law. I don't go into hiding and wait until the government says it is ok for me to come out from hiding.

You are still making excuses for breaking the law because you don't find it convenient. That's not the way laws work. You might as well not have a legal system if you get to break them as you see fit, then demand that they be changed.

I am confused in your line of reasoning.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk