Quote:
|
Originally Posted by inlacal
So then I suppose we can just pick and choose the laws we follow, right?
|
No, but there's a difference between speeding and murder. The punishment should fit the crime. You have yet to explain why illegal entry is such a horrible act that it justifies arresting entire families and forcibly evicting them from this country. Who knows? Maybe it IS that horrible; you just haven't bothered to explain that yet.
Quote:
|
...And then label them as moral or immoral depending upon the law that is broken and our original intent in breaking them in the first place.
|
Our laws should reflect our social standards, not define them. That doesn't mean we can break laws we don't like. However, it also doesn't mean we have to follow all laws blindly without ever questioning them or lobbying for change.
Quote:
|
There's no difference between breaking the law when you speed and breaking the law when you enter the country. While the penalty for each may be different, both are breaking the law. Stop trying to spin this.
|
If there's truly no difference between the two, the penalties should be the same. However, the penalties are
not the same. I'm still wondering why the penalty for illegal immigration should be as severe as you propose. When you speed, you get a ticket and pay a fine. Why, for example, wouldn't it be OK for illegal immigrants to just pay a fine?
Quote:
"Whether they enter legally or illegally, they are coming here because they believe life will be better here. I'm having a real hard time viewing that as criminal conduct."
Oh, their life will be better?
Oh! Is that why they are coming here?
To better their life?
Is that all?
Really?
|
You think there is some
other reason they are coming here?
Quote:
O.k...You win. I'll surrender my opposition to the fact that they are violating our laws simply because, in your words, "...they believe life will be better..."
Seriously...This is your defense of illegal immigration?
|
I wasn't trying to
defend anything; I was stating a fact.
In
very brief summary, my "defense of illegal immigration" is that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants
should be allowed to immigrate legally because they benefit us both socially and economically. The fact that they
aren't allowed to immigrate legally is evidence that our immigration laws are f$cked up and (gasp!) need to be fixed.
Quote:
|
How about they stay wherever the hell they came from and work on resolving the backward-ass country from which they are originating before they come and leech off of our country and break our laws in the process.
|
You should check out the recent congressional testimony on this topic. Congress invited a whole
herd of economists to talk to them about the economic impact of illegal immigration.
The vast majority of them (maybe even all of them) concluded that these people benefit our economy. So much for your "leech off of our country and break our laws in the process" argument.
Quote:
|
I cannot believe you are arguing such a thin defense of illegal immigration. The Nazi's believed they were doing the world a favor, by bettering all of humanity, in eradicating Jews and it didn't work for them at Nuremburg; your defense, equally, fails under the same pretense that they (Mexican's) think they are bettering themselves by superceding our constitution in the process.
|
Are you
serious?
Quote:
|
Also, it seems easy for you to label our current laws as having originated in pandering simply because you do not agree with them.
|
Just as easy as it is for you to label any changes as the result of pandering - no difference at all.
Quote:
|
Clearly, you are an expert on your own point of view, but this doesn't change the fact that the laws in place are being broken. Understand that and stop trying to ignore it to meet your agenda.
|
I'm not the one with an agenda here. I'm not in favor of amnesty, but I
am in favor of laws that make sense. Just because we have "laws in place" does
not mean that they make sense. You continue to argue that these people should be kicked out because they "broke the law" without any demonstration that you know what the law is, or how it operates, or why you think permanent eviction is the appropriate punishment. Sounds to me like
you're the one with the agenda. What is it?