On the subject of breaking laws, you feel that blindly following the law makes for a better society? What're your feelings on the Patriot Act? Or, better yet, what about Rosa Parks? She broke the law, was she unjustified?

I'd like to know what your feelings are on sodomy laws, or for that matter, any law concerning two adults in a consenting sexual situation.

Laws exist for a reason, to keep order in society. You don't have laws, you have anarchy. If everyone just starts undermining the law and we let them, we don't have a country anymore. We have a craphole.

You can change laws, but through LEGAL means. If you don't like the Patriot Act, that doesn't exempt you from having to follow the laws it outlines. Write a letter to your congressman, start a coalition to get the law changed, whatever.

And yes, Rosa Parks broke the law, plain and simple. Did she have a reason to make a stand? Sure. Did it make a difference? Sure. That doesn't mean she wasn't a criminal for doing so. Was she right? I believe so. But you can't just start saying that its OK whenever anyone breaks the law because of "such and such" a situation. There are better ways of doing things.

Aight, gg, you caught me there. If something really truly is unconstitutional, as was the discrimination against African Americans, something radical like that truly does need to be done to make a change.

But I'd hardly catagorize illegal immigration as being lawful under the US constitution.

Oh and for the record -> I believe most of the Patriot Act is constitutional (although some provisions clearly are not), although I can hardly say I like any of it.

EDIT-> Regardless, this situation hardly mirrors what African Americans went through in the 40s & 50s. They were legal US citizens being denied the civil rights that every other American was given. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by simply being here. This isn't really a race issue - its a legal issue.

Double Post:
Nobody asked me to provide further explanation. I posted those facts from that website just to provide further information to anyone reading this thread.

It's all part of civil disobedience.

Yes, this is a huge grey area, because legally they're not granted any rights by our government. Then again, why are we comitting billions upon billions of dollars to military campaigns in countries half-way around the world under the guise of liberation and spreading democracy? Wouldn't it be easier to open our borders, invite populations of these people in, create an economic backflow to their homelands and create social change through flow of capital?

I guess why I feel so strongly about immigration issues is that eventually, I'd like to see a world without borders or totalitarian governments. Ultimately, to me, the root of most of the global problems we face today are a direct result of the oligarchy's (meaning world leaders and their constituencies') greed and lust for power. Their willingness to kill and subjugate others for their own gain, but they make the laws, so they make these practices "legal".

I wasn't aware that something as basic as that required any more explanation. Umm...its illegal because there are laws defining it as illegal? Shit, I don't know.

I've yet to see this. Thats a factual study done by a real-life institute. Unless for some reason you can find proof that the study was faked/biased, I see no reason to believe its false information.

This is the only refute I can possibly find after my first post in here, and I can hardly call this a challenge:

In retrospect, I gave a link to my source.

Your reading comprehension is questionable at best. She is suggesting that instead of taking a law at face value, simply because it is in place, you instead analyze the law, why it is in place, and if it is necessary in contemporary society.

That's already been gone over several times in this thread. I see no need to repeat what other people have already said, or indeed, what I have already said in earlier posts. Apparantly some people don't understand something until its been beat into them through repetition.

Immigration quotas are in place to help stablize our economy. You can't possibly expect the US economy to handle a massive influx of immigrants all at once. It's necessary to keep documentation on US citizens & residents for obvious reasons.

The law is in place, and it is necessary. If the law needs to be changed because you don't feel it is right, then do it through legal means. But don't be surprised when the majority thinks otherwise. If it is clearly unconstitutional as it was with the civil rights movement, then perhaps breaking the law is called for to make a change. I can't find any place on the US Constitution that would even begin to give provisions for "illegal" immigration.

See, the main downfall with regulating immigration is the same as with anti-drug laws: enforcement. Yeah, they catch a few, but it's a small percentage compared to the number that make it through.

It would cost federal, state and municipal governments much more money to commit enough bodies and resources to haulting illegal immigration than it would be to simply let it happen.

Furthermore, if we were to attempt to deport every illegal immigrant living in the United States currently, it'd have every government law-enforcement agent, soldier, guardsman, social worker working 'round the clock for god only knows how long. Then, you'd have to figure the costs of physically deporting them. What're you going to do, load them on rafts and shove them out into the middle of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mexican Gulf? Throw them over "the fence"? That's something on the order of 22 million people.

A fence/wall really wouldn't cost that much. And it WOULD help stem the flow.

Why? They got here on their own, they can figure out how to get back on their own. Seeing as they have jobs here and have gotten a bit of cash, I don't see why they can't pay for their OWN transportation back. The enforcement? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would have an initial cost that might look a bit ugly. It wouldn't take long for the benefits to show up. Well, at least according the FAIR study I linked to earlier.

You obviously can't do something like this all at once. And I'm not denying the fact that you obviously couldn't boot every illegal immigrant out. With 11 million people (22?) thats literally impossible. But you have to start somewhere. And it might take time. Nothing can be fixed instantly.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not saying that there is any chance in the world that we could fix this problem 100%. That's way too optimistic and unrealistic. In today's world though, fixing a problem partway is an amazing accomplishment in and of itself, and it will show some benefits.

Back with what you posted earlier: Those stats seemed more to focus on how "little" illegal immigrants are draining...but the point is, that collectively, that is a drain that doesn't need to exist. And I'll admit, its far less than what I was imagining.

If illegals are kicked out, those jobs WILL be filled. There are a lot of people who are willing to work minimum wage jobs. And, as we are moving towards a more service-oriented economy, a lot of those jobs are disappearing regardless. Would I pick lettuce all summer for minumum wage? Sure, if I couldn't find anything better. It's a job, its outside & its manual labor, which despite what you might think, I really enjoy :). I'm not sure why I'm going to college and getting a degree thats going to get me a desk job, lol. Where I live, a popular job during the summer is detassling corn, which is an absolutely miserable job. Doesn't pay very much over minimum wage, and there's always people to fill every spot available. I've never done it because I'm lucky enough to have grandparents to hire me for farmwork every summer :). That doesn't involve detassling corn =/.

I guess my point in saying that is that yes, even miserable jobs like picking lettuce would be filled. You might have to pay a few extra cents for your lettuce being that illegal immigrants working for cash that amounts to less than minimum wage were the ones doing the picking, but I don't think thats really a terrible cost to pay.

I forget where, but I had read that the illegal immigrant population was rapidly approaching 22 million, nationwide, I think 11 million is the number of illegals in the workforce at any given time. Something on the order of half-a-million new immigrants arrive each year. You figure a good percentage of those are illegal, and multiply that by like 20 years and it figures.

Aight, thats where I heard the 11 million then. 22 sounded familiar when you said it, so yeah, its probably the total illegal immigrant population :).

So this is an issue that money/economy doesn't really factor into right? I mean, it's all about security and law, cost of enforcement be damned right?

Oh, I mean, it's about economics. And since CAIR, a site which claims that immigrants in general are a considerable drain on the economy*, says so, then on money grounds, we should kick out the illegal immigrants.

... Um.. Nevermind. It seems this wasn't given any thought, instead a position was taken, and any and all excuses to back up the arbitrary position just because.

Seriously though, from an economic viewpoint, there doesn't seem to be a way to stop illegal immigration in a cost effective manner. The cost of enforcement long term (nevermind short term) seems very likely to be more than the savings which may be possible by kicking out/keeping out illegals.

From a security standpoint, you support the notion of spending a massive, ever growing amount of money on systems that are likely to have a marginal effect on the security of the nation? I would put money on the prediction that it would likely cost far more money than it is worth from either a security or an economic standpoint, to escalate security enough to keep out most/all illegal immigrants.

Is it really worth turning on an endless spigot of money, pooring money into perceived border security and deportation, just for peace of mind?


*If legal immigrants cost however many millions/billions a year, and do not offer a benifit to the country, then why are they allowed in at all? I mean, how does one justify legal immigration if all it doesn't offer any net financial gain? Um, charity?

I would like to cee the world u Describe DUO.
Too bad man will exterminate himself and the planet before that ever happens. It is nature to be greedy.
How long has Greed been a issue on this planet?

For a very long time.

Then again, I refuse to believe there aren't a huge number of other people that feel the sameway I do.

Duo, with all due respect, if everything goes according to what you said, the world will be a mess. Let me explain, you were saying illegal immigrants is like illegal drugs, you could catch a few, but the majority still runs free, so instead of catching them we should just let them do whatever they want? I mean, com'on, traffic violation happens in the same manner, so we should not catch them? Same thing go witih murder, robbery, etc., so we should just let them happen, not even try to prevent them from happening or stop them from doing it?
That kind of lawless, senseless world must be perfect for you, but heck, don't let the rest of us be in your world.

See, that's the thing, you're equating actions that have extremely well documented results to ones that are not so black and white; ones that have a huge number of variables. Speeding, for example, is dangerous because human reaction times, the sheer chaotic nature of traffic movements and so forth directly contribute to bad results. Sure, it doesn't happen everytime you speed, but if you speed enough, something WILL happen.

Also, murder actually INFRINGES upon another's rights and sovereignty as a human, and it causes DIRECT harm. Namely, DEATH. Robbery is much the same. All VIOLENT CRIMES, in fact.

Drugs and immigration on the other hand, are a COMPLETELY different story. Someone can, (and MANY people do) use drugs and not harm anyone else around them, and function adeptly within a society. Much like MANY MANY people drink alcohol and do not cause harm to others and still function nominally within society. However, there are others who do not, this is where DUI/DWIs come into play, drug/alcohol related incidences, abuse and violence.

Samething with immigration, yes there are a FEW among MILLIONS who do not contribute to the society, but why would someone struggle and travel thousands of miles from everything they know NOT to pursue opportunity? IT makes little sense.

Basically, I'm saying you're creating a huge logical fallacy (i.e. slippery slope) by comparing drug use and immigration to violent crimes, because the two are NOT analogous outside of the fact that there are laws governing these actions.

Putting aside the high school arguement that "the reason drugs are illegal is because the government can't regulate them!", you also have to realize you can't lump together drugs as, well, drugs. Someone who smokes pot isn't going to harm someone - but what about a meth or crack addict? Unless you want to justify robbery and murder as "functioning adeptly within society".

Alcohol is more or less based on the potency of the product. If you drink a lot, you'll get drunk. However, drugs have a ton of different chemical reactions on the human body. Pot doesn't affect you like PCP, Ketamine or coke.

That doesn't give them the right to break the law. They're coming into our country illegally - and they know it's illegal, yet they do it anyway.

Heres a good way to fix the immigration situation - if they want to come here illegally, round them up and enlist them for a 5 year term overseas. Educated them, train them and then turn them loose in Iraq for a tour or two. When they come back, they're citizens.

Now there is something I can agree with. A sane view to fix the problem of illegal immigrants already in this country.

Oh god, if he's agree with me, I must be way off base.

Look, if all you are going to do is be a complete dick and not take this seriously, then tell me now.

Why not make walking across the border a legal way to enter the country? Then they're not illegal immigrants!

I take the subject seriously.

I don't think anyone who has a working synapse in their brain can take *you* seriously.