Sam Lowry said:Both driving and being present in the country are inherently harmless and legal with proper documentation. To my point, though, they are comparable in the sense that total enforcement would be draconian and counter-productive.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:ShooterTX said:FLBear5630 said:Forest Bueller III said:FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
English Translation: If things FLBear wants don't happen, it's a conspiracy and TRUMPtrumpTRUMP Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
No, there is no need for conspiracy with this crowd, they just do. This is more tyrannical than conspiracy. (By the way, that is my barber's word, not mine). You guys are in the minority on these issues - MN and Greenland.
But, keep going. I know it makes you feel better, old man.
When it comes to these two subjects, 27% of people think the Ice agent was justified in the killing.
As far as Greenland only 17% think Trump is justified to just take Greenland.
You would have to be a true believer to think both are justified. Looking at probabilities likely only 5% of the
population believes both are fully justified.
I never understood how the Germans went along to get where they did. I am starting to understand. Little concessions for logical reasons, each one making sense by itself and in its original context to save the Nation, until the whole is a monstrosity.
Hitler started his hatred of the jews and his intent to cleanse Germany of them long before he was even on the ballot. Hitler never denied his intent to get rid of the jews, he only hid that his plan was to murder them.
Your Hitlarian attributes for Trump come solely from your demented imagination. Trump has never started any of the plans or goals that you believe he intends to do. You have created a monster in your mind, and falsely attributed it to someone else. Full blown TDS!
Very sad.
No one is saying it yet, but deporting every illegal is a form of ethnic cleansing. There's no other rational purpose for it...
Surly you understand that if you think this…then it also implies mass migration itself was a form of ethnic conquest & colonization….meant to overwhelm the native population and turn them into a minority
No, it doesn't imply that. Allowing the flow of migration isn't the same as forcibly removing people.
It actually is since it's the government involved with both actions and funding both with our tax money.
If removing millions of people who are in the USA without lawful right is a "form of ethnic cleansing".
(Ethnic cleansing being your term)
Then allowing in millions of people…and funding it…must be a form of ethnic colonization.
I used the term precisely because there's no other rational explanation for it. There are obvious economic reasons for the flow of migrant labor into the US.
You really think the only rational reason to remove someone in the country illegally is because of that person's ethnicity?
Is there something wrong with your brain?
No. I think the only plausible reason to remove everyone here illegally is because of their ethnicity.
That just isn't rational.
It's unlikely that you could remove everyone, but you don't need any argument other than saying someone is here illegally to justify sending them out of the country. Why have visas if they don't mean anything?
It's unlikely that you could suspend the license of every driver who commits four moving violations in a year, but you don't need any other argument to justify it. Why have speed limits if they don't mean anything?
That's the kind of argument that isn't rational and the kind of law enforcement that does more harm than good.
Visas are not like speed limits, but you could certainly suspend the license of anyone who was convicted of four moving violations in a year if that was the law. In fact, if that's the law in a particular state, you absolutely should either suspend those licenses or change the law. People should not be treated differently under the law when it comes to driving.
Someone being in the country illegally (without a valid visa) is more analogous to driving without a license. When someone is pulled over and found to be driving without a license, that person should not be sent driving on his or her way.
I didn't say everyone convicted of the violations; I said everyone who committed them. Whether you think it's a more serious offense to drive safely without a license or to drive dangerously with one is beside the point. The law will never be fully and absolutely enforced. That doesn't make it meaningless.
You are using a false analogy. Going 35 in a 30 four times over 12 months and not being pulled over for it and ticketed is not comparable to being in the United States without a valid visa.
Why not?
The first example is that of a person engaged in an activity (driving with a valid license) that can be legal. The second is example is a person engaged in an activity (presence in the country without a valid visa) that cannot be legal.
I would support changing immigration laws to make work visas much easier to obtain while making staying in the country illegally much harder to do.
No one is actually doing "total enforcement," and neither driving without a license nor being in the country without proper documentation is inherently harmless. They are both inherently harmful because both represent an erosion of the rule of law and a setting aside of fundamental fairness for those who have followed the rules. We have paths to legal driving and we have paths to legal immigration. When those paths are ignored, the rule of law is eroded.
