Good stuff

[mmajunkie]

Law isn't open for debate by the public. If it is illegal, it's illegal. You think it's a bad law? Too bad, it's a law.

Hypothesize all you want about whether or not it suits you. It's still a law.

"Well Officer, I really don't agree with that law, so I broke it. I smoked weed."

That should not get you off the hook anymore than

"Well Officer, I just crossed the border and came here illegally. I don't agree with the law, so I broke it."

I understand your position and your point. There are many laws I don't agree with. Take this game for example...I think we should be able to kill whoever we want, when we want. I have some good arguments for it. But guess what? It doesn't matter because a rule is a rule. I'd get banned and none of you would care, you would say "Well you shouldn't have broken the rule."

Just like these people should not have broken the law and come into this country illegally. It doesn't get anymore black and white than that. There is a law, you ignored it, you broke it, you suffer the consequences.

[Pali]

Rules are rules... but rules can be changed. And if we're still laboring under the illusion of this being a democracy, yes, the law damned well is open to public debate. EDIT: By the way, I am under no delusions that thinking that weed shouldn't be illegal means that I can't get in trouble for it. However, this is not a defense of keeping weed illegal, nor is it even a defense of it being ethical to prosecute people for having it. Homosexuality used to be illegal too (and still is in many places), as did anyone but white men being able to vote... we don't look back on those laws and defend them because "they were the law".

FL, however, is private property, and as such FL rules are no more open to debate than the IMPs allow them to be. There is a distinction.

[mmajunkie]

You're splitting hairs to serve your own argument

A law is a law, a rule is a rule. They can be changed, but until they ARE changed....they remain in effect and breaking them is illegal. We aren't looking back at any PAST law, we are looking at current law. Your examples do not even match the time period...you're looking into what you think might or should happen in the future regarding the law and trying to base your argument off of that.

[Pali]

Yes, breaking them is illegal. You're missing my point that this does not mean that breaking them is wrong, or that people deserve to be punished for doing so, or that the current setup we have for punishing them is the one we should be using. You seemed to be saying that we should be enforcing the law because it is the law as it stands now - I am saying that something being a law does not necessarily mean that it is a law worthy of enforcement, and that we should attempt to judge the (for lack of a better word) rightness of any law without regard for whether or not it happens to be on the books right now.

I'm not splitting hairs, nor trying to look into the future (I was trying to use current attitudes regarding past laws as a point of reference for viewing many attitudes regarding current laws... I don't know where you saw the future coming into this). I may be explaining my position badly, or you may be misunderstanding it.

[Zhokril]

The thing about laws is that they are not immutable' date=' nor are they perfect (I conduct illegal activities on a daily basis that I see nothing at all wrong with, and there are plenty more currently illegal activities that I think should be legal).[/quote']

No offense to you personally, but this line of reasoning is flawed. I used to have this debate with friends in college back in the day all the time.

Whether or not a law is 'right' or not isn't what matters. What matters is that America is (almost) the only country in the world where you get due process and the right to a day in court.

The intrinsic value of our legal system is greater than whatever cost we incur by having laws that may or may not be 'right' for some period of time. When you decide not to follow the legal system, you degrade its value - and I have no question in my mind that the value of preserving our legal system and due process is greater than the cost of you enjoying recreational drugs (just for example).

It is not your prerogative to disobey laws of the United States based on how you feel about them. The benefits you gain as a citizen of the United States are apportioned under the expectation that you will adhere to the laws of this country. When you disobey the law, you are not simply incurring whatever penalty is set out for you, you are also eroding the foundation that thousands and thousands of judges (in other words, usually brilliant people, who have dedicated their lives to understanding and advancing the legal system - the old adage "the laws were made by men far wiser than myself") have formed over the years.

I don't really mind how any of you feel one way or another about the immigration issue. Personally, I think the situation is very clear-cut from a legal and economic perspective. However, we are humans, and thus we are possessed of morality - which doesn't make us 'bad'. Certainly, morality is not absent in the formation of our laws.

My point is that, regardless of how you feel about a particular law or particular application of it, you do this country and yourself a disservice by perverting the legal system and taking for granted the due process here which is unparalleled in the rest of the world.

[Mali]

It is not your prerogative to disobey laws of the United States based on how you feel about them.

Actually, what you describe is the concept of civil disobedience, a tool which has changed this nation and others for the better over the course of history.

No one here is arguing that illegal immigration is good or that illegal immigration should be ignored by lawmakers and enforcers. What I am arguing is that lists such as the original post are not completely factual and are an injustice to the greater issue.

[samag08]

There will always be humorous(Read that twice Mali;) ) lists both on the positive and negative side of just about every issue concerning governing. What they sometimes do besides offering a quick read and laugh is bring particular issues to the table for open debate which is a great thing in both past and present times...Where is Abe Lincoln when you need him:D

[mmajunkie]

What I was saying is that laws exist to be enforced. Just because it might not be agreed upon by the MINORITY does not mean it shouldn't be enforced. You don't just say

"Well, there are some people who think drunk driving laws are immoral...we should stop enforcing them til we get this all figured out."

That example isn't on the same level, but the principle remains.

That's what I meant about your argument...trying to look at a law in the future, what it might be changed to. Instead of saying "Here's the deal. This is our country's law, you broke it, now suffer the consequence."

Yes' date=' breaking them is illegal. You're missing my point that this does not mean that breaking them is [i']wrong, or that people deserve to be punished for doing so, or that the current setup we have for punishing them is the one we should be using. You seemed to be saying that we should be enforcing the law because it is the law as it stands now - I am saying that something being a law does not necessarily mean that it is a law worthy of enforcement, and that we should attempt to judge the (for lack of a better word) rightness of any law without regard for whether or not it happens to be on the books right now.

I'm not splitting hairs, nor trying to look into the future (I was trying to use current attitudes regarding past laws as a point of reference for viewing many attitudes regarding current laws... I don't know where you saw the future coming into this). I may be explaining my position badly, or you may be misunderstanding it.

[Mali]

Thats fair, Samag. Now let me find some more of your posts to hate on... just kidding ;p