@maxdancona,
1) It is a silly argument when you keep insisting on conflating layman and me. We're not tag-teaming you.
2) From where I sit you seem to be spouting partisan points. That too is a silly argument. There is nothing partisan about the question of open borders, at least not until the Dems make it a plank in their platform.
Your position
seems to be something along these lines:
We should have immigration laws that determine who is allowed to come into our country and we should enforce our borders against illegal entry, however, if someone makes it across illegally, find his or her way to my town and appears to be, overall, a decent person, they should get to stay.
Any other view involves conservative enforcement interpretation, and that, as we all know, can't be a good thing.
This is quite similar, I would argue, to a position which holds that if rob a bank and am not caught in the act, and I spend the money for
good things, I should be left alone by the government.
How about these dichotomies based on the incredibly important fact that we are a nation of laws:
You either enforce the laws on the books or you take them off the books. The decision to take them off the books has to be in line with our democratic process. Minority groups don't get to decide on their own.
If you don't like a particular law you don't flaunt it, you try and change it through our democratic process
If you believe a law is so unjust that you must employ civil disobedience and violate it, you accept rather than fight the punishment. The point of civil disobedience is to create a situation which demonstrates to the public at large how unjust the law is, not to get away with a crime.
3) What did you think about the Obama Admin interfering with the State of Arizona's laws as they impacted illegal immigrants?
I seriously doubt that your notion of the
autonomous community that can reject federal law extends to any issue other than immigration...as you want it to be. If I live in a community that wants to own slaves, can use your argument to resist the feds? I would applaud you conversion to federalism (and a quite extreme view of it) if I didn't believe it holds only for this one issue.
You've argued that the community must abide by State laws which is fine for you since your state isn't about to crack down on illegal immigrants, but what if your community resided in another state where it's laws compelled your little haven to comply with federal law?
4) Because this is your go-to argument. Get over yourself and stop trying to discredit arguments against your position as purely partisan. It's a cheap trick.
5) And this is your other go-to argument. See response to #4
What you are really asking is there anyone who can't be persuaded by my brilliance? You're a smart and often reasonable chap who isn't part of the A2K clique, but that doesn't score you points in discussions. I enjoy debating with you but your constant bawling about partisanship, and how no one seems to be able to rise to your level of discussion is tiresome.
