50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I warned you, Finn. As predicted, O'Bill shows up to accuse the very law of being racist. Unbelievable. Libs are so predictably illogical.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:39 pm
Here we see a picture of Finn and Okie fishing together...

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/2626/remora.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:43 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This bears little resemblance to the Wing-nut parroting of whatever Rush or Beck are hollering about at the moment you do. You are the Right-wing JTT… who Finn hilariously dubbed Remora last year.


At least Rush or Beck have an ounce of common sense, Bill. Not always right, but their batting average is way better than yours, given what you've posted lately.

Cute photo. At least you apparently have a sense of humor, Bill.

Peace!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:09 pm
@Pemerson,
Quote:
We all know it's illegal, that there are laws against it. What would YOU do to enforce the laws regarding illegal immigration - other than what is already being done?


I do the same thing to enforce the laws regarding illegal immigration that I would have done to enforce

- Laws prohibiting people of different races from loving each other.
- Laws prohibiting same sex relationships.
- My parents intentionally broke segregation laws. I respect them for this.
- Pretty much everyone broke prohibition (the law outlawing alcohol), so we got rid of the law.

I have a friend who smokes marijuana. I don't approve, but it is none of my business.

This idea that laws are more important then morality doesn't fly. There is a big difference between rape and crossing a border.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:11 pm
I am wondering why you guys aren't making these comments on the "I just smoked Marijuana" thread.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:58 am
@ebrown p,
I see we are having this discussion AGAIN!!!!!

I have said many times that those here illegally, from ANY country, should be deported.
If they choose to violate our laws then they do not deserve to get rewarded by being allowed to stay.
If they want to stay, then they MUST become citizens and give up their original citizenship.
If they choose not to do that, then they get no help from social services of any kind.
They would be allowed emergency medical care, but thats all.
They would get no help from any govt run food bank or shelter, and they would only get the basic emergency services from police, fire, and medical services.

This is not an issue about any one country or group of people, it is about anyone that chooses to violate our immigration laws.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 10:13 am
@mysteryman,
Careful, common sense is not allowed here on these discussions, mysteryman. And also you could be accused of being an idealogue. Thats right, by none other than George.

Sorry to be sarcastic of the opposing side, but seriously, your opinion is so logical and common sense, mysteryman, and I believe the vast majority of Americans agree with you almost to a tee. If we could ever get a media that would be reasonable and report things logically and accurately, we could sweep the liberals out of power so fast it would make our heads swim. Of course, we will have to wait until the next election to get started, but our chances are looking better.

Of course conservative media agrees with you completely, folks like Rush, Hannity, Beck, the list goes on. None of those people are a threat to freedom loving liberty loving Americans that believe in capitalism, individual rights and responsibilities, and a few simple things like enforcing the laws that we have.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:12 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
This is not an issue about any one country or group of people, it is about anyone that chooses to violate our immigration laws.
Does it bother you that this same pretense was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws?

In a sentence or two, what's your take on Alcohol Prohibition?

Againj, very briefly, what's your take on Drug Prohibition?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:19 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
If they want to stay, then they MUST become citizens and give up their original citizenship.

If you must make your argument about the law, at least make sure it's legally correct. Under US immigration law, persons who become US citizens can retain their old country's citizenship. Granted, there are ifs and buts, but nothing like the categorical prohibition you so confidently assert. For details, go to the library and read US Citizenship for Dummies -- as this legal immigrant has.

But of course, this whole argument doesn't have to be about the law. It's perfectly legitimate to suggest, as Occom Bill did, that America do about illegal border-crossing what it did about illegal sitting-in-the-wrong-part-of-a-segregated bus, illegal voting by women, and illegal harboring of fugitive slaves -- legalize it!
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:19 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Careful, common sense is not allowed here on these discussions, mysteryman.
I think there's been a misunderstanding here, Okie. I promise you; you will not get in any trouble if you lift your erroneously self-imposed moratorium on the use of common sense.
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:23 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
[quote="OCCOM BILL".....Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? ....[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We only have to comply with applicable law, not ancient historical laws, nor laws in other jurisdictions - how can you not know that? It's pretty basic. And anyway why would anybody ever bother with your worthless legal opinions when you can't even distinguish between "flaunt" and "flout"??
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:58 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
In a sentence or two, what's your take on Alcohol Prohibition?


I'm sorry, I didnt realize that alcohol was prohibited by law in this country.
Last time I checked, alcohol was a legal substance in the US, and available to anyone over 21 that wanted to buy it.
Has that law changed?

Quote:
Againj, very briefly, what's your take on Drug Prohibition?


I dont agree with some of the drug laws, but as long as they are the law I will abide by them.

Can you say the same thing about immigration law?



mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:59 pm
@Thomas,
MY argument was about what the law should be regarding immigrants and citizenship.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:59 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
.....Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? ....

We only have to comply with applicable law , not ancient historical laws, nor laws in other jurisdictions - how can you not know that? It's pretty basic.
What are you babbling about? No one suggested otherwise.

High Seas wrote:

And anyway why would anybody ever bother with your worthless legal opinions when you can't even distinguish between "flaunt" and "flout" ??
I haven't (and don't) offer "legal opinions" and saw no purpose in “distinguishing between flaunt" and "flout"”, as I understood Finn’s usage of the word just fine. By the same token; I'll not be judging your abilities (or lack thereof) by your apparent inability to use the quote feature. Some complaints are just too petty. Wink
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:03 pm
@mysteryman,
Fair enough, mysteryman, thanks for clarifying.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:09 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
In a sentence or two, what's your take on Alcohol Prohibition?


I'm sorry, I didnt realize that alcohol was prohibited by law in this country.
Last time I checked, alcohol was a legal substance in the US, and available to anyone over 21 that wanted to buy it.
Has that law changed?
You are mistaken about the lack of restrictions, even today, but are you really unaware of the folly of Alcohol Prohibition?

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Againj, very briefly, what's your take on Drug Prohibition?


I dont agree with some of the drug laws, but as long as they are the law I will abide by them.

Can you say the same thing about immigration law?
I can. But yours or my compliance isn't terribly germane to the greater issue at hand. What do you disagree with?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:19 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

We stayed at an adults-only Sandals resort in Negril. Had a great time.... Birthday surprise for Mr.Irish!


Did you sit in separate bathtubs? (Why is that supposed to sexy.)
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:24 pm
@mysteryman,
We continue to have this discussion because idiots like O'Moron, Brownie, George, et al., feel that we can pick and choose what laws to enforce. Since they love illegals, they oppose immigration-law enforcement.
High Seas
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:28 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

High Seas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
.....Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? ....

We only have to comply with applicable law , not ancient historical laws, nor laws in other jurisdictions - how can you not know that? It's pretty basic.
What are you babbling about? No one suggested otherwise....

YOU did - in a quote from one of your previous posts here. Btw, given the signal-to-noise ratio in all that you post, you can't expect anyone to link to your posts individually, do you?!
Quote:
Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? You know, like people having the gall to perform [b]marriages between whites and non-whites, despite it being "ILLEGAL!"[/b] They naturally argued there was nothing inherently racist in the law, because it was applied evenly to whites and non-whites alike.

YOU're the one babbling about ancient laws - get over it,
High Seas
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:34 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

High Seas wrote:

And anyway why would anybody ever bother with your worthless legal opinions when you can't even distinguish between "flaunt" and "flout" ??
I haven't (and don't) offer "legal opinions" and saw no purpose in “distinguishing between flaunt" and "flout"”, as I understood Finn’s usage of the word just fine....)

YOU wrote this nonsense - Finn didn't. It's YOUR post that's being quoted, not his: maybe you're incapable of following the link? You probably like flaunting your meager knowledge of laws no longer in force - in addition to flouting the currently applicable ones. Even more probable is the case you genuinely can't tell the difference between the two Smile It's not often that I find myself in complete agreement with Advocate who keeps calling you O'Moron, but this is one of those rare occasions.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 03:27:55