What should be done about illegal immigration?

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.

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,

OCCOM BILL previously 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 You probably like flaunting your meager knowledge of laws no longer in force - in addition to flouting the currently applicable ones.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 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.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are immigration laws. Flaunt them if you will, but how do you argue there is a difference between you and someone who flaunts civil rights laws?

Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? You know, like people having the gall to perform marriages between whites and non-whites, despite it being "ILLEGAL!" They naturally argued there was nothing inherently racist in the law, because it was applied evenly to whites and non-whites alike.

Btw, O'Bill, why this contempt for the law?

Don't bother with him any longer, MM: it's just not worth your time - or mine, for that matter. I'm outta here, going to Berlin for a business project, may stay as long as a month. Good to see you posting again

I didnt say that there were no restrictions on alcohol.

You used the words ALCOHOL PROHIBITION.

And since alcohol is not prohibited in thise country, your entire question was based on an invalid premise, so no answer was possible.

As for the drug laws, I am of two opinions.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business.
However, if you get behind the wheel stoned, then it becomes my business.
And if you have an accident and kill someone while you are stoned, its a death penalty offense.

I could go further into detail, but I know we will disagree on the subject and I am in to good a mood to fight with you about it.

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.

Bizarre complication, that... Nazi Germany no longer exists either. Does that mean you're unable to comment on that too?

What punishments do you favor for those who peacefully get a little high in their own home?

I don't disagree with your take on drugs. Death Penalty seems a bit harsh, but I won't quibble over it. What punishments do you favor for those who peacefully get a little high in their own home?

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.

It means that I am unable to comment on their legal code or their internal policies, because I wasnt there.
I wasnt born till 16 years AFTER nazi Germany fell.
I can comment on their effect on history, but since I wasnt there it is all second hand knowledge.

One request at least, please do not post inane opinions on online debate forums, because it causes alot of angst out here, especially with normal folks with common sense.

Advocate wrote:

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.

Advocate, hello, the people you are calling idiots are all fellow liberals or Democrat voters. You must be one conflicted person, Advocate? I keep reminding you of the obvious, that you vote for a political party that does exactly the opposite of what you want in regard to immigration policy, as well as policy toward Israel. Why are you surprised at this?
[/quote

Certainly there are many Dems who are, overall, idiots. The three (one a Rep) to whom I referred had directed at me either ad hominem or deprecatory comments, which were totally unjustified. Further, contrary to your allusion, most Dems are supportive of Israel. Dems in general are far more intellectual than Reps, and have learned that Israel is the only democracy in the ME, a great ally of the USA, and a fantastic bargain relative to the loans from us.

Is President Obama (who supports a path to citizenship and is quietly slowing immigration enforcement) an "idiot"?

I pose this question to both Okie and Advocate.