Do you think, on the next cencus maybe (maybe just a mandatory question on the income tax form), we have a mandatory question that reads like this:
do you agree or disagree that the laws (including immigration laws) should be upheld?
if the person agrees, then that person is allowed to avail himself/herself of protection of the law.
and anyone who thinks that the laws should not be upheld, should not be allowed to ask for any type of protection of the law.
Do you think THAT would change anyone's mind?
2006-07-04 13:19:17 · 9 answers · asked by athorgarak 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
As Yahoo! says questions from the silly to the important. (or sometihing to that affect)
this question was meant to be ridiculous. it was designed to show that NO ONE would prefer arbitrary enforcement based on whether that person desires to, or desires that others obey the law.
Therefore, the person, if they are honest, should finally see that the laws are to be both obeyed and enforced!
squirrelly, grow up hon.
2006-07-04 16:34:30 · update #1
What we need to do is enforce the already existing laws and arrest and deport all of the illegals that are violating the law to be here. Then we need to do the same with those who knowingly hire them. If we enforce the laws that we already have then we wouldn't have this problem
DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS
ENGLISH ONLY IN AMERICA
2006-07-04 16:28:41 · answer #1 · answered by Julie 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If they don't approve of "the laws", do you think they will even answer a "mandatory" question?
Besides, the situation is more complex than that. You might, for example, believe that laws should be upheld if they are legitimate, but also believe that some current laws are made illegitimately (that is, they are unconstitutional, or the government didn't have the authority to make that law, or it's taxation without representation, and so on).
I believe in the value of laws made legitimately, but I would consider a "mandatory" question to be illegitimate and I would consider refusing to answer it. The government exists to serve us; we don't exist to serve the government. Perhaps I should ask the government a "mandatory" question about whether they agree with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, or if they've even read it.
Sorry if this seems a bit impassioned; authoritarianism from government annoys me. No offense is intended.
2006-07-04 20:41:51 · answer #2 · answered by devyn_d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not very feasible. One law on the books right now seems hard enough to enforce, the one on illegal entry. If a woman called the police and said her ex was trying to break in and says he's going to kill her, what's the police to do, go check and see how she voted on that question before they know whether they should help her or not? Nah. that won't work.
2006-07-04 21:30:48 · answer #3 · answered by vacant 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, doubt if that would work, and it wouldn't change the rabidly pro illegal camp anyway ... the only thing we should do to my mind is enforcing existing laws, deport illegal immigrants to a man (or woman or child), build a wall, and patrol that wall ... well, sorry, that's racist, forgot ... even if you are against ALL illegal immigration, white or brown, and upholding the law, you're a racist ... yeah? Hmmmmm ... new definition of racist ... one who wants to uphold the law ...
2006-07-04 21:40:35 · answer #4 · answered by Sashie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The current administration certainly has changed how laws have been enforced--they seem to choose to ignor enforcing many of the laws.
2006-07-04 20:52:56 · answer #5 · answered by kobacker59 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like I said, you need a course in Sarcasm 101. We have laws that need enforcing. Work on that!
2006-07-05 01:01:05 · answer #6 · answered by Stomp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we should take polls on whether our laws should be enforced. That poll was taken when they were voted to be laws. Unless someone can muster sufficient popular support to change them, they should be enforced.
2006-07-04 22:12:42 · answer #7 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually lean towards anti illegal immigration, but your argument is embarrassing to this cause because it reveals a complete lack of intimacy with the fabric of your own culture.
Hint: read Thoreau.
2006-07-04 22:15:00 · answer #8 · answered by leblongeezer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO
Oh and to the post above.....WHO BROUGHT UP A DAMN THING THAT EVEN, REMOTELY MENTIONED RACIST.
JESUS......get over it. You TELLING people they are TELLING everyone you and yours are racist. That is crap. Give me something better......PLEASE.
Back to you athormangorak.......mandatory question.......LMAO ROFL......LMAO.
Hmmmm..what happens if we FIB....on the MANDATORY QUESTION........
rofllmaorofl......lmao
2006-07-04 22:02:24 · answer #9 · answered by sqwirlsgirl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋