Are all laws good? Read....?

Question

If religion is banned in the U.S. or in any country, should people denounce their God?
If free speech is banned in the U.S. or in any country, should people shut up?
If guns are banned in the U.S. or in any country, should people hand them over?

If entry into a "free" country is banned to all but a priveleged and generally wealthy few (remember, even terrorists, ESPECIALLY internationally funded terrorists, have money!) , then should illegal immigrants be treated in the same regard as other criminals such as murderers and burglars? I think we should admire their American Spirit in well-chosen civil disobedience!

(Relevant tangent: If you are going to cite illegal welfare collectors, then why not start by requiring proof of citizenship at the welfare counter? There are a host of ways to solve STATESIDE the problems that some illegals cause. [btw I personally don't think even LEGAL non-citizen residents should get welfare unless they are seriously physically impaired!])

Bryrose: One of the better thought out answers from those with similar views.

But who can deny the problems inherent in the current policy, which has seen law-abiding citizens of foreign countries unable to come and visit dying relatives as tourists, unable to even visit an American family swearing legal and financial responsibility for their guest's timely return, and unable to have their applications so much as LOOKED AT after filing a valid application with a full fee, crossing their country to attend an interview at the consulate, and supplying several different categories of those documents recommended for entry?

When law gets too greedy, people lose respect for it, and this is inevitable. Instead of whining about it, we need to make laws that deal with this reality. It's what made us great to begin with.

All who say that any potential immigrants who wish to see the system changed should try and do so by changing the system from the outside, read this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqbMI1kaY1MKG2mkI514DZMezKIX?qid=20061001015827AAlDri5

If you are going to argue that potential immigrants who are denied entry for no good reason should have no alternative to illegal entry, then how can you base your condemnation of civil disobedience on a favorable but unavailable alternative?

Answer 1

I agree. A lot of people here say they don't like illegal immigrants because they are ILLEGAL, as if they were murders. In fact, their offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony. There is more than just a touch of racism and nativism in such statements; many of these folks just don't like Mexicans .

And the only solution is a fence and new jails at the borders?

Fining and prosecuting employers would go a long way toward limiting the numbers of illegal immigrants. This is consistent with the "supply and demand" and free market theory of conservatives. Limit the demand for illegal aliens, and then the supply -- the number of people who want to sneak across the border -- will diminish.

And, as you say, it should be easy to eliminate welfare benefits for non citizens. Tamper proof i.d. could be issued. This needn't be a harsh or inhumane system. For example, people could be given emergency assistance and shelter when needed and then escorted to the border.

Maybe we do need the farm workers. What's wrong with work permits for this as long as the temporary workers couldn't get other jobs afterward?

Why are such one sided simplistic solutions being proposed all the time, when a comprehensive plan is so clearly needed?

Answer 2

This question kinda meandered all over the place.

Are all laws good? No. That's trivially easy to show.

Should illegal immigrants be treated in the same regard as murderers and burgulars? No, not unless they murder or rob someone. However, they should be charged with whatever laws they DO break and be tried/convicted or deported, just like everyone else. Even people who practice civil disobedience understand that they may have to spend a couple nights in jail for breaking the law.

You seem to be missing the point of civil disobedience. Breaking laws is not being an American. Being an American (in this context) is lawbreaking ONLY for the express purpose of changing them. It's believing in the system and trying to change it from within -- not ignoring it entirely.

In that respect, illegal immigrants are not Americans. They are not trying to change the system from within, they are trying to get a better life by coming across the border. And while that is a noble cause, a sovereign country has a right to forbid that if allowing it would be detrimental to the country economically or otherwise. If it were shown conclusively that opening all the borders would throw America down an economic and security spiral to oblivion, then I would say it's fairly un-American to support that.

If, however, admitting illegals has little to no effect on the country as a whole, then we should swing the doors wide open. In either case, the argument about entry to a "free" country is completely irrelevant. A sovereign nation, free or not, has the right to control human traffic across its borders. Period.

Answer 3

You contention is false. The immigration law is not unjust, and immigration to the United States is not limited to the wealthy. Further, your comparisons do not apply. You are trying to bestow rights on foreigners, and place those rights on equal status with the rights of American citizens in their own country. This is not to say that these people do not have rights. They enjoy the human rights that we extend to all people. However, foreigners do not have any say in American law, and have no right to lobby for change of those laws. The immigration policy is designed to allow the largest possible number of legal immigrants into the country without overwhelming the country. The problem is not the law. The first problem is with people who violate the law by entering the country illegally thereby making it more difficult for legal immigrants. The second problem is with people like yourself who are unwilling to see the law enforced. There have to be controls on immigration, we cannot take everyone in the world who wants to come here. In short Sir, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Additional: While I will not deny that there are problems in the system, it still does bestow rights for change on foreigners. There are literally 1000's of people applying for tourist, work, and school visas in the United States at any given time. The unfortunate reality is that not all are going to be approved, but many are. There are security considerations now which complicate the matter. I would also remind you that many people who are allowed to enter the country violate the terms of, or overstay their visas. We need an overhall of immigration system as well as true enforcement of immigration laws, but again this is not subject to the opinions of non-citizens one way or the other. Foreigner nationals do not have any legal right to enter the United States, unless approved to do so within the context of the law.

Answer 4

Illegal immigrants are not really commiting acts of civil disobedience. An act of civil disobedience is done in order to change the law, to draw attention to how stupid it is and how it should be changed. Today's illegal immigrants are simply trying to get around the law and come to America to get jobs. Many of them don't really want to immigrate, they just want to come to a country where they can get a job.

As long as there are jobs in America and unemployed Mexicans, there will be immigration. What we need to do is partner with Mexico and create a viable guest worker program. The one we have now it broken, in that it takes too long, allows too few, and enforces not at all.

But this is not, and should not be, an immigration or citizenship path. It's a guest worker program, which is all that most of them want anyway: a good-paying job.

See my immigration plan, linked below.

Answer 5

All laws may not be good and some outlive their usefulness, but in that case the people protected by them change them. (For example, it is illegal to shoot moving buffalo from a trolley car on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, and there are no buffalo and no trolley cars there any more.)

However, immigration limits on immigration of poor people has a very good reason behind it. Poor people, even if they pay all taxes, pay very little in taxes. They are poor, so we don't expect them to pay much. They certainly don't pay for their education, health care or other services costs. We pay for those for them. Each poor person is an economic loss. Unlike some countries we do allow immigration of SOME poor people despite this fact, because we have a certain admiration for immigrants who come legally and want to create a good life for themselves. However, we limit the numbers because the more there are, the more we are subsidizing, and the worse our services like education and health care and social services get for our own people.

Take the net loss per poor immigrant and multiply it by 12 to 20 million people, and that is a huge loss and it explains why schools and health services are so degraded in border states and areas where illegal immigrants concentrate. In addition, since those illegal immigrants are being subsidized, they send money home which hurts our balance of trade, and they can undercut wages for our own working folks who then cannot make their own ends meet and become poor, themselves.

I am against illegal immigration and am for limited immigration that protects our schools and services.

Answer 6

No not all laws are good. Some don;t make alot of sense ethier. Also there is alot of problems that can be fixed by the states if people cared. Or should i say the rich politians that are the only ones that seem to get elected to represent us all. The 80% of us that are the working middle class or poor and the 20% of us that are Rich and wealthy. Just does not make sense.

Answer 7

If a law is unconstitutional it can be overturned. Civil disobedience is hard to justify until all legal recourse has been exhausted. To quickly jump to this remedy is the sign of an immature, lazy, or corrupt individual.

The fact that you don't like immigration law but are unwilling or unable to get it changed to your liking merely indicates that you are probably wrong.

Answer 8

There is one problem with your logic... you say the illegals are commiting civil disobedience, well the problem there is... they are not citizens in the first place. They have no right or privilege to disobey laws of their host country.

If you want to change this sorry state of affairs then get US citizens (not foreigners) to lobby for reforms in the law to make it "fairer" for people. Until these reforms are passed, the illegals should be treated as the criminals that they are.

Answer 9

Religion has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants,
I don't care if your white, black, tanned, brown or friggin pink, i don't care if you come from Mexico, Australia, America, Germany or Pluto!! COME LEGALLY.

American spirit? Mate! are you kidding me?, What American Spirit? Yea, they show great allegiance to the USA by jumping through a fence and breaking the law.!!

illegal immigrants are breaking the law, if you break the law you go to jail, a crime is a crime, murderers, rapists, abusers are in jail for a crime, Crime is in its own league.
Entry to any country involves having a passport, papers, i.d or citizenship, Illegals have NONE of them

Answer 10

No, not all of them. Some are outdated and useless. We would ignore laws that told us which God to worship, if you even believed in God or not.
Freedom of Speech, well you need to be PC all the time now don't you. No real freedom in that, you are blasted and hated if you do.
Guns, well to each his own.

Freedom is great, even for a common citizen as me. But, there are laws I must follow to enjoy that freedom I love. Should everyone who disagrees with laws, ignore them? What law should I break to live free? If it bothered the masses, should I just ignore them and live freely? You remind me of Thoreau, hope you are not offended by that.