English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i keep listening this from anti-immigrant groups who claim to have the only objective of punishing what they call criminal activities and nothing more .

so i was wondering if they really do stand up for what they say and would agree in investigating every bussiness in America just to make sure than they haven't hired anyone with out documents for the last ten years resulting in at least three years of jail for each undocumented hired by any bussiness or particular ????

of course this would have to include any particular , business , senators , representatives , presidents of the USA , governors , mormons , priests , evangelicals , carpenters , jehova witnesses ..... and anyone who is excluded of this short list ............... remember once a criminal always a criminal .

for any one who would not agree please explain what would the result of such law be on America ???

thanks .

2006-12-23 12:04:20 · 10 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6 in Politics & Government Immigration

i really hope anyone stands up for this othewise it would be like admiting there is not honesty in such staments .

2006-12-23 12:12:21 · update #1

i am sure the cost of such thing would be nothing for such groups who claim to have the only objetive of punishing unlawful acts . i see not logic in wanting to be partial or wanting to soften this if any one really thinks they all should be deported .

additional note : farmers branch anti-immigrang leader has been found to had hired undocumented in the past he would also be included .... not bail please but jail .

2006-12-23 12:21:39 · update #2

10 answers

If this were done there wouldn't be as many child molesters being hired by schools and other occupations involving children. Background checks by apartments would also help curb drug manufacturing. I think the objective is barring illegal immigrants though, not all criminals.

2006-12-23 12:24:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

I'm entirely in favor of doing that. However, I am not willing to hold up what partial solutions we can currently implement until such time as that particular scheme is adopted, because it will be politically difficult to pass.

I don't see the illegal immigrants as 'victims' but as offenders, and think it is totally fair that they ALSO bear the results of their actions. That doesn't mean I condone the employers.

And 'once a criminal always a criminal' is nuts. There is such a thing as redemption. However, there is also such a thing as punishment for a crime committed, and illegals commit a crime every day by being here. Redemption would demand they stop offending by going home.

2006-12-23 12:10:38 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 6 1

The argument is an interesting one, but it's not really solid. I stole a pack of gum when I was 3, and I've never stolen anything since. The guilt was too much. :)

There are far better arguments to make agains illegal immigration than the "once a criminal, always a criminal thing."

I'm curious as to what your stance on illegal immigration is. It's still illegal, which makes it criminal. Your idea is a good one, but it would cost too much money if the government would be doing these investigations.

2006-12-23 12:14:04 · answer #3 · answered by elizabeth_ashley44 7 · 1 1

My only answer is that while I can sympathize with law-abiding Mexican illegal immigrants who work and are economic and political refugees from Mexico, I do not sympathize with militant extremists and terrorists being brought in as 'refugees' in my own country. Not getting specific here, but if they can kick out Ernst Zundel, a white supremacist who organized riots and protests against the government and was a head of a Nazi Nationalist Party, they can kick out Communists and terrorists as well.

2006-12-23 12:09:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Some criminals are overlooked. What do you mean by criminal? For instance, stealing the land people and people from land, while cloaking it with religious dogma, historical literiture, etc is criminal. To murder and rape indiscriminately to achieve these ends, is also criminal.

2016-05-23 02:48:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We would love to be able to investigate most of these people and some you didn't list. They sure don't mind doing it to average citizens, so I'd love for them to take their turn, and take the medicine that they dish out to others for their crimes. But why the churches and the carpenters? Anyway, I don't believe what you said about once being a criminal means you'll always be one. It would help if the consequences of illegal behavior were applied fairly regardless of wealth or power (or race).

2006-12-23 12:18:51 · answer #6 · answered by DJ 6 · 1 1

This question demonstrates extraordinary bigotry and ignorance.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not have any employees; every Witness preacher and branch worker is an unpaid volunteer. Jehovah's Witnesses teach their adherents to obey secular laws, and they do not tolerate criminal behavior.

The following facts about Jehovah's Witnesses are perhaps relevant to this question. The more one compares this Christian religion with others, the more remarkable it is shown to be.

1. Jehovah's Witnesses have no paid clergy. Yet they remain tightly organized with more than 6.5 million active Jehovah's Witness preachers (about 16 million associate themselves with the religion). Even fulltime preachers and workers at their branch offices are unpaid volunteers.

2. There is no elite class among Jehovah's Witnesses. Even the few 'anointed' among them enjoy no special privileges in their congregations on earth. An anointed person (one of those relative few with a heavenly hope) is not elevated above his fellow congregants in any way, and he may not even qualify for appointment as a simple 'deacon' or elder. There are no titles; EVERYONE is addressed as 'brother' or 'sister'.

3. No person benefits economically from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Even the 8 to 20 men who serve on their Governing Body receive simply room, board, medical care, and reimbursement for certain personal expenses according to the exact same provision as every other branch volunteer.

4. About a hundred men have served on Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body committee during the past 125 years or so. The vast majority of them have spent the vast majority of their adult lives volunteering for their organization's purposes, and the vast majority have died faithfully and near-pennilessly while still under their legal 'vow of poverty'.

5. Amazingly, Jehovah's Witnesses did not splinter as a sect from some other religion. Instead, a truly tiny but sincere group of bible students studied only the Scriptures to determine the will of God. Thus their religion remains absolutely independent of and not carrying the sins of Christendom's history, yet carries the authority of Christ's teachings.

6. Despite the distortions of anti-Witnesses, throughout their modern history Jehovah's Witnesses have refused to claim divine inspiration or infallibility for their teachings. They have pointed to the bible (and not any particular translation) as the only inspired infallible means of knowing God's thoughts. For over 125 years, their teachings have been presented as merely the results of sincere bible research by imperfect but godly humans.


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/article_07.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20040601/article_02.htm
http://jw-media.org/people/who.htm
http://jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm

2006-12-26 03:30:38 · answer #7 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 0 1

Something like this happened not to long ago. I think it was called the Red Scare or was it McCarthyism?

Please go steal some education from the library.

2006-12-23 12:31:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Works for me.... eliminate the jobs and you eliminate the incentive for coming here illegally.

2006-12-23 12:08:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

I think we should investigate you.

2006-12-23 12:21:44 · answer #10 · answered by Bill Clinton 1 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers