1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoHow can someone be in a country illegally?
erm, but those people are in the country [b]illegally.
don't you think they should be sent back to where they came?[/b]
How on earth can a person be on a piece of ground illegally?
Can you illegally breathe air?
Any law which dictates illegality of location is obviously flawed and bogus, as it is ALWAYS subjective and is implimented by a person on a piece of land. How did he get there in the first place?
See.
Originally posted by shavixmirIt doesn't matter whether or not its flawed or illogical to some guy living in the sewers, it is the law, and it will continue to be the law until it is changed.
How can someone be in a country illegally?
How on earth can a person be on a piece of ground illegally?
Can you illegally breathe air?
Any law which dictates illegality of location is obviously flawed and bogus, as it is ALWAYS subjective and is implimented by a person on a piece of land. How did he get there in the first place?
See.
until then, those who violate the law should be punished.
Originally posted by generalissimoNo they shouldn't.
It doesn't matter whether or not its flawed or illogical to some guy living in the sewers, it is the law, and it will continue to be the law until it is changed.
until then, those who violate the law should be punished.
We all have individual responsibilities to adhere or not to adhere to laws and orders. There are no such things as:
- It's the law
- I was just following orders.
Nuremberg 1948.
Originally posted by shavixmirIsn't that really just the definition of law? Laws are the forced will of people living on a piece of land.
How can someone be in a country illegally?
How on earth can a person be on a piece of ground illegally?
Can you illegally breathe air?
Any law which dictates illegality of location is obviously flawed and bogus, as it is ALWAYS subjective and is implimented by a person on a piece of land. How did he get there in the first place?
See.
Originally posted by shavixmirso now you're comparing the holocaust to sending illegals back to where they came from?
No they shouldn't.
We all have individual responsibilities to adhere or not to adhere to laws and orders. There are no such things as:
- It's the law
- I was just following orders.
Nuremberg 1948.
yeah, I can see the connection.
Originally posted by generalissimoNo and yes, at the same time.
so now you're comparing the holocaust to sending illegals back to where they came from?
yeah, I can see the connection.
No, I'm not comparing the holocaust to sending "illegals" back to where they come from.
Yes, I am suggesting that the conclusions of the Nuremberg trials are conclusions with a larger scope than the holocaust.
Originally posted by shavixmirso the nuremberg trials give us the moral right to disobey laws we disagree with regardless of the how moronic it sounds.
No and yes, at the same time.
No, I'm not comparing the holocaust to sending "illegals" back to where they come from.
Yes, I am suggesting that the conclusions of the Nuremberg trials are conclusions with a larger scope than the holocaust.
yeah, that makes even more sense.
Originally posted by shavixmirso the people at the bottom want to rape, steal, and murder and get away with it?
No. Laws are the forced will of the ruling classes.
hmm, I can't help but think these so-called ruling classes are quite civilised, considering their laws prevent us from doing whatever we want regardless of the harm it causes.
Originally posted by shavixmirSo you won't prosecute when someone breaks into your home?
How can someone be in a country illegally?
How on earth can a person be on a piece of ground illegally?
Can you illegally breathe air?
Any law which dictates illegality of location is obviously flawed and bogus, as it is ALWAYS subjective and is implimented by a person on a piece of land. How did he get there in the first place?
See.
Originally posted by SeitseNo one debates the right to whine. Whine they can. It does not mean one hs to like them, or flag pissers, or crucifixes floating in urine, Maddonas with elephant dung and other such garbage. There are plenty of objectionable modes of expression. All protected under the first amendment. Does not mean I have to pat all these whiners in the back and say atta boy.
A legalistic approach is valid and respectable, indeed.
So when a person holds the passport of a country, then that person is
a full recipient of the same rights and obligations as any other citizen, regardless
of age, sex, ethnicity, political or individual orientation, etc. And the
rights include of course to criticize the status quo, pee on the flag ...[text shortened]... ntatives, and a long list of etceteras... within the legal channels, of course.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt would depend on what they're breaking in for, wouldn't it?
So you won't prosecute when someone breaks into your home?
Say they were starving and breaking in to get food?
And if they were sitting in a field, which was hypothetically mine, then I certainly wouldn't prosecute.
You can't own land.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoYup. And it works both ways.
No one debates the right to whine. Whine they can. It does not mean one hs to like them, or flag pissers, or crucifixes floating in urine, Maddonas with elephant dung and other such garbage. There are plenty of objectionable modes of expression. All protected under the first amendment. Does not mean I have to pat all these whiners in the back and say atta boy.