Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: BAR on 30 May 2010 12:00 In article <52eee518-8b54-40b8-9060-32fee504e16d@ 31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On May 30, 9:05�am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:33:25 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > >I find it highly interesting that your friends form south of the US > > >border will jail illegal aliens for two years for their first offense > > >and jail them for ten years for their second offense. Do you support > > >this? Do you support this? Do you believe that the US should adopt this? > > > > I'd deport them for the first offense. �It costs too much money to > > detain someone. �Prison time would be appropriate for a second > > offense. �Next I would make it impossible for any illegal alien to > > ever become a citizen and children born to illegal's in the US are not > > citizens. > > > > Of course, the people who really belong in prison are the people who > > hire illegal's as workers. � > > The woman who cleans my house is Hispanic. I have no idea what her > immigration status is. Does that make me a criminal? If everyone who > hired illegal aliens were to be imprisoned, we'd have to build a whole > hell of lot of new prisons. Yes it does make you a criminal if she legally allowed to work in the US.
From: Jack Hollis on 30 May 2010 12:28 On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:40:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Of course, the people who really belong in prison are the people who >> hire illegal's as workers. =A0 > >The woman who cleans my house is Hispanic. I have no idea what her >immigration status is. Does that make me a criminal? If everyone who >hired illegal aliens were to be imprisoned, we'd have to build a whole >hell of lot of new prisons. Do you pay her off the books? That would compound your criminality assuming that she is an illegal.
From: Don Kirkman on 30 May 2010 13:44 On 30 May 2010 13:11:17 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >On Sat, 29 May 2010 23:02:40 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote: >> On 30 May 2010 03:37:29 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:06:20 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote: >>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:13:21 -0600, Howard Brazee >>>> <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And on all sides we will find examples of people who adjust their >>>>> ethics to fit their wants. I see as much of this on the Right as >>>>> I do in the Left. >>>> >>>> Also true. But don't equate that with situational ethics, which >>>> holds that there is an flexible but reasoned ethical approach to >>>> social problems. SE is not adjusting to fit one's wants but >>>> adjusting to fit the needs of the situation. IOW, it's a flexible >>>> approach, not a legalistic approach. Earlier, I think it was you >>>> who mentioned "What would Jesus do"; part of the authorities' >>>> opposition to Jesus was that he rejected their legalism and taught >>>> reasoned behavior based on the *principles* of their religion. >>> >>> Most of those who sneer at situational ethics have no idea what it >>> means. >> >> But I wasn't sneering. :-) I actually hoped to do a bit of >> educating. > >I suppose I was vague about who I thought those sneerers were, but I >certainly didn't mean you. Thus the smiley. :-) > I meant those who enjoy using the term as a cudgel. Cudgels are the preferred weapons of extremists. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: Carbon on 30 May 2010 14:00 On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:44:00 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote: > On 30 May 2010 13:11:17 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 23:02:40 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote: >>> On 30 May 2010 03:37:29 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Most of those who sneer at situational ethics have no idea what it >>>> means. >>> >>> But I wasn't sneering. :-) I actually hoped to do a bit of >>> educating. >> >> I suppose I was vague about who I thought those sneerers were, but I >> certainly didn't mean you. > > Thus the smiley. :-) I suspected as much, but wanted to make sure. >> I meant those who enjoy using the term as a cudgel. > > Cudgels are the preferred weapons of extremists. There is no shortage of them, on either side of the aisle. Hope you're having a good long weekend, Don.
From: Howard Brazee on 30 May 2010 15:36
On Sun, 30 May 2010 09:05:18 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >I'd deport them for the first offense. It costs too much money to >detain someone. Prison time would be appropriate for a second >offense. Next I would make it impossible for any illegal alien to >ever become a citizen and children born to illegal's in the US are not >citizens. Prisons these days are extremely expensive. And we are paying for them. >Of course, the people who really belong in prison are the people who >hire illegal's as workers. Make it easy and cheap to check legality. This applies especially for small businesses, but should also apply for the guy looking for someone to help with his backyard project. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |