From: BAR on
In article <co2gu5d0meg5o9ptmefk7gv8fbdsq59f1t(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...

> I have no problem with that at all, and I have no problem with
> enforcing our border.
>
> Let's just get this straight. Say that there's a 40 year old man
> living in Mexico with his wife, two sons and a daughter. His wife is
> not well and he hasn't worked in weeks. Can't find a job. One of his
> compadres tells him that across the border in Texas he can get a job
> paying $20 dollars a day working in the fields, so in desperation he
> makes a 50 mile trip on foot, and crosses the border,hoping to stay a
> couple of weeks then return home to try to find work there again.
>
> Please don't tell me you would murder this man that's only trying to
> put food in his family's stomach, doing labor that no U.S. citizen
> will do.

What if this same man was caught stealing to provide for his family. Is
his action any less illegal?

The issue at hand is do laws have meaning and should the law breaker be
treated the same in the eyes of the law.

What if this same man kill the owner of a store while he was stealing to
provide for his family?

We always hear from the left that we are a nation of laws, that the
police and the courts will protect us, however, when our laws, police
and courts need to protect us we are told that they guy was just trying
to provide for his family. What do you think the guy who had his goods
stolen was doing? He was trying to provide for his family and doing so
within the law.

I have yet to see, hear or read of a legal exception that states that
the law doesn't apply when the person's post-transgression explanation
was I was just trying to provide for my family.

Legality and convictions are two separate classifications. You can be
illegally performing an act and not have been convicted of the act which
doesn't make the act any less illegal.
From: BAR on
In article <4be775b9$0$19254$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:32:04 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > On May 9, 9:13´┐Żam, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border and
> >> shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a good idea.
> >
> > Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good idea.
>
> Ken, are you sure you don't want to re-think this one a little bit? Bert
> here is advocating murdering everyone who appears like they might be
> trying to cross the border illegally.

Carbs, you have it all wrong. There is a definite zone the deliniates
the division between the USA and Mexico. What I advocate is to start
shooting those who cross the division between Mexico and the USA. There
are already laws in Mexico and the USA that make it illegal to cross in
either direction. What I am proposing is immediate summary judgement.
This only needs to be done every once in a while to remind people of the
penalty of commiting the illegal international act.


From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:53:54 -0500, Horvath(a)net.net wrote:

>I think not. I think the Southern border can be sealed so only a
>handful gets through.

I don't, not without a tremendous cost.


>But there are always around it. And some may
>arrive legally, (hard to believe.)

The feds say 2/3 are here legally. But when we see someone who
appears to be Mexican looking for a job, we make assumptions. It
isn't the lack of a card in his wallet that threatens us.

--
"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
From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:21:32 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
wrote:

>> The population of abusers will likely be different. We won't have
>> as many problems with criminal gangs. The people working on the
>> problem will be social workers, freeing up police to do other vital
>> work.
>
>A flock of social workers. Just what our society needs. Prison is more
>effective. Cleans up the addicts and makes them think twice about using
>again.

Prison is much, much more expensive. And prison is quite expensive
at graduating drug users into gang criminals.

--
"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
From: BAR on
In article <bb96d363-e95f-432c-a8c3-
474a499912ba(a)s29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> The conservatives here say they're certain that if all the illegals
> were deported, Americans would rush in to fill the millions of jobs
> that would be left vacant. Yet they offer nothing to corroborate it?
> Where are all those Americans now? Why aren't they demanding to be
> hired as lawn-care workers or slaughterhouse workers or busboys or
> garbage collectors or janitors?

Economics 101: Supply and demand.