Mexican anger over US 'trespass'

[Zarn]

It is a crime no matter how much you deny that. And when you commit a crime...you become a criminal. It's not slavery or religious persecution it's come by the rules. Being poor doesn't suddenly override the laws and make them unimportant. What a society we'd live in if that were the case.

Why don't you guys read all the posts?

Me: Calling run away slaves, speed limit breakers ('flow of traffic' people), and a religious person criminals doesn't seem a bit idiotic to you?

I admit that I should have structured it better, but it is still there.

 

[skadistic]

Listen. Not all of them steal! They WORK here. W-O-R-K. I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

No just the ones who get free health care that I pay for...oh and the ones who get instae tuition even though they aren't legal residents of the state much less the country, and then there is the education dollars the illegal kids take. I don't care if they are working or not they shouldn't be here. And the ones that do rob stores and homes and the gangs and the ones who get wellfair because they had their kids in America at the taxpayers expence.


But they are all honest hard working criminals.

 

[skadistic]

Why don't you guys read all the posts?

Me: Calling run away slaves, speed limit breakers ('flow of traffic' people), and a religious person criminals doesn't seem a bit idiotic to you?

I admit that I should have structured it better, but it is still there.

Not if those people were comiting crimes.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Why don't you guys read all the posts?

Me: Calling run away slaves, speed limit breakers ('flow of traffic' people), and a religious person criminals doesn't seem a bit idiotic to you?

I admit that I should have structured it better, but it is still there.

For one, traffic offenses aren't "crimes" as they aren't really laws.

And chattel slavery isn't a good example. It hasn't existed in any form in the US for nearly 160 years and many would find you're comparison insulting to the victims of slavery.

 

[Zarn]

No just the ones who get free health care that I pay for...oh and the ones who get instae tuition even though they aren't legal residents of the state much less the country, and then there is the education dollars the illegal kids take. I don't care if they are working or not they shouldn't be here. And the ones that do rob stores and homes and the gangs and the ones who get wellfair because they had their kids in America at the taxpayers expence.


But they are all honest hard working criminals.

Wow, you really are racist. You think that you are better, because opportunity was handed to you. You aren't. They deserve the same rights that you have.

I'm not defending the real criminals. I'm defending the average joe, who is trying to support his family.

Edit: Even if speeding wasn't, wearing your seatbelt is in many states. People break that all the time.

Slavery is a good example. It shows that laws aren't always moral, even if they did seem that way to many at the time.

 

[skadistic]

Wow, you really are racist. You think that you are better, because opportunity was handed to you. You aren't. They deserve the same rights that you have.

I'm not defending the real criminals. I'm defending the average joe, who is trying to support his family.

I'm sorry but since when is "illegal alien" a race? And with that last ditch effort you have managed to show how realy ignorant you are. I don't think I'm better. And no they don't deserve the same rights I have because unlike them I didn't come illegaly as a criminal and commit fraud. You are defending criminals you're just to ignorant to admit it.

I leave you now so you can stew in your blissful ignorance.

 

[Perfection]

Calling illegal immigration morally equivalent to fraud is a bogus assertion.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Calling illegal immigration morally equivalent to fraud is a bogus assertion.

I didn't say it was morally equivalent. I said that illigals (or anyone for that matter) obtaining welfare through false pretenses is fraud.

 

[Zarn]

I'm sorry but since when is "illegal alien" a race? And with that last ditch effort you have managed to show how realy ignorant you are. I don't think I'm better. And no they don't deserve the same rights I have because unlike them I didn't come illegaly as a criminal and commit fraud. You are defending criminals you're just to ignorant to admit it.

I leave you now so you can stew in your blissful ignorance.

It isn't a race, but they aren't your race, and you really don't want them in this country.

Ditch effort? I'm not the one making the efforts. You guys failed to say anything reasonable so far.You just say the same thing over and over again. Every post of yours is exactly the same. Saying they don't deserve the same rights as you makes the whole thing pretty obvious. They are human like you, so they are entitled to the same rights.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It isn't a race, but they aren't your race, and you really don't want them in this country.

Irish illegals aren't part of the white race?

 

[Zarn]

Irish illegals aren't part of my race?

We were talking about Mexico.

 

[skadistic]

Irish illegals aren't part of the white race?

You didn't know? Only brown people come here illegaly.

 

[Bugfatty300]

We were talking about Mexico.

We were talking about illegal aliens. You're the one bringing race into this. Its rather silly of you to start throwing the term "racist" around.

 

[Zarn]

You didn't know? Only brown people come here illegaly.

I'm Latino, so that won't work. Nice try.

You know Mexican immigrants are the subject at hand.

Edit: The thread is titled 'Mexican anger over US 'trespass.'' We aren't talking about Ireland.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm Latino, so that won't work. Nice try.

You know Mexican immigrants are the subject at hand.

Edit: The thread is titled 'Mexican anger over US 'trespass.'' We aren't talking about Ireland.

Uh the title of this thread does not refer to illegal immigration from Mexico. Read the OP to find out what the thread is about.

But what difference does it make? Irish, Mexican, what ever. Don't all people fall into your so called universal "right" to immigrate to US? Or do you have something against Irish?

Or are only latinos entitled to this "universal right?"

 

[Zarn]

Uh the title of this thread does not refer to illegal immigration from Mexico. Read the OP to find out what the thread is about.

I know, but then some people started complaining about illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Edit: I'm also Irish.

 

[Perfection]

I didn't say it was morally equivalent. I said that illigals (or anyone for that matter) obtaining welfare through false pretenses is fraud.

under the implication that they don't deserve it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

under the implication that they don't deserve it.

No, they don't deserve it and are usually committing a crime when they do get it.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

If you want to pay fees go ahead. There is still a limit to the number of people who entered so you won't realy be helping anyone that is currently illegal or would come illegaly in the future. Your little plan will do nothing to help people who won't be getting any way. The US won't be increasing the quota. You do know that it costs alot of money to get smuggled into the US right? That profitability is why drug smugglers are fighting human smugglers for the best routes in.

The limit is currently 236,000 or so families. Now, let's say that this limit is not reached every year, providing me with plenty of room to move more people into the US. Would you have a problem with that?

Let's say, hypothetically, this limit was raised or abolished. Would you still have a problem with it?

 

[JollyRoger]

Again, I find it amazing that you, as an attorny, seem to be confused between having an opinion, and someone sitting in judgement on a situation.

If you are still confused about it, next time you are in court, ask your judge about the difference. I am sure he will be able to educate you.

So JollyRoger, an Appellate Judge, and a Priest were sitting at a bar. JR asks the Judge - "Hey Judge Larry Joe Activist, is there a difference between sitting in Judgement and having an opinion?"

The Judge says, "JR, are you a moron? Overlooking the fact that you should bring your paralegal to the bar with you to help you spell correctly when you speak, I've got a question: When I make a Judgment (and though mine are real gems there is no 'gem' in Judgment), how do you know what it is?"

JR turns as red as Jesus' words in the Bible and sheepishly says, "Er, I read your Opinion."

The priest smugly pops in with his dictionary (since it has been agreed between the parties that JR can use the Bible in their drunken debates if the Priest can use a Dictionary): "Hey JR, judge this:
o·pin·ion (-pnyn) KEY

NOUN:

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3, A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court. "

JR points at definition #1 and says "No judgment, pwned."

"Not in my judgment" Judge Activist pipes in, "It depends on if the opinion is substantiated by positive knowledge or not. And by the way, it is a universal law of debate that whenever you use the word 'pwned', it is self-referential."

"So" JR whines in that shrill librul voice that we all know and love to hate, "do you think someone that is aware of the way Mexicans treat illegals at their southern border has positive substantiated knowledge?"

"Well" the Judge laughs like he does at his Democratic opponent every election year, "If that person is talking out of his or her antechamber, then any conclusions he or she reaches based on this 'factoid' would be mere opinion, but if they have looked closer into the situation - like read it as fact somewhere more credible than FreeRepublic or Conservapedia, it sounds like they have specialized knowledge and would be making an opinion that is also classified as a judgment if they were using this fact as a basis. And if they are opining with a negative tone, they are even getting, dare I say, judgmental, in the definition 3 sense of the word."

"That's right," say the Priest, "If they aren't merely talking out of their antechamber, then they are, I opine, in my considered judgment, no longer in the No Sin Zone, as Father O' Reilly likes to call it."

JR swigs some grog and say "Hey Priest, how & why do you speak in bold? Me and the Judge can only manage the occassional sissy italics."

"It's something the good Lord taught me to do with drunkards and morons like you. In fact, a little birdie told me that you get called a moron all the time"

As was mentioned in another thread "any moron can read Nitsche and quote it....they just dont understand it'. It seems this is true of the bible as well.

Moderator Action: Trolling / flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889