Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


Yup, I have. You should try it RET. Feel free to ask them why they broke the law; I do that too.


We should “ask” all the criminals “why” they broke the law, if we did we would have to empty the prisons since none of them blame themselves.


I’d do it for an illegal gun owner in Massachusetts, or a food truck driver serving “oversized” cups in New York.

Sometimes, the law is just wrong. We should be open to detecting that.

Bureaucracy, is no friend to the rule of law.


How did this country ever get to the sorry state where a simple concept - enforcing the law - became such a point of argument!

It is illegal to enter the country illegally
It is illegal to BE IN the country illegally

Thats it. Thats all. How can the Left possibly argue against this. Its simple I guess: The Left WANTS to break the law in order to advance an agenda.


This is kind of a reply to RET also:

That is the role of the judge during sentencing.

The role of the juror is to decide guilt or innoncence in the charge of breaking a law.

This used to be taught in civics.


Prohibition was enforcing the law. It was wrong.

McDonald v. City of Chicago was enforcing the law. It was wrong.

Towns banning and fining State-licensed Food trucks is enforcing the law. It was wrong

ALL of these laws were created by the left, btw. And so was our immigration system. Since 1962.

The rule of law is a two-way-street. You need to write laws that don’t interfere with people’s ability to go about their everyday lives. That’s a conservative standpoint.

The problem with our immigration system is that it drags its feet, its incoherent, and doesn’t offer clear expectations.

When conditions are like that, immigrants can’t properly plan their lives around it. The interference and the opaque nature of the bureaucracy engenders low trust, and no low trust system works.


Actually, not necessarily the case. In Texas, they have a bifurcated jury system. In one part of the trial, the jury decides guilt or innocence. In the second part, they decide on punishment and the JURY makes that determination.

I recall one case where an ex-MP was tried for drug possession and pimping out a 14-year-old runaway from Washington State. He was found guilty and the jury deliberated for 4 HOURS on his punishment. He’d falsely testified that he had no previous felony convictions and was therefore eligible for probation when we showed that he’d done a year in the Minnesota penitentiary for burglary. I asked one juror why it took 4 HOURS to decide to give him the maximum sentence in both cases. She told me that they were trying to figure out how they could give him MORE time than the maximum.


No! Prohibition WAS the law, and it is NEVER wrong to enforce the law. If you don’t like the law then change it. Are you saying that you don’t like laws that protect our borders? LOL

Thats a court decision.Again: it is NEVER wrong to enforce the law.

No they’re not. Cities have every right to pass local ordinances. That’s three strikes, you’re out.

Good! I am cool with that. What the heck has that got to do with illegal aliens crossing the border.

Well that was fun.


Schools used to teach civics and history.


Irrelevant to illegal immigration, really, yeah, it can be. It would be wrong to enforce a law that bans, oh, say, religion – even if the United States successfully passed a constitutional amendment abridging the freedom of religion. The supposed ability to “change the law” if you don’t like it is no good justification for violating human rights. Enforcing a wrong law is wrong.


Well, the laws regarding illegal aliens are not wrong, so thats that.


Yes it is; it’s called efficacy.

If the law lacks it, no amount of enforcement will redeem it. It erodes the rule of law.

Prohibition, made society lawless. It increased corruption, it dramatically rose the death toll, it gave incentives to organized crime.

People are supposed to follow law, but lawmakers are supposed to write just & efficacious law. If they don’t, then they’re to blame for the result.

I’m not talking about the court’s decision. I’m talking about the city making gun ownership so difficult, as to make it nigh-impossible, then to prosecute people who didn’t follow the intentionally complicated process.

People need to defend themselves, the city got in the way. The city was wrong. No two ways about it.

Ordinances, not bans. It’s ridiculous to require food trucks to get permission from their own competition to operate.


Lemme fix that for you:



So your answer is to MAKE UP a law that supports your position, RWNJ? Enforcing a law that has been duly passed is never wrong. If the LAW is wrong, then the answer is to CHANGE IT, just like we did in Brown v. Board of Education. The ONLY reason it took 70 years is because of Democrat obstructionism.




Recognizing property rights over other human beings was always wrong, and it was wrong to enforce it. Are you happy. Real laws that existed that were wrong. Historically, laws absolutely did abridge freedom of religion. That was wrong too. The United States was founded by many who fled those laws. Our country fought and was founded on the belief that a whole lot of laws were wrong.

If you enforce wrong laws that makes you wrong.


However, DISOBEYING a law is never RIGHT. The answer–as several here have reiterated–is to CHANGE THE LAW.


If I stole a slave to set him free, I’m not apologizing.

If I make a sign of the cross, and say grace in public before a meal, not apologizing for that either.


Where is there even a law that prohibits you from saying grace in public? Where is there a law in the U.S. that sanctions slavery and/or punishes you for freeing a slave? You can’t justify your position by making up laws and then knocking them down, AS.


Laws against public Catholic practice? Had them right here in Colorado, when we had our KKK Governor.
Shut down our schools too.

If I’d been here at that time, and “broke the law”, who’d be in the wrong, Dave?