Putting to rest the silly 'so you always drive 65 or under, right?' talking point.

[Lance_Boyle]

Those who pull this one out are not really arguing what they think they are arguing. Their disingenuous little game most often goes like this:

Rational person: "Entering the country without documentation is against the law, and those who do it should be deported."

Would-be Sophist: "So it's all about the law? I guess you never drive over the speed limit, then?"

Question for the would-be sophists here: Do you really think that people who are stopped for speeding should, instead of being ticketed and fined, be given a special license - only available to speeders who have been caught - exempting them from posted speed limits forevermore?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. They are both civil offenses

If you want to refer to undocumented persons as "illegal" then you also need to refer to those who speed or run stop signs as "illegal".

It's not that hard to understand.

[terrapinwelcher]

4. Talk About Picking Nits

So if speeders were referred to as "illegal drivers", you would have no problem with immigration enforcement in the U.S.?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Do people who claim that they're against illegal immigration but not legal immigration...

really expect people to believe them?

I mean, if they're for the rule of law, why piss on the Constitution?

If they're for the rule of law, why are they against amnesty, which would be a rule of law?

If they're not anti-immigrant, why ban ethnic studies?

Fuckers have as much credibility as people who pretend Rand Paul is not racist.

[terrapinwelcher]

7. You Are All Over the Place, My Friend

While your "piss on the Constitution" remark is intended to get a rise, it fails the intelligence test. Firstly, immigration laws are constitutional (duh). Secondly, opposing amnesty laws is constitutional (duh). Opposing laws you don't agree with is constitutional, even if the law you oppose is constitutional as well. (duh).

Next you jump fully into the land of the non sequitur. Not everyone who opposes illegal immigration but is in favor of legal immigration is against ethnic studies. For those of us like me who do oppose ethnic studies on the basis of the late, great Dr. King's message of inclusion, I say to you that you are bordering on being a bigot of a different stripe yourself. I oppose ethnic studies as much as I would oppose white studies classes, much less a degree in them. I for one, am more concerned about what we have in common than the color of one's skin or the country that their ancestors came from.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. No, you just can't follow.

"Firstly, immigration laws are constitutional (duh)."

The AZ law is unconstitutional. That's why so many non-racist police officers are choosing (correctly) not to enforce it.

And that's why people who claim to support the AZ law, and rule of law, are liars.

"Secondly, opposing amnesty laws is constitutional (duh)"

It's constitutional. It's also anti-immmigrant.

That's why people who say "I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal" are liars.

"For those of us like me who do oppose ethnic studies on the basis of the late, great Dr. King's message of inclusion, I say to you that you are bordering on being a bigot of a different stripe yourself."

:rofl:

[terrapinwelcher]

12. If The AZ Law is Unconstitutional

Then why didn't Holder as the AG come right out and say it? Why didn't Obama? He was a constitutional law teacher. Your assertion badly fail the sniff test. And opposing amnesty laws is "anti-immmigrant"? Why? Because you say so? Damn convincing argument. So people who favor legal immigration are actually "anti-immmigrant". What grade in school was your last completed?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. If the law was constitutional...

why did neo-nazis write it, and why is the ACLU suing to stop it?

I mean, who am I supposed to believe? You and the neo-nazis, or the ACLU?

[Lance_Boyle]

33. The same ACLU that fights for Neo-Nazi and KKK free speech rights?

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about avowed racists writing law. Do you also believe that any laws Senator Byrd wrote or supported early in his career were de facto unconstitutional?

As for the ACLU suing to stop it, do we take that to mean that the ACLU, like you apparently do, supports and encourages illegal immigration? I don't think so. They rightly see problems with the language in the law that opens the door to profiling. I don't know many people who could support that language, or profiling. It's an anti-civil-liverties activity. But there is no civil rights argument against granting AZ state and local police the authority to detain those found to be illegally in-country. There may be a Federalism argument to be made against it, and one may eventually be made, but that's not the ACLU's bailiwick, and they are silent on the issue.

[terrapinwelcher]

43. You Don't See

The word "bailiwick" in print too often anymore.

[Lance_Boyle]

21. it would be highly unusual for a sitting president to declare a state law unconstitutional

I believe Obama has said that he thinks it is a bad law. And he would not be wrong to say that ONE ASPECT of it is pretty clearly unconstitutional. The single line that says police can seek ID if they have "reason to believe" that a person is in the country illegally opens the door to profiling, and should never have been included in the law in the first place (since AZ police have for years had to authority to stop and identify anyone they want, regardless of suspicion or "reason to believe" anything). But the part that lets AZ police detain those found to be illegally in-country is valid law and should stand scrutiny.

[terrapinwelcher]

27. Obama Can't "Declare" the Law Unconstitutional

But he certainly can offer his opinion. Holder hadn't even read the law when he commented on it. I'm not saying that Justice won't eventually file suit, but so far it looks like Holder's only opposition to it is on a personal morality basis and not on a legal one. I guess we'll see.

[Lance_Boyle]

38. I think the legal opposition is pretty clear WRT the profiling/civil rights issue.

I've not heard the Federalism angle discussed anywhere.

My guess is that the law will be re-written to get rid of the completely unnecessary profiling bit before it goes far in the courts.

[christx30]

59. Other than

the profiling issue of the AZ law, what is unconstitutional about the law? Doesn't it pretty much mirror Federal law? The only difference is that the AZ law will be enforced, while the Federal law isn't enforced.

[blondeatlast]

23. Oh, please do pick a fight with HFPS. Just let me grab some popcorn first. nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

42. Let me in on some of that.

I've lurked long enough to recognize a popcorn-worthy showdown when one's a-brewin'.

[terrapinwelcher]

3. I For One

Would be in favor of that law, especially for me.

[Ter]

5. Please don't compare the two

Breaking the speed limit a little is one of the most minor laws in the country.

[Winterblues]

6. How about shoplifting, it is very "minor"

Just where is the line. What Laws can I break and feel I haven't done wrong?

[terrapinwelcher]

8. Whatever Your Conscience Allows, I Suppose

But that is not the question. The question is, "What laws do I disregard with impunity?" or "What laws do I feel that I shouldn't be punished for if i get caught breaking them?" Hopefully, your answer is "NONE of them."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. "Hopefully, your answer is "NONE of them.""

That's odd. In another post, you claim to be a fan of Dr. King.

Except Dr. King regularly promoted the moral virtues of breaking immoral laws.

[terrapinwelcher]

14. Nice Try

Re-read what I wrote.

But that is not the question. The question is, "What laws do I disregard with impunity?" or "What laws do I feel that I shouldn't be punished for if i get caught breaking them?" Hopefully, your answer is "NONE of them."

King knew that he would be punished for breaking the law. He didn't bitch and moan that he was jailed. He worked within the legal framework in exhibiting his civil disobedience. That is, his conscience absolved him, but he willingly submitted to the authorities. This was in direct contrast to groups like the Black Panthers that advocated violent overthrow as a means of achieving equality. So before you go casting bullshit aspersions as to whether or not I hold to King's message, do your damned due diligence first and open a real history book.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. terrapinwelcher, please.

Don't expect me to take you seriously when you claim to know anything about King, or claim to respect the guy.

I'm not buying it.

[terrapinwelcher]

18. Whatever Dude

I didn't realize that you had "omniscience skillz".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. I have "heard it all before skills."

[terrapinwelcher]

22. Sounds Like You Are Wrong Fairly Often, Then

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Nope. Perfect track record.

I'm not bragging. It's not like you people don't make it perfectly obvious.

[terrapinwelcher]

31. "You People"

You mean critical thinkers? Heaven forbid we don't all march in absolute lockstep in the Party. I guess your tent is too small for me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. The ones with lots of black friends.

[terrapinwelcher]

35. I Currently Don't Have Any

So am I not a racist by your bizarre reasoning?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I know, terrapinwelcher, I know.

[Lance_Boyle]

13. The more accurate question is 'what laws should people be REWARDED for breaking?'

It's not a matter of simply *not punishing* a lawbreaker per the letter of the law (ticket and fine for speeding, deportation for illegal border crossing). It's a matter of *rewarding* certain lawbreakers for their failure to adhere to US law. In rewarding those who enter the country illegally with an amnesty, you do harm to all those who have ever suffered even so much as minor inconvenience (much less blood sweat and tears) to enter legally.

[terrapinwelcher]

16. And That is an Additional Point

That I forgot to bring up. It is even worse than looking the other way since it brings in new violators who expect the same at a future point in time. Reagan did many things wrong and amnesty was definitely one of them.

[Lance_Boyle]

26. Agreed that the Reagan Amnesty was a huge mistake.

The number of illegal crossings has continued to rise ever since, in part because all of the newer illegals are just awaiting *their* amnesty.

That said, I *love* being able to call it "the Reagan Amnesty" when dealing with those who worship at the altar of St. Ronnie. If they're not uncomfortable enough with a liberal opposing illegal immigration, they go headsplodey whenever they're reminded that "The Gipper" screwed the pooch so badly on that.

[Ter]

62. Reagan would have deeply regretted it if he were alive and well

One of his many mistakes.

[Ter]

61. Just car laws

I won't feel bad with a little speeding, or maybe a tinted window or two. I'd feel bad about steeling.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. So is breaking immigration law.

Breaking immigration law hurts no one.

Breaking the speed limit potentially puts human life in jeopardy.

As far as morals are concerned, speeding is worse.

[terrapinwelcher]

20. That's a Debate

That I don't want to waste the time to get into. Res ipsa loquitur.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. It's a debate you know you can't win.

You can't win any of them, but that one in particular.

[terrapinwelcher]

29. Damn!

Your logic is not only convincing, but it is thoroughly supported as well.

[Ter]

60. And as far as US law goes, breaking the speed limit is far worse

Breaking immigration law hurts no one? Wow, just wow.

[LanternWaste]

28. I see the self-proclaimed...

I see the self-proclaimed law-and-order types justifying breaking one law but not another, never to be found with the same righteous rage in berating anyone admitting to, or supporting speeding-- or as some may call it, illegal driving.

In this context, it's not so much about the actions and reactions to speeders by law enforcement as it is the actions and reactions to speeders by those who witness it without the same righteous rage.

Guess we have different opinions is all...

[terrapinwelcher]

30. I'm Not Sure What Your Point Is

Are you saying that people can't or shouldn't hold varying levels of outrage based upon the law that was actually broken?

[LanternWaste]

44. Point being that consistency matters...

Point being that consistency matters-- if one rails on about law and order, then mere degrees are inconsequential.

[terrapinwelcher]

46. Oh, That Makes Sense

Child pornography and shoplifting are so similar.

[Lance_Boyle]

34. Nobody 'justifies' breaking speed limit laws.

They merely accept that there is a prescribed penalty for breaking those laws, and if caught doing so, they submit to those penalties. How can you argue that speeders should be held to account for breaking the law, but illegal border crossers shouldn't, or should in fact be REWARDED for it?

[terrapinwelcher]

37. Look, I've Already Gone on Record

As saying that I am willing to be hypocritical about speed laws if they ever decide to institute a rewards program for speeders.

[LanternWaste]

45. I predicated my position not on the actions and reactions of law enforcement...

Again... I predicated my position not on the actions and reactions of law enforcement, but on the actions and reactions of the passer-by. You appear to be missing that posit.


If speeding can cause violent accidents and result in death, then any passer-by who labels themselves a law-and-order type would be duty bound to call the illegal driver in to the cops.

Or if a passer-by sees an individual sitting in a comfy chair at home smoking a joint, then that law and order type is bound the code of their own advertised ethics to call the police.


Or simply (and I find this much more likely) the law and order type is not really a law and order type, and rails against some crimes, yet gives a wink and nudge to other.

[Lance_Boyle]

47. I doubt that very many of us who oppose illegal immigration have ever

directly turned in an illegal alien. We have no means to know. So posit what you will to distract from the main point, the OP holds.

[backscatter712]

39. Another classic piece of nativist sophistry...

Speeding law and immigration law are two different things, and you're completely blowing off the fact that it is the law itself that is brain-damaged when it comes to immigration.

Slavery was the law. Jim Crow was the law. Internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was the law.

So if you're going to howl about the law, you might want to make sure that the law you're howling about actually makes sense. Because in this case, it doesn't.

[Lance_Boyle]

40. I didn't invent the 'speeding and illegal immigration' analogy.

That's purely the work of the pro-illegal side of this argument. I'm just pointing out that when you examine their cutesy wordplay, they end up not arguing what they think they are arguing at all.

*edited to add a missing punctuation mark

[Bluebear]

48. 'pro-illegal side of this argument' - how very very right wing you sound.

[terrapinwelcher]

49. Nice Ad Hominem

When reason fails, attack the messenger.

[Bluebear]

50. That "messenger" is well known for these type of messages. And now you will be too.

91 posts and a third of them on this thread. Agenda much?

[terrapinwelcher]

54. Nope

But I do find this topic interesting. Plus I find it more intellectually stimulating than the constant circle jerk of blaming Bush for everything at the 17 month mark of Obama's first term. We all know that Bush was neither very bright nor was he a good president. But the incestuous mentality of many in our party (and which seems to be quite prevalent on this board) is that our guys never do any wrong and the repugs always do. Furthermore when some bonehead Dem gets caught with his pants down, there seems to be a general attitude of indifference amongst most of my progressive friends. Yet they howl and whine when a repug does the same thing. I don't mind the whining. Heck, most of it is justified. but the juvenile insistence that everything is so one-sided is nauseating. Look, if we never fucked up at anything, we'd always maintain power. Don't be so infantile that you can't handle dissent or honest self-appraisal of your own party. They are just people. And quite frankly, most politicians regardless of their stripe really don't give a rat's ass about you or me. When I lived in California, Tom Hayden was one of the most hated people in the CA legislature by the members of his own party. And yet he was by far and away the most principled person in the party. Why was he hated? Because he was not so naïve or juvenile to believe that the party or its elected representatives always served the best interests of the people and he wasn't afraid to say so or to act on his principles.

[Bluebear]

57. You're preaching to the choir here

Since you are brand spanking new, you should read a little and get to know the cast of characters before you either lecture them or hitch your wagon to their stars, fair enough?

As to illegal immigration, I support a path to citizenship as a practical and humane way to address a problem we havbe in the country now. And Obama promised to make the topic a priority and still nothing has been done about it.

[terrapinwelcher]

58. Yeah

That's cool.

[terrapinwelcher]

41. Based Upon What Legal Precedent

Have you come to the conclusion that restricting immigration is illegal?

(edited typo)

[Puzzler]

51. By that argument, no law should be enforced.

[Unvanguard]

52. Do you think they should be deported? n/t

[terrapinwelcher]

56. Crack Down Heavily on Businesses

That hire illegal immigrants and eliminate benefits for non-citizens and they will eventually go home. Everyone knows that if you don't feed the stray, it will eventually go away.

[tammywammy]

53. Well here, you're supposed to drive with the flow of traffic

If the overall traffic speed is above the speed limit, and you're going slower to maintain the speed limit, you can get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic.

:shrug:

[terrapinwelcher]

55. That's the Law

But have you ever heard of anyone being ticketed for that?