Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing irrrational about the Rule of Law and our desire to have our immigration laws respected and enforced.
There is when the law needs to be changed. Prohibition is a good example. Instead of saying "hey there is a problem, we need to change the law" and insisting that enforcement only will fix the problem is irrational in the face of the evidence. Arguments that don't into consideration the costs of total enforcement and the costs of non-enforcement are irrational. Esp. when trying to fix the current problem.
There is when the law needs to be changed. Prohibition is a good example. Instead of saying "hey there is a problem, we need to change the law" and insisting that enforcement only will fix the problem is irrational in the face of the evidence. Arguments that don't into consideration the costs of total enforcement and the costs of non-enforcement are irrational. Esp. when trying to fix the current problem.
Tell me, if the enforcement of our current immigration law is prohibitive, how will we afford to enforce the “new” law?
I didn’t say it did. I just wanted to highlight some of the emotional arguments frequently used by pro-illegals to justify and defend lawlessness.
Thank you for acknowledging which “side” you support.
I don't think you have good reading comprehension skills. Or maybe I didn't express myself. I stated both "sides" suck. I noted that the side "you" support sucks. That is independent of which side I support (notice the "" around 'side' and 'you'). Meaning that there really are no sides, except by extremists.
Tell me, if the enforcement of our current immigration law is prohibitive, how will we afford to enforce the “new” law?
Not creating better laws will cost more. Also Prohibition was a set of laws...the point has nothing to do with the actual wording, but rather the efficacy of the laws.
I don't think you have good reading comprehension skills. Or maybe I didn't express myself. I stated both "sides" suck. I noted that the side "you" support sucks. That is independent of which side I support (notice the "" around 'side' and 'you'). Meaning that there really are no sides, except by extremists.
I won’t comment on your comprehension skills, because it adds nothing to the discussion, and could be construed as being a childish, personal attack. However, the fact that you referred to it as “your” side, generally implies first person exclusion. Otherwise, you would have said “our” side.
Not creating better laws will cost more. Also Prohibition was a set of laws...the point has nothing to do with the actual wording, but rather the efficacy of the laws.
What is your idea of “better” laws, and how will they be more enforceable than our current?
What is you idea of “better” laws, and how will they be more enforceable than our current?
I don't have all the data. I don't claim to know right now. I do know that enforcing our laws as written could be pretty bad economically speaking. One study estimates that illegal immigrants will add 1.5 trillion to GDP over the next 10 years. The cost estimates vary significantly, but most figures are at around $100 billion annually (Heritage Foundation)...I would need to do more research.
I won’t comment on your comprehension skills, because it adds nothing to the discussion, and could be construed as being a childish, personal attack. However, the fact that you referred to it as “your” side, generally implies first person exclusion. Otherwise, you would have said “our” side.
Huh? I don't think you get the idea of quotations. I stated "your" side because it's a line delineated by you. A line I find extreme. Thus, not my side. Because I don't agree with "your" side doesn't mean I'm automatically the opposite. You see how that works?
Hence the issue of good comprehension skills or my not writing clearly...as I stated. Since I stated it could be me, it's not a personal attack. It's fleshing out every possibility (me or you). What is a personal attack is the implication that I'm somehow childish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
