d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Immigration, Etc... > And Illegal Immigrants
Prev12345677Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 13462Replies: 769Track Topic
Member
Posts: 90,657
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
#31
Mar 7 2018 04:39pm
Quote (Ghot @ Mar 7 2018 04:38pm)
Again, pretty speech. But it doesn't change the fact that California can not disregard Federal Law.
Illegal immigrants are a drain on society. AND harboring them is illegal. I don't see where the argument is.
California can pass all the laws it wants, saying they don't have to give up illegal immigrants, but those laws are ...just air, if they go against federal law.
No one is asking the local law enforcement to do anything other than to turn them over when asked by THEIR Federal govt.

Same thing as if they were tax evaders. It's against the law.


do you believe that the federal government should spend billions doing raids on pot dispensaries?
Member
Posts: 53,463
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 200.83
#32
Mar 7 2018 04:42pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Mar 7 2018 02:06pm)
When the next Democrat makes your guns illegal, will you support the military kicking your door in to confiscate your guns? Because a law is a law, right?


what is the constitution?
Quote (inkanddagger @ Mar 7 2018 02:31pm)
When federal law changes to ban your guns, how will you feel about being a lawbreaker then?

I don't see anything in post #15 that can be construed to mean the federal government can compel states or local entities to devote their law enforcement budgets to federal projects. In fact, we already pay the federal taxes that pay for those federal agents in the first place. Approving of double taxation without double representation to support a despot is a particularly un-American way of thinking.

As for California produce, we do sell to the rest of the states. We're the largest agricultural producer and exporter in America.

http://ajed.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajed.assembly.ca.gov/files/Fast%20Facts%20on%20California%27s%20Agricultural%20Economy.pdf


what if we disregard the fundamental amendments and make youuuuuuu the bad guy HUH???!?!! Not So SmaRT Now Are You NOW MR. BAD GUY!

This post was edited by majorblood on Mar 7 2018 04:47pm
Member
Posts: 90,657
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
#33
Mar 7 2018 04:46pm
Quote (majorblood @ Mar 7 2018 04:42pm)
what is the constitution?


are you being purposefully dense?

"guns" could mean any class of gun. ARs, semi auto rifles, etc. Machine guns are a direct precedent.

even then the constitution can be ratified. i fully expect the 2nd amendment gone before the whole constitution is. maybe 100-200 years from now but still.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 7 2018 04:46pm
Member
Posts: 53,463
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 200.83
#34
Mar 7 2018 04:50pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 7 2018 02:46pm)
are you being purposefully dense?

"guns" could mean any class of gun. ARs, semi auto rifles, etc. Machine guns are a direct precedent.

even then the constitution can be ratified. i fully expect the 2nd amendment gone before the whole constitution is. maybe 100-200 years from now but still.


100-200 years from now his argument might be relevant when it's not the 2nd amendment. right now it's a non-sequitur when it comes to state rights vs federal law via the 10th amendment
Member
Posts: 61,380
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 10.77
#35
Mar 7 2018 04:52pm
Quote (Ghot @ Mar 7 2018 03:38pm)
Again, pretty speech. But it doesn't change the fact that California can not disregard Federal Law.
Illegal immigrants are a drain on society. AND harboring them is illegal. I don't see where the argument is.
California can pass all the laws it wants, saying they don't have to give up illegal immigrants, but those laws are ...just air, if they go against federal law.
No one is asking the local law enforcement to do anything other than to turn them over when asked by THEIR Federal govt.

Same thing as if they were tax evaders. It's against the law.


Despite the fact you got several things wrong (immigrants are net positive contributor to the economy of California), your attitude of "enforce the law" forgets to consider the subtext "...whatever that law may be."

To call for laws to be enforced without considering whether those laws are just, or tools of anti-American authoritarianism and centralization, is to blindly promote the security state against the interests of human liberty.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 7 2018 04:55pm
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
#36
Mar 7 2018 04:53pm
Quote (majorblood @ Mar 7 2018 05:42pm)
what is the constitution?

what if we disregard the fundamental amendments and make youuuuuuu the bad guy HUH???!?!! Not So SmaRT Now Are You NOW MR. BAD GUY!


Constitution: an amendable, living document.

Go yell fire in a theater and then complain about first amendment.
Member
Posts: 104,180
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,655.00
#37
Mar 7 2018 04:56pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Mar 7 2018 05:52pm)
Despite the fact you got several things wrong (immigrants are net positive contributor to the economy of California), your attitude of "enforce the law" forgets to consider the subtext "...whatever that law may be."

To call for laws to be enforced without considering whether those laws or just, or tools of anti-American authoritarianism and centralization, is to blindly promote the security state against the interests of human liberty.


WOW.
You don't have to like the US govt. as it exists, But you have to obey the laws.

I'm quite sure they are accepting immigrants in some country that HAS laws that you DO like.

/e Yes those "illegal immigrants" may be a positive contribution to California, but it's the other 49 states that they are a drain on.

This post was edited by Ghot on Mar 7 2018 04:57pm
Member
Posts: 61,380
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 10.77
#38
Mar 7 2018 04:57pm
Quote (Ghot @ Mar 7 2018 03:38pm)
No one is asking the local law enforcement to do anything other than to turn them over when asked by THEIR Federal govt.


Actually, that's what this entire discussion is about. Sessions was criticizing California and its local government for not spending extra money supporting federal agents, who we already pay taxes for.

It's funny. This is very similar to what the American Revolution was fought over and you're on the Tory side.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 7 2018 04:58pm
Member
Posts: 90,657
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
#39
Mar 7 2018 04:57pm
Quote (majorblood @ Mar 7 2018 04:50pm)
100-200 years from now his argument might be relevant when it's not the 2nd amendment. right now it's a non-sequitur when it comes to state rights vs federal law via the 10th amendment


how is asking if a person would support cooperation with federal law a non-sequitor? i asked him the same question with regards to state flouting federal drug laws with legal pot. its a relevant question to find out if the person actually respects federal law or is just finding a convenient reason to back up their biased opinion.

now if spurious unilaterally non-enforced laws such as sodomy under certain definitions or the "ice cream cherry pie in Kansas" example was used you may have a better point. as it is the changes needed for federal agents to come and confiscate AR15 clone semi automatic rifles would be entirely constitutional. nothing says you retain the right to own all types of weapons, as they proved by banning machine guns already.

i think you just took "guns" to mean all guns, which to be fair given that its Ink it may have been.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
#40
Mar 7 2018 04:58pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Mar 7 2018 05:57pm)
Actually, that's what this entire discussion is about. Sessions was criticizing California and its local government for not spending extra money supporting federal agents, who we already pay taxes for.


typical conservative entitled attitude.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345677Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact