We see people stacked like wood frequently

[Misfit Toy]

I never said their worth is less than anyone else's. I feel sad that they were killed. They are what they are however. They are dead. They were criminals in this country. They were aliens. Had they honored our laws they would still be alive.

Or they could just as easily have been murdered by drug lords in their own country. But, who cares about them anyway. They were criminals! And aliens!

But they weren't murdered by drug lords, were they? We know how they died.

So the message is: Thank God for all those others who crossed the border and didn't die.

That's not an ideology Misfit. It's common sense. We as a people have established these laws. It's only reasonable that they be adhered to. No?

Lucky that our founding fathers didn't think that way. Perhaps they followed their consciences instead of blindly following "the laws of the land".

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Or they could just as easily have been murdered by drug lords in their own country. But, who cares about them anyway. They were criminals! And aliens!

But they weren't murdered by drug lords, were they? We know how they died.

So the message is: Thank God for all those others who crossed the border and didn't die.

That's not an ideology Misfit. It's common sense. We as a people have established these laws. It's only reasonable that they be adhered to. No?

Lucky that our founding fathers didn't think that way. Perhaps they followed their consciences instead of blindly following "the laws of the land".

I agree. I don't want them killed either.

And our founding fathers rebelled against the government that was oppressing them. We are not oppressing these people.

 

[ThankQ]

Not to mention "people should follow the laws of the land" is, in fact, quite obviously, an ideology.

TLS. Please address this salient point.

That's not an ideology Misfit. It's common sense. We as a people have established these laws. It's only reasonable that they be adhered to. No?

i⋅de⋅ol⋅o⋅gy  [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -gies.
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Yes, "follow the law" is quite obviously an ideology.

 

[Misfit Toy]

But they weren't murdered by drug lords, were they? We know how they died.

So the message is: Thank God for all those others who crossed the border and didn't die.

That's not an ideology Misfit. It's common sense. We as a people have established these laws. It's only reasonable that they be adhered to. No?

Lucky that our founding fathers didn't think that way. Perhaps they followed their consciences instead of blindly following "the laws of the land".

I agree. I don't want them killed either.

And our founding fathers rebelled against the government that was oppressing them. We are not oppressing these people.

The British govenment didn't think they were oppressing our founding fathers either.

 

[iguana_tonante]

TLS. Please address this salient point.

That's not an ideology Misfit. It's common sense. We as a people have established these laws. It's only reasonable that they be adhered to. No?

i⋅de⋅ol⋅o⋅gy  [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -gies.
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Yes, "follow the law" is quite obviously an ideology.

Lucky that our founding fathers didn't think that way. Perhaps they followed their consciences instead of blindly following "the laws of the land".

And our founding fathers rebelled against the government that was oppressing them. We are not oppressing these people.

The British govenment didn't think they were oppressing our founding fathers either.

Heh. It's quite obvious when you put it like that. But putting things in perspective is difficult when your country is involved, i.e. "it's not oppression when we do it!".

 

[TheLonelySquire]

So the message is: Thank God for all those others who crossed the border and didn't die.
Lucky that our founding fathers didn't think that way. Perhaps they followed their consciences instead of blindly following "the laws of the land".

I agree. I don't want them killed either.

And our founding fathers rebelled against the government that was oppressing them. We are not oppressing these people.

The British govenment didn't think they were oppressing our founding fathers either.

Umm, but they aren't from here, so how exactly are we oppressing them again? Seriously, do you REALLY think we are oppressing these people?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

That's not an ideology Misfit. It's common sense. We as a people have established these laws. It's only reasonable that they be adhered to. No?

i⋅de⋅ol⋅o⋅gy  [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -gies.
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Yes, "follow the law" is quite obviously an ideology.

And our founding fathers rebelled against the government that was oppressing them. We are not oppressing these people.

The British govenment didn't think they were oppressing our founding fathers either.

Heh. It's quite obvious when you put it like that. But putting things in perspective is difficult when your country is involved, i.e. "it's not oppression when we do it!".

Again, these people are not citizens and we are not running their countries. How are we oppressing them again?

 

[sidious618]

Very simply. We allow guns to be sold to the Mexican warlords and the warlords return to Mexico and ravage the country which in turn makes people want to flee.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Very simply. We allow guns to be sold to the Mexican warlords and the warlords return to Mexico and ravage the country which in turn makes people want to flee.

Um, who is knowingly selling guns to Mexican warlords? You need to be an American citizen to purchase weapons here. And shouldn't the Mexican government be inspecting vehicles crossing their border?

 

[Misfit Toy]

My argument versus illegal aliens is based on the concept of right and wrong. Do the right things and life has a way of working out. Do the opposite and things like this happen.

Wanting to help your family live a better life - Right. Reducing a tragedy like this to simplistic, jingoistic rhetoric - wrong.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

My argument versus illegal aliens is based on the concept of right and wrong. Do the right things and life has a way of working out. Do the opposite and things like this happen.

Wanting to help your family live a better life - Right. Reducing a tragedy like this to simplistic, jingoistic rhetoric - wrong.

If they wanted to help their families they wouldn't set themselves up as criminals hiding in the shadows. They would legally apply for entry into this country. And they would be welcomed once they arrived.

 

[sidious618]

Um, who is knowingly selling guns to Mexican warlords? You need to be an American citizen to purchase weapons here.

The US government knows it is happening and is doing nothing to stop it. The gun sellers certainly don't want it to stop as it gets them more money.

They would legally apply for entry into this country. And they would be welcomed once they arrived.

Yeah, ten years later. It's not like signing up at a new gym.

 

[Misfit Toy]

My argument versus illegal aliens is based on the concept of right and wrong. Do the right things and life has a way of working out. Do the opposite and things like this happen.

Wanting to help your family live a better life - Right. Reducing a tragedy like this to simplistic, jingoistic rhetoric - wrong.

If they wanted to help their families they wouldn't set themselves up as criminals hiding in the shadows. They would legally apply for entry into this country. And they would be welcomed once they arrived.

As has already been mentioned, immigration into this country can be a long, long process. Were you in their place, would you not do everything you could to care for your family?

 

[Hoser]

If they wanted to help their families they wouldn't set themselves up as criminals hiding in the shadows. They would legally apply for entry into this country. And they would be welcomed once they arrived.

Only if they had money. Lots and lots of money.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Wanting to help your family live a better life - Right. Reducing a tragedy like this to simplistic, jingoistic rhetoric - wrong.

If they wanted to help their families they wouldn't set themselves up as criminals hiding in the shadows. They would legally apply for entry into this country. And they would be welcomed once they arrived.

As has already been mentioned, immigration into this country can be a long, long process. Were you in their place, would you not do everything you could to care for your family?

I would not take my family to a country where we would be criminals and be on the run. I wouldn't sew them into the back seat of a volkswagon. That's just me. Then again I was taught the difference between right and wrong.

 

[Gepard]

Then again I was taught the difference between right and wrong.

That sounds more like the difference between pragmatic and idealistic to me.

 

[sidious618]

Then again I was taught the difference between right and wrong.

No, you were taught to follow the law no matter the situation. That has nothing to do with right and wrong. How many times does it need to be said that the law does not equal morality?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Then again I was taught the difference between right and wrong.

No, you were taught to follow the law no matter the situation. That has nothing to do with right and wrong. How many times does it need to be said that the law does not equal morality?

I'm not saying the law is always right. I'm saying in this case that it is. And it most certainly is not always moral. Take the abortion issue for example.

 

[Gepard]

I'm not saying the law is always right. I'm saying in this case that it is. And it most certainly is not always moral. Take the abortion issue for example.

See, that's the problem with injecting morality into this kind of discussion--you say the law is moral in this case but not in the case of abortion. How many people do you want to bet disagree with you? And what makes your opinion more correct than theirs?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I'm not saying the law is always right. I'm saying in this case that it is. And it most certainly is not always moral. Take the abortion issue for example.

See, that's the problem with injecting morality into this kind of discussion--you say the law is moral in this case but not in the case of abortion. How many people do you want to bet disagree with you? And what makes your opinion more correct than theirs?

They're welcome to disagree with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's why we have the forum.