Posted on 08/01/2006 7:06:01 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
Dear Lazamataz,
LOL!
No I didn't. I just took off the pretty curtains, and the shades that were pulled down. Now folks gotta look at the ratty windowsill and the trash dump out in the yard.
;-)
sitetest
After removing the fineries, it just LOOKS like a different building. ;-)
civil vs criminal
Whatever I would do, it would take a special class-warfare mentality to decide that the blame for the problem lies with "Big Business" and "Wal-Mart" (in addition to Bush).
Next time Bush tells you the "illegals are doing the work that Americans won't do" remember to finish the thought at half the wages to which Amerians are accoustomed.
Sounds like a good deal to me. A more global marketplace is emerging, and it will be futile to try to artificially prop up the price of unskilled labor to levels it was at for only a few decades in human history.
If one does not have the intelligence not to use an aluminum ladder around electricity, then one is too stuopd to function in the outside world.
Dear Lazamataz,
Your suggestion was to deny a certain class of persons the protection of law. Your proposal is that the law be re-written to specifically exclude from its protection an entire class of human beings.
That's a proactive action, as well, in that it specifically names the targeted class of persons.
Under your suggestion, all persons not of the excluded class may now prey freely on the excluded class. Under your suggestion, preying on illegal immigrants becomes legal. Folks may legally kill 'em, rape 'em, maim 'em, enslave 'em, what have you.
I just want to take it a step further and regulate this legal activity a little. Enforce some standards, that sort of thing. I mean, heck, where I live, we have rules about how you can kill a deer. We have rules giving minimum standards for how you may house your dogs.
;-)
sitetest
Nossir. I disagree that it is proactive, unless you twist words (as you are doing) to say that cessation of an activity is a proactive action. I will not permit you to bend my American language thusly. ;^)
I do not define terms thusly. To me, a proactive action involves the performance of that action. To me, there is a different definition for a passive action -- which is that I advocate -- and which is the removal of a legal protection.
Illegal immigrants have not paid for the service of a police force. They can and should be legally denied the use of that police force to protect them. A few times through this particular wood chipper, and when people in Mexico heard about it, they'd be just a little less twitchy about coming here.
So when can I expect your vote and your campaign contribution? :^)
But that isn't true on the books. Any immigrant, illegal or legal, even just a tourist, does have basic rights under the law while on our soil.
Legal immigrants should be afforded the rights of any American citizen.
Tourists should be afforded a subset of American citizen rights.
Illegal immigrants should be afforded the right to leave our country with a minimum of maiming.
Dear Lazamataz,
Your suggestion makes it legal to kill, maim, rape, enslave, and eat, among other things, illegal immigrants.
It would require a proactive action for this to happen, as legislation would have to be specifically written to exclude these services from this named and defined group. It would take significant government action to discriminate between the two groups (for instance, the government would have to establish a system by which it could definitively prove that someone wasn't an illegal immigrant - can you say National ID Cards? With biometrics? Or maybe nice RFIDs for us non-excluded types??).
These sorts of actions seem pretty proactive to me.
However, I understand your point that in PRINCIPLE, you're merely withdrawing a service.
Well, it's not like my proposal tells folks to go out and maim and kill and rob and mutilate and eat and rape illegal immigrants! I'm just sayin', if folks want to exercise their free choice, their legal rights, we ought to have some STANDARDS for this sort of thing. For instance, in my area, because we have a lot of neighborhoods up against a lot of farm land, there's certain types of ammunition you can use when shooting deer, and certain types you can't. Because they don't want the ammo missing the deer and hitting some poor kid in his backyard.
Well, in order to make sure that folks are trained and informed for this sort of thing, we actually require folks to have hunting licenses to hunt deer. It isn't like the government is proactively MAKING anyone go shoot up some deer!
Don't you think we should take the same sorts of precautions for folks who want to hunt illegal immigrants? We could have the NRA run the safety courses!
And, you know, if you're going to enslave folks, it really pays to provide minimal levels of hygiene for your slaves, so they don't get diseases and stuff that could spread to the humans with human rights & all.
Don't you think the government should occasionally check up on that sort of commercial activity, to make sure it meets certain minimal health standards? I mean, heck, I'm not permitted to drive my car on the road if it hasn't been inspected by the state.
And if the government's going to check on this stuff, they oughta charge a fee, don't you think? At least to cover the cost of the administration of the regulations, no?
sitetest
Bottom line, his death was the direct result of his criminal activity.
Insisting that a passive action (the withdrawl of services not paid for) is the same as proactive action (actively killing and hunting people) is the sort of disingenousness I would expect to see from those on the left. It is lawyeristic twisting of words. I will not permit you to try to reach and twist and manipulate the language so that a denial of a service is somehow the same as actively going out and hunting people.
I mean, go ahead, write about 100 more posts on this asserting the exact same crap, and I'll reply about 101 more times that the two aren't equivalent.
ping
Dear Lazamataz,
"Insisting that a passive action (the withdrawl of services not paid for) is the same as proactive action (actively killing and hunting people) is the sort of disingenousness I would expect to see from those on the left."
At NO time did I suggest that the GOVERNMENT kill or hunt anyone.
I merely noted that if this excluded group, illegal immigrants, can no longer count on equal protection under the law, if they will no longer be able to engage law enforcement to protect them from predation, that it becomes legal, by default, for ordinary citizens to hunt, kill, maim, rape, eat, defile, enslave, or otherwise abuse illegal immigrants.
After all, what is not prohibited is permitted (at least in non-totalitarian societies).
And in that individuals will do these things (they often do even when the law DOES offer some protection or justice for the victim), I'm just suggesting that the government regulate these legal activities, to protect those of us humans who will still have human rights.
"It is lawyeristic twisting of words."
What is a lawyeristic twisting of words, and in fact, what makes your original post so humourous is just that twisting of language, is the notion that one may withdraw "police services" from an entire class of human beings yet not withdraw from them vindication of their human rights.
"I will not permit you..."
What are you gonna do, check my green card, invalidate it, and then shoot me?? ;-)
"I mean, go ahead, write about 100 more posts on this asserting the exact same crap, and I'll reply about 101 more times that the two aren't equivalent."
This was a lot more fun when you had the courage of your convictions to follow your recommendation to its logical conclusions. I even complimented you on your previous philosophical and logical consistency.
;-)
sitetest
Criminal activity that his employer was fully aiding, abetting & directly profiting from. Maybe it is right & just that they should be held financially liable for their complicity in his death? Perhaps when employers realize that they'll be forced to comply with the same wide panoply of employment protections for illegal labor as they are required to do for workers with full citizenship, then they'll ultimately begin to realize that the advantages of hiring illegals might not be the great bargain they think it is?
"I wonder what the consensus is here."
If he wasn't here in the US he'd be alive today.
How about a class action lawsuit against the US government (for not securing the borders) and the scumbag tax cheat small business owner.
A couple people (only two or three up until your post) blow off a little steam by posting exaggerated responses to a big problem and you criticize the site? There were a few arguments posted as well, or didn't you notice?
Check out the DU site if you want to see disgusting and ugly views.
Legally, and technically, you are correct.
Because of Congress, in legislation called "18 U.S.C. 242", which was ultimately interpreted (wrongly) by the USSC in the following case:
"The word "inhabitant" has several meanings in law depending upon on the context. (footnote omitted)
In some contexts it is equated with citizenship, (citations omitted); in other contexts, specifically that of the federal civil rights acts passed during the Reconstruction, (footnote omitted) "inhabitant" has been held not to mean "citizen." Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 690-692, 75 S.Ct. 656, 32 L.Ed. 766 (1887) .... (italics in original) After comprehensive analysis of the intent of Congress which drafted this legislation, (footnote omitted), this court holds that the word "inhabitant" describes any person who is within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 U.S.C. 242, its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protects all "persons." (footnote omitted) He noted that the bill "simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws." (footnote omitted) (emphasis added)
He added: This bill extends the equal protection of the laws to aliens, so that all persons who are in the United States shall have the equal protection of our laws. It extends the operations of the civil rights bill . . . to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. (italics in original) [United States v. Otherson] [480 F.Supp. 1369, 1370-1373 (1979)]"
The bottom line: ANYONE who can get into the U.S. gets the full benefit of the law, without being a U.S. Citizen with this contorted interpretation. NOWHERE in this ruling is the INTENT of the Founding Fathers even considered, but rather, the law was passed and interpreted by Activist Judicial fiat, for the benefit of NON-U.S. Citizens !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.