quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So Zonie the law is irrelevant as long as you get the results you want. The piece of paper shows that they did it legally. When they overstay they have violated proper procedure.

I'm not saying the law is irrelevant. In fact, that's the matter under discussion here. I'm just looking at the overall effect on society and wondering if it would really matter all that much on a practical level if the law was changed. Are you seriously trying to convince me that the only thing upsetting you about illegal immigration is that someone "violated proper procedure"? Is that the reason why it's such a big issue of national debate?

When you talk about violating proper procedure, you say it as if you've got your nose stuck in a rule book, as if you neither know nor care why that "proper procedure" was put in place to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

No, I do get it, but you're not understanding my points at all.

Yes I do understand your points, if the law doesn't do what you want ignore it.

No, you've missed it entirely. This whole side discussion started up when I stated that immigration is a hot-button issue (in reference to the political cartoon used by a schoolteacher in a classroom lesson). Kirata countered this and said that the issue was not immigration but "illegal aliens." I disagreed with that.

I wasn't talking about what the law does or doesn't do, nor does it mean the law should be ignored. However, if the law doesn't work, is practically unenforceable, or doesn't suit the needs of society, then it may need to be reexamined and altered. As I see it, that's what the discussion is ultimately about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You expect the 4 year old article is not of use because the climate has changed dramatically with the nutsackers in no child left behind, and their nutsacker founded western governors common core? What massive changes have occurred between the hallucinations about repealing Obamacare 55 times?


Prithee, who approves and orders the textbooks for the State of Florida?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So Zonie the law is irrelevant as long as you get the results you want. The piece of paper shows that they did it legally. When they overstay they have violated proper procedure.

I'm not saying the law is irrelevant. In fact, that's the matter under discussion here. I'm just looking at the overall effect on society and wondering if it would really matter all that much on a practical level if the law was changed. Are you seriously trying to convince me that the only thing upsetting you about illegal immigration is that someone "violated proper procedure"? Is that the reason why it's such a big issue of national debate?

When you talk about violating proper procedure, you say it as if you've got your nose stuck in a rule book, as if you neither know nor care why that "proper procedure" was put in place to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

No, I do get it, but you're not understanding my points at all.

Yes I do understand your points, if the law doesn't do what you want ignore it.

No, you've missed it entirely. This whole side discussion started up when I stated that immigration is a hot-button issue (in reference to the political cartoon used by a schoolteacher in a classroom lesson). Kirata countered this and said that the issue was not immigration but "illegal aliens." I disagreed with that.

I wasn't talking about what the law does or doesn't do, nor does it mean the law should be ignored. However, if the law doesn't work, is practically unenforceable, or doesn't suit the needs of society, then it may need to be reexamined and altered. As I see it, that's what the discussion is ultimately about.

Then get the law changed before you ignore it. No the real issue is whether the president can simply void or change any law he doesn't like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So Zonie the law is irrelevant as long as you get the results you want. The piece of paper shows that they did it legally. When they overstay they have violated proper procedure.

I'm not saying the law is irrelevant. In fact, that's the matter under discussion here. I'm just looking at the overall effect on society and wondering if it would really matter all that much on a practical level if the law was changed. Are you seriously trying to convince me that the only thing upsetting you about illegal immigration is that someone "violated proper procedure"? Is that the reason why it's such a big issue of national debate?

When you talk about violating proper procedure, you say it as if you've got your nose stuck in a rule book, as if you neither know nor care why that "proper procedure" was put in place to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

No, I do get it, but you're not understanding my points at all.

Yes I do understand your points, if the law doesn't do what you want ignore it.

No, you've missed it entirely. This whole side discussion started up when I stated that immigration is a hot-button issue (in reference to the political cartoon used by a schoolteacher in a classroom lesson). Kirata countered this and said that the issue was not immigration but "illegal aliens." I disagreed with that.

I wasn't talking about what the law does or doesn't do, nor does it mean the law should be ignored. However, if the law doesn't work, is practically unenforceable, or doesn't suit the needs of society, then it may need to be reexamined and altered. As I see it, that's what the discussion is ultimately about.

Then get the law changed before you ignore it. No the real issue is whether the president can simply void or change any law he doesn't like.

And what if Congress passes a law that says the Moon must be painted red, white, and blue? The President then has a mandate to mobilize NASA and an army of painter/astronauts, but after examining the cost estimates and the logistics of the thing, he comes back and says "Hey, we can't do this." He asks Congress to revise the legislation, but they sit on their duffs, argue about it, but ultimately fail to come up with any kind of reform to fix a broken law.

So, what do we do? Do we shut down the whole country because Congress is unable to find its own ass with both hands and a hunting dog?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And what if the President decides that they won't prosecute terrorists or even admit that that is what they are. Oh wait he does that but it is ok isn't it?

quote:


Now go back to your fantasies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And what if the President decides that they won't prosecute terrorists or even admit that that is what they are. Oh wait he does that but it is ok isn't it?

What specific case are you referring to? It is true that the President has the power to issue pardons, and there have been occasions where a pardon may be controversial, such as when Ford pardoned Nixon. Was that the kind of example you're thinking of?

quote:


Now go back to your fantasies.

Thanks, although I wouldn't post my fantasies in this section. There's a Creative Writing section for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And what if the President decides that they won't prosecute terrorists or even admit that that is what they are. Oh wait he does that but it is ok isn't it?

What specific case are you referring to? It is true that the President has the power to issue pardons, and there have been occasions where a pardon may be controversial, such as when Ford pardoned Nixon. Was that the kind of example you're thinking of?

quote:


Now go back to your fantasies.

Thanks, although I wouldn't post my fantasies in this section. There's a Creative Writing section for that.

Just one example, he refuses to call Ft Hood terrorism, it is "workplace violence" .

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And what if the President decides that they won't prosecute terrorists or even admit that that is what they are. Oh wait he does that but it is ok isn't it?

What specific case are you referring to? It is true that the President has the power to issue pardons, and there have been occasions where a pardon may be controversial, such as when Ford pardoned Nixon. Was that the kind of example you're thinking of?

quote:


Now go back to your fantasies.

Thanks, although I wouldn't post my fantasies in this section. There's a Creative Writing section for that.

Just one example, he refuses to call Ft Hood terrorism, it is "workplace violence" .

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You expect the 4 year old article is not of use because the climate has changed dramatically with the nutsackers in no child left behind, and their nutsacker founded western governors common core? What massive changes have occurred between the hallucinations about repealing Obamacare 55 times?


Prithee, who approves and orders the textbooks for the State of Florida?

Since you asked, here is the very latest, up to date answer:

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/florida-senate-approves-bill-to-eliminate-state-role-in-textbook-adoption/2174672

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And what if the President decides that they won't prosecute terrorists or even admit that that is what they are. Oh wait he does that but it is ok isn't it?

What specific case are you referring to? It is true that the President has the power to issue pardons, and there have been occasions where a pardon may be controversial, such as when Ford pardoned Nixon. Was that the kind of example you're thinking of?

quote:


Now go back to your fantasies.

Thanks, although I wouldn't post my fantasies in this section. There's a Creative Writing section for that.

Just one example, he refuses to call Ft Hood terrorism, it is "workplace violence" .

That wasn't the President specifically, but the Pentagon made that ruling, and it was based on those precious "pieces of paper" you love so much. What was that you were saying earlier about "ignoring the law if it doesn't do what you want"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Immigration and Border Patrol Budget....

One factor I haven't seen mentioned in the talk of the millions spent on Border Patrol leaves out the influence of Department of Homeland Security.
The rate of increase of the Border Patrol budget coincides with the development and deployment of things like truckload size bomb detectors at major border crossings and increasing border patrol numbers in order to increase the effectiveness and inspection rate of commercial traffic across the borders.

Chasing undocumented workers swimming the Rio Grand isn't the largest part of the Border Patrol mission.

Neutron activation nitrate scanners are really a nifty piece of tech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And the Pentagon takes orders from???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And the Pentagon takes orders from???

It's not a question of taking orders. If someone in the military commits a crime, then they're under the military code of justice which is already in place. If the President tried to interfere or micromanage that process, then he'd be criticized for that. It's a case where he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And why ignore the criminal corporations that hire them and spend all this money tracking down individuals.

Put everyone in management in the corporation in prison, fine the shit out of them, and these people would have no where to work, and it would be over in 10 minutes instead of this 'conservative' pork and boondoggle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You remember don't you that when he came in Obama redefined terrorists as man made disasters?