[QUOTE=Gustave]
Two other issues are that laws are created and enacted out of moral concerns. Society doesn’t want people killing each other, so the government makes a law.
[/QUOTE]
Some laws are based on morality, some are based on practicality. And one of the main reasons we have the laws (mainly the moral ones), enforced by the state, is that when someone suffers an injustice at the hands of another they have recourse other than settling the score on thier own. This is particularly relevant to people who live near the border. Damage is done to property and what is the homeoner to do? Call the cops right? But what if you’re calling them every week or every day. And they continue to come after the damage is done/ The offenders are long goneor , if they are caught, there is no remedy monetarily. So after months of this, aren’t you allowed to protect your property with a firearm. Now this just leads to a guaranteed ugly situation. OUr society says call the cops. But the cops can’t patrol around everyones property 24/7. The answer is a completely secure border. Whether it takes a wall, a fence, or both and a moat, with constant electronic surveillance, we must do it. At the same time we should be enforcing our current laws against both illegal workers and the people who hire them.
[QUOTE=Gustave]
And coming into the country is illegal (but–the difference is that it is not for moral moral reasons; rather labor and economic reasons) and has also been illegalized (it wasn’t always so when your grandparents came from the “old country,”…
[/QUOTE]
Regardless of the reasons behiind any particular law, if you disagree with it or deem it an unjust law, you can work to change it. In the meantime, you flout it at your own risk. I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make—possibly that immigration law has no moral absolute behind it the way laws against murder do? If so, from a theistic point of view I’d agree. But I would say that a group of people can band together (nation) and put forth a set of laws that they deem useful for the continuance of the society as they see fit. I think people have the moral right to do this.
[QUOTE=Gustave]
Until recently, in L.A. it was illegal to bathe two children in a bathtub at the same time. I’m sure that would have outraged you, too, had anyone had the audacity to do such a thing. (It’s a very immoral thing to do.)
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how it is immoral. It does seem ridiculous, though. I am unaware of any such law, if and when it was in place and why it was enacted. Maybe it was a public health issue, to work against the spread of disease. I would like to know the context for such a seemingly ridiculous law, but I can’t see how it would be called immoral.
[QUOTE=Gustave]
Actually, I really do respect your opinions; I’m just a little surprised at the vehemence at which you express them. Has illegal immigration really hurt you personally all that much? If so, I’d like to know about it. Tell me the details. Did some wetback get your job picking tomatoes, even though you were clearly more qualified? Or was it that busboy job you were just dying for?
[/QUOTE]
You are attributing a threshold for my ire that does not exist. I’ve never been robbed, but despise burglars. I’ve never been hit by a drunk driver, yet I did volunteer work for MADD. The extinctions of large mammals in Africa are 7,000 miles removed from me, yet I’ve worked on their behalf. I have never been, and never will be pregnant, yet I feel strongly that a woman should have control of her own body. Do you not have principles which you would argue for, even if you were never directly effected?
I’m not sure if you would consider where your tax dollars go as being directly effected. I would. I strongly resent having to pay to educate the children of people who sneaked into this country. I even more resent that they treat our emergency rooms as clinics, driving up costs and causing hospitals to close.
As I’ve mentined elsewhere numerous times, a country has the right to set it’s own immigration policy. Countries and individuals can petition us to change those policies, but in the end, it is our decision to make. The primary reason for the existence of the nation state and the defined borders it is bound by is to provide for the common defence of it’s citizens. The U.S. government has been laying down on the job. There has been an unspoken alliance between the two parties to keep the issue off the table. (The dems want votes. The Reps want to 1) make inroads into the hispanic voting base and 2) kowtow to big business, in return for financial contributions.) They both disgust me, perticulalry the latter. The governement has been negligent in it’s duty in 1) keeping a secure border and 2) allowing 11 million people in here without running background and health checks on them.
Now that these people are here they are tapping into our services. The costs in both healthcare and edcuation are sizable. I appreciate that your wife has not contributed to that drain on our system. As you seem to acknowledge, not all have the same sense of reponsibility that you and she do.
As I pointed out in my first post, laws are crafted for the norm, not the exception. I’m sure every law has unintended consequences. When they surface we may address the issue, depending Sometimes we can remedy the odd case or make more general exceptions. I think there is room in the proposed law for the latter. But even if there is, it will not make room for every speciaal circumstance. That’s just the nature of law. Any law.
To be fair to the media, they only get so much time to squeeze in information in between the sensationalism.