Machiavellian said:
o_O.Q said:
"Maybe if you did not waste your time trying to bring up a subject that has no meaning to the content"
this is literally a discussion about borders, what are you talking about?
"Hell, I just gave an example of doing something outside of the box which I am sure you ignored because it didn't fit your position. Let me state it again, looking to help our neighbors increase the welfare of their countries probably would benefit more than throwing up a wall or forcing people to make dangerous crossings in the desert."
why couldn't both that and securing the border be done?
why make it into a unilateral thing where its either that borders be secured or aid is given to other countries?
are you aware of how much the us spends on foreign aid btw?
This is where we continue to move away from the article itself. We will continue to go down the rabbit whole as you try to make a point on something totally different. As I stated if you really want to discuss this topic, why don't you open a thread on it because the article is about people trying to prevent people from dying.
"I am more than happy to accept anyone who can support their family and increase the welfare of the US."
what about those who cannot?
"Let me ask you a question, have you ever gone to another country and help build a school, well, housing, roads, bridges you name it. Well, I have and guess what, I have first hand experience in how such projects changes the people."
you are truly a saint for doing that for people, if i could i would give you a gold star
Nope, not a saint at all but I have definitely lived a life on both ends of the street and know what a hard life can make you do. I did not do it to be a saint. I did it to give back to communities after I was able to rise above poverty and live a good life. I have helped build schools and then see the graduates who were not only able to go to college and get degrees but also come back to their homeland and put back into their community. It's not about being a saint or anything of the sort, its just a appreciation of people who help me get to where I am at and giving back.
"Laws have come and gone or been changed depending on who is in charge. The constitution has amendments to update and change it. "
yes but obviously when discussing law we must acknowledge the current state of law
So then how have we come to today with laws being changed and the constitution being amended. Have people sacrificed their lives to make a difference and a change or did things just change on their own. If you are going to throw the law into your argument just remember it's a two edged sword which I am sure we will find one you chose to ignore.
it was once within the law to own people and maybe things will revert back to that point again if certain people have their way
the fact of the matter is that the law right now categorises the us as a country without open borders, regardless of whether you want it to be that way or not
Not sure exactly what this sentence means since I already stated my thoughts on the matter. What I am talking about is people taking a stance to not let people die because others take the law and use it to do so. There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally, there is another thinking of ways for them to die or trying to find way to make it happen to enforce a law.
If you thought a law was unjust are you the person who would sit back and do nothing. The way you make your statements, it would seem that no matter what law is put into effect, you would just go along with it.
"Just saying "what is Law", "what is in the constitution" what does that actually mean because by itself, it means nothing."
the laws mean nothing because they may change over time?
does this mean you would be ok with me coming into your home and taking your possessions?
My statement is you as a person, do you always just follow the law. Do you always go the speed limit no matter what. The point is does "What is Law" only means something as long as it applies to someone else. If you have broken the law no matter how big or small do not act self rigiouteos throwing that word around because in the end, the majority of the people only care about a law if it's not inconvenient to them.
" Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you."
this is how
"Yeah, we should make sure they continue to die in the desert, that will show them."
this implication here to me is that if they are not taken into the country then they will die, is that an unreasonable conclusion to make?
Should I have put the sarcasm tag on that line.
|
|
"the article is about people trying to prevent people from dying."
which people? just people in general? or people illegally crossing a border? if its the latter would the discussion not have to in some way address border security?
"Nope, not a saint at all"
you are far too humble, i personally think you should flex a bit, you deserve it
" If you are going to throw the law into your argument"
this discussion is entirely about the law, the law is not a peripheral issue here as you appear to believe
otherwise there would be nothing to discuss since these people would be able to make crossings on proper roadways with proper transportation
they can't for a reason... can you guess why?
"So then how have we come to today with laws being changed and the constitution being amended."
and your argument here is what exactly? that the laws used to secure the borders need to be changed to allow for open borders? can you actually be clear about what your argument here actually is?
"There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally, there is another thinking of ways for them to die or trying to find way to make it happen to enforce a law. "
lets say i tell a girl i'll jump down a well if she refuses to sleep with me, if she refuses and i then proceed to break my neck is she at fault?
do you not see that this is pretty much your argument?
no one is forcing these people to walk out into the desert to die, they are choosing to do so
" The way you make your statements, it would seem that no matter what law is put into effect, you would just go along with it."
which law do you disagree with in this context? because if your argument is that anyone should be allowed to enter the country if there is a risk that they may attempt to enter illegally and end up hurting themselves, how is that in any way different to an open border situation?
" There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally"
would you lock them up with their children or put them in separate cells from their children? i'm digressing here obviously, but i'm just curious
"If you thought a law was unjust are you the person who would sit back and do nothing."
and what do you believe is unjust?
"The point is does "What is Law" only means something as long as it applies to someone else."
lol i just love how despite you stating you are against open borders you're essentially just sliding back on that position
how do you enforce border security without laws? explain this for me
why not just come right out and say you want open borders? no one is going to jump out and bend you over their lap and flog you if you do
disregarding that, why are you against open borders?
"If you have broken the law no matter how big or small do not act self rigiouteos throwing that word around because in the end, the majority of the people only care about a law if it's not inconvenient to them."
again how do you enforce border security without laws?
