It seems in any countries, all they do is to make more laws even though they could have simply revise existing laws wordings a bit, mostly to better fit the time and change by technology on how things work.

An example on careless driving. Why bother creating new laws banning this and that when they could simply include the, no texting while driving, into the careless driving law?

We'll end up with dozen of laws that basically say the exact same thing.

New laws  are allocated in annual budgets allowing your representative or minister to tack on money (we call it pork in the USA) to their district that they tout when up for reelection. Amending an existing law precludes this pork barreling process from taking place, which would make it harder for incumbents to get reelected.

It is all about politics and money. One man's pork is another district's project employing people from that district or pay back to one's campaign contributors who contributed to you in the first place because they expect you to give back in the legislative process.

Just look at the US immigration laws to see "a dozen laws that basically say the same thing." If Obama and the US Attorney General actually enforced the current immigration laws to the letter, then we would have no illegal immigration problem. Instead, politicians sell-out, ignore illegal immigration in hopes that doing so will warm the children of illegal immigrants to their political party, try sneaky ways to get illegal immigrants to vote (hoping the Secretary of State does not review immigration status on the I-9 record) and vote against any new immigration law or strict enforcement of existing immigration law because they have a future constituency to protect and build.

So, it's like filling quota for writing tickets?

Little off topic but on immigration, is that why obama is deporting more illegals and auditing more businesses than bush did?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010072503046

Unless of course you dont think the republicans are enforcing the laws any better and if thats the case and both sides are just trying to get their votes then there doesnt really seem to be a solution.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

They do in the Live Free or Die state.  Some libertarian learning state representatives pushed to remove the knife laws and the adultery laws in New Hampshire.  The removal of knife laws passed but the representatives voted to keep the unenforceable adultery laws.

Actually in the Westminster parliamentary system this practice is forbidden by the rules of parliament. A you can't stick in extraneous stuff not related to the primary purpose of a bill. The only place you can put in expenditure amendments are in expenditure / appropriations bills. End even then it can't be for any old thing, you can't stick in an appropriation for a new local community hall in a bill that's setting a budget for roading projects; unless a propopsed roading project requires the demolition of a community hall and the local representative wants to have it replaced.

The US system isn't the only (or even the best - arguably) law making system in the world.

Its always something thats annoyed me because plenty of governments have out of date laws from a hundred or so years ago etc that really have no place in the modern world and should be removed. Just because these laws wont be envoked now doesn't mean a more malicious of regressive poitician wouldn't and thats why I've always been opposed to just letting such laws rot. If they aren't being used, kill em as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention a reduction in useless laws would reduce reduce complexity etc.

Well good for him. I was speaking of politicians in general, not Obama specifically.

In the US presidential system, you get all sorts of weird stuff packed into bills. I forgot the specific name of the law, but it was something along the lines of the US secure ports act, which along with increasing security at the ports at the very end of the bill there was included provisions to ban and criminalize all online gambling.

Like you said, no system is perfect and in many countries (namely Afghanistan and Iraq) where they have no history of democracy, a strong military dictator is preferred for US, European, Chinese, Japanese and other interests. Pakistan right now is a prime example where Musharraf would be preferred over their populous who may elect a Hamas type group to power who would have no qualms about sending nukes toward India.

Well, doing so takes effort.  This effort comes at little payoff.  You can't say "hey, I got this worthless law that no one knew about stricken from the books" and expect people to applaud your efforts.  In fact, they'll say: "why aren't you working on something important?"  People don't care about useless laws unless they impeded their daily lives, and if that were the case chances are there are forces on the otherside trying to prop them up.

Also, the fact that useless laws clutter up the system is good for the existing political elite.  It makes it so that others can't work as well on their level and thus random Joe isn't a threat to the (re)election of someone in tune with the existing system.  If someone says something about immigration reform while runnign for office, their opponent can smear them by saying they don't understand the laws.  And smears, sadly, work far too well as a means to convince the general public.