Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:04 PM
StrongBad (1,775 posts)
Why is it ok to selectively choose what laws to enforce?
Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)
I laud and approve of the judge's decision to have the Kentucky clerk sent to jail for breaking the law.
However, it brought up a question in my mind that I haven't been able to formulate a reasonable answer to.
It is just as illegal to enter this country without properly going through the established immigration procedures.
Yet, the vast majority of people on this board don't advocate applying the same standard to this law which is being violated.
If we are going to proclaim ourselves to be a nation of laws, to be taken seriously don't we need to enforce all laws and not just some based on what we feel like?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027137202The proof of their hypocrisy is waved right in their faces and they just rationalize it away over and over.
Response to StrongBad (Original post)Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:07 PM
nichomachus (11,267 posts)
1. Entering the country without documentation is not a crime
It's an administrative matter. People who don't have papers are not "illegal." They are not criminals. They are undocumented. That's all.
But thanks for playing.
It's not a crime, it's an administrative matter.
Response to StrongBad (Original post)Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:11 PM
Star Member geek tragedy (50,231 posts)
5. If I eat an apple for breakfast, why shouldn't I eat apple pie for dinner?
Contempt of court is different than not having immigration papers.
The administration of a licence issuing office isn't an administrative matter. Got it.
One primitive has an insight:
Response to dumbcat (Reply #33)Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:48 PM
branford (2,631 posts)
47. Unless you're an elected executive, both our opinions don't really matter.
However, if we concede that our leaders can pick and choose what laws deserve enforcement, rather than seeking the repeal or amendment of "bad" laws, we shouldn't be surprised when our opposition inevitably does the same.
For instance, could you imagine the reaction if a Republican president decided not to enforce federal laws protecting abortion clinics in order to purportedly stop the "murder" of "children?" While I would be saddened and enraged at such a policy, I would not be surprised and have little intellectual recourse challenge such authority. The "slippery slope" is a very dangerous thing in politics.
Our leaders can't pick and choose what laws deserve enforcement, only our rulers (Barry and others) can.
Response to branford (Reply #49)Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:51 PM
Star Member geek tragedy (50,231 posts)
52. prosecutorial discretion is a necessity.
arresting terrorists is a higher priority than arresting medical marijuana users, for example.
Presumably you, unlike some posting in this thread, are smart enough to realize that.
Getting joy boys into the wedding chapel is a higher priority than getting criminal illegal alien criminals off our streets.
Response to StrongBad (Original post)Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:28 PM
KamaAina (65,627 posts)
20. Please show me an example of a judge or ICE agent refusing to enforce immigration law.
Until then...
Immigration laws are 100% enforced, but there are still lonely unhitched pansies with no love to call their own.
Response to StrongBad (Reply #46)Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:50 PM
Star Member PeaceNikki (24,834 posts)
50. No. Because immigration laws ARE being enforced every ******* day.
Are DU'ers just not pissed off about immigration enough for you? Are you upset that we are more interested in stopping this asshole from encroaching on the civil liberties of others than going door to door to demand papers be shown and round up all of the brown people who are bothering you?
It's a stupid ****ing comparison and a stupid ****ing thread.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
Some immigration laws ARE being enforced every day.
And some fruits ARE getting hitched every day too.
