Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Common myths about illegal immigration

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 4:55:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Myth: All immigration is illegal
Fact: immigration is not illegal, immigration without naturalization is

Myth: Illegal Immigrants are only Mexican
Fact: Not all illegals are Mexican, many come from Canada, and there are also illegals from Europe, Africa, and many other parts of the world.

Myth: Illegal immigrants are not all criminals
Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.

Myth: the word "Alien" in "illegal Alien" is used to associate them with evil space invaders
Fact: the word "Alien" means someone or thing that is foreign; it was used to refer to foreigners long before it was used to refer to ETs.

Myth: Illegal Immigration helps the economy
Fact: Illegal Immigration hurts the economy. In order to prevent competition with legal workers, illegal immigrants work below the equilibrium price, making it harder for legal workers to compete. In cases where the equilibrium price is set at minimum wage, illegals work below minimum wage to avoid competition. Illegals also use taxpayer funded programs, without paying into taxes. Illegals also send money to relatives outside of the US, further draining our economy.

Myth: Drug prohibition helps prevent illegal immigration by cracking down on Cartels
Fact: Drug prohibition helps fund illegal immigration by preventing legal competition in the drug trade. By granting the cartels a monopoly on drugs, prohibition fuels illegal immigrations rather than deters it.

Myth: Illegal immigrants don't have a choice
Fact: You always have a choice whether or not to break the law.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:49:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 4:55:21 PM, DanT wrote:
Myth: All immigration is illegal
Fact: immigration is not illegal, immigration without naturalization is

Myth: Illegal Immigrants are only Mexican
Fact: Not all illegals are Mexican, many come from Canada, and there are also illegals from Europe, Africa, and many other parts of the world.

...Why even mention these two?

Myth: Illegal immigrants are not all criminals
Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.

Not in any meaningful sense, and not in the context most mean when referring to criminal activity and illegal immigration. I drove 75 mph on the highway to my way to school this morning. Technically I'm a criminal but who gives a sh*t?

Myth: the word "Alien" in "illegal Alien" is used to associate them with evil space invaders
Fact: the word "Alien" means someone or thing that is foreign; it was used to refer to foreigners long before it was used to refer to ETs.

...Why even mention this one?

Myth: Illegal Immigration helps the economy
Fact: Illegal Immigration hurts the economy. In order to prevent competition with legal workers, illegal immigrants work below the equilibrium price, making it harder for legal workers to compete. In cases where the equilibrium price is set at minimum wage, illegals work below minimum wage to avoid competition. Illegals also use taxpayer funded programs, without paying into taxes. Illegals also send money to relatives outside of the US, further draining our economy.

1.) Illegal immigrants for the most part do not compete with legal citizens for labor. The low-skill, high-labor jobs are filled by them and are virtually undesired by citizens.

2.) Equilibrium price for wages IS NOT set at minimum wage. It is by definition lower than minimum wage because that's the purpose of a price floor; which is why minimum wage exists and why they can find jobs.

3.) Illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. The myth is that they do not. They also don't receive any more welfare benefits than what is expected based on their population size.

4.) So what if they send money to their families outside of America? Do people outside of America not matter?

Myth: Drug prohibition helps prevent illegal immigration by cracking down on Cartels
Fact: Drug prohibition helps fund illegal immigration by preventing legal competition in the drug trade. By granting the cartels a monopoly on drugs, prohibition fuels illegal immigrations rather than deters it.

This is true, and a good point to make in a drug legalization argument.

Myth: Illegal immigrants don't have a choice
Fact: You always have a choice whether or not to break the law.

One always has a technical choice, but one might argue that a choice between not breaking a minor American law and accepting that there's a relatively high chance of getting killed due to cartel violence is not one where technicalities and semantics matter.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:56:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 5:51:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
April Fools?

I doubt it, considering he started talking about the issue yesterday.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 6:28:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 5:49:34 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:55:21 PM, DanT wrote:
Myth: All immigration is illegal
Fact: immigration is not illegal, immigration without naturalization is

Myth: Illegal Immigrants are only Mexican
Fact: Not all illegals are Mexican, many come from Canada, and there are also illegals from Europe, Africa, and many other parts of the world.

...Why even mention these two?

Because people believe these myths.
Myth: Illegal immigrants are not all criminals
Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.

Not in any meaningful sense, and not in the context most mean when referring to criminal activity and illegal immigration.
Entering or attempting to enter the country illegally is a federal crime. Working in this country without a visa or citizenship is another crime. Identity theft is another crime. The list of crimes go on.
I drove 75 mph on the highway to my way to school this morning. Technically I'm a criminal but who gives a sh*t?

The people you are endangering on the road. That is not the same thing as blatantly breaking several federal laws.
Myth: the word "Alien" in "illegal Alien" is used to associate them with evil space invaders
Fact: the word "Alien" means someone or thing that is foreign; it was used to refer to foreigners long before it was used to refer to ETs.

...Why even mention this one?

Because I've heard teachers using it before.
Myth: Illegal Immigration helps the economy
Fact: Illegal Immigration hurts the economy. In order to prevent competition with legal workers, illegal immigrants work below the equilibrium price, making it harder for legal workers to compete. In cases where the equilibrium price is set at minimum wage, illegals work below minimum wage to avoid competition. Illegals also use taxpayer funded programs, without paying into taxes. Illegals also send money to relatives outside of the US, further draining our economy.

1.) Illegal immigrants for the most part do not compete with legal citizens for labor.
Yes they do.

The low-skill, high-labor jobs are filled by them and are virtually undesired by citizens.

For an equilibrium wage, legal workers would be willing to do the job. The illegals work below the equilibrium.
2.) Equilibrium price for wages IS NOT set at minimum wage.
I didn't say it was. Nice strawman. I differentiated between the two in my post.
It is by definition lower than minimum wage because that's the purpose of a price floor; which is why minimum wage exists and why they can find jobs.

For the whole market, yes. For specific jobs, not necessarily.
3.) Illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. The myth is that they do not.
They don't pay direct taxes. Even tourists pay indirect taxes.
They also don't receive any more welfare benefits than what is expected based on their population size.

They should not receive any benefits.
4.) So what if they send money to their families outside of America? Do people outside of America not matter?

They are sending untaxed and illegally obtained money abroad; its a drain on our economy.
Myth: Drug prohibition helps prevent illegal immigration by cracking down on Cartels
Fact: Drug prohibition helps fund illegal immigration by preventing legal competition in the drug trade. By granting the cartels a monopoly on drugs, prohibition fuels illegal immigrations rather than deters it.

This is true, and a good point to make in a drug legalization argument.

Myth: Illegal immigrants don't have a choice
Fact: You always have a choice whether or not to break the law.

One always has a technical choice, but one might argue that a choice between not breaking a minor American law and accepting that there's a relatively high chance of getting killed due to cartel violence is not one where technicalities and semantics matter.

It's not a minor American law, and the law is blind. Noone is above the law, regardless of personal circumstances.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 6:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 4:55:21 PM, DanT wrote:
Myth: All immigration is illegal
Fact: immigration is not illegal, immigration without naturalization is

Most people know that legal immigration is not identical to illegal immigration.

Myth: Illegal Immigrants are only Mexican
Fact: Not all illegals are Mexican, many come from Canada, and there are also illegals from Europe, Africa, and many other parts of the world.

Sigh...AND Latin America. "Mexican" does not include everything south of the border.

Myth: Illegal immigrants are not all criminals
Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.

Do you see any practical use in differentiating between Zeta cartel members and abuelitas, or are they both simply "criminals" in your book?

Myth: the word "Alien" in "illegal Alien" is used to associate them with evil space invaders
Fact: the word "Alien" means someone or thing that is foreign; it was used to refer to foreigners long before it was used to refer to ETs.

I'm sorry, who the f*ck are you preaching to? I have never met anyone who thinks the "alien" in "illegal alien" referred to something from out of space.

Myth: Illegal Immigration helps the economy
Fact: Illegal Immigration hurts the economy. In order to prevent competition with legal workers, illegal immigrants work below the equilibrium price, making it harder for legal workers to compete. In cases where the equilibrium price is set at minimum wage, illegals work below minimum wage to avoid competition. Illegals also use taxpayer funded programs, without paying into taxes. Illegals also send money to relatives outside of the US, further draining our economy.

Myth: Drug prohibition helps prevent illegal immigration by cracking down on Cartels
Fact: Drug prohibition helps fund illegal immigration by preventing legal competition in the drug trade. By granting the cartels a monopoly on drugs, prohibition fuels illegal immigrations rather than deters it.

WHO THINKS THIS? WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO?

Myth: Illegal immigrants don't have a choice
Fact: You always have a choice whether or not to break the law.

I think I'l make a thread about destroying the conservatives myth that rape victims don't have a choice. You always have a choice whether or not to be raped.

See? Isn't it fun pretending your main audience is a bunch of fear-mongering ret@rds?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 7:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 6:28:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2013 5:49:34 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:55:21 PM, DanT wrote:
Myth: Illegal immigrants are not all criminals
Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.

Not in any meaningful sense, and not in the context most mean when referring to criminal activity and illegal immigration.
Entering or attempting to enter the country illegally is a federal crime. Working in this country without a visa or citizenship is another crime. Identity theft is another crime. The list of crimes go on.

But the fact that those things are crimes is meaningless. The only one of those things that actually has moral implications is identity theft. Which is something that some illegal immigrants do that allows them to do things like get credit and buy a house, and pay taxes. Identity theft by illegal immigrants quite different in a practical sense than when a person maliciously steals your identity.

I drove 75 mph on the highway to my way to school this morning. Technically I'm a criminal but who gives a sh*t?

The people you are endangering on the road. That is not the same thing as blatantly breaking several federal laws.

The correct answer is that nobody gives a sh*t. Travelling 5 mph above the speed limit is a victimless crime. Speeding in general is a victimless crime until arguably when it reaches the point of reckless driving. There is nothing inherently wrong with breaking laws; especially laws that are unjust or pointless.

Myth: Illegal Immigration helps the economy
Fact: Illegal Immigration hurts the economy. In order to prevent competition with legal workers, illegal immigrants work below the equilibrium price, making it harder for legal workers to compete. In cases where the equilibrium price is set at minimum wage, illegals work below minimum wage to avoid competition. Illegals also use taxpayer funded programs, without paying into taxes. Illegals also send money to relatives outside of the US, further draining our economy.

1.) Illegal immigrants for the most part do not compete with legal citizens for labor.
Yes they do.

Okay...no they don't.

http://www.nationaljournal.com...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
http://www.factcheck.org...

The low-skill, high-labor jobs are filled by them and are virtually undesired by citizens.

For an equilibrium wage, legal workers would be willing to do the job. The illegals work below the equilibrium.

Do you know when equilibrium in a supply and demand curve is? Based on your responses it doesn't seem that you do. Suppliers of these jobs are not willing to pay minimum wage for workers to do these jobs. Therefore the equilibrium wage for these jobs is LESS than minimum wage.

Equilibrium wage is not set, it is determined based on supply and demand.

2.) Equilibrium price for wages IS NOT set at minimum wage.
I didn't say it was. Nice strawman. I differentiated between the two in my post.
It is by definition lower than minimum wage because that's the purpose of a price floor; which is why minimum wage exists and why they can find jobs.

For the whole market, yes. For specific jobs, not necessarily.

Actually, I was unclear in my original post. For most jobs minimum wage doesn't matter because those jobs pay more than minimum wage. Minimum wage actually matters only in minimum wage jobs. These jobs are called "minimum wage jobs" because the starting salary for them is universally set at minimum wage because that's the lowest a company is allowed to purchase the worker's labor.

3.) Illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. The myth is that they do not.
They don't pay direct taxes. Even tourists pay indirect taxes.

Yes they do.

CBO estimates that betweek 50 and 75% of illegal immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov...
Illegal immigrants pay into social securty without any chance of receiving its benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com...
In 2005 in Texas illegal immigrants contributed over 17 billion to the Texan economy and contributed more in taxes to Texas than they received in services from the Texan government.
http://www.cpa.state.tx.us...

They also don't receive any more welfare benefits than what is expected based on their population size.

They should not receive any benefits.

Nobody should receive them, but for the most part they pay for them and there is no reason to deny them welfare services aside from what is arbitrarily determined by enacted law.

4.) So what if they send money to their families outside of America? Do people outside of America not matter?

They are sending untaxed and illegally obtained money abroad; its a drain on our economy.

All the sources I've provided should be sufficient to prove that that the ammount that they contribute more than makes up for what they send away.

Myth: Illegal immigrants don't have a choice
Fact: You always have a choice whether or not to break the law.

One always has a technical choice, but one might argue that a choice between not breaking a minor American law and accepting that there's a relatively high chance of getting killed due to cartel violence is not one where technicalities and semantics matter.

It's not a minor American law, and the law is blind. Noone is above the law, regardless of personal circumstances.

And? Pointless and unjust laws deserve to be broken. It's how they change.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 10:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:29:14 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 6:28:16 PM, DanT wrote:
Entering or attempting to enter the country illegally is a federal crime. Working in this country without a visa or citizenship is another crime. Identity theft is another crime. The list of crimes go on.

But the fact that those things are crimes is meaningless. The only one of those things that actually has moral implications is identity theft. Which is something that some illegal immigrants do that allows them to do things like get credit and buy a house, and pay taxes. Identity theft by illegal immigrants quite different in a practical sense than when a person maliciously steals your identity.

Laws are not only established for moral reasons. The first two laws, that every illegal is guilty of breaking, are established for economic reasons.
The people you are endangering on the road. That is not the same thing as blatantly breaking several federal laws.

The correct answer is that nobody gives a sh*t. Travelling 5 mph above the speed limit is a victimless crime.
Depending on the highway it could be 10 to 15MPH over the limit. You are allowed to go 5 MPH over the limit, because sometimes the road accelerates your car. The limit is the legal maximum, but because it is hard to prosecute 5MPH over the limit (provided the ticket is contested), it is usually ignored.

Speeding in general is a victimless crime until arguably when it reaches the point of reckless driving.
10MPH over the limit is reckless driving. In fact, going the limit during poor road conditions is reckless driving.
There is nothing inherently wrong with breaking laws; especially laws that are unjust or pointless.

Wong! You cannot pick and choose which laws you agree with. If you find the laws unjust you have 3 options;
1.) renounce your citizenship
2.) petition a change in the law
3.) start/support a movement to alter or abolish the government

But you have no right to ignore the law. The law is the law, and you are obliged to follow it regardless of your personal opinions.

Yes they do.

Okay...no they don't.

Yes they do. The thing is, they work below the equilibrium wage, so others won't want to compete. The more laborious and unpleasant a job is, the more people would request as their wage. If illegals are willing to work for abnormally small wages, legal workers are less likely to compete for the job.

Another tactic is working below minimum wage, so it would be illegal for legal workers to compete. If they work below minimum wage they would not be paying income taxes.

For an equilibrium wage, legal workers would be willing to do the job. The illegals work below the equilibrium.

Do you know when equilibrium in a supply and demand curve is? Based on your responses it doesn't seem that you do.
Yes I do realize that. The supply of labor vs the demand for labor. Just as the equilibrium price is the supply of goods vs the demand for goods. Suppliers compete for demand with competitive wages/prices. By offering far below what others are willing or able to compete for, a supplier is able to eliminate competition. If illegals were a business, they would be broken up under anti-trust laws for anti-competitive business practices.

Suppliers of these jobs are not willing to pay minimum wage for workers to do these jobs. Therefore the equilibrium wage for these jobs is LESS than minimum wage.


Not all illegals work below minimum wage. If the equilibrium wage was less than or equal to minimum wage, than the illegals would market themselves below minimum wage. If the equilibrium wage is below minimum wage, than that is a sign minimum wage should be lowered.

In a poor job market, where there is a labor surplus, illegals steal jobs from legal workers. In a good job market, where there is a labor deficit, illegals do not steal jobs from legal workers.
Equilibrium wage is not set, it is determined based on supply and demand.

yes, the supply of legal labor vs the demand for labor = the legal labor equilibrium. When you add the supply of illegal labor to legal labor you get the supply of overall labor. The supply of Overall labor vs the demand for labor = the overall labor equilibrium.
When the undocumented immigrants enter the labor force illegally, they change the overall supply of labor lowering the overall equilibrium. By willing to work below the legal labor equilibrium, they are able to push the legal labor out of the market.

For the whole market, yes. For specific jobs, not necessarily.

Actually, I was unclear in my original post. For most jobs minimum wage doesn't matter because those jobs pay more than minimum wage. Minimum wage actually matters only in minimum wage jobs. These jobs are called "minimum wage jobs" because the starting salary for them is universally set at minimum wage because that's the lowest a company is allowed to purchase the worker's labor.

Yes, minimum wage acts similarly to a price floor. Illegal workers act similarly to a black market, where government regulations no longer apply.
They don't pay direct taxes. Even tourists pay indirect taxes.

Yes they do.

No. All illegals who work below minimum wage pay no taxes. For illegals who work above minimum wage, their employers don't necessarily report their employment. If their employers report their employment it is because the illegals committed identity theft. Out of the illegals who's employers reported their employment, only an estimated 75% file income taxes. If they make less than their deductions, exemptions, and tax credits, they pay no income taxes, despite filing. Most Americans don't pay income taxes due to deductions and exceptions; especially low income workers.

CBO estimates that betweek 50 and 75% of illegal immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov...
Yeah I just said that. Again, those are only illegals who have committed identity theft, and who's employers reported their employment.
Illegal immigrants pay into social securty without any chance of receiving its benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com...
Please see above
In 2005 in Texas illegal immigrants contributed over 17 billion to the Texan economy and contributed more in taxes to Texas than they received in services from the Texan government.
http://www.cpa.state.tx.us...

there is no way to calculate that. Those are loosely based estimates.
They should not receive any benefits.

Nobody should receive them, but for the most part they pay for them and
I agree, and no they didn't pay for them.
there is no reason to deny them welfare services aside from what is arbitrarily determined by enacted law.

those are for us citizens, they have no right to them.

They are sending untaxed and illegally obtained money abroad; its a drain on our economy.

All the sources I've provided should be sufficient to prove that that the ammount that they contribute more than makes up for what they send away.

No, you provided loosely based estimates. Just as here is no way to accurately calculate the money lost from prohibition, neither can you accurately calculate money lost/gained through illegal immigration.


It's not a minor American law, and the law is blind. Noone is above the law, regardless of personal circumstances.

And? Pointless and unjust laws deserve to be broken. It's how they change.

No, breaking laws don't change laws. Laws change when the more credible law abiding citizens petition for a change. When you grow up you will find that not having a criminal record helps the credibility of your case.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:03:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 10:57:46 PM, DanT wrote:
Laws are not only established for moral reasons. The first two laws, that every illegal is guilty of breaking, are established for economic reasons.

There is no such thing as a just law established for economic reasons.

Wong! You cannot pick and choose which laws you agree with. If you find the laws unjust you have 3 options;
1.) renounce your citizenship
2.) petition a change in the law
3.) start/support a movement to alter or abolish the government

I think you'll find I can and do pick and choose what laws I follow.

But you have no right to ignore the law. The law is the law, and you are obliged to follow it regardless of your personal opinions.

So says the federal government. I disagree.

Yes they do. The thing is, they work below the equilibrium wage, so others won't want to compete. The more laborious and unpleasant a job is, the more people would request as their wage. If illegals are willing to work for abnormally small wages, legal workers are less likely to compete for the job.

Wanting high wages is fundamentally why Americans don't want those jobs. It's not that they want minimum wage, they want MORE than minimum wage.

Another tactic is working below minimum wage, so it would be illegal for legal workers to compete. If they work below minimum wage they would not be paying income taxes.

I just posted three reputable sources that claim that Illegal immigrants mostly don't compete with Americans for jobs. The ball is now in your court.

Yes, minimum wage acts similarly to a price floor. Illegal workers act similarly to a black market, where government regulations no longer apply.

As it should be.

No. All illegals who work below minimum wage pay no taxes.

False. As I have shown.

For illegals who work above minimum wage, their employers don't necessarily report their employment. If their employers report their employment it is because the illegals committed identity theft. Out of the illegals who's employers reported their employment, only an estimated 75% file income taxes.

If they make less than their deductions, exemptions, and tax credits, they pay no income taxes, despite filing. Most Americans don't pay income taxes due to deductions and exceptions; especially low income workers.

There are more taxes than just income tax, which most people don't pay anyways. You claimed that they don't pay taxes. I showed that they do.

Yeah I just said that. Again, those are only illegals who have committed identity theft, and who's employers reported their employment.

Moving the goalposts.

there is no way to calculate that. Those are loosely based estimates.

It's an official government report. You can simply dismiss it all you want, doesn't matter unless you actually address the content.

I agree, and no they didn't pay for them.

I proved that most of them do.

those are for us citizens, they have no right to them.

Where does it say that welfare is only for citizens? And even if it is only for citizens, why should it only be for citizens?

No, you provided loosely based estimates. Just as here is no way to accurately calculate the money lost from prohibition, neither can you accurately calculate money lost/gained through illegal immigration.

This is you:
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com...

No, breaking laws don't change laws. Laws change when the more credible law abiding citizens petition for a change. When you grow up you will find that not having a criminal record helps the credibility of your case.

You misunderstand my point. Challenging unjust laws in court is how laws get changed. Petitions don't do sh*t.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:56:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 3:03:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 10:57:46 PM, DanT wrote:
Laws are not only established for moral reasons. The first two laws, that every illegal is guilty of breaking, are established for economic reasons.

There is no such thing as a just law established for economic reasons.

So laws again counterfeiting are unjust?
So laws regarding bankruptcy are unjust?
So laws standardizing accounting procedures are unjust?
So laws establishing our currency are unjust?
So a budget or revenue bill signed into law is unjust?

Not morally based =/= immoral
That is a false dichotomy.

Wong! You cannot pick and choose which laws you agree with. If you find the laws unjust you have 3 options;
1.) renounce your citizenship
2.) petition a change in the law
3.) start/support a movement to alter or abolish the government

I think you'll find I can and do pick and choose what laws I follow.

I think you will find that you are not above the law. I dare you to use that as a defense in court; "but your honor, I disagree with the law, so it doesn't apply to me."
But you have no right to ignore the law. The law is the law, and you are obliged to follow it regardless of your personal opinions.

So says the federal government. I disagree.

If you are not obliged to follow the law, than there would be no point in making laws. If there were no laws, society would collapse.
Yes they do. The thing is, they work below the equilibrium wage, so others won't want to compete. The more laborious and unpleasant a job is, the more people would request as their wage. If illegals are willing to work for abnormally small wages, legal workers are less likely to compete for the job.

Wanting high wages is fundamentally why Americans don't want those jobs.
Just because you want something doesn't mean you will get it. I'll be more than happy to work below minimum wage; its better than unemployment. I just wrote my representitive and senator requesting they move to lower minimum wage.

It's not that they want minimum wage, they want MORE than minimum wage.

You are assuming. I'm pretty sure their first priority is to get work.
Another tactic is working below minimum wage, so it would be illegal for legal workers to compete. If they work below minimum wage they would not be paying income taxes.

I just posted three reputable sources that claim that Illegal immigrants mostly don't compete with Americans for jobs. The ball is now in your court.

They do, I already explained how they do. An appeal to authority is not a rebuttal.
Yes, minimum wage acts similarly to a price floor. Illegal workers act similarly to a black market, where government regulations no longer apply.

As it should be.

??????

Are you saying we should have black markets or should have minimum wage?
No. All illegals who work below minimum wage pay no taxes.

False. As I have shown.

If you work below minimum wage, than your employment is secret. Your employer can't report your employment unless you make a legal wage.
For illegals who work above minimum wage, their employers don't necessarily report their employment. If their employers report their employment it is because the illegals committed identity theft. Out of the illegals who's employers reported their employment, only an estimated 75% file income taxes.

If they make less than their deductions, exemptions, and tax credits, they pay no income taxes, despite filing. Most Americans don't pay income taxes due to deductions and exceptions; especially low income workers.

There are more taxes than just income tax, which most people don't pay anyways. You claimed that they don't pay taxes. I showed that they do.

I said they don't pay direct taxes. Even tourists pay indirect taxes. All you proved was an estimate that 75% of identity theives who's employers don't know their illegal status, filing income taxes. This excludes those who did not commit identity theft, and those who's employers know are illegal.
Yeah I just said that. Again, those are only illegals who have committed identity theft, and who's employers reported their employment.

Moving the goalposts.

No, most illegals don't pay income taxes. That 75% figure only applied to a fraction of illegals, and is a loose estimate. When all illegals are taken into consideration the figure is more like 35-45%, possibly less.
That being said, through deductions and exemptions they most likely pay no taxes when they file.
there is no way to calculate that. Those are loosely based estimates.

It's an official government report. You can simply dismiss it all you want, doesn't matter unless you actually address the content.

I am addressing the content. The report says its an estimate. We have no clue how many illegals are in the country, because if we knew we could deport them. Just as there is no way to determine how much tax revenue is lost on the war on drugs, there is no way to determine the tax revenue lost through illegal workers. All we have are loosly based estimates, which are really just educated guesses.
I agree, and no they didn't pay for them.

I proved that most of them do.

No you didn't
those are for us citizens, they have no right to them.

Where does it say that welfare is only for citizens? And even if it is only for citizens, why should it only be for citizens?

The law establishing the requirements to receive welfare.
No, you provided loosely based estimates. Just as here is no way to accurately calculate the money lost from prohibition, neither can you accurately calculate money lost/gained through illegal immigration.

This is you:
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com...

Nice ad hominem attack
No, breaking laws don't change laws. Laws change when the more credible law abiding citizens petition for a change. When you grow up you will find that not having a criminal record helps the credibility of your case.

You misunderstand my point. Challenging unjust laws in court is how laws get changed.
That does not necessarily change the law. You also don't have to break the law to challenge it in court.
Petitions don't do sh*t.
That's your opinion
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:44:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:56:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:03:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 10:57:46 PM, DanT wrote:
Wong! You cannot pick and choose which laws you agree with. If you find the laws unjust you have 3 options;
1.) renounce your citizenship
2.) petition a change in the law
3.) start/support a movement to alter or abolish the government

I think you'll find I can and do pick and choose what laws I follow.

I think you will find that you are not above the law. I dare you to use that as a defense in court; "but your honor, I disagree with the law, so it doesn't apply to me."
But you have no right to ignore the law. The law is the law, and you are obliged to follow it regardless of your personal opinions.

So says the federal government. I disagree.

If you are not obliged to follow the law, than there would be no point in making laws. If there were no laws, society would collapse.
No, breaking laws don't change laws. Laws change when the more credible law abiding citizens petition for a change. When you grow up you will find that not having a criminal record helps the credibility of your case.

You misunderstand my point. Challenging unjust laws in court is how laws get changed.
That does not necessarily change the law. You also don't have to break the law to challenge it in court.
Petitions don't do sh*t.
That's your opinion

Ever heard of civil disobedience? I recommend you read this: http://thoreau.eserver.org... (it's 3 pages)

It's rather enlightening if you ask me. It's an essay written by someone who went to jail for refusing to pay a poll tax, because he thought the tax money would be used to fund a war he thought was unjust.

While petitions may be effective in some cases, civil disobedience gets the government's attention much quicker and better. Look at the Scopes Trial. The defendant broke the law against teaching evolution in schools on purpose. The trial attracted national attention. What is a greater display of justice, someone saying "I don't like this law", or someone showing it, by doing what they believe is right, and accepting any consequences that may be imposed by the government?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:48:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:44:09 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:56:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:03:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 10:57:46 PM, DanT wrote:
Wong! You cannot pick and choose which laws you agree with. If you find the laws unjust you have 3 options;
1.) renounce your citizenship
2.) petition a change in the law
3.) start/support a movement to alter or abolish the government

I think you'll find I can and do pick and choose what laws I follow.

I think you will find that you are not above the law. I dare you to use that as a defense in court; "but your honor, I disagree with the law, so it doesn't apply to me."
But you have no right to ignore the law. The law is the law, and you are obliged to follow it regardless of your personal opinions.

So says the federal government. I disagree.

If you are not obliged to follow the law, than there would be no point in making laws. If there were no laws, society would collapse.
No, breaking laws don't change laws. Laws change when the more credible law abiding citizens petition for a change. When you grow up you will find that not having a criminal record helps the credibility of your case.

You misunderstand my point. Challenging unjust laws in court is how laws get changed.
That does not necessarily change the law. You also don't have to break the law to challenge it in court.
Petitions don't do sh*t.
That's your opinion

Ever heard of civil disobedience? I recommend you read this: http://thoreau.eserver.org... (it's 3 pages)

It's rather enlightening if you ask me. It's an essay written by someone who went to jail for refusing to pay a poll tax, because he thought the tax money would be used to fund a war he thought was unjust.

While petitions may be effective in some cases, civil disobedience gets the government's attention much quicker and better. Look at the Scopes Trial. The defendant broke the law against teaching evolution in schools on purpose. The trial attracted national attention. What is a greater display of justice, someone saying "I don't like this law", or someone showing it, by doing what they believe is right, and accepting any consequences that may be imposed by the government?

Better Idea: Follow the law, and use legal ways to change it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:10:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
if by better idea you mean stupid, worthless, ineffective idea. How the hell is someone in Mexico supposed to work to change the laws that sentence him to life in an outdoor prison based on where he was born?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:10:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:44:09 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:56:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:03:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/1/2013 10:57:46 PM, DanT wrote:
Wong! You cannot pick and choose which laws you agree with. If you find the laws unjust you have 3 options;
1.) renounce your citizenship
2.) petition a change in the law
3.) start/support a movement to alter or abolish the government

I think you'll find I can and do pick and choose what laws I follow.

I think you will find that you are not above the law. I dare you to use that as a defense in court; "but your honor, I disagree with the law, so it doesn't apply to me."
But you have no right to ignore the law. The law is the law, and you are obliged to follow it regardless of your personal opinions.

So says the federal government. I disagree.

If you are not obliged to follow the law, than there would be no point in making laws. If there were no laws, society would collapse.
No, breaking laws don't change laws. Laws change when the more credible law abiding citizens petition for a change. When you grow up you will find that not having a criminal record helps the credibility of your case.

You misunderstand my point. Challenging unjust laws in court is how laws get changed.
That does not necessarily change the law. You also don't have to break the law to challenge it in court.
Petitions don't do sh*t.
That's your opinion

Ever heard of civil disobedience? I recommend you read this: http://thoreau.eserver.org... (it's 3 pages)

It's rather enlightening if you ask me. It's an essay written by someone who went to jail for refusing to pay a poll tax, because he thought the tax money would be used to fund a war he thought was unjust.

While petitions may be effective in some cases, civil disobedience gets the government's attention much quicker and better. Look at the Scopes Trial. The defendant broke the law against teaching evolution in schools on purpose. The trial attracted national attention. What is a greater display of justice, someone saying "I don't like this law", or someone showing it, by doing what they believe is right, and accepting any consequences that may be imposed by the government?

I can't stand proponents of civil disobedience. Without rule of law there cannot be liberty. You cannot expect the government to obey the law, when you yourself refuse to obey it. You cannot pick and choose which laws you wish to obey, that defeats the purpose of having laws. No-one is above the law, no-one. A law-biding citizen has more credibility than a criminal, and therefore has more power to enact change.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:16:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In other words, your argument fails the uniqueness criterion.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:19:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.

That is a subjective opinion
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:16:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, your argument fails the uniqueness criterion.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because prohibition is wrong, does not mean civil disobedience of prohibition is right. Just because income taxes are wrong, does not mean tax evasion is right. Just because the casus belli for a war is wrong, does not mean desertion is right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:36:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:27:20 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:16:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, your argument fails the uniqueness criterion.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because prohibition is wrong, does not mean civil disobedience of prohibition is right. Just because income taxes are wrong, does not mean tax evasion is right. Just because the casus belli for a war is wrong, does not mean desertion is right.

It kinda does, actually. Your justification for the rule of law is entirely circular:

"We must obey the law"
"Why?"
"Because it's the law"
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:36:37 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:27:20 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:16:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, your argument fails the uniqueness criterion.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because prohibition is wrong, does not mean civil disobedience of prohibition is right. Just because income taxes are wrong, does not mean tax evasion is right. Just because the casus belli for a war is wrong, does not mean desertion is right.

It kinda does, actually. Your justification for the rule of law is entirely circular:

"We must obey the law"
"Why?"
"Because it's the law"

My reason for obeying the law was not because it is the law. My reason for obeying the law, is that;
1.) without rule of law there cannot be liberty
2.) You cannot expect the government to obey the law, when you yourself refuse to obey it.
3.) If you are able to pick and choose which laws you wish to obey, than it defeats the purpose of laws
4.) A law-biding citizen has more credibility than a criminal, and therefore has more power to enact change.
5.) The law is obligatory not optional
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:19:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.

That is a subjective opinion

No, it follows from the definition of liberty and the existence of the law.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
To eliminate evil is a good thing, and so is to successfully bypass evil.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.
"

Being here without the proper documentation is a civil violation. That's not criminal.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:40:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 5:49:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:19:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.

That is a subjective opinion

No, it follows from the definition of liberty and the existence of the law.

Liberty is the immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority.
The law is not arbitrary.
(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)

Two wrongs don't make a right.
To eliminate evil is a good thing, and so is to successfully bypass evil.
Again, you are subjectively deeming it evil. It is not objectively evil. Most would say the law is good.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:51:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:33:25 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
"Fact: The fact that they are here undocumented means they broke the law, thus they are all criminals.
"


Being here without the proper documentation is a civil violation. That's not criminal.

First time offense is a misdemeanor, and repeat offenses is a felony. Add in identity theft, and working without a visa, and you it becomes more serious.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:12:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:40:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 5:49:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:19:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.

That is a subjective opinion

No, it follows from the definition of liberty and the existence of the law.

Liberty is the immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority.
The law is not arbitrary.
(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)

Two wrongs don't make a right.
To eliminate evil is a good thing, and so is to successfully bypass evil.
Again, you are subjectively deeming it evil. It is not objectively evil. Most would say the law is good.

So what would you suggest that we do if a law is passed against breathing?

It might seem like an unrealistic scenario, but there are laws in some regions that are effectively like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Before Roe v. Wade, every state in red had abortions illegal, including when it threatens the life of the mother. If you had an ectopic pregnancy, under your idea, you'd just have to die for no net gain to either party. Pro-life or pro-choice, this is a very stupid law.

Now, that in mind, consider this scenario. You are a doctor, and your wife is pregnant. She wakes up one night with an extreme pain in her abdomen, which, after you get to the hospital, you determine is an ectopic pregnancy, which will kill her if she is not given treatment (also resulting in the death of the embryo, technically making the procedure an abortion). You have the proper tools to perform the procedure, and would be willing to operate on your own wife, however, abortion is illegal in your state, even in scenarios where not having one would kill the mother. Do you:
A.) perform the procedure anyway, knowing it is illegal and you will quite possibly get arrested for it
B.) let your wife die

With that scenario, I hope you see the logic behind civil disobedience. When a law is outright idiotic, doing only harm and no good, there's no reason to follow it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:06:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:43:57 PM, DanT wrote:
My reason for obeying the law was not because it is the law. My reason for obeying the law, is that;
1.) without rule of law there cannot be liberty

Non sequitur. Rule of law does not necessarily preclude liberty, and in fact it for the most part inhibits it. For every law you care to list that enables liberty I will list ten that inhibit it.

2.) You cannot expect the government to obey the law, when you yourself refuse to obey it.

The government often doesn't obey the law. This is also a non sequitur, my obeying the law has nothing to do with what the government decides to do in relation to the law.

3.) If you are able to pick and choose which laws you wish to obey, than it defeats the purpose of laws

I'll give you this one, but so what?

4.) A law-biding citizen has more credibility than a criminal, and therefore has more power to enact change.

Eh, I guess you can have this one too, although if one challenges a law in court and wins, that person is not a criminal.

5.) The law is obligatory not optional

Says the people that make the laws and will imprison and eventually kill me if I disagree. Not a very compelling argument.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:12:07 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:40:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 5:49:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:19:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.

That is a subjective opinion

No, it follows from the definition of liberty and the existence of the law.

Liberty is the immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority.
The law is not arbitrary.
(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)

Two wrongs don't make a right.
To eliminate evil is a good thing, and so is to successfully bypass evil.
Again, you are subjectively deeming it evil. It is not objectively evil. Most would say the law is good.

So what would you suggest that we do if a law is passed against breathing?

reductio ad absurdum
It might seem like an unrealistic scenario, but there are laws in some regions that are effectively like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Are you really equating abortion with breathing?
Before Roe v. Wade, every state in red had abortions illegal, including when it threatens the life of the mother. If you had an ectopic pregnancy, under your idea, you'd just have to die for no net gain to either party. Pro-life or pro-choice, this is a very stupid law.

And they changed without "civil disobedience".
Now, that in mind, consider this scenario. You are a doctor, and your wife is pregnant. She wakes up one night with an extreme pain in her abdomen, which, after you get to the hospital, you determine is an ectopic pregnancy, which will kill her if she is not given treatment (also resulting in the death of the embryo, technically making the procedure an abortion). You have the proper tools to perform the procedure, and would be willing to operate on your own wife, however, abortion is illegal in your state, even in scenarios where not having one would kill the mother. Do you:
A.) perform the procedure anyway, knowing it is illegal and you will quite possibly get arrested for it
B.) let your wife die

Either take her to a state where it is legal, or let her die.
When my grandmother was dieing of cancer my grandfather was faced with a similar option. My grandmother asked him to give her an overdose, but he refused because it was illegal. My grandfather is in favor of legalizing assisted suicide. It's not an easy choice, but the law is the law.

With that scenario, I hope you see the logic behind civil disobedience. When a law is outright idiotic, doing only harm and no good, there's no reason to follow it.
When it comes to illegal immigration, the law is not harmful, civil disobedience to the law is.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:40:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 12:26:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:12:07 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:40:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 5:49:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:19:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2013 12:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without rule of law there cannot be liberty.
And with this law, there cannot be liberty. Until this law is changed, there cannot be liberty.

That is a subjective opinion

No, it follows from the definition of liberty and the existence of the law.

Liberty is the immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority.
The law is not arbitrary.
(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)

Two wrongs don't make a right.
To eliminate evil is a good thing, and so is to successfully bypass evil.
Again, you are subjectively deeming it evil. It is not objectively evil. Most would say the law is good.

So what would you suggest that we do if a law is passed against breathing?

reductio ad absurdum

So respond to it. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of logical criticism. It isn't a logical fallacy like too many people think.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:46:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 12:06:39 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:43:57 PM, DanT wrote:
My reason for obeying the law was not because it is the law. My reason for obeying the law, is that;
1.) without rule of law there cannot be liberty

Non sequitur. Rule of law does not necessarily preclude liberty, and in fact it for the most part inhibits it.
Wrong. Rule of law means no one is above the law, not even politicians. Rule of Law = limitted government.
For every law you care to list that enables liberty I will list ten that inhibit it.

But are they in conformity with constitutional law? I think not.
If citizens can use civil disobedience against statutes than politicians can use civil disobedience against the constitution.
If you want smaller government than you want rule of law.
2.) You cannot expect the government to obey the law, when you yourself refuse to obey it.

The government often doesn't obey the law.
They are just practicing civil disobedience
This is also a non sequitur, my obeying the law has nothing to do with what the government decides to do in relation to the law.

Yes it does. You cannot ask others to do something you are not willing to do. If you want them to obey the law, you must obey the law, and vice versa.
When crime increases the government tends to break more of their restrictions. When government breaks their restrictions, crime tends to increase. It's a cycle, but not an infinite loop; the escape is to choose to obey the law.

3.) If you are able to pick and choose which laws you wish to obey, than it defeats the purpose of laws

I'll give you this one, but so what?

So without laws society breaks down
4.) A law-biding citizen has more credibility than a criminal, and therefore has more power to enact change.

Eh, I guess you can have this one too, although if one challenges a law in court and wins, that person is not a criminal.

That's provided they win. You don't have to break the law to challenge it in court.
5.) The law is obligatory not optional

Says the people that make the laws and will imprison and eventually kill me if I disagree. Not a very compelling argument.
The law is by definition an obligation
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:53:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Immigration wouldn't need to be heavily enforced if we did not have a problem with undertaxed workers enjoying social services in America subsidized by unregulated businesses.