The Rabbi

Drug dealing is both bad behavior and illegal. And laws against it dont seem to be working too well. Immigrants are not sneaking here to take advantage of health care. Most of them are younger and healthy anyway and dont need it. They end up using it (those who do, and in far fewer numbers than native-born Americans of similar socio-economic status) when they get sick because they have little choice in the matter. I dont doubt abuse goes on, but keep it in perspective.

That is the most clueless statement I have seen so far in this discussion. In fact they were not "doing just fine." In fact, there is a serious shortage of unskilled (and some highly skilled) labor here. Thus the problem. If there was no demand there would be no supply. As for going the legal route, currently the process takes years and is very costly. Any immigrant can attest to this. This is the driver for illegal immigration. Would you want to wait years for your HCP? For a drivers license? No one does. Thus the incentive to cheat by going illegally is enormous. And the penalty is minimal. So what if you deport someone? There was a case not too long ago of a group of Nigerians being deported, for the third and fourth time. You want to continue sending people back to Nigeria? If you made a system of fast visa approval combined with a biometric ID you would go a very long way to solving these issues. You would encourage people to go through official channels. You would have a record of who this person is. If he got picked up for theft or whatever you could check his record. Currently too many people are "Jose Garcia" today and last week they were Raul Guiterrez and last month they were someone else again. A system like that wouldn't eliminate border sneaking (nothing will) but it will cut down on the largest part of it.

Your list of ills has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The act of walking over the border never hurt anyone. You are supposing that every person who enters this country illegally also engages in fraud and other violent crimes. That is obviously false. You think people who commit fraud and violent crimes ought to be punished? Good, we agree. But that has little to nothing to do with illegal immigration. In fact, the present policies actually make it worse because there is incentive to get lost in the crowd. And if you agree that immigration does all those things (and it does) then you ought to be for liberalizing immigration laws, not making them worse.

If you make the penalties high enough there wont be any business owners. Why do you think they are hiring them to begin with?

The magnet that draws them here is better-paying jobs. This is a fact. If you want to turn that off, go right ahead. You won't like the results.

And how has enforcement been working for the last 20 years? What makes you think "this time it'll be different"? The US isnt France. There is no way to compare the two. The riots in Paris were not necessarily immigrant related. But this thread is not about whether immigration is good or not (it obviously is and we need much more of it). It is about the fact that anti-immigration rhetoric (and that's what it is, the "only illegal" part is pure BS) will cost the GOP the next election.

I thought you didnt want penalties for victimless crimes?

Not at all. In the one case (purchase) the gov't is merely insuring you are not prohibited. In the other (HCP) you have to demonstrate specific competency.

Good. Then you must support changing the laws to more open immigration and remove all those people from the stigma of being a criminal. Easy!

Yes, the interpret, based on societal norms among other things. There is no "right to privacy" mentioned anywhere prior to Griswold.

No, I dont. The article reports that Hispanics voted against politicians running on "law and order" platforms as opposed to those who offered or supported comprehensive solutions. Your comment to the article was about criminals. I can only assume you mean that those Hispanic voters, 99% of them U.S. citizens, are criminals.

Ah. So all Hispanics are criminals now....

Probably right about at zero. In my experience illegals want to avoid contact with officialdom as much as possible.

No, that makes a separation between the government and the people. That is a false dichotomy, especially in a representative democracy. The people elect representatives, who pass laws that basically mirror societal values. Judges interpret those laws based on societal norms. It is no accident that the "right to privacy" didnt come around until the 1970s.

Things were getting too dull around here anyway. I mean, how many times can you bash Glocks or Open Carry? From the WSJ:

Oh, Chavez. And here I was thinking Hillary and Obama....

Reagan governed CA and had an excellent record as an administrator there. Fred has no such record, unfortunately. He is witty though.

No, actually that was my first election (1980). I was registered in GA and voted absentee, being in college. I voted for Reagan. Did it again in 1984. I would vote for him even today. Even dead he's a lot better than anyone else running.

You vote? Anyway, there is plenty to oppose Obama on. The fact that he has less than 6 years experience as a senator. The fact that his policies stink and would lead to economic ruin. The fact that he doesnt know which end of gun the bullet comes out of, much less anything about making laws about them. I like Ted Nugent's comment about him. Obama's a punk. He can go suck my machine gun.

So you got it in for Taurus now too, as well as Glock, eh?

No. But I've shot myself in the foot with my mouth often enough...

S'okay Mars. Everyone makes mistakes. I seem to remember making one myself back when Carter was president.....

As with most things, it depends. If the cop would let the law breaker go in other circumstances then it is perfectly OK to let him go on this as well. But if the law breaker has 3 DUIs and a long history of accidents, is there an officer in the world who would let him get off? So why should it be any different with an LEO?

What is "civilian carry"?? I have heard of soldiers carrying them occasionally in odd circumstances but not enough to warrant special mention.

It's like watching a dog walk on its hind legs. Very entertaining but so what? There are a lot of so-called "skills" out there that really seem more akin to parlor tricks than anything else. But there is always some yoke on a gun forum swearing he has practiced this move "just in case" and decrying anyone who disagrees as a loser and defeatist.