<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Even if it's not prosecuted, a crime remains a crime so long as its governing statute remains in force. There simply is no way to reconcile his statement with the statute and reach an acceptable answer. By law, it is a crime. And that, incidentally, is something that he does not possess the power to change. Put another way, while he has discretion to enforce the law as he sees fit, he has not lawful right to determine whether something is legal or not, and to even entertain that theory is to deny the separation of powers doctrine, for starters.</div> Oh jeez, let it go already. Its a law, okay! Just like jay walking and smoking weed! Just like murder, just like going more than 5 miles over the speed limit! I agree that DA communicated the whole thing terribly, but the bottom line of what they are saying is this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."</div> </div> If I leave my ID at home, and I get approached by a police officer, he can take me into custody until they find out exacly who I am. All he has to do is say, "let me see some ID". If I don't have any, they won't let me out of their site until they figure it out.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Even if it's not prosecuted, a crime remains a crime so long as its governing statute remains in force. There simply is no way to reconcile his statement with the statute and reach an acceptable answer. By law, it is a crime. And that, incidentally, is something that he does not possess the power to change.</div> Well, he qualified it was a civil wrong, which given the penalties in place, seems more accurate to me than to call it a crime. That's especially true given the context (speaking to a group of lay people in a church). Being an illegal immigrant is a crime in the same way speeding is a crime, right? I spose technically speaking you might call someone who speeds as a criminal, but that's not what we'd say in any sort of common speak.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 28 2008, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I understand what you are saying. But this goes back to what I said. This 50-year old man in your example is still taking the job of someone who should be paying taxes as is. So he is displacing someone else.</div> Not sure what you are talking about on this one. In my example, I am assuming that the guy has been granted citizenship. At that point, I would expect that he has found better work for his age, since he's now legal and has many new choices to make about where he works. Illegals can have strange things like this happen, like much older people still doing jobs that they should be avoiding in our society. That's why I said, "we don't want to see the 50-year old [doing the job of what we assign to 15 year olds]". That disrupts the whole model of how our ideal society/work structure should be. The system in place now allows for this type of anomaly to happen. It causes less harm and more good to change the current system and make them legal assuming they are approved for citizenship. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 28 2008, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure, we could just kill everyone that breaks the law too, that would be even more effective. No, lets try something more constructive. Also, are you aware of how much it costs taxpayers to incarcerate people on a per yearly basis? We are already spending $1 billion annually to lock up people caught with marijuana in their possession. Not a very effective use of our tax money, and it makes no difference in the long run.</div> Our jail system has a revolving door. Yes it's expensive to keep someone locked up. But by making sentences longer, it gives others something to consider. </div> While it may satisfy your lust to punish them, it cost you more to lock them up. multiply that hit to our collective wallets by the number of years for that individual, and multiply that by however many 100's of thousands that get caught up in that initiative. No thanks. I prefer solutions that are more constructive rather than destructive. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If you smoke weed... and you were to get put away for 10 years if caught with it in it's possession, how many kids in middle school do you think would seriously consider taking their first hit? I don't have any stats, but I would bet that a pretty big percentage of people who have been jailed are repeat offenders. Why are they repeat offenders? Cause prison is not so bad? Or it's not worth countering the profits of their crimes? So balance the scales.</div> Well, that's bordering on terrorism. Prison is no place for anyone. Prison tends to not rehabilitate people, and they tend to come out as worse individuals. You might as well just execute that guy you just did that to, because you have pretty much ruined his life over your lust for maximum punishment. Ideally, you want punishments to fit the crime, and clearly this doesn't. If the police gunned down people for jay-walking, that might deter them from jay-walking, but that would also be terrorism. That is the type of draconian law that exists in places like Saudi Arabia. I think China enforces their law as harshly as you would like, and they have been getting a lot of flack for years about their human rights violations. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Perhaps not enough US Attorneys were fired? </div> You two have a huge lust for punishing people. Can you keep that under control? Please, for everyone's sake, lighten up. They don't need to go taking away people's jobs over that. Come on. Nobody's perfect, and you know you aren't either. Go hit a punching bag for a while. I have met people at work and in other places in life that get a real rush out of seeing people getting crushed underneath the heals of others. They always have their own "justification" for doing it too. "Nevermind the fact that we can solve a situation without destroying people, lets go destroy them anyway. That'll teach em that we are willing to destroy you first and ask questions later." I think they adopt sort of a mob mentality that gets borne out of surrounding themselves with lots of consistant negative media, or talk radio that's likely filled with hyperbole. There is no compromise in mob mentality. I prefer to be more <u>rational</u> than that, and I prefer practical solutions. I'm not saying I am better than anyone else. I certainly have my own problems. I'm just a guy who will look to other options before ruining someone - whether it is professionally or otherwise.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 28 2008, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Even if it's not prosecuted, a crime remains a crime so long as its governing statute remains in force. There simply is no way to reconcile his statement with the statute and reach an acceptable answer. By law, it is a crime. And that, incidentally, is something that he does not possess the power to change.</div> Well, he qualified it was a civil wrong, which given the penalties in place, seems more accurate to me than to call it a crime. That's especially true given the context (speaking to a group of lay people in a church). Being an illegal immigrant is a crime in the same way speeding is a crime, right? I spose technically speaking you might call someone who speeds as a criminal, but that's not what we'd say in any sort of common speak. </div> It's about stigma. The DA got the main idea across to the audience by changing up the language a bit. She was trying to put them at ease, and make them not worry about the whole issue. Nobody like being called a cheater either. If I suddenly raise my speed limit to 6 miles over the limit, then I am cheating, and I am a criminal. Even though I techinically am, I would rather you just get the heck off my case about it and not call me names, because its not that big of a deal. I can't help it if you stay up in your ivory tower all day long and never risk breaking the law. Other people are going to go out and live and not call each other names.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 28 2008, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Apr 28 2008, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 28 2008, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Illegal Immigrants steal jobs from citizens, while also inflating the cost of homes and other goods. They help reinforce the cycle of rich getting richer, poor getting poorer. Yes, stealing is criminal activity, yes they are in a way criminals. -Petey</div> Exactly what I think. In a sense they're not criminal, to the extent that they haven't killed someone, or have done something to be criminals, but being that they're "illegally" in the country, automatically gives them that name. I was an immigrant once (9 years ago), legal one , and thats the way to come to this country. </div> They aren't stealing, they are lowballing their competition. If their employers were forced to pay immigrants minimum wage or industry standard, then this whole conversation goes away. Part of the blame for this whole mess are the employers who select tax free cheap illegal labor over the alternative. If we have an influx of new citizens, then all that means to the employer is that he will get to read twice as many resumes for the same job. They still have to have enough skill to do your job, pay taxes, live here, and any other dues that other legal residents pay. With more population comes more workers of all skill levels and age. Eventually, as many legal mexicans already living in the US have found, is that they become seemlessly integrated into our economy. What we as a country need to recognise is that <u>they are already part of our economy whether we like it or not</u>. We can choose to get them fully integrated into our system. At that point, all the arguements about them stealing tax money, social services goes away, because they are paying just as much back into the system as anyone else already here. Rather than punishing them into oblivion, why not make them part of the whole structure? Make them *accountable*! Get taxes from them. If they make enough, they can afford to live here, and they're never running crazy through the desert ever again. You need to include the white collar jobs that are being farmed offshore as well if we are going to make this a complete discussion. All jobs are disappearing from our country at every level of skill or eduacational background, because employers don't give a damn where you are from, they are going to make as much money with or without the American worker. I find it amazing that we blame immigrants for what is clearly a systemic problem. They are just reaping the rewards of our boss's greed. </div> How is it not stealing? Do they have a legal right to the job they work? If not, that would be stealing. -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 28 2008, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I understand what you are saying. But this goes back to what I said. This 50-year old man in your example is still taking the job of someone who should be paying taxes as is. So he is displacing someone else.</div> Not sure what you are talking about on this one. In my example, I am assuming that the guy has been granted citizenship. At that point, I would expect that he has found better work for his age, since he's now legal and has many new choices to make about where he works. Illegals can have strange things like this happen, like much older people still doing jobs that they should be avoiding in our society. That's why I said, "we don't want to see the 50-year old [doing the job of what we assign to 15 year olds]". That disrupts the whole model of how our ideal society/work structure should be. The system in place now allows for this type of anomaly to happen. It causes less harm and more good to change the current system and make them legal assuming they are approved for citizenship. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 28 2008, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure, we could just kill everyone that breaks the law too, that would be even more effective. No, lets try something more constructive. Also, are you aware of how much it costs taxpayers to incarcerate people on a per yearly basis? We are already spending $1 billion annually to lock up people caught with marijuana in their possession. Not a very effective use of our tax money, and it makes no difference in the long run.</div> Our jail system has a revolving door. Yes it's expensive to keep someone locked up. But by making sentences longer, it gives others something to consider. </div> While it may satisfy your lust to punish them, it cost you more to lock them up. multiply that hit to our collective wallets by the number of years for that individual, and multiply that by however many 100's of thousands that get caught up in that initiative. No thanks. I prefer solutions that are more constructive rather than destructive. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If you smoke weed... and you were to get put away for 10 years if caught with it in it's possession, how many kids in middle school do you think would seriously consider taking their first hit? I don't have any stats, but I would bet that a pretty big percentage of people who have been jailed are repeat offenders. Why are they repeat offenders? Cause prison is not so bad? Or it's not worth countering the profits of their crimes? So balance the scales.</div> Well, that's bordering on terrorism. Prison is no place for anyone. Prison tends to not rehabilitate people, and they tend to come out as worse individuals. You might as well just execute that guy you just did that to, because you have pretty much ruined his life over your lust for maximum punishment. Ideally, you want punishments to fit the crime, and clearly this doesn't. If the police gunned down people for jay-walking, that might deter them from jay-walking, but that would also be terrorism. That is the type of draconian law that exists in places like Saudi Arabia. I think China enforces their law as harshly as you would like, and they have been getting a lot of flack for years about their human rights violations.</div> Your model would work under the assumption there is enough work for everyone. If you let enough highly skilled 40 year old doctors into the country for example, what happens? In part drives down the wages and # of jobs in the country? Then who wants to become a doctor? We don't function on a limitless set of systems. Even your legal 50 year old is taking someone's job. I see you saying to blame those moving jobs out of the country. But those companies have to make things cheaper due to the growing lower class? You and Denny_Crane have both said how costly jail is. So why not keep people out by enforcing the laws as they were meant? I believe that each time a criminal is caught, gets a slap on the wrist, he gets more 'brave' in his next action. Avoid escalation. Like I asked, how many kids do you think would take up drugs if one of their friend's had a legit punishment? Certainly fewer than that do now right? That would mean the system is working. Otherwise what is the function of prison? Short stay vacation spots on the tax payers' dime before he or she commits their next crime? -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 29 2008, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Even if it's not prosecuted, a crime remains a crime so long as its governing statute remains in force. There simply is no way to reconcile his statement with the statute and reach an acceptable answer. By law, it is a crime. And that, incidentally, is something that he does not possess the power to change.</div> Well, he qualified it was a civil wrong, which given the penalties in place, seems more accurate to me than to call it a crime. That's especially true given the context (speaking to a group of lay people in a church). Being an illegal immigrant is a crime in the same way speeding is a crime, right? I spose technically speaking you might call someone who speeds as a criminal, but that's not what we'd say in any sort of common speak. </div> Except that it <u>is</u> a crime, and he apparently deliberately misrepresented it. And the penalty in the statute is not as minor as speeding, which is a Violation. The criminal penalty makes it a misdemeanor offense, subject to up to six months in prison. Terming it a civil wrong is disingenuous, as it's built on his incorrect (misleading) statement that it's not (also) a criminal act. Let's look at the statute again. In addition to the penalties listed therein, it also notes that there may be penalties under Title 18 of the USC - Title 18 being Crimes and Criminal Procedure. In his own words, again, "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," That is absolutely false - and has nothing to do with calling someone a criminal in common parlance. It a statement of fact that is not true, and should never have been uttered by someone in his position.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 28 2008, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Even if it's not prosecuted, a crime remains a crime so long as its governing statute remains in force. There simply is no way to reconcile his statement with the statute and reach an acceptable answer. By law, it is a crime. And that, incidentally, is something that he does not possess the power to change. Put another way, while he has discretion to enforce the law as he sees fit, he has not lawful right to determine whether something is legal or not, and to even entertain that theory is to deny the separation of powers doctrine, for starters.</div> Oh jeez, let it go already. Its a law, okay! Just like jay walking and smoking weed! Just like murder, just like going more than 5 miles over the speed limit! I agree that DA communicated the whole thing terribly, but the bottom line of what they are saying is this: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime <u>that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about</u>," he added of entering the country illegally. "<u>It is not</u> [going to be something that (WE) are going to enforce]."</div> Does that clear up the language a bit? They are saying that while some people will enforce this law to its highest possible punishment, we are going to probably look the other way, because we have bigger fish to fry. In every part of our country, the laws are enforced differently. California is at odds all the time with the Federal government. California police will ignore certain types of misdemenors or "crimes" because they feel it is not of sufficient threat to the general public, and they only have so many cops. It's best to spend one's resources on something that's actually harmful. Smaller states or cities have seemingly nothing but time on their hands to go after what we would consider too petty to enforce. These are typically small communities that need the money from fines, etc. If you've ever been caught speeding in a really small town, you know what I mean. They try to throw the book at you so they can apply your fine toward a new police car that has a better air conditioner. The point is that there are different perspectives on enforcement. </div> If he'd said that, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. As I said earlier, I think that the criminal provisions are ridiculous. But he made a statement of fact - a statement of law. That's inexcusable, even if not directly against the governing ethics for attorneys. That's the whole point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 07:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your model would work under the assumption there is enough work for everyone. If you let enough highly skilled 40 year old doctors into the country for example, what happens? In part drives down the wages and # of jobs in the country? Then who wants to become a doctor? We don't function on a limitless set of systems. Even your legal 50 year old is taking someone's job. I see you saying to blame those moving jobs out of the country. But those companies have to make things cheaper due to the growing lower class?</div> Sure it works. When new kids come up in our system, they have the option and will work in many different fields. We need X number of doctors, police, engineers, construction workers, farmers for every Z number of new population. This does not drive down the cost of anything. It simply just <u>scales up at the same ratios with population</u>. I bet that the son of the lifetime farm worker decides that he loves what his dad has been doing, but feels his true calling is that of a firefighter. His sister might decide she wants to be a school teacher. Have you ever heard of something called a "recruiter". They have those in many professions, like the military. All these things are important, and it only takes a generation or two to see this play itself out. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You and Denny_Crane have both said how costly jail is. So why not keep people out by enforcing the laws as they were meant?</div> By and large, we are not getting more freedoms, they pass laws every year that remove just a few more that we previously had. Some of the laws make complete sense, others are highly debateable, and were enacted without the general public's consent whatsoever. Once its on the books, getting it off is nearly impossible. There are some "Blue Laws" in certain states, for example, that have taken decades of years to fix, like Idaho's no alcohol sales on Sunday law. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Backers of the legislation considered it a victory for customer convenience and pointed out liquor stores would benefit from the additional foot traffic, increased liquor sales, and increased commissions they would make on those sales. "This historic change is a big victory for Idaho consumers and tourists," said Peter Cressey, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), which lobbied aggressively in support of the bill. "Idaho joins the growing list of states that recognize the consumer and commercial benefits of Sunday spirits sales. Shoppers have more convenient choices, businesses are more successful, and the state generates additional revenue."</div> Some laws are just plain stupid. This is one of them. Creating yet another way for someone to find their way into the penal system is simply not the first place we should look to have an affect on society. Serious thought is not always given when making these
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If he'd said that, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. As I said earlier, I think that the criminal provisions are ridiculous.</div> Well, that's your opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If he'd said that, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. As I said earlier, I think that the criminal provisions are ridiculous.</div> Well, that's your opinion. </div> Correct. Incidentally, has anyone bothered to read up on this schmuck? After going back and figuring out why his name is so familiar, I may have to amend my statements about his deliberately misleading people - it's quite possible that he's simply incompetent and lacks knowledge of applicable criminal law. I'm surprised nobody picked up on my aside about the fired US Attorneys...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it not stealing? Do they have a legal right to the job they work? If not, that would be stealing. -Petey</div> Just like how the 15 year old kid getting my lawn mowed tax free is not stealing. He still needs to provide his service in order for me to give him money. Following your logic, if my uncle sells me his car for far less than a dealership, then he's stealing the right of the registered car dealer to sell me a car.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 28 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here is a small distinction I would like to make. Our country has historically given out a ton of welfare money. I'm using that term in its most broad sense, from tax breaks for corporations who meet certain criteria all the way down to people who refuse to work and take checks from the government. On a scale, the undocumented immigrants are not as much of a burden on the economy as a whole as are the people who just flat out take money from our government for flimsy reasons - on a regular basis. The hospital thing is true, but people aren't in the hospital *all the time* week in, week out. People who get checks for nothing or don't have to pay taxes that would otherwise help the local economy are seeing more of a consistant money suckage pound for pound. Migrant workers will work for close to nothing. Agriculture, as an industry, needs the migrant workers to survive in many parts of the southern US. Pushing all those workers up to minimum wage status means we could see drastic changes to the who industry, and ultimatlely they will just move their company to Mexico anyway. It's sort of a catch 22. It wouldn't be the first time that worker wages have driven entire industries out. Steel, cars, manufacturing....all jobs will eventually disappear, and all we will be left with are banking and restaurants lol. How do we fix everything? Raise the minimum wage across the whole planet. It would be really great if the leadership in developing countries wouldn't just sell out their people into virtual slavery so that they can get kickbacks from US companies. Construction workers in India make ~$2 per day to build new, state of the art buildings for US companies relocating there. Multinational corporations are making a killing off them, and have no obligation to give much back.</div> Exactly. We don't care if we screw over migrant workers, but let screw them over in their own countries so we don't have to see them in our society. It's more efficient and we'll sleep better at night.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Apr 29 2008, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it not stealing? Do they have a legal right to the job they work? If not, that would be stealing. -Petey</div> Just like how the 15 year old kid getting my lawn mowed tax free is not stealing. He still needs to provide his service in order for me to give him money. Following your logic, if my uncle sells me his car for far less than a dealership, then he's stealing the right of the registered car dealer to sell me a car. </div> Just to add another example: I once had a serious problem with my truck. I had talked about it over lunchtime with my coworker. He had an idea, he offered to do all the labor, for $100, and I buy the parts. He did the work for me, and I was up and running again at very minimal charge. The thing is, automechanics is not his proffession and he never did it for a living in the traditional sense of working from a shop. He was just handy. Following your logic, My coworker is *stealing* work from the dealership, who would have fixed my car at an enormous cost to me. Guess what, there wasn't any sales tax involved, and the work was completely untraceable to people who care about when you pay your taxes. I have absolutely no problem with this, and you may call it stealing all day long for all I care.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If he'd said that, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. As I said earlier, I think that the criminal provisions are ridiculous.</div> Well, that's your opinion. </div> Correct. Incidentally, has anyone bothered to read up on this schmuck? After going back and figuring out why his name is so familiar, I may have to amend my statements about his deliberately misleading people - it's quite possible that he's simply incompetent and lacks knowledge of applicable criminal law. I'm surprised nobody picked up on my aside about the fired US Attorneys... </div> I'd rather have this guy as U.S. Attorney who says some things you may or may not agree with and who is 125-0 in Criminal prosecutions of some of my state's most corrupt and polarizing figures, than some schmuck who says all the right things but doesn't do anything about it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 29 2008, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If he'd said that, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. As I said earlier, I think that the criminal provisions are ridiculous.</div> Well, that's your opinion. </div> Correct. Incidentally, has anyone bothered to read up on this schmuck? After going back and figuring out why his name is so familiar, I may have to amend my statements about his deliberately misleading people - it's quite possible that he's simply incompetent and lacks knowledge of applicable criminal law. I'm surprised nobody picked up on my aside about the fired US Attorneys... </div> I'd rather have this guy as U.S. Attorney who says some things you may or may not agree with and who is 125-0 in Criminal prosecutions of some of my state's most corrupt and polarizing figures, than some schmuck who says all the right things but doesn't do anything about it. </div> Except he misrepresented the law. It's not about agreement, it's about not giving people misinformation when speaking as an expert. It's even worse than when Giuliani made the same false comment a year ago, with the difference being that Giuliani was speaking as a past US Attorney. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he's taken down some of NJ's most corrupt. But I admit that if he's willing to misrepresent a basic legal principle in public, I wonder what else he either doesn't know or ignores...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> I'd rather have this guy as U.S. Attorney who says some things you may or may not agree with and who is 125-0 in Criminal prosecutions of some of my state's most corrupt and polarizing figures, than some schmuck who says all the right things but doesn't do anything about it.</div> Except he misrepresented the law. It's not about agreement, it's about not giving people misinformation when speaking as an expert. It's even worse than when Giuliani made the same false comment a year ago, with the difference being that Giuliani was speaking as a past US Attorney. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he's taken down some of NJ's most corrupt. But I admit that if he's willing to misrepresent a basic legal principle in public, I wonder what else he either doesn't know or ignores... </div> given his record, his comments come off as a little "I am the law, and I have declared the following to be true." His words combined with his actions suggest that he views himself as a benevolent dictator. This attitude can rub people the wrong way. You and I are aware of what the real law says. His declaration of non-enforcement is a different matter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 29 2008, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> I'd rather have this guy as U.S. Attorney who says some things you may or may not agree with and who is 125-0 in Criminal prosecutions of some of my state's most corrupt and polarizing figures, than some schmuck who says all the right things but doesn't do anything about it.</div> Except he misrepresented the law. It's not about agreement, it's about not giving people misinformation when speaking as an expert. It's even worse than when Giuliani made the same false comment a year ago, with the difference being that Giuliani was speaking as a past US Attorney. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he's taken down some of NJ's most corrupt. But I admit that if he's willing to misrepresent a basic legal principle in public, I wonder what else he either doesn't know or ignores... </div> given his record, his comments come off as a little "I am the law, and I have declared the following to be true." His words combined with his actions suggest that he views himself as a benevolent dictator. This attitude can rub people the wrong way. You and I are aware of what the real law says. His declaration of non-enforcement is a different matter. </div> I agree. Non-enforcement is fine - you won't find too many out there who're greater defenders of powers of discretion by Executive Agencies than myself. But I definitely saw red when he decided that he was Judge Dredd.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure it works. When new kids come up in our system, they have the option and will work in many different fields. We need X number of doctors, police, engineers, construction workers, farmers for every Z number of new population. This does not drive down the cost of anything. It simply just <u>scales up at the same ratios with population</u>. I bet that the son of the lifetime farm worker decides that he loves what his dad has been doing, but feels his true calling is that of a firefighter. His sister might decide she wants to be a school teacher. Have you ever heard of something called a "recruiter". They have those in many professions, like the military. All these things are important, and it only takes a generation or two to see this play itself out.</div> This is how you lay out a plan on paper. But this isn't how it would work out or how others think it would work out. In the late 70's and late 80's the Chinese gov had 2 forms of currency. A foreign currency and a local currency. They (the gov) distrubuted the foreign currency to their citizens regardless of occupants. Then when foreigners visited they would issue them the 'foreign' currency. Now they had the same face value. When you went to a tourist spot, you could you the same noted value of either version of the currency to pay for the food, sights, hotels. BUT when you left China, if you wanted to convert you money, they would only convert the foreign version. This devalued the 'local' currency, which forced international companies (freighting and airlines) to only accept the 'foreign' version. This was done so the skilled citizens of China won't be able to leave. Doctors, bankers all the higher paid professions would had left China. Apply that theory to your proposed system. Open up the gates. Who are the type of people who will first migrate to the US? Would that cause a flood of skilled workers? Yes it would take time to sort out, but how is it only 2 generations? You won't care if your son or daughter's profession was flooded with a whole slew of laborers? Is the US's obligation to take care of their own first? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 29 2008, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You and Denny_Crane have both said how costly jail is. So why not keep people out by enforcing the laws as they were meant?</div> By and large, we are not getting more freedoms, they pass laws every year that remove just a few more that we previously had. Some of the laws make complete sense, others are highly debateable, and were enacted without the general public's consent whatsoever. Once its on the books, getting it off is nearly impossible. There are some "Blue Laws" in certain states, for example, that have taken decades of years to fix, like Idaho's no alcohol sales on Sunday law.</div> While there are more laws added yearly. How are they enforced? While not as extreme as what was witnessed with Paris Hilton, but as was noted during her trial, most people arrested for DUI in California serve a portion of their sentence as they get a certain amount of days off for 'good behavior'. How does that curb the # of DUI? -Petey
