Mexico says it 'will not accept' Trump's new immigration plans, and it could retaliate

[Rod1]

Great so then you agree with me that illegally entering the country should be a felony just like illegally entering my house is. Awesome!

No, i dont agree with that.

I say that there is nothing that prevents such a thing if the American people were to put their political will towards it.

 

[palerider500]

Law infers that someone breaking into a home is a dangerous criminal because people dont break into homes for other reasons.

So you consider someone who steals a dangerous criminal, is that correct? Yes or no?

There are other reasons to cross a border besides the intent to commit theft or violence, like looking for a job, fleeing violence or a myriad other things. So the law doesnt assumes that an illegal crosser is a violent felon.

People break into homes all the time because they do not have jobs and decide to steal. The end DOES NOT justify the means.

illegally crossing the border to find a job when you have no business being here is no better than breaking into someone's home and stealing something because you do not have a job.

Both instances involves trespassing and going someplace that you do not belong.

Trying to draw a comparison is so retarded that its not even worth an argument. You put a premise on stone and then you want someone to argue with you based on said (flawed) premise, but thats just appeal to emotion.

That is because the comparison destroys your entire argument and makes you look bad.

Either both instances should count as a felony or both instances should count as a simple misdemeanor...

...Or do you believe that a person who illegally crosses the border cannot also commit theft and violent acts?

 

[palerider500]

The analogy is appropriate because Mexicans come here mostly because they are either hired by an American, or invited here by a family member or friend who is a citizen. They also don't have to cross the border illegally to come here. A passport or a work visa will get them here legally.

If a cop invites me to do a ride along with him I am still not permitted to arrest people just like he can. And likewise a friend inviting a mexican to come here illegally does not justify the act.

Both instances involves breaking the law.

So, I would say it is much more often like accepting a job that pays cash under the table, or driving a car with an expired expired driver's license, than it is like breaking and entering a home.

Both of which is illegal and could have you wind up in jail. Again, the end does not justify the means.

 

[Rod1]

So you consider someone who steals a dangerous criminal, is that correct? Yes or no?



People break into homes all the time because they do not have jobs and decide to steal. The end DOES NOT justify the means.

illegally crossing the border to find a job when you have no business being here is no better than breaking into someone's home and stealing something because you do not have a job.

Both instances involves trespassing and going someplace that you do not belong.



That is because the comparison destroys your entire argument and makes you look bad.

Either both instances should count as a felony or both instances should count as a simple misdemeanor...

...Or do you believe that a person who illegally crosses the border cannot also commit theft and violent acts?

1.- No, someone who breaks a home is assumed to be a dangerous criminal by law, to allow the homeowners to defend themselves without legal repercussions.


2.- LOL.


3.- Again, thats up to lawmakers to define, not me, not you. Drawing a false comparison is retarded and not a way to have an honest debate.

 

[palerider500]

I just gave you a LEGAL reason why comparing the two does not work. Instead of heeding what I said and thinking about it, you keep repeating the same unsound argument and manage to throw in a supposed insult assuming that I'm a liberal. The way you proudly show your lack of logical reasoning skills on these boards is somewhat entertaining but ultimately a waste of my time.

Here is what you originally said:

Legally, you have property and privacy rights to your place of dwelling. You do not have property and privacy rights over a country.

That does not answer my question about why illegally entering my house should be a felony and why illegally entering this country should not be.

My argument is all about the WHY....

And you avoided my earlier question from before so I will repeat it:

What can a person do by illegally entering my house that they cannot ALSO do by illegally entering this country?

WHY should one be classified as a felony and the other a simple misdemeanor?

 

[palerider500]

No, i dont agree with that.

Why do you not agree with it?

 

[Rod1]

Why do you not agree with it?

I dont agree with the direct comparison, i do agree that a country is free to pass its own laws and deal with illegal immigration as if it was a serious felony.

 

[palerider500]

1.- No, someone who breaks a home is assumed to be a dangerous criminal by law, to allow the homeowners to defend themselves without legal repercussions..

You keep repeating what the status quo (current law) is, I am arguing is it JUSTIFIED.

Again, do YOU consider someone who steals a dangerous criminal?

3.- Again, thats up to lawmakers to define, not me, not you. Drawing a false comparison is retarded and not a way to have an honest debate.

So you always agree with whatever the "lawmakers" decide? You don't think for yourself and ask yourself whether a law is good or bad?

Well, I guess since you do not think for yourself and rely on "lawmakers" to do the thinking us continuing this conversation is a waste of time.

 

[palerider500]

I dont agree with the direct comparison,

What can a person do by illegally entering my house that they cannot ALSO do by illegally entering this country?

i do agree that a country is free to pass its own laws and deal with illegal immigration as if it was a serious felony.

Is this how you always argue? Just rely on those in government and "lawmakers" to argue on your behalf? Can you argue using YOUR opinion?

Again... IN YOUR OPINION why should only one be classified as a felony and the other as a simple misdemeanor?

 

[Rod1]

You keep repeating what the status quo (current law) is, I am arguing is it JUSTIFIED.

Again, do YOU consider someone who steals a dangerous criminal?



So you always agree with whatever the "lawmakers" decide? You don't think for yourself and ask yourself whether a law is good or bad?

Well, I guess since you do not think for yourself and rely on "lawmakers" to do the thinking us continuing this conversation is a waste of time.

1.- Someone who steals real valuables or liquid assets is a thief. I agree.


2.- No, i dont agree with what lawmakers decide. I do agree that lawmakers have the power to make law though.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Both of which is illegal and could have you wind up in jail. Again, the end does not justify the means.

They aren't felonies, though, and breaking and entering isn't even in the same ballpark. Unless by "breaking and entering" you mean climbing through the window of your house to clean it, cook dinner for you, and help raise your kids.

 

[Bald1]

If Mexico did that it would become an international pariah, plus it would contradict the Mexican Constitution. And overall make short-work of elected officials.

Good enough. After all, I've never know an immigrant who visited their old country only to be charged with treason. Hence my scepticism.

 

[Rod1]

Good enough. After all, I've never know an immigrant who visited their old country only to be charged with treason. Hence my scepticism.

I would presume that only happens in countries like North Korea or Eritrea.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yes, a locked house is considered private property, therefore trespassing is considered a crime due to its nature.

Law infers that someone breaking into a home is a dangerous criminal because people dont break into homes for other reasons.

There are other reasons to cross a border besides the intent to commit theft or violence, like looking for a job, fleeing violence or a myriad other things. So the law doesnt assumes that an illegal crosser is a violent felon.

Trying to draw a comparison is so retarded that its not even worth an argument. You put a premise on stone and then you want someone to argue with you based on said (flawed) premise, but thats just appeal to emotion.

I don't know that countries can be seen as homes, but you haven't done a good job in defeating the analogy.

When you illegally enter a country in an attempt to benefit from the country, it's the same as entering a home in an attempt to benefit. It doesn't matter if the intent is "just to get a job" no more than it is to "just steal your wallet" because neither the job nor the wallet are yours to take. You're taking something that belongs to someone else. In this way, they are exactly the same.

 

[Rod1]

I don't know that countries can be seen as homes, but you haven't done a good job in defeating the analogy.

When you illegally enter a country in an attempt to benefit from the country, it's the same as entering a home in an attempt to benefit. It doesn't matter if the intent is "just to get a job" no more than it is to "just steal your wallet" because neither the job nor the wallet are yours to take. You're taking something that belongs to someone else. In this way, they are exactly the same.

A job is not public property.

 

[dontsnitch]

A job is not public property.

Neither is a wallet.

In both instances you're entering somewhere you are not allowed and taking something that is not yours to take. I don't think they are the same, but they are more similar than you're making it out to be, or at least than you've demonstrated.

 

[Rod1]

Neither is a wallet.

In both instances you're entering somewhere you are not allowed and taking something that is not yours to take. I don't think they are the same, but they are more similar than you're making it out to be, or at least than you've demonstrated.

But the wallet you are stealing from its owner, the job you are being given freely by its owner.

 

[dontsnitch]

But the wallet you are stealing from its owner, the job you are being given freely by its owner.

You are taking something that doesn't belong to you under false pretenses by being somewhere that you are not allowed to be in. Are they the same? No, but they are more similar than you are acknowledging.

 

[Rod1]

You are taking something that doesn't belong to you under false pretenses by being somewhere that you are not allowed to be in. Are they the same? No, but they are more similar than you are acknowledging.

They arent remotely the same.

The job is not being stolen because you are freely exchanging labor for money with a private individual.

 

[dontsnitch]

They arent remotely the same.

The job is not being stolen because you are freely exchanging labor for money with a private individual.

Disagree, because theft can be defined as wrongfully taking something. I can get you to give me money under false pretenses and it is theft just the same, even if you gave it to me.

I do concede you have a point, but I don't think it's such an outrageous analogy. No need to go in circles, though.