NationStates

Staniel wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

I think you missed the part where I said "born by ILLEGAL immigrants". You can't get instant free amnesty like that. The Constitution does not protect illegal aliens whether they're born in the U.S. or not. AGAIN. IL. LEGALS. What about those aliens who want to pay for a visa and be a naturalized citizen? How is that fair for them? "Dreamers" can't have their cake and eat it too.

Kekistonia wrote:

Ism wrote:
Really? I would say it is indefensible to equate legality with morality. They should not be thought of as the same, and morality should always trump legality.

No. The law is the law, nobody is above it. Morality is subjective, the law is much, much less so.

Neutraligon wrote:

Kekistonia wrote:
Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that Dreamers are here illegaly and have to go.

No one is arguing they are here illegally. People are arguing whether they have to go. They are also arguing that if the only law that they have broken is entering the us illegally (and often through no choice of their own), then there are better people to spend resources on, like those who are committing criminal rather then civil crimes.

Seangoli wrote:

Kekistonia wrote:No. The law is the law, nobody is above it. Morality is subjective, the law is much, much less so.

Might I ask what your thoughts on the Joe Arpaio pardon are?

Kekistonia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:No one is arguing they are here illegally. People are arguing whether they have to go. They are also arguing that if the only law that they have broken is entering the us illegally (and often through no choice of their own), then there are better people to spend resources on, like those who are committing criminal rather then civil crimes.

Resources are best spent giving illegals the boot. They all must go.

Kekistonia wrote:

Ism wrote:
Really? I would say it is indefensible to equate legality with morality. They should not be thought of as the same, and morality should always trump legality.

No. The law is the law, nobody is above it. Morality is subjective, the law is much, much less so.

Camphuys Islands wrote:The Trump Presidency, getting rid of overcomplicated problems with easy solutions since 2017.

Time to party like it's November 9th 2016.

(Image)

Ism wrote:

Kekistonia wrote:No. The law is the law, nobody is above it. Morality is subjective, the law is much, much less so.

So an unjust law must be followed? Regardless of what the consequences are?

Ism wrote:

Kekistonia wrote:No. The law is the law, nobody is above it. Morality is subjective, the law is much, much less so.

So an unjust law must be followed? Regardless of what the consequences are?

Camphuys Islands wrote:The Trump Presidency, getting rid of overcomplicated problems with easy solutions since 2017.

Time to party like it's November 9th 2016.

(Image)

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Camphuys Islands wrote:The Trump Presidency, getting rid of overcomplicated problems with easy solutions since 2017.

Time to party like it's November 9th 2016.

(Image)

So what happened?

Farnhamia wrote:

Staniel wrote:

I think you missed the part where I said "born by ILLEGAL immigrants". You can't get instant free amnesty like that. The Constitution does not protect illegal aliens whether they're born in the U.S. or not. AGAIN. IL. LEGALS. What about those aliens who want to pay for a visa and be a naturalized citizen? How is that fair for them? "Dreamers" can't have their cake and eat it too.

Actually, anyone born in the US is a citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

Curses, ninja'd.

Valrifell wrote:

Ism wrote:
So an unjust law must be followed? Regardless of what the consequences are?

This kind of hyperlegalist mentality is how we get the Holocaust, you know.

Camphuys Islands wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:So what happened?

Dreamer loophole destroyed.

Staniel wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Actually, anyone born in the US is a citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

Curses, ninja'd.

So what? It still hasn't explicitly been told by the Supreme Court as to whether or not the children of illegal aliens are still allowed to become citizens. Assumptions are just that. Assumptions, not facts.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Camphuys Islands wrote:Dreamer loophole destroyed.

The loophole is that they are technically committing an offense for no reason, not somebody tried to give them a chance to not be punished for a technicality

Kekistonia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
This kind of hyperlegalist mentality is how we get the Holocaust, you know.

Godwin's law. Not to mention the huge issue with saying that the holocaust was legal.

Steffan wrote:Damn, I'm five pages late!
Lemme make a joke:
President Donald Trump

Camphuys Islands wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:The loophole is that they are technically committing an offense for no reason, not somebody tried to give them a chance to not be punished for a technicality

It shouldn't be an excuse for just allowing everyone to move to a country. In Europe migrants who don't have a chance of actually being allowed to stay start having kids so that they can appeal to the 'humanity' of the population so that they can stay anyways.

It's hard but it's needed if you want a stable country.

Camphuys Islands wrote:

Steffan wrote:Damn, I'm five pages late!
Lemme make a joke:
President Donald Trump

>Clinton Campaign

Try to beat that one :^)

Valrifell wrote:

Kekistonia wrote:
Godwin's law. Not to mention the huge issue with saying that the holocaust was legal.

The Holocaust was legal under German law. Also, Godwins Law is an observation, not something you can throw in a conversation as a "nah-uh I win!" It's not a fallacious or inacurrate assertion.

People following orders and laws above basic morality and decency is how we get atrocities in the world.

Ism wrote:

Kekistonia wrote:It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

Really? I would say it is indefensible to equate legality with morality. They should not be thought of as the same, and morality should always trump legality.