It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bank robbery laws are immoral.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 11:48 AM

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

You participated.
I gave you a star, as that seems important to you.

I did comment, good observation. I don't see your point though. Someone who thinks this is dumb isn't allowed to say so?

On the contrary. Just commenting on the ridiculousness of posts such as this.

Also, I see that you skimmed right over the part of my comment that actually addressed the OP. Who is pro-illegal immigration? I haven't seen any evidence of this, although a small fringe group or 2 probably believe in it.

Hence, my point: Why post this, other than to contribute to the echo chamber? Everyone agrees with the OP, illegal immigration is bad. What constitutes illegal immigration is up for debate, but the actual act of illegal immigration to game our system is wrong. Show me evidence of someone saying otherwise.

Ok, you've seen your evidence- Sanctuary cities. They are a thing. Now will you admit this thread isnt just a pointless star grab and is actually relevant to the issues we are facing today?

"There’s no single definition of what is a sanctuary city, but generally speaking, it’s a city (or a county, or a state) that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents in order to protect low-priority immigrants from deportation, while still turning over those who have committed serious crimes."

Sanctuary cities have a huge misunderstanding about them. They don't allow illegal immigrants to live there unchecked. Far from it, they actually deport a lot of law-breaking illegals. Their purpose is to allow undocumented people to have a safe place to be while the laws are worked through.
Important legal point: Being undocumented IS NOT a crime. It's a civil violation. Undocumented immigrants have rights under the constitution of the US.
"Here we get back to the point of sanctuary cities: in a sanctuary city, the police will release an arrested immigrant after he’s been cleared of charges, posted bail, or completed jail time for whatever he was arrested for. A non-sanctuary city will hold that person until ICE can come pick them up – even though that extra holding is not constitutional."
-Same link as above, and they provide all necessary documentation to back it up.

Sanctuary cities are there specifically to uphold the US Constitution! The document that so many here hold so dear. It is unconstitutional for ICE, etc. to hold an undocumented person forever, not release them once they've been cleared of wrongdoing, etc.
However, sanctuary cities routinely arrest and deport people who have actually committed crimes.

So, where's the evidence you're talking about? It sounds to me like sanctuary cities are more constitutional than what most here want to do.

ETA: Furthermore, there are a lot of sanctuary cities in hardcore Republican country. Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. If they're such a bad, left leaning thing, why is it also happening in Republican strongholds?

edit on 13-2-2019 by narrator because: eta

edit on 13-2-2019 by narrator because: eta

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:39 PM
a reply to: narrator

Why do people subscribe to the idea that more illegals are here on visa than cross our southern border undetected??

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:39 PM

originally posted by: network dude
This is the simplest way to understand "redistribution of wealth". A person, or persons, who haven't enough money to survive, need to supplement their income somehow. I posit that going to the bank, where money is literally stored in bulk, it the smartest way, and most efficient way to collect that money. But to punish a person simply for trying to acquire the necessary money they require to survive is inhumane. Should these people just starve?

If you disagree with my premise, but you agree with allowing illegal immigration, please explain what makes one law more just than the other. And yes, it's a trap.

eta: included link to why this is a conversation topic:
link to imorality.

No more immoral than CEOs than stealing the productivity of their workers by selling the results of labor at a profit. "Profit" is just a nice word for "theft".

And what about skull-and-bones efforts pirating money out of the US treasury by any means necessary.

And what about fiat currency in general. Essentially taxing people without them even knowing about it!

The bottom line is in today's America crime pays way better than hard work.

edit on 13-2-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 07:58 PM
a reply to: narrator

There's a difference in opinion on what constitutes illegal immigration, and the bigger difference in opinion is how to combat illegal immigration

You mean you don't know the definition of illegal? It means something that is against the law, like 8 USC §1325:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who
    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact,
shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

That kinda blows most of your other arguments. Yes, crossing the border is illegal, whether you claim asylum or not. A provable claim to asylum, adjudicated in a court of law, can waive prosecution but it is still an illegal act.

As to the border not being a place were immigrants cross illegally, prove it. Even the CBP doesn't know how many are crossing there. Put up a wall and we might can get a handle on that number.


posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 12:07 AM

originally posted by: narrator

...illegal immigration is bad.


...they actually deport a lot of law-breaking illegals.

Point of contention: All illegals are law breaking.
Either they themselves or their "guardians" decided it would be more expedient to break our US immigration laws than follow them.

OP: I thought I knew where this thread was going when I read the title and I was right. If a wall can be immoral, then any kind of physical barrier must be as well right? Like doors, safes, borders, etc. Sounds like sound logic to me... /s

posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 05:43 AM

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: network dude

Your point is taken. The fact is illegal immigration is down in the U.S. To further my point, most illegals don't cross the boarders in Mexico.

The people coming to the boarders in caravans, are seeking asylum, not to enter the country illegally, but legally. I say, let them go through the process, and most will be sent home. If most are sent home, no caravans will come. Now, if there are people in those caravans who SHOULD, receive asylum, so be it, that is part of what makes America Great. Protect the inoccent.

as long as they enter through legal ports of entry, I have ZERO problem with it. I'm amazed that that stance is so widely shunned by the left in general.

posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:03 AM
a reply to: narrator

You misunderstand me, but I think you're doing it on purpose. For your sake though, I'll explain what I meant, just in case I'm wrong and you actually misunderstood me.

thanks, i think
unsure of the "misunderstanding on purpose" ,but whatever, thanks for the reply

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in