Illegal Aliens Declare War on the United States

Well, what exactly do you expect them to do, play nice while you declare a social war on them? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.

 

Cheerleading? Somehow I get the feeling that this is pure hyperbole. Probably an event happened, but this is doubtful reporting of it.

 

How about respect the soveriegn laws of this country. Thats what we expect.

 

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Anatole France

 

I wonder if you yourself have ever been out on the street with nothing to eat, no bed to sleep, and no job.

 

Perhaps you missed the point of the quote.

Regardless, if you want to force people out, don't be surprised when they push back.

 

I think that's what's going on, here. the good guys are pushing back.

I expect folks to obey the laws, just like I have to.

 

Great. Please clear up my misunderstanding.

People engaging in illegal activity can and do push back. That certainly is not a commentary on justice.

 

Legality is not the same thing as justice, nor should it be presumed to be. Something is not even prima facie just simply because it is legal.

I agree wholeheartedly. But simply because they're pushing back does not condemn them as unjust either.

 

As I thought. Now can you answer my question?

Actually it does. Largely because the premise of what they are doing is unjust.

 

I read the other day that in Las Vegas they have made it illegal to feed the poor. What is that all about? Just because something has been made law does that make that law right?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/20/072010285.html
A couple of years ago I went to Las Vegas to visit my friend who lived there. There was a crowd of us and we had a bar b que there at his workshop at an industrial estate just behind the Luxor Hotel. This man is not a Christian, but I overheard him talking to his wife next day about the poor who lived just behind his worshop. This man made sure that they found the food that we left. I admired him because he never made anyone aware that he was helping the poor. From that time on my eyes were opened and in this unbelievably rich city I began to see poor people everywhere, carrying their little bundles.
It is all very well to talk about what is law and about illegal immigrants. But what should be our response to such people as Christians?

 

You must be talking about this....

Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/u...c047a011e5951c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You kinda left a lot of relevant stuff out. This is to discourage homeless people in the parks, as families who pay taxes should have first dibs on these areas. People are allowed to feed the poor & homeless, as the article points out.

 

There's no such thing as "first dibs" on a public park.

 

The law is disagreeing with you, now, ain't it ?

The taxpayers, who pay to have the park cleaned & maintained, are the winners. And good for them. The bums can forage elsewhere.

 

And before all the superior christians get offended, yes, people who hang around in parks, waiting for handouts, are BUMS.

 

What, if I've ever been without food, a bed, or a job? I thought that was a rhetorical question. No, no, yes.

Whether I agree that their premise is unjust depends on what premise you're inferring. As I said, however:

But simply because they're pushing back does not condemn them as unjust either.​

In other words, the simple fact that they're pushing back does not make them unjust. Whether actions based on unconsciously unjust premises are themselves unjust would make for an interesting ethical discussion, but by taking the position you have you've relied on the unjustness of their presumed premises, thereby agreeing that the simple fact of them pushing back is not enough to condemn them as unjust.

 

I apologize. I assumed that their premise was understood by everyone. They are claiming rights they do not have in this country. Nor is this country obligated to give them. We are not obligated to give them permenant residency, a job, free ongoing medical care, or even entrance into this country. And divorcing the premise of their intentions from the pushing back is odd.

 

If taxpayers want private parks for their own enjoyment, they're free to elect representatives who will no longer publicly fund them and get together to start up their own private parks. While I think that would be a mistake, it's well within the rights of citizens to support such measures. It is not, however, their right to demand hierarchical access to services which remain public on the basis that they were taxed to provide them.