Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

A Reply to Solid Gold


Guest

Recommended Posts

I realize the topic is locked, but I could not let the post go unanswered, so here it is:

I am not sure excatly what you are trying to get across with your post, but I do have a few comments on what I think I have gleaned from it. Although it is not prospecting related exactly, I find it an intersting topic. I am one that does believe the prosecution to the full extent of the law is proper if it can be proved a crime has in fact been committed. I also believe that circumstances surrounding the crime should be consdered in setting the level of punishment. Perhaps my opinion/position comes from working for a law enforcement agency for 20 of my 30 years of employment before I retired.

You statement as to legal residency or illegal residency in this country puzzels me. If you are commenting about the new Arizona law, I do not find the law clouded at all. If you have read it in its entirety, I find it difficult to see how you can make that statement. It mirrors, almost word for word, the federal law concerning illegal immigration (which I have also read). A person has either followed the dictates of the law or not. If a person did not follow the requirements of the law in order to be here legally, then they are here illegally and in my opinion do not belong here and are not entitled to receive the same benefits and privilages of people that have come here via the proper method. I do not see it as grey at all. People who are here illegally place an unfair burden on our tax supported infra structure, which is unfair to those who are citizens or are here legally. My grandparents came through Ellis Island and their names are their immigration and naturalization is documented, so yes I do in fact know that my relatives came here legally. Did they get permission from the Native Americans that were here at the time? - no, did they have to? - no. They followed the law of the land.

You seem to suggest that anyone who feels that crime should be punished "to the fullest extent of the law" should not then avail themselves to the rights and privileges that the constituion provides. People that want to utilize the judicial system to disagree with a ticket or fight an arrest are entitled to do so under our constitution. I have no problem with that. It is a basic tenet of our constitution that everyone is entitled to a defense - even those who are guilty. Would you have it otherwise? Under the French judicial system you are guilty and must prove your innocence. I like our system which presumes innocence much better.

As far as you Native American question, the world was different then it is now. And, the Native Americans have many priveleges that the rest of us who are citizens of this country do not. One example is that they can run a gambling casino and pay no taxes. I cannot think af any other business that makes the kind of money that these establishments make and do not pay taxes. Is the way we treated them perfect? No. But, you can point to many situations what will be lauded by some and disliked by others. Nothing is perfect. If I misunderstood the point of your post, please forgive me and give it another go. That is what makes this country great - we can all agree to disagree and still live here as free people. And, what is also great about this country is that people can leave just as they came if the laws of our society do not suit their way of thinking. If that is not freedom at its best, then I do not know what is.

You close with, I think, the words which are inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. We are a republic, founded by people who sought political and religious refuge. We are, for many, a land of exiles. That does not, however, mean we are a land without laws. Our founding fathers understood the need for such laws in the framing of our constitution. They understood that the Articles of Confederation were not sufficient to govern our new country. Our constitution has served us well and has made us a beacon of freedom in the world. It is upon this document we have survived and thrived, and I see no reason NOT to follow it.

If I misunderstood the point of your post, please forgive me and give it another go. That is what makes this country great - we can all agree to disagree and still live here as free people. And, what is also great about this country is that people can leave just as they came if it is does not suit their way of thinking. If that is not freedom at its best, then I do not know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was very diplomatic and well put. My hat is off to you my friend! That came across so well and I am very glad to have had the opportunity to read it!

There are very good arguments on both sides of this issue. There are constitutional and moral issues that we cannot ignore. There is also the need to immediately take care of a festering problem. The issue itself is like a cap in a charge of dynamite. There is so much money involved and so much pride. Two countries, several races, many allegiances and lots of killing already. We dont have much time until something really bad happens here.

Neither government has any control over the situation. One is crippled with corruption and the other with politics. The bad guys are the only ones that are lean and organized and have strong leaders. They are also the only one of the three organizations with any money to spend.

How we handle this is very important. I think we all know that it is much bigger than our leaders will admit. I also believe that how they handle the issue will make much more difference than they realize. We simply cannot be too heavy handed in our dealing with immigrants (legal or illegal)yet we must be effective and do it in a big hurry. Wide open borders and blanket amnesty is not the answer, and neither is total deportation and a militarized border. Our society seems to demand one or the other and it is my opinion that either one is a failing strategy.

"To the fullest extent of the law" is fine when the fullest extent is appropriate. If the fullest extent is more costly to society than helpful it must be rethought. The laws are there to serve the people first and to punish second. When punishment becomes the primary goal the laws often cease to serve the best interest of the people and set the problem in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...