Defending the Truth - View Single Post

thenewnoise · 07-06-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prescott911

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

Quote:

I don't want to hear about the Mayflower, that was many years ago. This is now. Everybody is complaining about the unemployment rate that is happening inside our borders but yet we are letting these illegals take OUR jobs. How is that so hard to understand? They dont belong here and yes we have more claim to this land than they do. We won it, that the fruits of war. I'm starting to wonder if people like the newnoise understand the word illegal..... I guess not. They are not here legally, they have the chance for a great life, take the time to become a natural citizen.

This is no Fairy Tale, these illegals are indeed more harm than good, its obvious but yet crazies like thenewnoise will preach how terrible we are for speaking up against them, they need to get some sense...

What that means is that you are too afraid to face the hypocricy that stands in your position. Why is the Mayflower any different? I think it is worse... You suggest that we should not discuss it though because it was "many years ago". Then maybe we should let the "illegal" immigrants take all the jobs and give them the government too. After all, if just waiting some amount of time makes the harm go away, then todays problems won't matter later down the road so why fight for anything.

And for the record, I am very understanding of the word illegal. Here is the definition from dictionary.com : "Prohibited by law." What that means is that some legislative body far away from me made some decision. That does not mean the decision is right. I have another vocab word for you, "Morality" : The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. I am suggesting that instead of just relying on the legality of something you start talking about the merits of something because, frankly, your legality position is weak at best. Don't believe me? What if tomorrow Congress passes a bill (with no dissent) that says it is illegal to give food to a starving child. Are you still going to just run around and keep asking me if I know what the word "illegal" means when I continue to be willing to break an immoral law?

I am not saying that everyone should break whatever law they feel like, but I am saying that laws that are clearly hypocritical should be changed.

the mayflower did not land illegally according to native american law(s) or customs. the people who got off the mayflower did not cause any trouble with the natives. what you are both thinking of as illegal conquering of america was during the 1800s.

So, you are saying that killing the native americans and taking their land is okay because they 1. had no national laws or customs regulating immigration and 2. because it happened in the past?

It seems like your first point states that the native americans did not mind their land being taken because if they did, they would have ahd some law or custom against it. To that I say 1. It is safe to say that generally they did care because many chose to fight and die to protect the land (one might say some had a "custom" of fighting to protect the land). 2. There could not have been a general law or custom because there was not one body to do this. Each tribe acted independently from eachother. 3. In general there was an idea that land was not something which could be owned, therefor any idea of ownership or conquest was absolutely against law or custom.

What I am guessing is your second point is absurd. It happened a long time ago. It was still bad. If time made it okay, then in 200 hundred years it would be okay if the mexican army came in a killed women and children. It would be okay because in 2200 they would say, "That was so long ago... that happened in 2005..."