Why is it ok to selectively choose what laws to enforce?

[StrongBad]

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I laud and approve of the judge's decision to have the Kentucky clerk sent to jail for breaking the law.

However, it brought up a question in my mind that I haven't been able to formulate a reasonable answer to.

It is just as illegal to enter this country without properly going through the established immigration procedures.

Yet, the vast majority of people on this board don't advocate applying the same standard to this law which is being violated.

If we are going to proclaim ourselves to be a nation of laws, to be taken seriously don't we need to enforce all laws and not just some based on what we feel like?

[nichomachus]

1. Entering the country without documentation is not a crime

It's an administrative matter. People who don't have papers are not "illegal." They are not criminals. They are undocumented. That's all.

But thanks for playing.

[StrongBad]

3. Nice try my friend.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who

enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
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.

Try again.

[StrongBad]

4. Here's a link just for you

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

[arcane1]

40. The laws in that link are being enforced every day

If they are catching people sneaking across the border and not stopping them, that's news to me!

[StrongBad]

67. So why do people get up in arms with talk to enforce the law to a greater degree?

[arcane1]

68. Ask them n/t

[ananda]

41. No human should ever be considered "illegal."

That is just wrong on so many levels to think of another
as "illegal."

Undocumented .. OK.

[still_one]

65. are they legally in the country or not? that is what was meant

[StrongBad]

66. Semantics

Humans aren't illegal but their actions are. No time for being pedantic.

[TeddyR]

2. And

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage many states -- and the United States -- declined to enforce laws that banned same-sex marriage.

[geek tragedy]

5. If I eat an apple for breakfast, why shouldn't I eat apple pie for dinner?

Contempt of court is different than not having immigration papers.

[StrongBad]

6. But both require punishment by law (including jail time) if violated

Why are only some violations of law being enforced?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

[geek tragedy]

10. they do not 'require' punishment. Stop getting your information from this guy:

[StrongBad]

12. A link just for you.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

[geek tragedy]

15. I can understand your glee in thinking you've found your silver bullet

to prove TRUMP IS RIGHT DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGALZ ERMIGOD MAKE AMERICA GREAT FOR REAL WHITE AMERICANS.

But, you and your fellow xenophobes are full of shit.

Yes, if you bust someone crossing the border illegally, you can charge them with a crime. But most often they just repatriate them since it's a really awful way to use scarce enforcement resources to jail and prosecute them.

But, illegal presence is not a crime.

[StrongBad]

95. It is indeed a civil crime to be enforced by deportation

Classes of Deportable Aliens

Any alien that is in the United States may be subject to deportation or removal if he or she:

Is an inadmissible alien according to immigration laws in effect at the time of entry to the U.S. or adjustment of nonimmigrant status;

Is present in the U.S. in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other U.S. law;

Violated nonimmigrant status or a condition of entry into the U.S.;

Terminated a conditional permanent residence;

Encouraged or aided any other alien to enter the U.S. illegally;

Engaged in marriage fraud to gain admission to the U.S.;

Was convicted of certain criminal offenses;

Failed to register or falsified documents relating to entry in to the U.S.;

Engaged in any activity that endangers public safety or creates a risk of national security; or

Engaged in unlawful voting.

- See more at: http://immigration.findlaw.com/deportation-removal/deportation.html#sthash.RuFZ07G4.dpuf

[geek tragedy]

98. "civil crime"

Oy.

Now I know how Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls.

Last word is yours.

[StrongBad]

99. Fine pedant. Civil offense

Way to employ the time honored trick of diverting attention from the fact that you're getting destroyed factually and logically by focusing on a minor quibble in definition.

[jberryhill]

7. You seem to be missing an important point

The KY clerk's refusal was an infringement of other people's rights.

Not enforcing a criminal law against someone is not an infringement of anyone's rights. That's the normal exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

[StrongBad]

8. Not enforcing laws violates the rights of people who live in a society of law.

So that argument doesn't work.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

[jberryhill]

17. No it does not, and you clearly do not understand how law works

This clerk has not been punished for any criminal act at all.

What we have here is a civil rights lawsuit brought by private parties against the clerk for violation of their rights. The court ordered the clerk to allow her office to issue marriage licenses. The clerk refused that court order, and she is in custody for contempt until she agrees to follow the order and allow her deputies to issue licenses, resigns, or her term expires.

If my neighbor commits a crime of some kind, and is not prosecuted for it. That is not a violation of my civil rights whatsoever.

You do not have an individual right to the enforcement of criminal laws against other people. You can sue any individual who injures you, and you can sue a public official who violates YOUR rights.

Your argument reflects a juvenile understanding of individual rights and law.

[StrongBad]

22. No argument from me there, but the state does have power to enforce violations against itself.

And breaking the law even if it does not violate personal rights, can violate the ordinances of the state, and the state does have the right to put laws on the books and enforce them.

So, if there are laws on the books, and they are violated, why are some ok to enforce and others not? It doesn't matter that one is a violation of the state and the other of the individual. They are still laws and need to be enforced or changed.

[RichVRichV]

111. Sometimes it's a matter of resources.

Law enforcement doesn't have unlimited resources to enforce all laws. Plus some laws (especially on local level) are down right rediculous. I read on here a while back where a town or county went through and cleared a bunch of really old unenforced laws out, such as spitting in public or a man not tipping his hat to a woman.


It's easy to say enforce or change the laws but those are handled by completely different branches. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing laws and the legislative branch is responsible for changing them. Getting those two to coordinate can be impossible at times, as I'm sure you're aware.


As was pointed out, in a world of limited resources, violations that harm others get priortized over violations that don't.

[geek tragedy]

18. Would you prefer boxcars or labor camps for people caught illegally crossing the border?

And why is that preferable to just sending them back to their home country?

[StrongBad]

23. Sending them back to their home country is enforcing the law, which is fine.

No problems there.

[geek tragedy]

25. That's what is being done already. If they get caught illegally crossing the border, they

get sent back.

So you admit that the law is being enforced.

[StrongBad]

43. The whole topic of this convo is regarding how most ppl here don't think that's a good thing.

[uppityperson]

48. Are you saying this topic is that if we accept 1 law as good, we should accept them all as good?

[StrongBad]

64. No, but we should accept them all as the law...

...and shouldn't be opposed to more resources being diverted to their enforcement.

Now if you don't agree with the law, you can work to change it, but that's a whole other story.

[uppityperson]

69. Accept bad laws as law and don't oppose more resources being diverted to their enforcement?

It's ok, in your opinion, to work to change bad laws, but in the meantime don't oppose more resources being diverted to their enforcement?

Is this what you are saying. I am trying to clarify what you mean, thank you.

[StrongBad]

77. Not exactly

If you accept a law is a law, you should accept that violators will be prosecuted and resources will be diverted to said prosecution.

But if you don't like that law, you're free to try and change it.

[uppityperson]

80. you seem to be changing what you are saying.

"shouldn't be opposed to more resources being diverted to their enforcement"
And now
" should accept that violators will be prosecuted and resources will be diverted to said prosecution"

[StrongBad]

82. Ok if you want to be pedantic, the latter version is a better expressed version of my position.

[uppityperson]

90. just trying to be clear and understand since there is a big difference, not minor details between

these.

"shouldn't be opposed to more resources being diverted to their enforcement"
vs
" should accept that violators will be prosecuted and resources will be diverted to said prosecution" .

I accept that people who break the law may be prosecuted. I oppose more resources being diverted to unjust laws.

[fishwax]

75. No it doesn't. That's a silly assertion.

[NutmegYankee]

78. Now prove standing...

[Maedhros]

9. The Republican Party is over there, to the right, next to those idiots in the tricorn hats.

I think you may be lost.

/bye.

[StrongBad]

11. Not an argument

So, I'll have to assume by your purely emotional reaction that you have no answer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

[dumbcat]

13. Because there are good laws and bad laws. nt

nt

[StrongBad]

16. And you're saying it's up to the individual to make that judgement call?

Sounds like a recipe for societal breakdown.

I think I'll go murder someone today because I think it's a "bad law". Thanks for giving me clearance!

[jberryhill]

19. You are free to test that theory to your heart's content

It will, however, be up to the prosecutor in your area whether your case is worth prosecuting. In all likelihood, if there is sufficient evidence to convict, then you will be prosecuted.

You are making a false analogy.

The proceeding here is a civil suit brought by the plaintiffs against a public official who has violated their rights. It has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement of any criminal law whatsoever.

[StrongBad]

24. Illegal entry is a violation of the state, not indiviual.

The state is a legal entity that is allowed to draft and enforce laws on behalf of itself. So, why should they not be enforced just like laws guiding individual rights?

[jberryhill]

34. Your question sort of answers itself...

If someone does something to me, I can decide whether to sue them or not. I am not compelled to do so. Even using your broken analogy, there is no affirmative obligation on the part of the government to prosecute every criminal. In the private context, there is no affirmative obligation on your part to sue everyone against whom you may have a cause of action.

Again, you don't seem to understand the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion.

What happened today in Kentucky was not an enforcement of a criminal law. It was enforcement of a court order against a specific individual in a civil case. So, it's not at all clear what point you are attempting to make.

[StrongBad]

71. True, the gov't doesn't HAVE to enforce every violation of law to the letter.

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

But the point of this convo is to figure out why some find it so reprehensible if it does?

[dumbcat]

26. Have at it

I'll decide for me. You do as you see fit. I believe in choice.

[branford]

29. I'm curious if people who support the president, governors and mayors exercising their discretion

to enforce certain immigration laws also support the many sheriffs and police departments who refuse to enforce certain gun control regulations like those in New York.

Simply, who decides which laws are "good" and "bad?" I certainly have my preferences, and they are likely shared by you and most others here in DU. However, it's rarely a true matter of ideological consistency concerning the nature of governance, and when we next have a Republican president, I anticipate the posts on DU will look much different than today.

[dumbcat]

33. I think I know the answer to your question

and I agree with your anticipation.

I will decide for me. Others may decide for themselves.

[branford]

47. Unless you're an elected executive, both our opinions don't really matter.

However, if we concede that our leaders can pick and choose what laws deserve enforcement, rather than seeking the repeal or amendment of "bad" laws, we shouldn't be surprised when our opposition inevitably does the same.

For instance, could you imagine the reaction if a Republican president decided not to enforce federal laws protecting abortion clinics in order to purportedly stop the "murder" of "children?" While I would be saddened and enraged at such a policy, I would not be surprised and have little intellectual recourse challenge such authority. The "slippery slope" is a very dangerous thing in politics.

[geek tragedy]

42. Oh, hey!

You finally resurfaced!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=93286

Let's discuss it after Bibi's speech when, as before, I expect Pelosi

will have given numerous standing ovations to Bibi, as will virtually all other Congressman and Senators.

If you've read other articles, Pelosi also primarily complains that Boehner did not coordinate Bibi's trip with the White House, rather than objecting to trip and speech itself, and she took her time to issue any statements, probably because the White House had to plead their case to avoid further embarrassment.

In any event, speech or no speech, neither Pelosi, Obama or any other notable Democrat has taken the less than unequivocal pro-Israel positions espoused you and others in this thread and sub-forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=93291

Obama is trying to save face, and I actually agree that he should not meet

with Bibi so close to Israeli elections.

Are you also seriously suggesting that Pelosi will not warmly welcome Bibi once he arrives and congratulate him on his speech? Pelosi, probably due to pleading from the White House, is simply engaged in some damage control for the president.

Bibi doesn't need to meet with Obama, as his speech will be sufficiently newsworthy by itself. However, the absence of a presidential meeting will no doubt be part of story, and give it greater prominence in the news cycle.

Most importantly, what other major elected Democrats have complained about the speech, and can you cite to anything that demonstrates that Pelosi's extremely strong pro-Israel bona fides are now in doubt and she's adopting even a sliver of your viewpoint?

If your great victory on this matter is highlighting how Pelosi would have preferred Boehner and Bibi to have coordinated with the White House, effectively so Democrats could have received as much positive political pr as the Republicans, I can assure you that I and the majority of pro-Israel Americans, including a majority of Democrats, will sleep soundly.

[branford]

49. I never left.

Would you care to address my post on the topic in the thread?

[geek tragedy]

52. prosecutorial discretion is a necessity.

arresting terrorists is a higher priority than arresting medical marijuana users, for example.

Presumably you, unlike some posting in this thread, are smart enough to realize that.

[branford]

70. I understand and agree with the necessity of prosecutorial discretion,

and agree with the president's current immigration policy decisions. We are not generally in disagreement about this matter.

However, I acknowledge that such broad exercise of such discretion, with tremendous national political and social implications, will inevitably and unsurprisingly justify politicians we both loathe refusing to enforce laws we believe are essential to progressive ideals.

[geek tragedy]

76. such broad discretion exists only in the face of Congressional abdication.

in the case of immigration, congress has refused to authorize sufficient resources to enforce and implement the laws on the books

[branford]

101. While that may be true, the President gains no greater authority

or discretion if Congress chooses not to act according to his (or our) wishes. In fact, the president's reasons for exercising his discretion are largely irrelevant as a matter of law (although issues do exist as indicated by the district court injunction staying much of the president's policy on undocumented immigrants who came here as children), and it will sadly be the same for conservative executives in the country.

[Make7]

14. I don't think it is possible to enforce all of the laws on the books.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books

"... in Memphis, Tennessee, women can't drive a car unless there is a man with a red flag in front of the car warning the other people on the road."

[KamaAina]

20. Please show me an example of a judge or ICE agent refusing to enforce immigration law.

Until then...

[StrongBad]

27. I can't, because that's not the topic of my query

The issue at hand is why are we advocating as a party (in general) that it's ok to prosecute some violations of law and not others?

[geek tragedy]

30. this isn't a prosecution, genius, it's contempt of court.

Learn your basic legal concepts before making trying to make idiotic arguments like this

[StrongBad]

31. And contempt of court is a violation of law, as is being in the country illegally.

My concepts are in line. Thanks for your concern and your funny attempt at the mental gymnastics required to accept this cognitive dissonance.

[geek tragedy]

37. No, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, as is the case with most Trump-loving

xenophobes.

And contempt of court is a violation of law, as is being in the country illegally.

"being in the country illegally" is not a criminal offense. If you are not intelligent enough to understand the difference between an act being criminal and a status being a crime, you really should recuse yourself from discussing anything other than the weather.

[StrongBad]

39. Correct, it is a civil offense, which according to civil law has penalty of deportation.

Classes of Deportable Aliens

Any alien that is in the United States may be subject to deportation or removal if he or she:

Is an inadmissible alien according to immigration laws in effect at the time of entry to the U.S. or adjustment of nonimmigrant status;

Is present in the U.S. in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other U.S. law;

Violated nonimmigrant status or a condition of entry into the U.S.;

Terminated a conditional permanent residence;

Encouraged or aided any other alien to enter the U.S. illegally;

Engaged in marriage fraud to gain admission to the U.S.;

Was convicted of certain criminal offenses;

Failed to register or falsified documents relating to entry in to the U.S.;

Engaged in any activity that endangers public safety or creates a risk of national security; or

Engaged in unlawful voting.

- See more at: http://immigration.findlaw.com/deportation-removal/deportation.html#sthash.RuFZ07G4.dpuf

[geek tragedy]

45. So, effectively you're whining that all 11 million undocumented immigrants aren't being rounded

up and being put into mass concentration camps and cattle cars and being sent back to the border.

Because the concept of limited law enforcement resources is above your ability to comprehend.

There aren't enough law enforcement personnel, and offices, and detention facilities, to round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants.

There are better uses for such resources.

[StrongBad]

51. Hypothetically, if there were 11 million clerks not performing their duties...

...would you be upset that the legal system wasn't enforcing the laws?

[geek tragedy]

53. so this is what it's like to debate birthers nt

[jberryhill]

57. Pretty much, yeah

I find that people who are most certain of their pet legal theories have, in general, never been anywhere near a law school.

[StrongBad]

58. Not an argument.

[PeaceNikki]

59. No, but it's a fact.

[branford]

56. Many police departments are refusing to enforce gun control laws

citing limited law enforcement resources and priorities. Do you believe they too have such discretion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html

[geek tragedy]

61. yes, they have the discretion to look for rapists and murderers rather than stopping

cars to inspect magazine size

[branford]

73. We are then in agreement, although I imagine others here might not be as ideologically consistent.nt

[PeaceNikki]

21. What a fucking stupid comparison.

WTF? She didn't just 'break the law'.

She defied a judges orders, is failing to do the job she was elected to do AND encroaching on the civil liberties of others.

[StrongBad]

32. Did you post in the wrong thread?

My first line of this post clearly states I applaud the judge's decision.

[PeaceNikki]

35. Did you reply to the wrong reply in this thread? It's a stupid fucking comparison.

[StrongBad]

46. Please explain why it's ok to enforce some laws and not others.

A law is a law, so I'm waiting for justification on why some laws have more "lawiness" that others.

[PeaceNikki]

50. No. Because immigration laws ARE being enforced every goddamn day.

Are DU'ers just not pissed off about immigration enough for you? Are you upset that we are more interested in stopping this asshole from encroaching on the civil liberties of others than going door to door to demand papers be shown and round up all of the brown people who are bothering you?

It's a stupid fucking comparison and a stupid fucking thread.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

[StrongBad]

62. They do seem upset when people talk about diverting more resources to support the laws enforcement.

[PeaceNikki]

72. "They"? You mean Democrats? You use "they" because you're not part of that group, right?

We get it. You're trying to make "us" Democrats look like hypocrites.

Whatever. Have fun with that.

[StrongBad]

81. No, I'm not part of the group of hypocrites. Thanks for asking.

[PeaceNikki]

84. Are you a Democrat?

[StrongBad]

86. Yeah see elsewhere on this thread. I've been on this board for 12 years and have voted Dem since2000

Which was the first election I was eligible to vote.

I have some views which aren't popular on this board, so sometimes it results in threads like this.

[PeaceNikki]

89. Your contention is that those who disagree with you are hypocrites.

And that is bullshit and trollish.

[StrongBad]

91. It is hypocritical to want enforcement of some laws and not others.

Do you really think everybody on here wants consistent enforcement of immigration law?

[PeaceNikki]

92. Nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7137458

[fishwax]

96. No, it isn't hypocritical at all

Approving of civil disobedience in one instance does not require one to approve of civil disobedience in every instance. Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

[StrongBad]

97. Yes but civil disobedience implies that you are knowingly breaking the law and expect punishment

Which means that you are ok with its enforcement.

[fishwax]

100. it doesn't mean (as a supporter, rather than a practitioner) that you expect/desire enforcement

Supporting the arrest of this county clerk does not require us to also celebrate or support arrest in other cases of civil disobedience. Supporting enforcement of laws against murder does not require that we also support enforcement of every other law on the books. I don't understand the argument that support for one law requires some moral obligation to support every single law.

[PeaceNikki]

109. This ^

[Facility Inspector]

87. it's make "we" Democrats

Sorry, fixed that for you.

[LittleBlue]

28. This thread is amusing

People twisting themselves into knots trying to justify one and hold on to their (contradictory) beliefs for the other.

You either believe in enforcing the law or you don't. Inconsistency is hypocrisy. And I see a few scrambling to portray the OP as right-wing for lack of any argument, nevermind the OP's join date of over 12 years here.

It is simple. We like one law but dislike another. Which is okay as long as you're not taking an ideological approach of "obey the law or else", which many have argued.

[StrongBad]

36. Thank you.

Admittedly, I have become a bit more conservative on some issues over my 12 years here, but I still am definitely a Democrat and will be voting as such in 2016.

[BlueJazz]

79. I agree with you and understand what you're saying. Keep in mind though, we, as a society, have ...

...chosen to ignore certain laws (Generally speaking). There's thousands of laws on the books that are ignored in this country...and that's probably a good thing.
Whether immigration laws are vastly ignored, that's a matter of personal choice.

I ignore them, if anybody cares..

[JoePhilly]

38. RW nonsense. Sell it elsewhere.

[StrongBad]

83. Not an argument.

[steve2470]

44. The immigration laws ARE enforced....

Notice how the Republicans are not willing to increase the budget for ICE ?

Until that budget is increased by a huge percentage, there is absolutely no way to even approach 100% enforcement of the immigration laws.

It's like the traffic laws. They are NOT enforced 100% of the time, partially for budgetary reasons.

I think our taxpayer funds are better spent on other things besides deporting the undocumented workers who simply want to work.

[joshcryer]

54. It's obviously a question of practicality and right and wrong.

To fully implement the absolute rule of the law with regards to immigration would require shock troops, nazi-style youth groups, whole nine yards. Literally holocaust level enforcement.

The law isn't being "ignored" it is simply impossible to enforce without becoming a totalitarian state.

To answer your question more clearly, though, it's clearly about right and wrong. I support marijuana legalization, the federal government doesn't. That doesn't make me inconsistent.

[steve2470]

60. +1 nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Some laws exist for bad or stupid reasons, some for good reasons, and some just exist.

If you want to proclaim we should enforce all laws, you're suggesting all laws are equally valid.

Law enforcement does not have infinite resources to expend upon policing criminal activity. Given the limits that exist, do you want them spending more time enforcing jaywalking laws and litter laws, to the detriment of investigating murders?

[StrongBad]

93. And who is the arbiter of what is an acceptable law?

Can I apply for this position? Seems kinda rad.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

114. Sure you can!

Just be rich enough or politically connected, get other rich people to bankroll your campaign, and run for office! It's dead simple! (If you're the 'right' kind of person. If you're not, it's going to be a lot tougher.)

You can join in either at the front end or the back end. Run for a position where you right the laws and control the money that goes to enforcement, or for one that like 'sheriff', that lets you simply decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. Erich has pretty much hit the nail on the head here

This country has had unjust, counterproductive and prejudicial laws for various time periods until the people undertook to work against them. Often that work has taken the form of civil disobedience. It hasn't always been protesters and civilians that exercised their option to disobey. Law enforcement and elected officials have participated.

I believe Ms Davis is wrong in her decision to not issue licenses but I still believe that is her decision to make and she justly risks CoC charges.

[One_Life_To_Give]

63. Cause requiring someone on foot with a lantern preceed each car

would create a traffic jam to make a Boston Olympic's seem like a ghost town.

Now the one declaring it Illegal to put Tomato into Clam Chowder does need more vigorous enforcement. While the Law prohibiting Native Americans in Boston was repealed a year or two ago.

[randome]

74. Because we're not robots.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[StrongBad]

88. Cool, I'm gonna use that defense next time I break the law.

[prayin4rain]

85. This is a case of a governmental official refusing to perform their governmental function for

personal reasons. I'm not sure that people are upset so much because she broke the law. It's because she failed to perform the duties she is obligated to perform instead of resigning. The ethical thing to do would be to resign (or not be a bigot). Instead, she is abusing her governmental position to deny the public, that her office serves, their civic right to marry.

Then she defied a judge's direct order, which is more immediately jailable than breaking a law.

I don't think it's an apt comparison at all. She has every right as a private citizen to protest the law. She has every right as a private citizen to break laws until she's caught by an enforcement officer. She has no right to abuse her governmental authority.

[B Calm]

94. Do you think the federal government should enforce marijuana laws

in states where the people voted to legalize?

[branford]

102. or laws concerning gun control, protecting abortion clinics and other civil rights, etc.

While I agree with the president's action on immigration, the "slippery slope" is indeed real, and we should not be surprised when conservative executives choose not to enforce laws we believe are necessary.

[rock]

103. I recommend we impeach her and subsequently fire her

County Court Clerk is an elected position. No need to send her to jail. She'll be enough of a burden on the taxpayers collect unemployment. No need to escalate it with the cost of jail.

[StrongBad]

104. I'm pretty sure that the whole issue is that she can't be fired.

[branford]

106. Ironically, she's a Democrat, and her removal would mean

a Republican would likely be voted into office whose ideology doesn't differ much, if at all, from Davis.

Bad choices all around.

[Rex]

105. I LOVE how this lady getting thrown in jail has caused an uproar among the ignorant fundies!

[StrongBad]

107. I am in complete agreement with you.

Not sure of your post's relevance to the thread topic though.

[Rex]

108. Oh were we staying on topic? I noticed you are all over the place as are others in this thread.

Okay on topic...the laws are enforced to the best of the abilities of law enforcement...sorry if that is not what you want to hear. LEO enforce the laws and deport people they catch here illegally.

So your thread topic is not totally factual, laws to kick illegal immigrants out of the country are enforced each day.

Now if you really want to talk about a pick and choose law...why are we still gerrymandering voting districts? A clear violation of the law...yet lawmakers do it year after year after year. Why do they get away with it?

[StrongBad]

110. You're asking the wrong person. I don't know much about that issue.

[Rex]

112. Check it out, you will be surprised at how relaxed they are about illegal gerrymandering.

[gratuitous]

113. It happens all the time

By some estimates, it would cost more than $100 billion to identify, apprehend, process and deport the 11 million people estimated to be here without benefit of official paperwork. If the United States could get through 100 people a day, every day, weekends and holidays included, it would take a little more than 300 years to cleanse the country.

People who run red lights and stop signs are also breaking the law, and some of them cause serious property damage, injury and death. Yet we rather selectively enforce that law even with those horrible consequences. Why aren't you advocating applying the same standard to traffic scofflaws as you are for so-called illegal immigrants? I'm a bicycle commuter at mortal risk every day from those traffic lawbreakers, but you're not thumping the tub for stricter enforcement and greater penalties: Why do you want me to get badly injured or killed?