Blog @ MoreWhat.com

6 Responses to “Question for the Day”

1. Perri Nelson Says:
   January 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

   All of them. Some multiple times.

2. Stanford Matthews Says:
   January 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

   I expected the first response to ask me why I would have the answer within the question. Yes, if you are an ‘ilegal’ alien it implies you violated the law in becoming an alien by entering the country illegally. However, the reason for the post is to emphasize this to those who defend illegals by using everything but this basic fact. By trying to distract the discussion from this basic fact to matters not in evidence. Like those who come here illegally are simply looking for a better life, etc.,etc.

   Number one, those who make these arguments could not possibly know the motives of all illegal aliens and the illegals are more than happy to jump on this band wagon and play the part to avoid the consequences for their actions. And politicians are happy to promote the benefits of exploiting illegals for the benefit of profit.

   And the reason that any of the illegals are ‘living in the shadows’ is the same reason any other criminal does….. to avoid prosecution or paying for their offense.

   The reason why amnesty for this mass defiance of the law is not an appropriate solution should be obvious to all. Rewarding those who violate the law and punishing those who obey the law is not just backwards, it is absurd and will do nothing to encourage compliance of any law.

   But then it is difficult to defend denying amnesty for illegal aliens when many in the US Congress and other federal employees condone tax evasion by the current nominee for Secretary of the Treasury not to mention his hiring of a then illegal alien. Which begs the question how did she become legal?

   But the central point here is amnesty must be denied for illegal entry to the United States. If it took years to allow as many illegals in as are reported then if it takes years to remove them that is okay. Just do it, pronto.

3. Angel Says:
   January 18th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

   well put indeed..thousands upon thousands and still counting!:)

4. Stanford Matthews Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 12:17 am

   Hey Angel, there’s a report out there somewhere claiming with the economic troubles that illegal immigration is decreasing. While there may be some logic in that I cannot help but wonder how anyone could be that sure of the numbers without being complicit.

   As a related sidenote I heard Ramos and Compean may have another chance at a pardon. (but I won’t hold my breath)

5. Stanford Matthews Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

   Near the opening of Hannity’s radio talk show he indicated Ramos and Compean will get pardons. I only found one opposing view of interest on a brief net search yesterday. A blog had quoted someone from national review who pointed out all the reasons the two should not be pardoned. Only due to the shortage of such opposing views did I not find it compelling. And there was at least one rebuttal comment on the post supporting their pardons.

   The point here is it would be equally disappointing if either of the two following scenarios occurred. If they were to remain in prison after not receiving a fair trial or if they were pardoned and later found out to be guilty as hell. For now I prefer to err on the side of pardons. To err the other way punishes them for something they may not have done. Whereas if they are guilty and it is found out post-pardon justice can still be served without treating someone unfairly.

6. Stanford Matthews Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

   correction: media reference is ‘commutation’ not ‘pardon’. If so, my bad. (I hate that phrase)