In other words why should I or anyone here legally obey ANY law when we allow 10-12 Million to violate laws with little fear of punishment.  How can we justify a double standard?
218437
no, it's not ok, they are just undocumented workers.
130707
I agree that many laws are passed by idiots - just b/c it's "illegal" doesn't mean the law that makes it illegal is a just law.  I aruge on the point of infringement, too - if what I do hurts someone else then it should be punishable by law, i.e drinking and driving.  But, if I'm the only person which I'm affecting, the government can get it's stinking hands out of my business, i.e, say if I felt like enjoying "herbal remedies" every now and then. \n\nPeople DO need to come up with a better response than "it's illegal" and actually examine the basis of the law itself, why it's illegal (is someone being hurt?), and go from there!\n\n\n*****\nI think that somebody is missing the point.  There are laws in MA that dictate that it is ILLEGAL to walk through Boston in high heels.  It is ILLEGAL to walk through Boston Common without a FIREARM (to protect you from those dangerous Native Americans).  Think about that for a second...\n\n...Now think about the over-generalized, peon-happy, statement that was made below this.\n\nI'm sure I would have gotten arrested by now if those laws were upheld, but alas they the Blue Laws exist.  And if I broke my ankle on one of the notoriously uneven cobblestone walkways in the city, I'd have to go to the hospital and have it x-rayed, then put in a cast.  That would cost my insurance company (thus increasing their pay-outs, and maybe YOUR healthcare premium?).  That would take up a doctor's time when he/she hadn't planned on my emergency arrival. \n\nSo should I never wear a heel to work or when on a date because I might break my ankle and cause a domino-effect of chaos through out the cosmos?\n\nI think that perhaps someone else needs to think outside of his/her box as well.  No one said that an action has no consequences, but let's be REAONSABLE about it.\n\n\n***\nJust to play the Devil's advocate for a second "ballsonwalls" (heh heh)...seatbelts reduce injuries sustained in accidents GREATLY.  Thereby reducing costs for insurers (freakin' crooks...).  An increase in insurers' costs would most definately be reflected in all our insurance bills, and I'd like to think that a savings b/c more ppl wear seatbelts would also be reflected.  Aside from that, f**k it.\n\nOo and ANOTHER example:  just b/c gay marriage is illegal in most states throughout the union, does that make gay relationships WRONG b/c the GOVERNMENT doesn't recognize them as LAWFUL??  PEOPLE NEED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
447589
Although we have free speech in America if our speech incites a riot or if it is reasonable to assume that what you say could incite others to do harm or break the law then there can be legal repercussions.  The reason this so seldom happens though is because it has to be proved that the actions of others were the direct and sole result of the words or actions of another and this can be hard to do.
642095
I agree you should life your life to the highest moral standards you can.  Do what's right to the best of your knowledge and ability.  judging and preaching others is not part of that however. Who told you all this?  Can you speak from experience?  And what does this question have to do with imgration??
672930
I have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about.  All that I want are the immigration laws enforced.  All other laws are enforced but for some reason, these criminal illegal (mostly Mexicans) think they should be exempt from obeying all laws.  I care about my country, even if these lying and useless politicians do not.
310508
Your point being? The reason they patrol the boarder so heavily is because they have agreements with the U.S. to do so.  To prevent narco-trafficking.  Your argument however is a reasoned one I respect that. Your right this nation is very open to immigration its part of what made it great.  But, the question is whether it is just to felonize behavior simply because another nation does.  Just because a law exists in another country does not make it just.  \n\nYou are using a circular argument.  We should do this because they do this, so we should do this.  Circular arguments may sound rational but they rest on false premises.
642404
That's a very good question. Are morals relative? Even the ones we think are basic--Thou shall not kill, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,Don't put that in your mouth;you don't know where it's been!--can be violated if one feels he/she has just cause, and whichever society that individual happens to exist in has differing opinions on whether or not his/her actions were justified.\nI suppose the only ethical constant I can think of would be the 5-second rule. Unless it's an Oreo. Then all bets are off.
210184
THey do these thing because they are selfish and inconsideragte. The laws are in place for a reason. Breaking them does not signal the ned for their abolition.
10490
I think it is usually acceptable to break the law if, by not breaking it, someone would suffer bodily harm or death. Also, if the law is fundamentally designed to discriminate, I think that at the very least some people need to break it in order to be able to argue against it in the Supreme Court, for example when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.
312377
This is just one of many ideas that people can misuse.\n\nI believe that Christians are supposed to obey the laws of the land unless and until those laws contradict God's laws.  Currently there aren't any civil laws that fall under that category for me.  It's one of those hypotheticals.  This is the first case I've heard of that used that idea as a defense.\n\nI don't know enough about both sides to speak to whether he was justified or not.  The courts unfortunately, because they are so overloaded, often send children back into homes that are really still unfit.\n\nStill, based on what they showed on the segment I saw, he didn't seem justified to me.
456283
Isn't being a bad citizen too broad?  Wouldn't major law and guidelines have to be broken?  If not, who would be the judge?  I think that you know that money pays a big part in this consideration.  I think that it an enlightening idea, I just wonder at first glance- how would it be regulated?   Money is the big player.  Thanks for making me think about something different.
533729
As much as I'd like to say that I wouldn't, because I am opposed to those actions, I'm sure I would find myself being somewhat hypocritical and saying that we should take those actions.  It's very hard to say.  I just believe that taking away civil liberties is a slippery slope.  It's just hard to balance freedom and safety.  I know what I think now, but I'm human, and I can't say that my opinions wouldn't change with another big attack.
258136
Laws don't protect people.  They are not designed as a preventative measure.  Instead, they are designed as a deterrent and spell out the measures that will be taken against anyone who perpetrates a crime.   The concept is, inform people of those actions deemed by society as unacceptable and the people will not engage in those activities.  It works for most of society.\n\nAddressing it another way, the law is “reactive” not “proactive“.   It only becomes active after an offence has been committed, and another victim created. \n\nTo be anything else would constitute prior restraint.  We could lock everyone up and prevent crime that way.  But that is unfair, impractical, and it would never work in America.  You do find this type of action being taken in some countries around the world.  Recipients of this type treatment are often referred to as "political prisoners".  Their incarceration by a government is intended as a preemptive measure.  The idea is to find a individual or group perceived to be a threat and conduct a preemptive strike by locking them away before they can commit a crime.  \n\nThis sort of thing occurred in the US during WWI when legislation was passed that denied American citizens the right to criticize the government or it's war efforts.  The idea was to control vocal groups before they could be heard both here and in the enemy's camp.  \n\nWWII saw a similar activity when Japanese Americans were interned in camps away from the coast.  The concern was, where did the true loyalty of Japanese Americans lie.  The government felt Japanese Americans loyalty could easily lie with Japan even if the people had earned citizenship and had sworn allegiance to the United States.  Most of these families lost everything, their land, personal property, and any other holdings.  Some restitution was paid but many never recovered even a small percentage of their losses.  In my opinion the only thing good that came of this was that during WWII we didn't experience the wholesale execution of Japanese Americans.  While it was never tested, I believe feelings against the Japanese ran so high that many white Americans may have acted as vigilantes if the opportunity would have presented itself.  This action could have cost thousands of Japanese American lives right here in the USA.\n\nAnother aspect of our justice system in "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  This brings home the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Typically the state has more resources than the defendant so the burden placed on the state is higher than on the defense.  All a defense attorney has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt in one juror and the result is a mistrial.  While the state must convince each and every juror "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the guilt of the defendant.\n\nI hope this helps, I tend to get a bit long sometimes but you can weed out anything you don’t want to use.
280088
You're discussing things on two different levels. Morality and justice are correlated obviously, but not the same thing. The 10 commandments are supposed to be individual standards of morality not laws. For example, is it MORAL to constantly belittle someone and make them cry? No, but it is not illegal.\n\nThere *are* laws about adultery, not because it is morally wrong but because it breaks a legal contract. (These laws are obviously not really enforced that often.)\n\nThere *are* laws about keeping the Sabbath day holy (e.g. you can't buy liquor in some places on Sunday), but these types of laws are becoming more obsolete.
327555
Because we have countries that do not respect laws and think that their way of life enables them to kill anyone in the name of religion.  This is a way to restrict their travel.
580729
Why would this majority rule then be correct? As in, who gives you the right over someone else? You'll force them? That doesn't make sense. Beyond this, I'd love to see a transcultural model that actually works. It won't. Because guess what? Are you going to let everyone practice religion? Whatever one they want? Even if it goes against your code? If you don't, this won't work. Also, if you apply certain moral codes, and someone doesn't ascribe to them, so what? What are you gonna do? Punish them for bad morals? If you don't, then what was the purpose in the first place? If you do, then you have become an oppressive society. And before you become one of those you had better be sure you know what you're doing. Another point, because everyone believes it doesn't make it right. What if you wanted to amend it later on to say that killing is OK? Would it then be OK? If you have a universal standard of morality, then it can't change, otherwise what's the point? If it can't change, then majority rule is not the determining factor of universal moral guidelines. So what makes your first majority any more special than the ones to come? This is illogical, impractical and unfeasible at best.
657270
I suppose it all depends on your own morality. Breaking the law does not necessarily make you an immoral person i.e. a father stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. Its a slippery slope, though, because sometimes the letter of the law overrides the intent. Some laws seem immoral to me. Any law that deprives people of personal liberty is immoral, be it looking at what books you read at the library or banning cigarette smoking in a bar.