<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Leo Mauler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:webgiant@yahoo.com">webgiant@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I get your point, but the Paris Hilton example is a straw man. It's not a valid comparison.<br><br>If the law is bigoted and stupid, it's okay to not like the law and not care if it's violated. It's okay to advocate for a change in the law, and to argue that violators be forgiven or accommodated.<br>
<br>Jim Crow laws. The Draft. Sodomy laws. All of which were bad laws, were violated by good people, and were overturned or repealed once society came around. I believe our immigration laws fall into those categories. Until we stop looking the other way at businesses violating labor laws, until we address the imbalance and inequity in our immigration quotas, and until we secure the border in a meaningful way I can't condemn those that choose to break them.<br>
<br>Jeffrey.<br><br><br></div></div>-- <br><br>"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine<br>
</div>