Originally Posted by Pooka

Two things.....

My family did not come here legally. They were captured and enslaved and sent to Georgia to work on a Plantation just because they tried to kill the King of England. This was in 1678.

They stayed slaves only long enough to regain their strength and then, according to family lore, they killed the Plantation owners and everyone else big enough to die. They then stayed out of sight until 1777 when a few of them took it upon themselves to kill Englishmen again. The family managed to lay low for 99 years, and when they re-emerged they found out the current King was still looking for them.

So after the British were tossed over they moved West and were not found until 1830 when they were informed they were now natural born citizens.

The bottom line here is that not once in 152 years did it occur to them to 'self-deport', and I don't think as long as there is opportunity here for the current illegals none of them are leaving of their own free will. Where would they go?

And..... I don't think Rubio is advocating for people to come here in less than a legal manner. He is just saying he understands why they come, and I have to agree with him on their motivation.

But that does not mean I agree with their actions, and I don't think Rubio does either.

Originally Posted by dropnosky

same old black and white larry.

davidmash said it best so far. We live in a nation of laws, certainly, but laws can be changed and modified by men, and what was law yesterday may not be law tomorrow. If it were suddenly illegal to own more than two acres tomorrow, would you consider yourself a criminal? or would you consider that your rights had been violated?

Its easy enough for you to stand in your perfectly stable life and situation, and utter platitudes about legality from a stable environment governed by rule of law, never having to take the leap and maybe consider what life would be like without that rule of law.

Maybe you should leave your comfort zone, and consider life from the other side, using northern Mexico as an example-

Mexico's Formidable Battle against Lawlessness and Mayhem

Sure its easy enough to call people criminals when you yourself have never faced an even remotely similar crisis. The best you can do is whine about your lawn being ruined by a pipeline, when these people are facing murder, kidnapping, rape, and extended violence near and in their homes.

Given the situation just south of the border, if I lived there, you can bet I would consider crossing illegally, especially if the visa process is and was a time consuming and endless series of paperwork that in part depends on the good will of your own local government agencies that may or may not be compromised or corrupt.
You should be ashamed of yourself for presuming to call people criminals who may have had to face that.

Rubio demonstrates some depth of character in actually stating that maybe the country could provide avenues for people caught in this type of crisis, and in this country illegally.

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I have said it on here before! The laws can and are changed. In the meantime OBEY THEM!

Originally Posted by E150GT

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
- Martin Luther King Jr.

Originally Posted by tbomachines

How dare you quote such a ruthless criminal!

Originally Posted by Air&Road

You guys are free to break all the laws you care to.

My conscience won't allow me to do so.

Originally Posted by Air&Road

You guys are free to break all the laws you care to.

My conscience won't allow me to do so.

Originally Posted by davidmash

Point of order sir. Yes this is the world we live in but it is our world and we make the rules. We can change the rules at any given time. So in a way, it is the world we wish for because we make the rules. You seem to make it sound like we have no control over the world we live in. I take exception with that because I believe at least in this instance, the world we live in is the world that some seem to wish for, others such as my self and Obama, seem to be willing to change the rules of the world we live in.

Originally Posted by Botnst

I agree the laws are man-made and therefore, subject to change by man.

Take any criminal law as an example. Hell, take marijuana laws.... Stupid laws. Do we REALLY want the president determining which laws should be enforced? Not just this president -- any president. If we think it's okay then why bother with courts and legislatures? Just rule by despotic power. It works great as long as your friend is in power.

And of course I think the immigration law as written is stupid. It should be changed to reflect reality while in parallel, enforcing control of our fercking borders.

Originally Posted by Air&Road

That's fine! If the majority of the people want to change the law, I'm good with it. Until that time ABIDE BY IT, and ENFORCE IT!

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I'm not a law breaker. What disturbs me the most is that he admits to be willing to break the law but THEN wants to represent Americans in congress. Even though there are plenty of them already there, I don't want criminals in congress, or as Vice President of the US either.

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Says a man who would have called the continental congress "criminal" and "illegal", and would have gladly remained a pawn of King George, sending him plenty of taxes with no representation.

The same man who would have said that the "Tea Act" was an excellent, legal precedent.

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I read the article and I find it disturBing that he would be willing to violate the law, but he still wants to represent the American people.