You presume none of them want to law abiding. I would argue most want to be law abiding, but life has dealt them a set of circumstances where the best solution is to be an illigal immigrant. Given a chance to be legal, most would. Why are there so many applications to become legal immigrants? Not because people want to pay taxes, but because they don't want to be illegal. They don't want to worry about being arrested. They want to be able to get medical insurance and go see the same doctor instead of waiting for 12 hours at the ER to be treated for a cold, or to actually have prenatal care, or to recieve regular care for high blood pressure... And if they become legal, chances are they can get a better paying job, instead of being limited to employers that will higher illegals.

Risking punishment and being worthy of punishment aren't the same. She risked punishment to show that all people who were punished under that law weren't wrong or worthy of punishment. None of the people punished under that law were wrong or worthy of punishment, even if they weren't breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience.

And I want to be wealthy but life dealt me a different set of circumstances - I was born into a poor family with a fine tradition of not escaping the neighborhood and a more than passing aquaintance with the penal system.

I chose to follow the rules even when it wasn't the easiest or most attractive path. I chose to fight my way into school paying for it myself through military service and multiple jobs. I chose to accept a sub-poverty line paying job after college. I chose to keep working hard inside the system even when it would have been easier not to. I choose every day to keep working in the system in the knowledge that where I go is up to me. Maybe I'll hit the target, maybe I won't. Life doesn't always deal you what you want. Tough shit. Deal with it. Don't expect sympathy from me for people who decide it is ok to break the law because they didn't have golden opportunities handed to them.

Yes they were. They knowingly broke the law. We are taught from early on that breaking the law is wrong. Breaking the law makes us worthy of punishment. The law itself may be morally repugnant and worthy of being overturned, but if the law is upheld then you are accountable to that law.

Yes, I a do have some influences of moral relativism but I do this for deeper reasons. Because of this I have to ask this question, why do you consider dealing marijuana morally worse than getting a job recognized by the government? I personally think it is morally wrong to illegalize marijuana so someone breaking the law is not immoral, but not moral either. Keep in mind, this also coming from someone whose perspective is that social laws, while very important, are not all powerful. I think your perspective involves putting social laws higher up than me on importance, which might cause some differences.

You should be punished if caught because it is a law even if you disagree with it. The problem is that I see the law of illegal marijuana as an unjustifiable law so that means breaking an unjustifiable law isn't immoral. I wouldn't say it is moral, but it wouldn't be immoral. Drug dealing is just the result of the capitalist system. There is a demand for drugs but no legal supply for illegal drugs. That means, to meet the demand, drug dealers will have to break the law to meet the demand and make money. If drugs were legalized, the demand for an underground drug system would go away, making it a reaction of the drug laws. I am not advocating that it is moral to fulfill the free market demand, but that there is a flaw within the system and it is rational for people that are willing to take the risk of being caught to gain profit off this flaw. Like I said earlier, assuming we are talking about safe drug trafficking, I still wouldn't call it moral because you are breaking a law, but I wouldn't call it immoral because that law is unjustifiable.

Honestly, I know shit about investing so I don't know what technique you are talking about.


You are getting into morality levels. Rosa Parks would be considered at a level five stage of morality because she purposely broke the law to make a point about how it is unjustifiable. The illegal immigrants would probably be at a level two stage because they know illegally crossing the border is illegal and "technically" wrong because of it but they they are doing it because they need money. I want to make this clear, just because someone demonstrates stage two (you can make an argument for three but thats makes it more complicated and doesn't change much) morality, it doesn't mean they are still in the pre-conventional stage, but that they are probably forced into it. That is the main factor with me.

But you do bring up a good point. Technically it is immoral to cross the border illegally because immigration laws are not unjust, from my perspective at least, but that doesn't mean that these people are immoral people, just that they are forced into making a decision of breaking a law and doing something immoral and letting their family starve, which can be seen as immoral from other perspectives.

I agree with you that most make the decision because they are choosing self-interest, not seeing their family starve, over breaking the law but there can be other methods.

For a level three example, if society says that feeding your family is more important than following the law, this action would not be seen as immoral, but moral, from that society's perspective. This is something that we might have to look into further as well. It might not just be a conflict of interests, but a conflict of cultural morals as well.

For a level five, one would have to sacrifice to make a point, which you pointed out that no one is doing.

For a level six, I can't think of a situation that would show this by crossing the border.

I never said that our "citizens are dying left and right". What I said was that illegals get free health care while the working poor get nada.

Why do the working poor get nada?

Also, aren't many of the illegal immigrants also working poor?

I don't come from a privileged background, used the military as a way to get my education, and have worked hard all my life. But I do have sympathy for a father who crosses the border with his family so he won't have to watch his children die from dysentary, or watch his daughter become a prostitute for the foreign tourists, and wants to support his aging parents. I appluad him for doing what he needs to do in order to care for his family. He'll work whatever crap job he can get just to feed his kids. There is a huge difference between not having "golden opportunities" like attending college, and being born in an undeveloped state where its a struggle to feed your family, where women and children are trafficked from rural regions to urban centers and tourist areas for sexual exploitation, often through fraudulent offers of employment or through threats of physical violence, where medical care is only for the top tier of the society... the list can go on and on.

The working poor can go to the ER just like the illegals and be treated. How are you getting the working poor get nada but the illegals get free health care?

Because there is a huge class of people here who make to much money to qualify for aid but their jobs do don't pay enough for them to afford insurance or the job does not offer insurance for them or their families.

Illegals don't pay taxes on their income. They claim no income. They get to fall into the lowest class and take advantage of the system in place that should be helping the legal citizens who are poor. The system is filled with holes.

Medicaid.

Paid for by our tax dollars.

I spend a lot of time in Mexico. There is opportunity there as well, it is not one large cesspool with a floating brothel. Is it where I would choose to live? Not most places, no. But there is opportunity. Save the sob story and sympathy card. Every country has the issues you spoke of. And every person has the choice whether to take the hard route or the easy route.

No, They are not US citizens! Thats the point. The services which are designed and allocated for our citizens are being taken by citizens from other countries.

If the services were designed and allocated for your citizens, why are millions of your citizens unable to access them?

i think the point is that resources are being used by people they were unintended for, thus reducing the resources available for the US citizens.