Illegal Is Now Legal
Illegal is supposed to mean unlawful. An example would be it is illegal for someone 16 to drink alcoholic beverages in the United States. Using illegal as an adjective would mean that an illegal drinker would be someone that is not legal to drink. Sounds logical, the courts would agree, at least most would think so.
Yet the ACLU argues that is wrong to say that someone is an illegal immigrate if in fact they are unlawfully in the United States. That immigrate has violated United States law and entered the country but at the same time they are not illegal here and should not as such be penalized by government.
What we do get from actions like that are comments such as what is in the video below. Start it at about 1 minute and 3 seconds.
On the other hand it creates a conflict. It is illegal for me to build a still, without federal permits, and operate that same still. It makes no difference to the federal government if I am making medicine (ha ha), corn whiskey (moonshine), or gas for my truck. It might be that I need to make use that still to cook up a batch so that I can part of it in my truck to take the rest to the doctor, so he can clean his hands with it and prescribe the other to me for my cold. Where is that ACLU helping me?
If illegally running a still is illegal as in unlawfully why would it be wrong to call an illegal immigrate illegal? Both are in violation of the law. The Feds say it is illegal to operate that still without first permitting and other stuff. Yet I do not need a state permit. However operating that still without a federal permit is still illegal by state law.
If the ACLU argument applied to my non-existent still I think I would get one for real. Think about it as it was immigration. The Feds are not going to stop me and the states should not enforce their laws, so I should have one. There is no harm.
BUT, there is in fact harm. Children are taught that laws should have not affect on people and that you should do what you want, could that be a reason that there is a problem with today’s youth. Virginia some year’s back talk about passing a bunch of laws and after review of the state code decided that what would be best would be to enforce the laws that they had on the books. What do you know it worked and did not have an added cost?
What is wrong with mirrored laws? It has been done since our founding. The Founders did not seem to have a problem with it.
Recent Comments