Thread: E-VERIFY AND THE EMERGING SURVEILLANCE STATE

Rather than work to strengthen the borders and take steps to stop illegals from getting here in the first place, many now seek "internal enforcement" rather than the "rule of law." In other words, take action after leaving the barn door open.

Not true! "Many" seek both, enforcement and enhanced border security. Enforcement is necessary to force folks to obide by the "rule of law."

Why is it that DeWeese thinks the solution is so simple? What about the 20-30 million illegals already here? A border so tight a gnats butt couldn't squeeze through isn't going to get rid of them. Enforcement is not only necessary, it's imparative! This isn't an either or deal, we need both.

They can check my SS number and birth certificate all they want. If it means keeping jobs away from illegals, I'm all for it. I have nothing to hide. I'll give them 100 copies of my birth certificate.

Invasion lovers are really idiotic.

I support E-Verify, an important tool against illegal immigration.

Rather than work to strengthen the borders and take steps to stop illegals from getting here in the first place, many now seek "internal enforcement" rather than the "rule of law." In other words, take action after leaving the barn door open.

That is just not true.

A fence without interior enforcement is not going to get the job done, but I'm thinking the idea of interior enforcement is catching on and that is the reason for this kind of statement.

That makes me think the pro-illegals don't want interior enforcement.

Cut out the draw, enforce the laws - and the fence will have to dissuade a smaller number.

But what is the difference between 'internal enforcement' and 'rule of law'???

nntrixie wrote:

But what is the difference between 'internal enforcement' and 'rule of law'???

Without law and order, the rule of law is meaningless. Law enforcement is a natural part of an orderly society. Without law and order there would be chaos, which in turn means there would be no "rule of law." Well, anyway, that's the way I see it.

Sounds like DeWeese is against law and order. In my book, that means he doesn't support the rule of law. Do my ramblings make sense?

Lets see, the government created a problem by not doing something to prevent it in the first place, now they come up with a solution that will cost taxpayers time and money. Sounds familiar to me another form of bailout. They didn't do their jobs properly and we have to pay for it.

mw

Thanks for trying - I'm dense.

I checked and it seems rule of law simply means 'no one is above the law'.

I still don't see why the writer seems to think people want 'internal enforcement' - as in enforcing the law - but we don't want to think no one is above the law.?????????

Actually, it seems a lot of illegals and illegal supporters don't think the rule of law applies to them.

nntrixie wrote:

I checked and it seems rule of law simply means 'no one is above the law'.

Exactly, that's why you must have law and order. Laws are meaningless without the fear of consequence (that is where enforcement comes in). Enforcement is the tool used to ensure no one is above the law.

Yeah, I get that - but I don't understand the writer saying some want enforcement - but not the rule of law.

nntrixie wrote:

Yeah, I get that - but I don't understand the writer saying some want enforcement - but not the rule of law.

If you're implying that DeWeese makes no sense, I agree.