7 ms·

> Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences. I find this interesting because people will apply this type of th

> Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences. I find this interesting because people will apply this type of thinking to one area and almost exactly the opposite to others. In other words, yeah, there are laws/rules but it is OK to violate them or have no consequences. One obvious example of this is the hotly debated illegal immigration issue in the US. US law clearly establishes what is required in order to emigrate to this country legally. And it further establishes that this legal status is the only way to live and work here permanently. If we live by this idea that "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" the US ought to deport millions of people (or otherwise impose severe-enough penalties). BTW, I am not picking on you, you are not the only person to utter these words. I am referring to the general use of this position rather than your use of it. And, BTW #2, I don't for a moment believe we ought to deport everyone. Many questions here: What is "the rule of law"? When can or should laws be ignored? Who decides? If a law was a law (not being ignored) at the time the transgression took place and we desire to live where "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" should these consequences be applied regardless of how we might feel today? If rules or laws can be selectively applied or ignored at any time in the future, could one make the argument that they are effectively not rules or laws and one, as an individual, is free to ignore them? If they are not serious enough that they can be ignored, why should anyone take them seriously? Do laws mean anything if they are not enforced consistently and uniformly across the population? For example: Why do I have to pay taxes if people are allowed to remain in the country illegally? Both are laws. One is applied uniformly. The other isn't. I am not passing judgement on immigrants here, these are easy examples to reach for. Complex subject, isn't it?

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Deporting millions of people means less rule of law, not more. There's very significant trade-offs - deportation on that scale can and will intimidate folks into not accessing the legal system, which creates a class of ready-made vulnerable victims and un-reported crimes.
- qeternity 10y ago
  That's a logical fallacy and doesn't answer his question at all. The same could be argued for illegal taxi drivers as a consequence of cracking down on Uber.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  This ideology makes laws optional and completely open to interpretation. I don't have a problem with being compassionate. Our immigration mess almost demands it at this point. I am merely pointing out the irony in wanting laws to have consequences while, at the same time, wanting certain laws to have no consequences at all. What's a law then?
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    The laws are already overlapping enough that you can't simply get perfect enforcement of all of them. It's a question of tradeoffs - do you care more about deporting everyone you can, or about prosecuting rapists that target illegal immigrants. It's not arbitrarily deciding not to enforce a law, it's deciding that a different set of law enforcement priorities is more important.
flubert 10y ago
Any thoughts you'd like to share on: The Myth of the Rule of Law... http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  Looks like a very interesting and well-written essay. I'll try to read it tonight and get back to you with some thoughts. Thanks.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  That is odd - I got to the end without seeing illegal immigration mentioned at all.
kjs3 10y ago
Discussion of tax and taxi laws in Norway immediately derailed so someone could air their personal political pet topic about the US. Unsurprising, I suppose...inevitable even.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Deporting millions of people means less rule of law, not more. There's very significant trade-offs - deportation on that scale can and will intimidate folks into not accessing the legal system, which creates a class of ready-made vulnerable victims and un-reported crimes.

qeternity 10y ago
That's a logical fallacy and doesn't answer his question at all. The same could be argued for illegal taxi drivers as a consequence of cracking down on Uber.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
This ideology makes laws optional and completely open to interpretation. I don't have a problem with being compassionate. Our immigration mess almost demands it at this point. I am merely pointing out the irony in wanting laws to have consequences while, at the same time, wanting certain laws to have no consequences at all. What's a law then?
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  The laws are already overlapping enough that you can't simply get perfect enforcement of all of them. It's a question of tradeoffs - do you care more about deporting everyone you can, or about prosecuting rapists that target illegal immigrants. It's not arbitrarily deciding not to enforce a law, it's deciding that a different set of law enforcement priorities is more important.

flubert 10y ago

Any thoughts you'd like to share on: The Myth of the Rule of Law... http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

rebootthesystem 10y ago
Looks like a very interesting and well-written essay. I'll try to read it tonight and get back to you with some thoughts. Thanks.
mannykannot 10y ago
That is odd - I got to the end without seeing illegal immigration mentioned at all.

kjs3 10y ago

Discussion of tax and taxi laws in Norway immediately derailed so someone could air their personal political pet topic about the US. Unsurprising, I suppose...inevitable even.