4 ms·
So if she instead put "Nobody has the right to enter this country illegally" it would be fine because she's just restating the law?
by tsdlts 6y ago
So if she instead put "Nobody has the right to enter this country illegally" it would be fine because she's just restating the law?
- muglug 6y agoThat would be appropriate (in this analogy) if the website was advising employees on how to jump over border walls.
- oh_sigh 6y agoWhat about a website for lawyers who defend illegally-entered immigrants? ICI consultants isn't a criminal organization as far as I know, and without really knowing anything about them, I would assume the consulting services they provide don't tell companies to perform illegal acts.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- marshray 6y ago"Entering the country illegally is illegal" is restating the law. Such a statement would likely take on more meaning given the context in which it was said. "Nobody has the right to ..." is your opinion.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoWell, "nobody has the legal right to..." is restating. And to me, the "legal" is rather obviously implied.
- marshray 6y agoI don't agree the implication is obvious at all. Interpreting it that way make it a total truism - nonsensical unless interpreted within a greater context. And it looks to me that's just what the GP poster was trying to do - challenge others to argue with a truism while pretending that the context in which it was stated isn't relevant.
- cromka 6y agoINAL but it is your right to illegally cross the border of a Geneva convention signatory country and seek an asylum. So no, not the same.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]