Thread: Reverse off shoring of jobs?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

That's a great fairy tale.

Pretty much all of that is already in the law. However when lawyers get involved and start pushing and conniving, well you know the story.

The Immigration and Nationality Act is bigger than the Tax Codes and has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

What good is an immigration code when they won't enforce it ? The current administration, and the previous one for that matter, is giving the illegals carte blanche (call them 'undocumented' immigrants in PC speak)

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

That's a great fairy tale.

Pretty much all of that is already in the law. However when lawyers get involved and start pushing and conniving, well you know the story.

The Immigration and Nationality Act is bigger than the Tax Codes and has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Yea, it is a fairy tale. Likely the same on our side of the border too. Best solution is to stop reading the news and avoid the agro. Hard to ignore a festering boil at times but a rant sometimes helps. Reality bites big time.

Bob

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

What good is an immigration code when they won't enforce it ? The current administration, and the previous one for that matter, is giving the illegals carte blanche (call them 'undocumented' immigrants in PC speak)

it's not that they don't enforce it, they do. The problem is akin to when you get stopped for a DUI and you go to court with an attorney and he finds something wrong in the stop or procedure and gets the case thrown out. Attorneys pick the law apart and convince some judge to interpret it to their liking. Once they do, that sets a precedent which controls how the law will be applied from then on.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

it's not that they don't enforce it, they do. The problem is akin to when you get stopped for a DUI and you go to court with an attorney and he finds something wrong in the stop or procedure and gets the case thrown out. Attorneys pick the law apart and convince some judge to interpret it to their liking. Once they do, that sets a precedent which controls how the law will be applied from then on.

You are correct. This does happen. But it shouldn't. I am a believer in the concept of "originalism". No court, jury, judge, or lawyer should INTERPRET law. The idea that laws are "living, breathing" entities is terribly dangerous. When the written law is not sufficiently clear, the original intent is how it should be applied. To determine the original intent there are clues that judges and lawyers have at their disposal. Phrases/terms should be checked and compared throughout the written law to see how the terms were used in other sections. Previous versions should be consulted. If its a federal law, the debates and discussions leading up to passage should be considered. When we stray from this, we end up with rulings or new laws that may not have anything to do with the original intent of the law. And they may be handed down by unelected judges with their own agenda. Its the biggest negation of our freedom and its been happening consistently for many years. And you can't look at the outcome to judge its worth. This time it may serve you, next time perhaps not. But in the end, your system of law is corrupt and without standards. In that case, no one wins.