> When someone says, "ah, screw it, I don't like that law, so I'm not going to follow it," ...
Yes, I am Mexican and I agree 100% with you.
So, I would be extremelly happy to see that every time an illegal Mexican immigrant was caught in the US, before throwing him/her to the other side of the fence, and investigation was open to persecute and file criminal charges to every American national that said "screw it, I dont like that law" and gave an illegal job (at below-market wages) to the illegal immigrant.
I would be even more happy if other American nationials that were deprived by those illegal practices of honest livelihoods would start class-action civil lawsuits against the fat cats that lined their pockets with the sweat and blood of "wetback" labor. That would make my day!
But, you know... here in the real world, I would settle for you, sokoloff, to admit that whatever stability that those particular rules provide to American society is derived more from the discretionality to apply the same laws to some class of people but not to others. There is an old joke about democracy being 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner tonight. I don't think that is precisely the case here, but there's a kernel of truth hidden there as well.
Uneven prosecution is a real problem. I think if we decided to strictly prosecute every transgression, we'd either end up in a police state or in a state where people rejected and amended dumb laws. I'm not sure which center of gravity is stronger.
On your last paragraph, I do admit to parts of that (not necessarily whether it's more than 50%, but otherwise I agree), and that selective prosecution is a good thing in some areas (no sense ticketing someone for 56 in a 55 on a clear, dry, sunny day with light traffic). See also my last comment at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11103596
>I think if we decided to strictly prosecute every transgression, we'd either end up in a police state or in a state where people rejected and amended dumb laws. I'm not sure which center of gravity is stronger.
So aren't we already in an unfair anarchic system, so what then is the problem when people cry foul that the system violates its own principles to give benefit to those least needing aid while strictly enforcing itself on those who most need help?
I was not talking about littering, jaywalking, or traffic tickets. I was talking about the economic warfare that the American moneyed class is waging to the American working class; and one of which's fronts is illegal immigration.
It saddens me how blue collar Americans can get so incensed at "Juan, the wetback", but never stop one minute to think that the one who is screwing them both is "Johnny 'Honest J' Howell".
Yes, I am Mexican and I agree 100% with you.
So, I would be extremelly happy to see that every time an illegal Mexican immigrant was caught in the US, before throwing him/her to the other side of the fence, and investigation was open to persecute and file criminal charges to every American national that said "screw it, I dont like that law" and gave an illegal job (at below-market wages) to the illegal immigrant.
I would be even more happy if other American nationials that were deprived by those illegal practices of honest livelihoods would start class-action civil lawsuits against the fat cats that lined their pockets with the sweat and blood of "wetback" labor. That would make my day!
But, you know... here in the real world, I would settle for you, sokoloff, to admit that whatever stability that those particular rules provide to American society is derived more from the discretionality to apply the same laws to some class of people but not to others. There is an old joke about democracy being 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner tonight. I don't think that is precisely the case here, but there's a kernel of truth hidden there as well.