Posted on 01/26/2015 3:29:43 PM PST by gwgn02
There’s a difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Certainly there are illegals who’ve committed actual crimes - in that they’ve criminal histories of violence. And there are illegals who’ve committed theft, and fraud, etc.
By no means should they be considered for citizenship.
As far as identity theft - if they’ve used fake identities to obtain credit by fraud, that’s malum in se, and no different than any other theft. But if they’ve used a fake identity only to allow them to work, that’s malum prohibitum, and I’d be willing to have a conversation about whether or not to allow them a path to citizenship - after we’ve secured the border.
I’m not going to argue that they should or should not be allowed in. Any such discussion is premature, until after we’ve secured the border. When we have, I’ll be willing to discuss these issues on their merits. But while the border remains insecure, there’s no point in having such a discussion.
I am solidly opposed to any “comprehensive” immigration plan. We need to deal with the problems and the issues, one by one, one at a time. And securing the border has to come first.
What unadulterated BS.
There’s no need to wait for a secure border to know that illegals don’t belong here and shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
And as to your excusing of their criminality:
MALA PROHIBITA. Those things which are prohibited by law, and therefore unlawful.
2. A distinction was formerly made in respect of contracts, between mala prohibita and mala in se; but that distinction has been exploded, and, it is now established that when the provisions of an act of the legislature have for their object the protection of the public, it makes no difference with respect to contracts, whether the thing be prohibited absolutely or under a penalty. 5 B. & A 5, 340; 10 B. & C. 98; 3 Stark. 61; 13 Pick. 518; 2 Bing. N. C. 636, 646.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mala+prohibita
True the mods added the date to the title. But if you’ll look at the line below the
title you’ll see the following and that was there in the original post. The mods
didn’t add or change that line.
No big deal, take care.
The HIll ^ | July 03, 2013 | Daniel Strauss
I don't think the OP intended to misrepresent the article as 'breaking news'. I think it was simple human error.
More to the point, the article sheds light on the thinking of someone who may soon be a major contender for the office of President. In that wise, it's important data for us to have.
That's all.
You are completely incorrect.
The line below the title originally had January 26. 2015. that is what motivated me, trisham, and one or two others to ask the question about the date.
This item doesn't belong in "breaking news." It belongs in chat/general, or personal/bloggers. It isn't a news story.
Originally, I had assumed this was an innocent error. But so many people on this thread have weighed in with the false claim that the original posting date was truthful, that I'm genuinely wondering if there is not an agenda here.
Big deal, if so: FReepers shouldn't lie to other FReepers.
Take care.
Two years ago, Marco Rubio was everybody's darling on FR; then he got behind the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill in the Senate. Now he's fallen off the radar. [Justifiably so, IMHO. I'm not an amnesty advocate.]
So far, so good.
But suppose I posted an article, purporting to be from yesterday, which had Rubio's previous, known, much older and more conservative position on immigration in Breaking News and suppose also that I dated the article as January 26th, 2015. And suppose, as actually happened, that Rubio was among many potential presidential hopefuls speaking at a big conservative forum over the last several days.
Now finally suppose that, after the date was changed to the correct date by the mods, I continued to pretend that I had been truthful about the original article date all along.
If you don't think I would have been charcoal broiled over that, you haven't been paying attention to FR etiquette very long.
Truthfulness matters. If I wanted to be lied to for "worthy causes" I'd go to a Leftwing forum.
Walker was in a fight for his political life with arguably the most powerful -- and except possibly for the SEIU -- most radical union in the United States. Both he and his local fundraisers and supporters were being attacked and indicted by Wisconsin DA's with no scruples about abusing the powers of their several offices to bring him down. If, in extremis, he accepted money from the Koch's and took a conciliatory position toward a topic near and dear to them in order to survive, I would be willing to at least listen to a change in his position when he went to the national stage.
And, like you, I would be very skeptical of his motives and his direction.
But what I would not do is deliberately distort his position by presenting an old statement as yesterday's story. If you would, that reflects badly on you, and perhaps more importantly, on whatever candidate you evidently prefer.
Click the following and look at the 2nd line, the one below the title. That is orginal
and wasn’t changed by the mods. That is the line I’m referencing and others are also.
All the mods did was add [July 03, 2013] to the title.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3250940/posts
The HIll ^ | July 03, 2013 | Daniel Strauss
WRONG. STOP POSTING THIS CRAP. IT ISN’T TRUE.
I didn’t start this thread, but I have linked to this among other stories when others ask about his pro-amnesty/open borders positions. He’s stated them numerous times, and these reports, less then two years old, are appropriately referenced.
IMO you’re an idiot if you’re open to his mouthing something else should it become expedient in his run for the presidency. With the Koch brothers and Murdoch both solidly pro-amnesty, I don’t expect his like to try that, however.
And yes, this thread should have identified the date of the story—though it doesn’t make it any less relevant to considerations of Walker and 2016.
Gov. Walker backs citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants
The HIll ^ | January 26, 2015 | Daniel Strauss
At 6:53 PM, trisham, referencing my post, pinged a Mod and both the title and article time were corrected before YOU posted to me at 7:00 PM.
I REFERRED TO THIS DATE IN MY POST at #18. Why would I refer to an incorrect date in my post when the date was "correct" [and at that point there was no date in the title?]
Answer: I wouldn't. If the date hadn't been incorrect, I would have had nothing to point out, and the mods wouldn't have had any need to add the corrected date to the title, either.
Please post some links of the “numerous times.” I’m dying to see them. Especially if they’re more recent than July 2013.
Here’s one from six months ago:
Here he was 14 months ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/11/20/2972351/scott-walker-backtracks-immigration-reform/
But earlier in 2013 he did multiple interviews with the press expressing variations on what was communicated in the article for this thread.
So be it........
The story from July 14th of this year contains nothing by way of new statements or policy and is mostly Walker lamenting the arrival of so-called "unescorted" minors. There is nothing substantial there, except that he calls their arrival problematic, and says he doesn't want them to "disappear" into legal placements. That's hardly a call for Amnesty. The article from 11/2013 actually walks back his remarks from July of that year; this is also not helpful to your cause. At least not among literate people.
Your "numerous" articles turns out to be: zero.
I'm not a Walker fan, but your claim that you had "numerous" articles about Walker's enthusiasm for Amnesty is just more dishonesty from the people on this thread, which opened with a dishonest post to begin with.
Ok.
Wrong, wrong, wrong—Scott Walker is on video and recorded by multiple news outlets just two years ago spewing just the sort of open borders/pro-amnesty propaganda that the article of this thread documents.
He has never disowned those views, and yet you somehow think that his position shouldn’t be made clear to other Freepers, that somehow he simply understandably sold out then and won’t keep selling out in the future, and therefore you repeatedly hurl insults at those posting the evidence and the truth.
I’ve had enough of your evil bullying on this thread.
Nobody is insulting anyone. I asked you to document your position, and you couldn’t. Now you reply as if you’ve been ill used. No. You weren’t. You made claims that you couldn’t substantiate and now you’ve doubled down on the claims but there’s still no proof. Just “multiple” and “numerous” claims without evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.