What just what does ILLEGAL mean?

Where is this society going? I think it is insane that people seem to either not know what the term "illegal" means or just don't care. In this case I am talking about illegal aliens. Before I say more, I will say that I think there needs to be changes so that some of these people can legally work in the USA. But, why is it that people think that illegal aliens should get any services? Now, some it made the news that there are people who think that illegal aliens should be able to vote in local elections!!! Why should ILLEGAL ALIENS be allowed to VOTE????

These people are here illegally. There are legal ways to enter the United States, but these people choose to not do that. I have to wonder what the people supporting these things would do if they had a person enter their house illegally and then when the home owner's called the police they were told that the illegals could not be remove and in addition that the home owner's were now responsible for providing services to these people. I expect that they would be outraged and would not like it, yet they what to force this on the rest of us.

To be it has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the fact that the person is here illegally. It should be the case in any country that if the person is there illegally that they don't have rights for support, to drive or anything else. Of course emergency health care should be allowed since that is a matter of human kindness.

In a recent discussion in Congress, the House of Representatives, one especially clueless representative stated that the bill was being passed by Republicans in an attempt to harass "law abiding", hard working people. What this idiot, yes, I mean idiot, does not seem to understand is that requiring proof that the person is there legally is not harassing and is just part of proving who you are.

There was a recent news story about trying to get driver's licenses for illegal aliens. It said that there are some people who want to do the public a favor by allowing illegal aliens to drive with a license by claiming that they are safer if they have a license. They also said that these people would drive illegally, if they could not get a license. So, what they are saying is that these people are not following the law by coming to the United States illegally and that they will illegally drive if they can't get a driver's license (either by failing the test or not being able to get a license). Do you think that these people will follow the law and get insurance? I doubt it since it has been shown that they don't care to follow the law in many respects. These people are going to break the law and should be deported. Nothing should be done to make it easier for them to break the law. If they are found to be driving illegally, their vehicles should be taken from them and sold at public auction, and if they are here illegally then they should be deported.

I do think that there should be changes to allow people to take jobs that others will not take, but until then these people should not break the law.

To me, a good guest worker program would be one in which the employer has to pay a fee, such as $1000-$5000, has to pay for the worker's health care or transportation to their native country if they have medical care there, has to pay for the schooling of the worker's children, if the children come with them to the USA and puts up money for a bond to ensure that the worker leaves the country. The worker should have to apply outside the USA and also have to put up money for a bond which they would only get when they return to their country.

One thing that amazes me is that there are many racists who claim that those who think that our border should be protect are racist. We have a border for a reason and we have laws for a reason. If there is a law which says that people are only to cross at the specified border crossings, then that is what they should do. There is nothing racist about supporting that. What is racist is calling others racist in order to get what you want, because of their race.

What is especially humorous is that those who think that the US/Mexico border should be open are not talking about forcing the Southern Mexican border to be open. I guess they consider it acceptable to keep those to the south of Mexico out of Mexico, but don't think that the United States should be able to do the same.

Common sense seems to be lacking in the people who don't think any action should be taken against those that illegally enter the USA. Do you think that those people would allow a person who illegally entered their house to remain there? Of course not. They would call the police and have the criminal removed. But those people don't have the sense to see the same thing in the people who illegally cross the border.

I heard of a recent news story a young high school student got shot by accident as she was not the target of the gang member. The outrage over this is interesting, although it is clear that politics and emotions are taking over instead of logic and reason. One response to this is to try to make it illegal for gang members to be around a school. This is quite interesting since it is suggesting that students at school are somehow more important and valuable than the rest of society. I have to wonder why a gang member would be worried about violating the law by being near a school when they are not worried about killing someone, which is a far more serious crime. What about the rest of us? What about when the students are not at school? Has any thought been given to the concept of "gun free zones" with respect to schools? It is clear that no thought has been put into this concept since the result does not make sense. If gang members belong to an illegal group, then it should be illegal for them to be anywhere in public so as to protect everyone. Then, take away the security and safety provided to criminals by making it illegal for law abiding citizens to carry a firearm to protect themselves and others. That will have much more of an effect that feel good measures. Do they think that criminals are so stupid as to not look around and see if a police officer is around? People are far safer when the criminals don't know who is armed and ready, willing and able to stop them dead in their tracks.

There have been some more high speed chases with the criminal being shot. Some people are outraged about the shootings, since in once case the person was not armed. I am not sure of what these people are thinking, both the people who run and the people who fail to understand that when you run from the police, you stand a very good chance that you will be shot. If you don't like this, then don't run from the police. Personally I think these people should be charged with attempted murder due to all the people they put at risk when they endanger everyone in the community by running at high speed.

Recently there have been commercials for a program called "Gifts for Guns", which is quite interesting if you happen to think, but that does not seem to be a problem with most people in government, as well as many others. The concept is the same as most of the other gun buy back programs, which is seriously flawed and in some cases illegal. The government will buy a firearm from a person with no questions asked and in return they get money, or in the case a gift card. The firearm will be destroyed.

So, what could the problem be with this? First off, often they do not check to see if the firearm was stolen, so the original and rightful owner will not get their property back. This means that the government is dealing with stolen property and since they are not intending to give it back to the legal owner, they are committing a crime and acting as an accessory to the crime. Second, they are creating an easy market for guns used in crimes or stolen firearms. Instead of trying to find a buyer, the government provides the services. Third, often these gun buy backs can harm the investigation of a crime since they don't ask questions and often do not check to see if the firearm was used in a crime. This means that it is a safe and easy way for criminals to dispose of a firearm which could be used to cause their conviction for criminal acts.

The last aspect is whether the government is following the law. In order to transfer a firearm it must go through a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee). I doubt that a FFL is being used, but if there is one then the FFL has no means of recording where the firearm came from, which is a requirement by Federal law. If there is no FFL, then by what law does it allow the government to collect firearms? The firearm is not being taken as evidence.

The legal aspects do not concern those who do these buy backs, nor are they concerned that crimes will go unpunished. They feel that they are going good, when in reality they are creating a great deal of harm, so the law does not apply to them.

There have been some recent commercials, of the public service type, which says that during the holidays there will be zero tolerance to drunk driving because it can kill and injure people. That sounds nice, until you think about it a bit. Saying that there is zero tolerance around holidays, implies that there is some tolerance for it other times. Considering that drunk driving is illegal and causes harm to others, could someone explain why there is not a zero tolerance to drunk driving the rest of the year?

I personally don't think that the criminal charges are high enough for drunk driving as it seems to me to be similar to attempted murder. If a person were to go and shoot a firearm in a crowded area, they would be charged with attempted murder most likely. The streets and roads are crowded with people, the speeds at which people drive can make an accident deadly.

When a person decides to drink, they know what can happen. If they can not control their drinking, then they should not take the first drink or they should make plans to have someone else drive them. I have seen suggestions that breathalyzers be put in all vehicles. This is quite interesting since it follows the typical concept of getting others to pay for the actions of the few. If you want it to be fair, perhaps we should license drinkers and force them to have a breathalyzer in their vehicle. I am not serious about this, but it is an interesting concept for those who want to license things like firearms.