Activism and U.S. History

[mawilson 2,133]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no

political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

[almaty 19]

I agree w/ you Brother Dean. All BS but I ain't Amish.

you, my new mexican brother..are indeed a right thinking type of guy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

Exactly!

[smoke20 0]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

Exactly!

quit clouding the issue w/ facts please.

[Leney 0]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no

political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

Outstanding

[Jenn! 918]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no

political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

You put right in quotes since no such right exists, correct? So how can you then set the terms by which such a right exists, i.e. through "political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen"?

[Leney 0]

You may only participate in the political process if you are a US Citizen (ie vote).

The only rights which exist are rights guaranteed to US Citizens via the constitution.

Anything not defined within the Constitution are privileges not rights (an example privacy is not a right, it is a privilege)

This is basic 11th grade civics class information.

Civil disobedience is just another word for breaking the law. One could argue (I believe as they have already sarcastically said) tax evasion could be civil disobedience, welfare fraud could be civil disobedience, it's all relative in the liberal way of looking at things if you have the rose coloured glasses to see things that way, I suppose. Have some good things in history come from "law breakers" - arguably, sure. The reason this "sub thread" was created - In the case of illegal immigrants who have broken numerous laws to exist inside of any country to which they have no claim or right to exist - it is not activism, it is breaking the law pure and simple, not for the greater good of other illegals who have preceded or who will follow them - it is a selfish choice to break the law, a risk to the security, health, resources, and an affront to the law by which the country is governed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no

political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

Not just citizens who can vote have rights. Legal Permanent Residents, for example have certain rights here in the U.S. even though they cannot vote. Does the mother of a native born citizen have any justification for remaining here in the U.S. to raise her child? Certainly the child's best interest should come into play here. I think it should depend on many variables, but to say that she has no justification for defying our immigration laws is holding that such laws are supreme and immune to ever being unjust. You can disagree with her perspective and have valid reasons why you disagree, but from her perspective, she is standing up for what is just. Depending on all the details, I don't see why we can't offer her temporary legal status until her son turns 18, with the opportunity to pay fines and eventually apply for citizenship.

[Jenn! 918]

You may only participate in the political process if you are a US Citizen (ie vote).

The only rights which exist are rights guaranteed to US Citizens via the constitution.

Anything not defined within the Constitution are privileges not rights (an example privacy is not a right, it is a privilege)

This is basic 11th grade civics class information.

Civil disobedience is just another word for breaking the law. One could argue (I believe as they have already sarcastically said) tax evasion could be civil disobedience, welfare fraud could be civil disobedience, it's all relative in the liberal way of looking at things if you have the rose coloured glasses to see things that way, I suppose. Have some good things in history come from "law breakers" - arguably, sure. The reason this "sub thread" was created - In the case of illegal immigrants who have broken numerous laws to exist inside of any country to which they have no claim or right to exist - it is not activism, it is breaking the law pure and simple, not for the greater good of other illegals who have preceded or who will follow them - it is a selfish choice to break the law, a risk to the security, health, resources, and an affront to the law by which the country is governed.

I don't know if this was directed to me or not, but if so thanks for the civics lesson,

Totally not my point, but ok...

[mawilson 2,133]

Some here seem to think that anyone acting outside of any law makes that person lawless. A lawless individual is someone who has no regard for laws. An activist, IMO, is someone who will defy a specific rule or law that they find unjust. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are expressing activism through civil disobedience.

The "right" to civil disobedience rests on a person's right to political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen. Foreign citizens have no responsibilities and no

political participation rights in the United States, hence no right to object to any law.

You put right in quotes since no such right exists, correct? So how can you then set the terms by which such a right exists, i.e. through "political participation and

their responsibilities as a citizen"?

I put it in quotes because it's not clear whether or not such right exists. What is clear,

however, is that civil disobedience can only be justified when used as a last resort, i.e.

when the proper legal channels of political participation have been exhausted. The

proper legal channels of political participation for foreign citizens are through their own

governments.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about if you live in Puerto Rico?

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Have any of you heard abot the AMERO?

[Caladan 19]

I don't think it counts as civil disobedience, Stephen, because someone who, say, works illegally, isn't really protesting in a way that's comparable to sitting at the front of the bus. Civil disobedience just doesn't mean ignoring an unjust law because there has to be an act of political expression, but it isn't limited to citizens with voting rights.

[mawilson 2,133]

What about if you live in Puerto Rico?

Part of the US, isn't it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about if you live in Puerto Rico?

Part of the US, isn't it?

Yes. But I believe they don't have equivalent political representation.