Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pe

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e27ds4$6n8$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <942cb$4446de34$45491d12$6683@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote: 
>
> You 'don't care', Mr Summers, for one of the core presumptions of American
> jurisprudence... and you ask others why they don't go someplace more
> 'socialist'?
>
Although you have the moral high ground, Doc, and it cannot be argued that
people must be innocent until found guilty, I think there is cause for a
prima faciae case here.

Without moralising and just resorting to logic alone...

1. Person has (by their own admission) no right to be in country.

2. Person is (demonstrably...pardon the pun :-)) in country.

Can I draw any logical conclusion OTHER than the fact that they are in the
country illegally?

It's a bit like when you were a kid and got caught with your hand in the
cookie jar and strawberry jam from ear to ear... "The dog ate them..."  " I
was just counting how many were left..." " Honest..."



> Ah well... it is a large country, there is room for many folks.

Yes, as an advocate of diversity I would agree. But for the people who wrked
hard to be allowed entry legally, the diversity of culture is cold
comfort...

Pete.

In article <4as3ikFu6fjfU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e27ds4$6n8$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 
>Although you have the moral high ground, Doc, and it cannot be argued that
>people must be innocent until found guilty, I think there is cause for a
>prima faciae case here.
>
>Without moralising and just resorting to logic alone...
>
>1. Person has (by their own admission) no right to be in country.

People have, Mr Dashwood, confessed to a variety of transgressions; that
the admission is grounds for a criminal conviction is, at least in the
United States of America, something which a judge decides.

>
>2. Person is (demonstrably...pardon the pun :-)) in country.
>
>Can I draw any logical conclusion OTHER than the fact that they are in the
>country illegally?

See above about how an admission of guilt does not necessitate a condition
of guilt; a condition of guilt is determined by a judge.

>
>It's a bit like when you were a kid and got caught with your hand in the
>cookie jar and strawberry jam from ear to ear... "The dog ate them..."  " I
>was just counting how many were left..." " Honest..."

A bit... except for the fact that here the subject of discussion is not
children... nor cookies... nor jam... nor canines; to be like something is
not, necessarily, to be the same as something.

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2am0f$snh$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4as3ikFu6fjfU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote: 
>
> People have, Mr Dashwood, confessed to a variety of transgressions; that
> the admission is grounds for a criminal conviction is, at least in the
> United States of America, something which a judge decides.
>
So the fact that they crossed the border illegally cannot be established
until a Judge has ruled on it. Their confession has no validity until a
Judge has ruled on it. Not conducive to argument is it?

Being a person of somewhat independent thought I tend not to rely on judges
to make my mind up for me. In matters of Law, of course, I defer.

I'll restate the above so as to remove the necessity for Legal
interpretation...

1. Someone has no right to be in the country.
2. Same someone is demonstrably in the country.

Can I draw any logical conclusion OTHER than the fact that they are in the
country illegally?

 
>
> See above about how an admission of guilt does not necessitate a condition
> of guilt; a condition of guilt is determined by a judge.

Bad defence. Judge finds them guilty. They ARE in the country illegally. Now
please address the argument instead of making smoke about legal
jurispridence.
> 
>
> A bit... except for the fact that here the subject of discussion is not
> children... nor cookies... nor jam... nor canines; to be like something is
> not, necessarily, to be the same as something.

Well, Gee, Doc... no point in using analogies then, is there?

Pete.

>
> DD
>

In article <4atfruFv07pcU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2am0f$snh$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 

[snip]
 
>So the fact that they crossed the border illegally cannot be established
>until a Judge has ruled on it. Their confession has no validity until a
>Judge has ruled on it. Not conducive to argument is it?

Unless one wishes to say that a confession is the equal of a fact, Mr
Dashwood, there is no 'fact that they crossed the border illegally' based
only on an assertion of 'I am here illegally'.  If a confesssion is the
equal of a fact then... someone who posts to this group has confessed
repeatedly to being the King of England.

>
>Being a person of somewhat independent thought I tend not to rely on judges
>to make my mind up for me. In matters of Law, of course, I defer.

If a status of illegality is not one of these 'matters of Law', Mr
Dashwood, then it seems we are using the language in completely different
ways.

>
>I'll restate the above so as to remove the necessity for Legal
>interpretation...

Mr Dashwood, I'm not sure how you are differentiating between law and
Law, or legal and Legal... but I do not believe it is possible, by
definition, to address a matter of or relating to law (legality) in a
fashion which would 'remove the necessity for Legal interpretation' (caps
original).

>
>1. Someone has no right to be in the country.
>2. Same someone is demonstrably in the country.
>
>Can I draw any logical conclusion OTHER than the fact that they are in the
>country illegally?

Mr Dashwood, I am completely lost.  A country, a border, a 'right to be in
a country'... these do not exist except by the conventions of law.  How
can you s to address them in a manner which ignores law and say you can
draw 'any logical conclusion'?

>
> 
>
>Bad defence. Judge finds them guilty. They ARE in the country illegally. No
w
>please address the argument instead of making smoke about legal
>jurispridence.

Mr Dashwood, I thought the 'them' being addressed were the folks at a
rally supporting illegal immigrants, some of whom were thought, because of
their assertions, to be in the country illegally, themselves.  If this has
been moved-beyond to an actual case where a conviction has been obtained
then I'd like to be able to address the facts of the case; if this is
still in the realm of the hypothetical then it appears you've assumed your
own conclusion.  If a judge finds someone guilty then, by all means, let
them be dealt with according to the law.
 
>
>Well, Gee, Doc... no point in using analogies then, is there?

That might depend on the analogy, Mr Dashwood... I heard one, recently,
along the lines of 'It's just like being alive, except for the fact that
they're dead'.

DD