[shooz]

No, the laws are there to serve society as a whole; not to appease it.

You're kidding, right?

[MRRiley]

No offense but that's incorrect. They can think that if they like but many other peoples use that term or similar ones to designate kinship. In Scotland the term "clan" can be seen as very like. The Romani also have tribes, clans.

Kelly,

I was just trying to further explain to Northern Soul why I interpreted his original comment of "This is true. I wonder which tribes they were from?" as a potentially racist and offensive comment.

As for my comment about them taking offense, I made it based upon experience and follow-on conversations with native American friends when I lived in Colorado and New Mexico.

Mike

[Parallax]

No.
If laws were meant to appease the majority there would be no speed limits, no taxes, minimum wage of $40,000.00 per year.
Most people don't like standing in line at the DMV, so drivers' licenses, registrations, and license plates would not exist. There probably wouldn't be a single environmental law on the books.
Labor unions wouldn't be necessary because we would have a law that said you couldn't be fired, even if you didn't do your job. (sorry shooz, I couldn't resist that one. )

[deadwolfbones]

My only comment on this is that it's a beautifully written article and that both the Philippines and the US should be proud of having produced such an erudite, intelligent guy.

[Nesster]

Sometimes, it takes a visible and well-known person's case - or a spectacular sacrifice (such as setting yourself on fire, facing down a tank, sitting in the front of the bus...) - to tip opinion towards changing the law. In the meanwhile, the law is the law.

[mikemike]

Yes, but that doesn't get us very far does it.

He could have married someone - romantically or simply formally - and been allowed to stay.

I expect he didn't because to have done so would have brought his status to light at a time he didn't want it brought to light. Or because he couldn't find anyone to marry him - who knows?

The question remains though, is the marital status of someone a valid reason to judge where they can and can't live?

Yes it is in this country and in many others. The US still has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, especially out of the 30-40 countries that are generally attractive to live in.

The marital path to citizenship is one that is and has been open for use and abuse for many years, especially for someone as successful as Mr. Vargas. While I always hate the term "victimless crime" it is one of those things where the biggest potential victim is the successful new citizen who is susceptible to exploitation upon terminating the marriage. Otherwise you could say that their spouse is being victimized since they are not able to enter into another legal marriage simultaneously and might lose some reputation as a divorcee the impact of those side effects are minimal in today's society, especially if both parties are gay. It also does not victimize other immigrants because it doesn't count towards quotas like other paths to citizenship or legal working status do.

[shooz]

No.
If laws were meant to appease the majority there would be no speed limits, no taxes, minimum wage of $40,000.00 per year.
Most people don't like standing in line at the DMV, so drivers' licenses, registrations, and license plates would not exist. There probably wouldn't be a single environmental law on the books.
Labor unions wouldn't be necessary because we would have a law that said you couldn't be fired, even if you didn't do your job. (sorry shooz, I couldn't resist that one. )

I see.
It only applies to individuals, not to, say Wallstreet?
$1,000,000,000,000+ extorted and no one went to jail.
But we must worry and discuss a guy who over stayed his time here.
We MUST prevent folks from taking pictures of farms in Florida.

Like I said, you must be kidding, or not reading other threads.

[Parallax]

It only applies to individuals, not to, say Wallstreet?
$1,000,000,000,000+ extorted and no one went to jail.

Now you're catching on!
Remember, there are almost no obstacles that can't be overcome, or problems that can't be solved, if you have enough money or a big enough hammer.

[mikemike]

Sometimes, it takes a visible and well-known person's case - or a spectacular sacrifice (such as setting yourself on fire, facing down a tank, sitting in the front of the bus...) - to tip opinion towards changing the law. In the meanwhile, the law is the law.

My guess is that hes got a plan B if he gets deported back to the Philippines. Maybe his VC buddy will help him score an EB-5, hes got a decades worth of foreign journalism work lined up, or a gig in some other country complete with legit visas which he is already planning on taking.

It remains to be seen whether he is actually going to make a sacrifice and go back to the Philippines and take a job at the Manila Times reporting on bananas and coconuts.

[Northern Soul]

You're joking, right? How much of your income would you give the government if there were no tax laws. I'll bet most people would keep what they earned for themselves. Think most people would run stop signs if the law didn't require them to stop?

I don't like paying tax. Nobody does. But I like having public services, and as a society we have decided that we should have them - I mean, if we're honest, we'd all much rather everyone else paid for the streetlights and the roads and the police and th fire service and the hospitals and so on. But we know - as a society - that we're all better off if we all pay.

If people generally and genuinely thought we'd be better off if no-one paid any tax, then people would be out demonstrating. When the government here has tried to introduce taxes that people deemed unfair their were riots in the street - google for Poll Tax riots. The tax in question lasted only three years.

The fact that we don't have such riots about general taxation is an indication that people accept that it's a necessary evil.

I don't know about Stop signs - we don't have them really. We just use common sense and stop if we need to. We have traffic lights, but we are trialling having them flash at night so you don't have to stop. I imagine that if there was no legal requirement to stop, people would stop if they felt they needed to, and not if they didn't. What do you think would happen?

[Parallax]

The fact that we don't have such riots about general taxation is an indication that people accept that it's a necessary evil.

Yes, we do; but how many people would actually pay them if there were no laws requiring it?

I don't know about Stop signs - we don't have them really. We just use common sense and stop if we need to. We have traffic lights, but we are trialling having them flash at night so you don't have to stop. I imagine that if there was no legal requirement to stop, people would stop if they felt they needed to, and not if they didn't. What do you think would happen?

Hmm. I wonder why they were even invented if there was no need for them.....................
My real issue here is that some people think that the only laws that should be obeyed are the ones they agree with. That thinking is a far greater detriment to society than the laws themselves.

[Northern Soul]

Yes, we do; but how many people would actually pay them if there were no laws requiring it?

We're getting way off topic here. The payment of taxation is pure game theory. The rewards for not paying are quite good (if you get away with it) but if nobody paid, the cost to all of us is tremendous.

I think as a society we agree that we need to make everyone pay so the system is fair, and because, as you say, the temptation to cheat is huge.

Ask most people "Would you like to pay less tax?" and they will say yes.

Ask them if they would like there to be no punishment for people not paying tax, and most will say no I think.

Hmm. I wonder why they [Stop signs] were even invented if there was no need for them.....................
My real issue here is that some people think that the only laws that should be obeyed are the ones they agree with. That thinking is a far greater detriment to society than the laws themselves.

I don't know why you have so many Stop signs. In this country we went down the route of teaching people to drive to a reasonable standard and using common sense instead of leaving instructions at every junction

Who thinks the only laws that should be obeyed are the ones they agree with? I mean, to a certain extent we all do. I believe that in your state you are legally allowed to shoot at Native Americans id there are more than five on your property, for example. Would you defend someone who did that, because their actions were legal? Or would you think that, regardless of what the law said, they had committed an morally unacceptable act?

[shooz]

some people think that the only laws that should be obeyed are the ones they agree with.

With Wallstreet as an exemplar, it's a wonder anyone follows any law.
The difference of course, being their impunity.

Can I have impunity too?

[Northern Soul]

Yes [the marital status of an individual is a valid basis for deciding citizenship] in this country and in many others. The US still has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, especially out of the 30-40 countries that are generally attractive to live in.

It's legal, sure. I asked if it was valid. What difference does it make to the rest of the US if Mr Vargas has a 'sham' marriage, or not?

I can see why being married to someone would give you grounds to stay, but I can't see why not being married to someone is automatically a reason to deport someone.

The marital path to citizenship is one that is and has been open for use and abuse for many years, especially for someone as successful as Mr. Vargas. While I always hate the term "victimless crime" it is one of those things where the biggest potential victim is the successful new citizen who is susceptible to exploitation upon terminating the marriage. Otherwise you could say that their spouse is being victimized since they are not able to enter into another legal marriage simultaneously and might lose some reputation as a divorcee the impact of those side effects are minimal in today's society, especially if both parties are gay. It also does not victimize other immigrants because it doesn't count towards quotas like other paths to citizenship or legal working status do.

So, you'd be happy for him to stay if he'd lied about being in love with someone in church, but because he's lied about his nationality instead, you think he should go?

[Parallax]

using common sense

Common sense isn't all that common here anymore.

I believe that in your state you are legally allowed to shoot at Native Americans id there are more than five on your property, for example.

You believe wrong.