But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana? Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?
Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining our futures."
...
"In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends."
-- Edward Snowden
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
We all know that this is true of startups; if a startup grows too quickly, it risks losing the culture which enabled it to succeed in the first place. Risk-takers are slowly drowned out by risk-avoiders, and eventually the startup loses its drive. Is it so crazy that the same would be true of states?
I posit that there's nothing unjust about regulating the rate of influx into a society, and plenty unjust about flouting those regulations and cutting one's place in line.
Incidentally, Edward Snowden should be hanged by the neck until dead; quoting him is hardly compelling.
Hopefully we can continue to marginalize people with such an opinion. Exposing government corruption should never be a capital offense.
Betraying one's country should always be a capital offense. Snowden violated his NDA; he betrayed his colleagues and his fellow citizens; he fled into the hands of China and Russia; he revealed legitimate and legal operations which he had no business revealing. He's a traitor.
If I want someone hung or burned at the stake, its those who trample the civil rights of myself and my fellow citizen for the illusion of safety when none can be guaranteed.
It has not done that. It may or may not have violated what you (and possibly I) might like those rights to be. But wanting doesn't make something so. I would love to restrict subpoena power solely to defendants compelling testimony in their defense, but until it has been so restricted, anyone can be forced to provide evidence to the state. I would love for the Fourth Amendment to apply at border crossings, but the courts—to include the Supreme Court—have repeatedly held that it does not.
The law is not what we want, but what it is. So far as I am aware, NSA has consistently acted within the limits of the law, as interpreted by the courts for decades and centuries. Acting within the limits of the law, incidentally, is precisely what neither Mr. Snowden nor Miss Arce did.
[1] http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to...
Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate?
Does following taxi regulations prevent these events from occurring? If no, then of course not.
The separate question is, can a corporation experience shame?
She is an illegal immigrant, and a shameless criminal, but why should she be ashamed? Braking a law does not necessarily imply anything shameful, and sometimes it is shameful to obey unjust laws. I hope everyone can think of some laws (at least from history) that you'd be proud to break.
Up until the 1960s, blacks were not allowed basic rights and access to many thing, and doing so was considered "criminal". Ditto with gays until recently.
So, anyone fighting against unjust laws are "criminals?
Actually this law made it easier for her to attend college as an undocumented immigrant. But then what ? what are undocumented immigrants that graduate from college supposed to do ? go back to working as cooks and maids ?
Her parents brought her in on a tourist visa at 11, which expired when she was 14. She was only here for three years legally; her family could—and should—have returned to Mexico. Mexico is not some third-world hellhole; it's a developed and civilised country (yes, there's drug violence in some parts; it's still one of the nicer countries in the world). It's hardly like they were refugees from the Sudan.
But whatever her parents did or could do, she had little choice in it as a minor.
> “There is still the stigma that what we did is shameful,” she says. “I’m tired of being ashamed for pursuing my dream, for climbing up the ladder, and for having success.”
She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws. 'I'm pursuing my dreams and being successful' is not a valid counter-argument to 'you're breaking the law.' She's a criminal; she's literally a shameless criminal.