No, I think you misunderstood me. People rise up against oppression with violence. Nations oppress (also violence). But national defense is defense against other nations (so that no one can oppress the people of the nation or overthrow the people's government, etc...). Violence caused by individual people attacking a nation is caused by them being oppressed by that nation. (and violence by individuals against other individuals is for the police, not national defense) Does that clear up what I'm trying to say a little better?

Wait, but wasn't that China oppressing the Tibetan's? And Europeans oppressing natives. And well ww2 is even more complicated (or maybe I just know more about that war) but first the rest of Europe oppressed Germany after ww1, and then of course Germany oppressed tons of people. So don't these examples show my point? That all violence is based on oppression.

I think no, they should do it to help. Parents don't get paid to watch the kids. And the older one gets more privlages because they are older and take on more responsibility.

No, not really. I can't think of any war that wasn't started by oppression. If you can, please give examples.

What about getting a treadmill for her to use? (seriously, i've heard of many people doing this during the winter)

Actually, if the US didn't invade other countries, there would be almost no one who wanted to attack the US. People fight against oppression, when the oppression stops, so does the violence.

THe gov should handle only: justice system, police, national defense. That's it. It's only goals should be to protect the life, liberty, and property of those who reside within its borders.

Depends on the kid.

I think citizenship shouldn't exist, yes. I think the gov should protect people, any people who live within it's boundaries. If someone is a dangerous criminal, they should be in jail. If someone has paid their debt to society, they should be able to live anywhere. No problem, I like giving my opinions :lol:

Yes, I think it is unjust. Read my previous post. I believe that people belong to themselves, not the gov. And I believe in private property. If someone wants to live here and someone rents or sells them a place to live, what business is it of the gov? Does the gov own the private home they live in? I don't think so. Does the gov own the people? I don't think so. So the gov should have no say in it.

Right, and I think education should not be payed for by the gov in any way shape or form. As I said, it would render this whole debate moot. Unfortunately, I do think that the poster was right about the shift in the political climate in the US right now. Fierce devotion to gov where people who disagree are labelled traitors. Fear of safety being grossly inflated by the media. Personal freedoms given up due to these things. I mean people can now be held indefinatly without a trial. "The land of the free" is about as accurate as "work will set you free". It is very sad, but very true. I hope people open their eyes before things progress further in a facist direction. But with talk of conscription and civilian disarmerment, I worry a great deal.

Why should they turn themselves in? Breaking an unjust law is not wrong. I agree with the previous poster about how nationalistic the US is right now. Should Anne Frank have turned herself in? She was breaking the law. People certainly wanted Jews to be "rounded up". Be aware of whose political company you share.

Rounded up? They are people, not cattle. And the US is their home, the OP said she was talking about teens who have lived here for years. I'm sure this is the only home some of them even remember.

I assume you mean either marble is black and either is not gray, or do you mean something else? The first marble has a p of 6/10 for black and 7/10 for not gray. If A and B are dependent events, then the probability of A happening AND the probability of B happening, given A, is P(A) × P(B after A). So there are 3 options for the first marble, black, white, or gray. P(black|(!black)) = 6/9 (i.e. p of black on second if first was either white or gray (if it was black the condition is already met)) P((!gray)|gray) = 7/9 So P(!black) * P(black|!black) = 4/10 * 6/9 P(gray) * P(!gray|gray) = 3/10 * 7/9 Now we just add the p's together so: P(at least 1 black) = P(black, x) + P(x,black) = 6/10 + (4/10 * 6/9) P( at least 1 not gray) = 7/10 + (3/10 * 7/9) I think that is right. I hope that helps. Here is a site I googled for you: http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/math-probability.html

I haven't read any of the other replies, but here is my stance. Firstly, what sort of financial aid are we talking about? Private money, well they can make whatever rules they want. Public money shouldn't be used for any educational financial aid for anyone IMO. So in this case their legal status in irrelevant for me. But since a large part of this discussion is about legal status, I will give me thoughts on that also. I think private property rights should be respected. If someone wants to buy land, and someone who owns it wants to sell it to them, then they should be allowed to buy it and have the same rights as any landowner. The government ought to not have the ability to dictate who can live where. Regarding the issue of breaking the law, no court would find these teens responsible for breaking any law, since they were too young at the time they moved. Additionally, breaking the law is not necisary nor sufficient to deserve punishment if that law is morally wrong. A law is not rightious simply because it is a law. I think the goverment establishing laws that basically render all persons and property to be property of the state is morally wrong. Thoughts? Also feel free to PM me as any replies may get lost in the super long thread.