I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have constantly supported a tighter border, including in this thread but of course you can't hear me say that because I think the Great Wall of Trump is a childish and ineffective solution and anybody who doesn't want the Great Wall of Trump must be in favor of open borders where anyone can just walk in whenever they want. So there is no point in me saying that I want tighter borders as a solution to the drug problem. I could also say that those who traffic in illegal trugs should be prosecuted but you won't hear that, either.And the solution (assuming you see it as a problem) is to:
What would you like to be done with the "economic migrants" that make their living off of trafficking illegal and deadly drugs into this country?
Parents who are so depraved as to have committed the heinous and unnatural crimes of violating our sovereignty and diluting the purity of our cultural heritage cannot be expected to raise moral children.Clearly you're having difficulty understanding the concept of satire.
No such program actually exists. It is, however, the logical next step based on your reasoning that we shouldn't allow immigrants because we don't know what they might do in the future. What separates an illegal immigrant from a baby born in the US to US citizens aside from an accident of birth? Do we have any more ability to determine the future behavior of one over the other?
If our demographics change it won't really affect me. I have been a minority where I live my whole life.As far as I can tell, your fear is that illegal immigrants will change our demographics.
If you let MS13 members come into the country they are more likely to commit a crime than a baby. I don't see how questioning what an illegal alien may do has anything to do with vetting them in Mexico and giving them citizenship. I think you stepped in a hole and you are trying to dig yourself out.Clearly you're having difficulty understanding the concept of satire.
No such program actually exists. It is, however, the logical next step based on your reasoning that we shouldn't allow immigrants because we don't know what they might do in the future. What separates an illegal immigrant from a baby born in the US to US citizens aside from an accident of birth? Do we have any more ability to determine the future behavior of one over the other?
Why would we want to let MS13 members come into the country? Anyway, MS13 is a domestic gang, founded in LA and only exported to Salvador later on.If you let MS13 members come into the country they are more likely to commit a crime than a baby. I don't see how questioning what an illegal alien may do has anything to do with vetting them in Mexico and giving them citizenship. I think you stepped in a hole and you are trying to dig yourself out.
Rocksinmyhead brought up the subject of babies. A baby is innocent and can't be blamed for what parents do. If they are born here they are a citizen. You probably fully support the law in that case.Parents who are so depraved as to have committed the heinous and unnatural crimes of violating our sovereignty and diluting the purity of our cultural heritage cannot be expected to raise moral children.
But wasn't your point that they would lose that innocence because of their criminal parents? Evidently you see illegal entry as more than just a status offence but are unwiling to advocate for harsher penalties. I wonder if what you really want is agreement with your metaphysical ideas.Rocksinmyhead brought up the subject of babies. A baby is innocent and can't be blamed for what parents do.
Most members are Central American, Salvadorans in particular. Is there an exclusion for gang members?Why would we want to let MS13 members come into the country? Anyway, MS13 is a domestic gang, founded in LA and only exported to Salvador later on.
Replying to a satirical post was my point. A baby born on US soil is a citizen. You probably fully support the law in that case.But wasn't your point that they would lose that innocence because of their criminal parents? Evidently you see illegal entry as more than just a status offence but are unwiling to advocate for harsher penalties. I wonder if what you really want is agreement with your metaphysical ideas.
The Buffalo shooter was an eco-socialist racist who hated Fox News and Ben Shapiro"Ask yourself, truly, what has modern conservatism managed to conserve?" the shooter wrote. "Not a thing has been conserved other than corporate profits and the ever-increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit. Conservatism is dead. Thank god. Now let us bury it and move on to something of worth."
If true it's an inconvenient truth for many on this forumI doubt the guy got his talking points from Tucker Carlson for anyone from Fox News considering he trashed the news network and didn't mention Carlson once. He also hated Ben Shapiro, Rupert Murdock, and conservatism. Racist doesn't always equate to Republican. There are many racist leftists, like Joe Biden.
The Buffalo shooter was an eco-socialist racist who hated Fox News and Ben Shapiro
Sounds like a left-leaning nut job to me.
Who said anything about MS13?If you let MS13 members come into the country they are more likely to commit a crime than a baby.
The relative lower rate of violent/property crime committed by illegal immigrants was brought up. Your response was to say: "people are coming here who we have no idea who they are or how they will behave. I don't think we should just take everyone in who comes here." Either you're willing to accept some into the country after some sort of vetting process that somehow determines how they will behave or you don't want any illegal immigrants to be allowed into the country because you don't know how they will behave.I don't see how questioning what an illegal alien may do has anything to do with vetting them in Mexico and giving them citizenship.
We've been over this. I'd suggest reading through the thread.The Buffalo shooter was an eco-socialist racist who hated Fox News and Ben Shapiro
Sounds like a left-leaning nut job to me.
"If illegal immigrants commit crimes, kick them out." Don't you see the irony? Why are they called illegal immigrants? They have already committed a crime. Apply the same logic to anything else. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone so don't arrest them unless they cause serious physical injuries or kill someone.Who said anything about MS13?
The relative lower rate of violent/property crime committed by illegal immigrants was brought up. Your response was to say: "people are coming here who we have no idea who they are or how they will behave. I don't think we should just take everyone in who comes here." Either you're willing to accept some into the country after some sort of vetting process that somehow determines how they will behave or you don't want any illegal immigrants to be allowed into the country because you don't know how they will behave.
The thing is, we don't know how anyone will behave, and their citizenship status has nothing to do with it. So why should we limit this process to illegal immigrants?
Or - hear me out - we could use our existing justice system. If illegal immigrants commit crimes, kick them out. Otherwise, they're innocent until proven guilty. As long as they're willing to be contributing members of society, I don't care what their citizenship status is or where they were born. And until they show that they're unwilling to contribute, I see no reason to go after them.
But should it actually be a crime?"If illegal immigrants commit crimes, kick them out." Don't you see the irony? Why are they called illegal immigrants? They have already committed a crime.
How is that the same logic? Even if you don't kill or injure someone, driving while impaired poses a serious risk to anyone on the road. What risk does an illegal immigrant inherently pose?Apply the same logic to anything else. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone so don't arrest them unless they cause serious physical injuries or kill someone.
I see what you are saying. Let them in then deport the ones who commit a crime while they are in the country. We don't know what risk they pose. Should entering the United States illegally be a crime? If not we have no borders and everyone on this forum has a conniption when someone says we have an open border.But should it actually be a crime?
How is that the same logic? Even if you don't kill or injure someone, driving while impaired poses a serious risk to anyone on the road. What risk does an illegal immigrant inherently pose?
It is a crime to cross the border illegally. It is not a crime to enter the country on a visa and then overstay it. About half the illegals in the country do it that way and it's only a civil offense, not a crime. By your reasoning we have "open airports" not open borders.I see what you are saying. Let them in then deport the ones who commit a crime while they are in the country. We don't know what risk they pose. Should entering the United States illegally be a crime? If not we have no borders and everyone on this forum has a conniption when someone says we have an open border.
If it were not a crime, then no, that would not make it an open border because it is still a civil offense.I was responding to someone who asked if entering the country illegally should be a crime. If it's not a crime that would be an open border wouldn't it?