Then what are you doing?
Debating with AS on this topic is waste of time. He’s open borders guy, and that’s the end of the subject. It would be nice if he was concerned about the drugs, the terrorists and the criminals, but like most Democrats, that does not concern him.
Discussing ANYTHING with AS is an exercise in futility.
What did I write, Slim?
What are you saying? I’m asking you to describe it.
Is that what Barry Goldwater was for?
When I read him, it doesn’t sound like it.
WH Floated Dumping Migrants In Democratic Strongholds
When Goldwater said that, there had been very little immigration to the U.S. In the 1950s through the mid 1960s. There are many benefits to legal, controlled immigration when you restrict it to people who benefit this country. Chaotic immigration is not to our benefit.
If Goldwater were alive today and was an open borders advocate, I would oppose him. I am not a puppet who blindly follows the words of ideological icons. If I think they are wrong, I am going to say so. If they are wrong on too many issues, I won’t support them.
Now I am done with AS on this topic because debating him about it is a wasted effort.
In the 1980s. And the 1990s.
There was more illegal immigration per year then, not less. We peaked less than two years after he died.
Trump’s own appointed CBP head has stated that we’re in a 47-year low. A trend that’s been building since 2007.
I did. Perfectly.
I’m asking lay out the reason. Describe it. What is it in your words?
I said exactly what I meant. What I meant was exactly what I said. No rabbit trails, no diversions, no debating what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
But you’re not laying out the reason. Can you do so?
I’m pretty sure that you know what the natural objection here is;
These are voluntary arrangements (no coercion), where both sides wind up better off. So what could they have in common with Slavery, which features neither?
No rabbit trails. What did I say?
Then you’re not actually saying anything.
If you can’t defend or describe your position, it’s basically worthless, as my old Bass instructor would say.
You’re not actually responding to what I said, but what you want me to have said. Defend that straw man yourself.
You’re not giving me anything to respond to.
What is the reason? What are the similarities in motivation you claim are here?
Are you pushing me to go on a fishing expedition to guess what they are?
You only say that because I don’t automatically accept your position.
Civil Law has to follow a standard described by Anglo-Saxon Common Law. If the law doesn’t, it is in the wrong, more so than anyone who breaks that law.
That is an American standpoint on law. The Founders themselves took this up; if you find this position strange,
it’s because you weren’t that familiar with how they thought.
To them, lawbreaking could not only be permissible, but necessary.
We don’t operate a system of “Anglo-Saxon Common Law.” We operate based on the Constitution supplemented by codified legal statutes. Just because YOU think something SHOULD be illegal doesn’t mean that it actually should. Likewise, just because YOU think something SHOULD be legal, doesn’t make it so.
It’s not like it’s difficult to figure out:
“Yes, and the reason is very similar to the ones that have made slavery a fixture of human society for damn near all of history.”
See “I want cheap labor”.
He was comparing the employment side, rather than the worker side. And yes, people who want a free flow of illegal immigrants are VERY similar to slave masters both in function and morality. It’s a similar model of exploitation.
It’s not like the median slaveholder was beating their slaves and starving them. Most gave them adequate food, and weren’t overly cruel. The issue was exploitation and a lack of freedom - which describes Mexicans in a meat packing plant quite well.
Which was based on Anglo-Saxon Common law, so you’re not arguing this. Hence why Revolutionary era Jurists used the latter as precedent all the time.