3 Dead, 8 injured at border


Yet there are numerous cases where I can point to a lawbreaker, and you’ll side with them over the law.

Being illegal, isn’t where the discussion ends. The law itself has to meet a standard. The Founders themselves advocated this, their Rebellion was about there being a higher standard law must answer to.

These are categorically different things.

Murder is aggression against someone; immigration is a matter of people living everyday lives.

There’s nothing inherently grotesque or evil about the latter, it’s a matter of compliance, in the same league as to how well labor hours at a business are recorded, or if your ladders have an OSHA sticker.

Your position is that rights find their origin from Government; I disagree.

You want to put English Common Law doctrine on individual rights aside, I don’t.

I believe in what I put forward CT; no reason why I wouldn’t. It’s American intellectual heritage.


Are you REALLY going to sit there with your bare face hanging out and make the claim that aliens somehow have a “right” to come here?


That’s not what I did, though, is it?


I’m saying an immigration system made by union Lawyers intentionally trying to discourage immigration is in the wrong.

Just like a Gun permit system intentionally trying to discourage gun ownership is in the wrong.

That’s not what the system is supposed to do. Its conduct is below board.


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.


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?