Maybe you were, but you weren’t talking about it with me. I asked a few questions about the VA Gov and his controversial statements about 3t abortions.
Well, he MADE the statements. What else do you want to know about it?
Yes, I’m for limited government, therefore, liberal…?
Except I don’t want amnesty, or giving immigrants benefits cost-free.
What this really says, is that you don’t listen. You conveniently read people the way that allows you to feint outrage.
You don’t need amnesty because you don’t believe in international borders. As for benefits, that is a step forward for you. Do you think they should be required to work? That would be a step in the right direction, your first concussion on any immigration issue.
As for “feint outrage” there is no “feint.” I am fully and sincerely disgusted with your open borders position, and your hopes that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by Internet supported Ponzi schemes.
I also had a simple question. Do you support denying entry into this country for terrorists and criminals? I never saw an answer to that question from you, so I have assumed that you do support their entry here to continue and perhaps expand their criminal activities.
This is a straw man – we allowed free entry of immigrants in the 19th century, yet we still clearly had “borders”.
And I by free entry, I mean the largest migration of humans being ever up to that point in history. Something on the order of 12-20 million.
? I’m not making “concessions”, I’ve been saying these things for years, you just don’t read my posts:
Equally, Barry Goldwater, what was he for? It’s really conspicuous to me that you never answer this.
Even just trying to answer that question, completely deflates your accusations here, and you have never once been honest about this.
Nope, your rhetoric isn’t necessary, you can ask the question dispassionately, but you instead try to posture, just like you did here.
Nothing I’ve said is outrageous, you re-contextualize my statement to the most egregious read, as you attempt to get me on the back foot. And you do this over and over.
Sorry Send, but I’m not playing that game. Engage me honestly, or not at all.
No, we did not allow “free entry” in the 19th century. Immigrants had to go through Ellis Island and other check points. Sick people and those with a criminal past were sent home. There were very unfair and racist laws that prevented the Chinese from entering this country for much of the 19th century. We treated them like crap for no good reason.
You need to read some history before you start inventing it for you cause. I’ve written articles for magazines and been paid for them. You can’t “roll me” on these subject with your inventions.
The main “straw men” are the ones you keep building for your open borders policies. You don’t want to admit it, but you and Nancy Pelosi are joined at the hip on this issue.
Yeah they did, Ellis island wasn’t built until 1892.
Even then, Ellis Island only turned away 2% of people coming. It’s own website says this.
If you want that system back, I’ll pile on in a heartbeat. It’s night & day compared to the system we have now.
No, you would not accept the 2% rejection rate. If you did you be against allowing criminals and terrorists into this country, but you are totally mute on that point.
You refuse to answer my question because you know how bad it would make your 100% open border policy look. You want everybody to come and go as they like with their drugs, crime and human trafficking victims.
? I literally quoted myself above talking about terrorists.
This proves my point Send; you’re not being sincere with me, you’re jockeying for position.
Are you just unaware that you’re doing this? Is that what debating is to you?
Why can’t you just say that we need to keep terrorists out of the country? With you it’s all double talk and BS. You write hundreds of pages of crap to hide you points under a bushel.
Come on, say it. We need to weed out criminals and terrorists at out borders. What’s so hard about that?
I can quote mine myself all day. I’ve said it numerous times, mostly in response to either Dave or John. You either weren’t there, or you weren’t paying attention.
I was responding to you here two years ago. You tell me what happened.
I can see why you think that, but in my mind I’m being more descriptive. If I do end up hiding my point, that was by accident. At times I’ve gone back in and simplified my posts when I feel that’s occurred.
How can one “catch” criminals and terrorists if much of our border is unsecure? There are places where a 3-year-old can step across the border with Mexico un-inconvenienced in the slightest. There are even more places where one can drive a Mack TRUCK across the border in the same manner, impeded only by a single strand of barbed wire, or not even that, to stop them. The ONLY way to do this is to build barriers to funnel people to ports of entry who want to come here. At the very least, that would allow us to COUNT them, which we can’t even do now. We have no CLUE how many illegals are in the country today, how they got here or what their intentions for us actually are. We MUST impute ill-will towards us by a percentage of them. To do otherwise is to INVITE another 9/11 or worse, and that would be simply irresponsible.
All right, I’m self-destructing this conversation because we’re in the wrong thread.
Lasting point: just don’t talk about other people about something that’s unrelated to the thread. It’s just rude, and as we can clearly see here, it derails the topic. Is that what you want?
You are self-destructing because your position is untenable. Almost all us here want is the ability to monitor who comes in and out if this country. Is that too much to ask?
We don’t want drug mules to be able to bring their poisons into this country. We don’t want human traffickers to bring their victims into the United States. We don’t want criminals to be able to go back and forth across the border.
Your position indicates that you don’t care about any of these things. You just drone on and on about “natural law” and what Barry Goldwater would done.
Barry Goldwater was a free market conservative, but he was also a law and order conservative. He wanted to protect the integrity of this country. I doubt that he would have been a fan of your open border policies. He would have supported beefing up border security and enforcing the law.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread where someone tells someone else what they think quite as much as this one.
Least I know if I want to know what AS thinks, I need to ask Sendgop.
You know what I think, but you are going to play dense with it. That is the progressive way.
AS supports no borders at all. He has made this clear with one post after another. I believe in working with people for compromises, but keeping criminals out of this country should be a priority. He has skirted that issue continually when I have posed the question. Why is monitoring who comes into the country so controversial for him? I can’t answer that.
You’re just derailing the topic further. I played a part, I’m just as guilty, but continuing this on serves no purpose.
Like I said, when YOU lose the argument, YOU ignore the question. Only an amoral person can ignore the issue of illegal immigrants committing crimes against Americans. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t care about that issue, and neither do you. You and she are one and the same on illegal immigration.
I read your post about your opposition amnesty and benefits. That is just so much claptrap designed to make you seem like some kind of conservative. You have as much in common with Barry Goldwater as Nancy Pelosi has.
Debating you on this issue is a waste of time. I’m done with you on this issue.
I can’t lose the argument; we’re talking about what I believe in.
Nothing I’ve said has contradicted myself, and I’ve long since laid out what I believe in. You simply missed it.
Now take this to another thread please. Here, I’ll make it simple:
Let’s talk about this there. At least that thread is tangentially related.