Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading comprehension much? He didn't say they don't have a right to be defended, but rather that they shouldn't be defended by "regular people," ie. US legal citizens.
Got it? Good.
Interesting wording. I won't worry about your comprehension on that.
So we can just circumvent due process, I guess.
Btw...until they are convicted of a crime, even if one has supposed absolute proof against them, yes, they should be defended by counsel, including legal citizens, er, I mean "regular people". It's kind of a key part of our countries operations among its people.
If they have access to better resources it certainly gives them a better chance at life.
Also, it doesn't have to be their natural parents they receive nurturing from, just parental figures. This is why many kids that are adopted turn out well nurtured.
No, I'm sorry, that is not true. That does not fit this board's narrative that illegal aliens are all irresponsible selfish people that can't make the proper decisions for their children, therefore it is a lie.
Ok, you're not getting that Merriam-Webster job I heard was available...
I'm just putting a definition on the intention, which everyone knew anyhow so what was the point really? Probably just wasted typing.
For clarity really, there's 'citizens' and 'aliens'. The latter class split into 'legal' and 'illegal'.
The people who are in favor of massive illegal numbers can't stand to use the word 'alien' because, I guess, it has a bad ring to it. Maybe it implies people from outer space. Really, using anything but the term 'alien' is a kind of sophistry, but...but...phrases like 'illegal immigrant' have this funny softened meaning that imply not only a right to be in the US, but have a sort of fait accompli built into them.
In this case, words have power. 'Illegal alien' implies someone who needs rounding up (which, of course, they do), while 'undocumented worker' implies someone who merely needs a $10 license from a county office. If you say the latter phrase enough, it becomes reality over time.
So let's get back to someone defining illegal citizen then?
How about this then? 'Illegal citizen' is a bit of wordplay, a kind of pun really, which juxtaposes two conflicting terms to make a point. The point is that the person is in a country illegally, yet via extra-legal measures, cannot be removed.
How about this then? 'Illegal citizen' is a bit of wordplay, a kind of pun really, which juxtaposes two conflicting terms to make a point. The point is that the person is in a country illegally, yet via extra-legal measures, cannot be removed.
But I was only hearing an expression of "legal citizen" here on the forum, as in "I am a LEGAL citizen!". Clearly the commenters were saying it for some effect, so they wouldn't be mistaken for another group. This implies there are "illegal citizens" that were unspoken, and hence the reason for me bringing it up.
This implies there are "illegal citizens" that were unspoken, and hence the reason for me bringing it up.
.
My guess instead is that lacking much else to say, it's time for the occasional bon mot to keep the ball rolling. I notice that most posters here are into the one sentence responses, it's all more banter than argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum
You still don't get the job...
Go for it yourself.
Which makes me think of something. I notice that the anti-invasion (anti-illegal? pro-law?) crowd might actually be able to put a rule set on the table, an enforceable one with sufficient resources, as part of their thinking. The pro-invasion (pro-illegal? anti-law?) people are essentially reactionary. Their primary job is to say why a proposed law or policy is illegal, immoral, un-Constitutional, impractical, or some other random objection.
I would find it interesting to see a plan put up by someone who finds mass immigration into the US of Mexicans to be a desireable thing which defines how that is done and how large the exodus should be. Merely expressing a desire for a borderless world or for cheap frozen chickens is intellectually lazy.
Which makes me think of something. I notice that the anti-invasion (anti-illegal? pro-law?) crowd might actually be able to put a rule set on the table, an enforceable one with sufficient resources, as part of their thinking. The pro-invasion (pro-illegal? anti-law?) people are essentially reactionary. Their primary job is to say why a proposed law or policy is illegal, immoral, un-Constitutional, impractical, or some other random objection.
Are you new to the latest threads? Much(not all) of this has already been done. Have fun reading through the 100 or so pages contained in the top 15 threads on the board. It's quite entertaining.
I would find it interesting to see a plan put up by someone who finds mass immigration into the US of Mexicans to be a desireable thing which defines how that is done and how large the exodus should be. Merely expressing a desire for a borderless world or for cheap frozen chickens is intellectually lazy.
You find the mass immigration of Mexicans undesirable? Why? What about mass immigration of Europeans? No problems there, I see...
Are you new to the latest threads? Much(not all) of this has already been done. Have fun reading through the 100 or so pages contained in the top 15 threads on the board. It's quite entertaining.
I've read these kinds of 'discussions' for years, and they usually fall into one of several groups.
The primary variety consists of anti-illegal posters being in favor of either a proposed or passed legislation and the pro-illegal posters explaining why all 100 or so of those bits of law or regulation don't fit into some precise pigeonhole of legality, practicality, or fairness.
The truth is that no rule set, if it restricted illegals below their current numbers, is acceptable. It's a verbal whack-a-mole built atop an underlying notion that the current situation is the minimum acceptable amount of Latino migration, by whatever means.
As close as you'll see to a public policy pronouncement by pro-illegal forces is that yet another amnesty should be introduced, thus locking in the status quo. Without an implemented border closing plan, the details of which you'd never accept of course, all that happens is that the ratchet turns another notch.
I'd be happy to read a clear list of proposals by anyone who finds mass migration reasonable. I'm afraid that the majority of the general public feels burned enough by the last 20 years of 'compromises', that they'll read such a thing with a jaundiced eye.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I won't worry about your comprehension on that.
