How can pro illegal people ignore the laws? (jobs, citizenship, school)

[GH0ST..]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

"Illegal," "Mexican" and "Mexican flags" should have been clues.

(Who are they. "They" is plural.)

"they" is quoted because it is a singular subject. hence the use of the word "is".

when you say "illegal immigrants" (the subject), you are addressing an entire group. subsequent use of the word "they" references the subject "illegal immigrants". so when you attribute qualities to "they", you are attributing them to the entire group, hence the reason i called you out for generalizing.

[GH0ST..]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

I know so. Bush's approval rating is tied directly to the Iraq debacle. Opinion on illegal immigration is unrelated to Iraq (or Bush).

my point was that initial reaction is sometimes adversed to educated decision-making. i was just using an example.

So, you think lettuce will cost $10 a head? You believe illegal immigrants are starving in their home countries?

i believe that mexico has an extremely high poverty rate, and a much worse standard of living, especially in regards to hot water, plumbing, etc.

Maybe bleeding-hearts support illegals because they feel rather than think. Emotion over reason. Sadly, there's a phenomenon.

you say "feel rather than think" like the two are mutually exclusive. i happen to do both.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by GH0ST..

"they" is quoted because it is a singular subject. hence the use of the word "is".

when you say "illegal immigrants" (the subject), you are addressing an entire group. subsequent use of the word "they" references the subject "illegal immigrants". so when you attribute qualities to "they", you are attributing them to the entire group, hence the reason i called you out for generalizing.

Nice rationalization. A bit of grammar review may help.

Your "calling out" was directed at another member who is not me.

[cousinsal]

Yes, I'm generalizing. MOST are from Mexico, and some from South American countries. Some from Ireland, some from wherever....but most from Mexico.

What is it that you don't understand about "illegal"?

We'll just have to agree to disagree - can't argue with the Open Borders Lobby, if you truly believe that's best for our country. More power to ya, but you're outnumbered.

[GH0ST..]

Originally Posted by cousinsal

Yes, I'm generalizing.

well dont. if you want credibility, argue the facts. you should need to generalize if your point is credible enough to stand alone.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by GH0ST..

my point was that initial reaction is sometimes adversed to educated decision-making. i was just using an example.

Your example is irrelevant, which was my point. That opinions can be fluid is well-known and accepted; meaning your point is rather pointless.

i believe that mexico has an extremely high poverty rate, and a much worse standard of living, especially in regards to hot water, plumbing, etc.

Nearly every country on earth has a lower standard of living than the US. Should nations base immigration law on living standards?

you say "feel rather than think" like the two are mutually exclusive. i happen to do both.

The two can be mutually exclusive. When one supports lawbreakers based on sympathy, I'd say the emotional mind is overriding the rational mind.

[GH0ST..]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Nice rationalization. A bit of grammar review may help.

Your "calling out" was directed at another member who is not me.

sorry about addressing you. simple mistake.

[GH0ST..]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Your example is irrelevant, which was my point. That opinions can be fluid is well-known and accepted. Making such a statement is pointless.

then why say "70-80% against illegals overall" if its just a snapshot of a fluid opinion?

Nearly every country on earth has a lower standard of living than the US. Should nations base immigration law on living standards?

it should definitely be a factor.

The two can be mutually exclusive. When one supports lawbreakers based on sympathy, I'd say the emotional mind is overriding the rational mind.

so using that logic, one who doesnt support anchor babies as citizens is guilty of using emotion over rationale.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by GH0ST..

then why say "70-80% against illegals overall" if its just a snapshot of a fluid opinion?

Read the polls for yourself, and no, I'm not going to do your homework for you. The opinion on illegal immigration has not been fluid.

All we have are snapshots. When you can look into the future, you will have a valid point.

it should definitely be a factor.

Should standard of living be a factor in other areas as well? Why or why not? Should jobs go to the most needy or the best qualified? Should college scholarships go to the slowest or the brightest?

so using that logic, one who doesnt support anchor babies as citizens is guilty of using emotion over rationale.

That's some strange logic you're using. I, for one, don't support anchor babies being citizens because they are used (as pawns) in support of breaking the law.

[GH0ST..]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Read the polls for yourself, and no, I'm not going to do your homework for you. The opinion on illegal immigration has not been fluid.

can you source this? probably not... i dont know why i even ask...

All we have are snapshots. When you can look into the future, you will have a valid point.

nobody predicts the future. they learn from the past.

Should standard of living be a factor in other areas as well? Why or why not?

yes, because imbalance is what contributes to immigration quantities, among other things.

Should jobs go to the most needy or the best qualified?

both. the ones that need it should be provided with unskilled labor that allows them compensation for fairly basic living standards. the best qualified can seek out jobs that require more training and foreknowledge, and therefore compensate better.

Should college scholarships go to the slowest or the brightest?

both. fund as many students as possible. the brightest can go to presitigious schools free, the slowest can go to vocational schools or less prestigious schools for free.

That's some strange logic you're using. I, for one, don't support anchor babies being citizens because they are used (as pawns) in support of breaking the law.

source this information, please. i dont see how an unborn baby can be implicated for a crime that they have no control over. it doesnt make sense.