Deluge Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Folks are always wary of outsiders coming into their locale. Second, like all things it is a matter of degrees. 5,000 new immigrants is one reality and 1,000,000 + is another. Given limited resources.. slowing immigration only makes sense. Slowing is not the same as ceasing. Thank you, milquetoast, for that flaccid observation. What needs to happen is all illegals need to be rounded up and shipped back to Mexico. They can apply for whatever the hell they want from the OTHER side of the border. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Huh? So is there a space between these that is occupied by some sort of silent yet fed-up majority or outside of that in an entirely different dimension? Nope. No space. There are just different gradations of Neocon before you're in the middle of the swamp with the rest of the Left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 22 minutes ago, Yakuda said: People don't get paroled for legal behavior. Id give this.arguement a C- Well the problem is they're not parolled - they're released on a promise to appear. "I"m a refugee! I qualify!" Ok - well come back in a month and we'll get a hearing set up for you to find out if you qualify. Then they're released inside the US, and vanish. They never show up, they're gone. So it's still an illegal entry at that point. He just wants to pretend that if they follow the law for the first five minutes then any subsequent laws they break don't matter 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 minute ago, CdnFox said: Well the problem is they're not parolled - they're released on a promise to appear. "I"m a refugee! I qualify!" Ok - well come back in a month and we'll get a hearing set up for you to find out if you qualify. Then they're released inside the US, and vanish. They never show up, they're gone. So it's still an illegal entry at that point. He just wants to pretend that if they follow the law for the first five minutes then any subsequent laws they break don't matter That's correct. It's all bs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Share Posted January 22 33 minutes ago, Yakuda said: People don't get paroled for legal behavior. Id give this.arguement a C- They are released on parole so NOT HERE ILLEGALLY. I give your ignorance an F. 33 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Leftists are racists You're the expert at projection. 10 minutes ago, Yakuda said: That's correct. It's all bs. You're a fool to believe anything CdnLIAR writes here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: You're a fool to believe anything CdnLIAR writes here. Awww muffin still scared to talk to me directly i see? LOL Sorry kiddo, what i said was true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Yakuda said: 1. I'll pretend you understand and try again, if the huge number of people crossing the southern border of the US (fact) 2. are doing so illegally (fact) how is it not an invasion. 1. I won't challenge that fact. 2. The common use I defer to is incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. This isn't the colloquial "British Invasion" of The Beatles and Herman's Hermits...it refers to the current immigration context so I'm not willing to loosen the definition to accommodate a social problem. An individual or family crossing the border to seek asylum isn't an invasion, to my analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 43 minutes ago, Deluge said: Thank you, milquetoast, for that flaccid observation. What needs to happen is all illegals need to be rounded up and shipped back to Mexico. They can apply for whatever the hell they want from the OTHER side of the border. Thank you.. Mr. overly emotional for your usual chicken little comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I won't challenge that fact. 2. The common use I defer to is incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. This isn't the colloquial "British Invasion" of The Beatles and Herman's Hermits...it refers to the current immigration context so I'm not willing to loosen the definition to accommodate a social problem. An individual or family crossing the border to seek asylum isn't an invasion, to my analysis. First it's not an individual or family it's thousands upon thousands. Next in the US if you intend to "seek asylum" you do so by presenting yourself at marked point of entry not breaking in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 5 hours ago, ironstone said: It seems to me that Trump is opposed to illegal immigration, especially when it's happening on a massive scale. He is not opposed to immigration, when it is done through legal channels. That's not accurate. Trump severely restricted legal immigration in his last term (while illegal immigration increased) and his plans if he is reelected seem to me more extreme. Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 23 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Thank you.. Mr. overly emotional for your usual chicken little comments. There's nothing to see at the Mexican border. Carry on, please. -- partialobserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Yakuda said: First it's not an individual or family it's thousands upon thousands. Next in the US if you intend to "seek asylum" you do so by presenting yourself at marked point of entry not breaking in. Ok, if you are saying that the mass phenomenon is an invasion, it's not centrally organized. Just go back to my common use definition of you have more questions. I think that the issue with Roxton Road was that they were undeclared in the US Didn't Trudeau close it? Edited January 22 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Ok, if you are saying that the mass phenomenon is an invasion, it's not centrally organized. Just go back to my common use definition of you have more questions. I think that the issue with Roxton Road was that they were undeclared in the US Didn't Trudeau close it? Whether its organized or not is irrelevant. Thats not to say this isnt and that the American left is doing nothing to slow it down. Trudeau is a p****y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, Yakuda said: 1. Whether its organized or not is irrelevant. 1. Ok, well you now see where your opinion forks off from common use as defined... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 What a worthless, lying POS you are. Immigrants aren't being demonized at all by anyone, stupid. Illegal immigration is a huge problem, for real. The Demmies that stooges like you elected in cities like Chi and NYC, who ballyhooed about the rights of illegal immigrants at the top of their lungs, all had a sudden change of heart when busloads of them came in from Texas. When it was just someone else's problem it was no problem at all, but when it became theirs to deal with suddenly it was a problem. Their short-sightedness is also your short-sightedness. Their stupidity is your stupidity. I hope that one day you're gifted the wisdom and intelligence to realize just how dreadfully stupid all of your posts here are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Ok, well you now see where your opinion forks off from common use as defined... Common use is irrelevant. It meets then definition of invasion and that's precisely why what it is. Just like "common usage" says men can have vaginas. They don't regardless of "common usage". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Common use is irrelevant. It meets then definition of invasion and that's precisely why what it is. No it doesn't. That's why I don't accept this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: No it doesn't. That's why I don't accept this. Oh I see it's only an invasion if you accept it is. That's not how it works in the actual world buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Ok, well you now see where your opinion forks off from common use as defined... That's disingenuous. ONE of the definitions includes organization. The others do not. For example one definition he reported was: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere People or things? Do you see the word 'organized' in there anywhere? Do things organize? If i say "My garden has been invaded by weeds", does that mean there's like a central command weed calling the shots? His definition does not deviate in the slightest from the common use. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 5 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That's disingenuous. ONE of the definitions includes organization. The others do not. For example one definition he reported was: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere People or things? Do you see the word 'organized' in there anywhere? Do things organize? If i say "My garden has been invaded by weeds", does that mean there's like a central command weed calling the shots? His definition does not deviate in the slightest from the common use. I think Mikey just likes playing word games. He really isn't a serious thinker at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 2 minutes ago, Yakuda said: I think Mikey just likes playing word games. He really isn't a serious thinker at all. Funny enough i've said precisely the same thing to him a number of times. It's that or everything is about the chuds, and you don't have to pay attention to or answer chuds right? Sadly for some 'discussion' is more about the debate 'tricks and traps' than it is about the debate. Once in a while he'll actually talk about the points but it's like pulling teeth and it never lasts long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Deluge said: There's nothing to see at the Mexican border. Carry on, please. -- partialobserver Your zealousness keeps you from reading accurately. Good thing that you are not paid to be precise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Yakuda said: Oh I see it's only an invasion if you accept it is. That's not how it works in the actual world buddy. You're the one who explained facts vs opinions. Live up to your principles, man. It's not my job to validate your world view... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: No it doesn't. That's why I don't accept this. Gimme a break. Do you call Jan 6th an "insurrection". Did you refer to people who forced their way into the capitol as 'seditious'? Do you say that on Jan 6th "people tried to overthrow the US gov't"? Did you ever say "pandemic of the unvaccinated"? Did you ever use the term "anti-vaxer" when referring to people who didn't get the covid jab? Did you refer to the Freedom Convoy protesters as racists? Stop pretending to be too hung up on the proper definition of words to use "invasion of the border" to describe the situation in Texas. We know from past experience that if the Dems called it "the latinopocalypse" you'd pretend to see machetes and severed heads in their hands. Edited January 23 by WestCanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 4 hours ago, Hodad said: That's not accurate. Trump severely restricted legal immigration in his last term (while illegal immigration increased) and his plans if he is reelected seem to me more extreme. A reasonable person might think that there is a limit to how many people a country can absorb at any one time. Barrack Obama deported more people than Trump, but few people dare to mention that inconvenient fact. People have the right to apply and try to enter most countries legally. They shouldn't have the right to barge in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.