Government finally admits: Immigration IS placing huge strain on Britain

[_JS]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch each time the discussion is about open borders vs border enforcement, how often the nazi rascist card is played.

I'll bring it up whenever it is justified.

[BT]

Tanith Jessica Belbin. I believe it was an act of Congress and signed by President Bush so that she and her American partner could compete in the 2006 Olympics.

Kind of devalues the citizenship status when other hard working immigrants must wait years.

Then we are talking about an exception and not the rule. And again frankly, i don't have a problem with citizenship granted by an act of congress in special circumstances. Just as i don't have a problem with highly skilled emigres coming before day laborers.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"I'll bring it up whenever it is justified"

or make false claims like that someone "defended" BNP
but then can not back up the claim when asked to
in other words "reading into things" what you "want to see" as opposed to "whats really there".
bigoted to the point blindedness overshadows reality

[Universe Prince]

On the contrary, the point about me supposedly not supporting immigration has been the cornerstone of your latest "agree with me rant".  Because I don't support the Prince view, let any & everyone in, regardless, is tantamount to not wanting anyone in.  sirs really, by way of what he advocates, doesn't want anyone to immigrate to to the U.S.  Until you have figured the boil of a flaw to that thinking, I see no reason to entertain your questions

The flaw to that thinking, which is to say your thinking, is that it's all false. It's not true. I don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand, but there doesn't seem to be a point to explaining it to you again if you're just going to lie about it.

[sirs]

On the contrary, the point about me supposedly not supporting immigration has been the cornerstone of your latest "agree with me rant".  Because I don't support the Prince view, let any & everyone in, regardless, is tantamount to not wanting anyone in.  sirs really, by way of what he advocates, doesn't want anyone to immigrate to to the U.S.  Until you have figured the boil of a flaw to that thinking, I see no reason to entertain your questions

The flaw to that thinking, which is to say your thinking, is that it's all false. It's not true. I don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand,

Because THAT'S false claim of my position.  You again fail to add the pre-requisate qualifier, so let me fix it, yet again......"you are willing to allow as many legally, but clearly NONE ILLEGALLY".  There, all better.

[Universe Prince]

I don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand,

Because THAT'S false claim of my position.  You again fail to add the pre-requisate qualifier, so let me fix it, yet again......"you are willing to allow as many legally, but clearly NONE ILLEGALLY".  There, all better.

And so you move from making false statements back to making nonsensical statements. At no point, as in never, did I or anyone else suggest there should be more illegal immigration. The position of open borders and/or reduced restrictions on immigration is to allow more people to immigrate LEGALLY. The issue is not now nor has it ever been about legal versus illegal immigration. This repeated bleating of legal/illegal has reached asinine levels.

If you don't care about limiting the number of people who enter, then why do you complain that open borders would let too many immigrants into the U.S.? It would, after all, be letting them in LEGALLY.

[sirs]

I don't know what part of "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all" is difficult to understand,

Because THAT'S false claim of my position.  You again fail to add the pre-requisate qualifier, so let me fix it, yet again......"you are willing to allow as many legally, but clearly NONE ILLEGALLY" .  There, all better.

And so you move from making false statements back to making nonsensical statements.

No, I move from having to make the same point over and over again, since a certain poster keeps ommitting a critical qualifier to my actual position

At no point, as in never, did I or anyone else suggest there should be more illegal immigration. The position of open borders and/or reduced restrictions on immigration is to allow more people to immigrate LEGALLY.

While my position is that we already have a legal means to enter this country.  That's what I've been referring to THIS ENTIRE THREAD. You want to change the law, fine, go for it.  But you continuing to lie about what my position is supposed to be is getting borderline asanine.  Yes, I do NOT support open borders and unfettered entry into this country.  I support structured and legal entry.  Notice that doesn't mean I don't support immigration, or "just a little" immigration.  I support LEGAL immigration, as the laws currently exist.  I am willing to tweak it some to try and make things move a tad faster.  ALL those that follow the legal guidelines for entering this country (did I mention ALL?) may enter     

[Christians4LessGvt]

"You want to change the law, fine, go for it"

problem
they can't
they want tens of millions getting in here non-stop
you can't really do that by changing the laws
because if you're HONEST about it
the American People will say "HELL NO"!
the American People won't allow Congress to pass laws like that
it will be even harder now, because Rush Limbaugh and the "new media" will expose any trojan horse legislation
the American people don't want tens of millions of uneducated, poor, unskilled people pouring in here at those rates
thats why they want the fence built
legally we could allow an orderly immigration flow
but the "open borders" gang want tens of millions more than our laws would allow or the American want allowed in
so we have what we have
a sham is going on
for now they are winning this sham game
but the american people are waking up to it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90SDkhwnEIo

[Universe Prince]

No, I move from having to make the same point over and over again, since a certain poster keeps ommitting a critical qualifier to my actual position

1) Nothing relevant or critical was omitted.
2) Your addition of the "qualifier" is what made the statement nonsensical.
3) The "qualifier" is not critical because, as previously stated, the issue is not now nor has it ever been about legal versus illegal immigration.

While my position is that we already have a legal means to enter this country.

Again you stake out a position on something that was never in question.

While my position is that we already have a legal means to enter this country.  That's what I've been referring to THIS ENTIRE THREAD.

And one of the reasons your posts are so nonsensical comes to light. You're too busy defending things no one has questioned. No one, not a single person, ever said there was not a legal means to enter the country. No one, except you apparently, has been in contention over that point. Your posts might make more sense if you started discussing what people have actually said rather than what no one else has ever said.

You want to change the law, fine, go for it.  But you continuing to lie about what my position is supposed to be is getting borderline asanine.

But I haven't lied about your position. Not even once. I even quoted you extensively at one point. And I even asked you questions to clarify your position, which you still have yet to answer.

Yes, I do NOT support open borders and unfettered entry into this country.  I support structured and legal entry.  Notice that doesn't mean I don't support immigration, or "just a little" immigration.  I support LEGAL immigration, as the laws currently exist.  I am willing to tweak it some to try and make things move a tad faster.  ALL those that follow the legal guidelines for entering this country (did I mention ALL?) may enter

Except that not all who follow the guidelines are actually allowed to enter by the legal system that currently exists. And some of those who are allowed end up waiting for a decade or more to be allowed. I'm starting to think you don't understand the nature of your own position. What we currently have is not a legal system whereby any and all who make their way through a bureaucracy that would tire Theseus are allowed to enter the U.S. The reason for the legal system we have is to keep people out, to prevent many people from entering. So if this is what you support, then yes, once again, you are supporting keeping people from entering the U.S. This is not a lie. This is a fact. If you don't know what you support, that isn't my fault.

[sirs]

Yes, I do NOT support open borders and unfettered entry into this country.  I support structured and legal entry.  Notice that doesn't mean I don't support immigration, or "just a little" immigration.  I support LEGAL immigration, as the laws currently exist.  I am willing to tweak it some to try and make things move a tad faster.  ALL those that follow the legal guidelines for entering this country (did I mention ALL?) may enter

Except that not all who follow the guidelines are actually allowed to enter by the legal system that currently exists.

They should be if no red flags were brought up

And some of those who are allowed end up waiting for a decade or more to be allowed.

Which I've already indicated, I'm willing to decrease extended times such as that.

I'm starting to think you don't understand the nature of your own position.

While I'm completely coherent regarding my own position.  I simply am obligated to keep bringing you back to what my position has always been, since the get go, all the while making every effort not to get angry for having to repeat it, adnaseum

[Universe Prince]

While I'm completely coherent regarding my own position.  I simply am obligated to keep bringing you back to what my position has always been, since the get go, all the while making every effort not to get angry for having to repeat it, adnaseum

You're having to make an effort not to get angry for having to repeat yourself? That is funny. I've repeated arguments questions, explanation over and over and over because you keep lying about what I said and not answering questions, and you're having to make an effort not to get angry? You're repeating your position on matters that no one has called into question while you leave questions relevant to the discussion unanswered, and you're having to make an effort not to get angry? Funny. Very funny.

Here is some advice that might help. Learn to pay attention to what other people say. If no one has challenged a particular notion then chances are really good that you don't need to defend it. Learn to pay attention to what other people say. If someone asks you a question in an attempt to clarify your position, answering the question is more helpful than repeatedly harping on something that has not been questioned. Learn to pay attention to what other people say. These simple things will help to keep you from having to repeat your position and probably lessen the frustration of other people experience while trying to have a discussion with you.

You're having to make an effort not to get angry because you have been repeating your position? Imagine how I feel having to constantly repeat your position and still have you lie about what I say. You're having to make an effort not to get angry? Sheesh.

[sirs]

While I'm completely coherent regarding my own position.  I simply am obligated to keep bringing you back to what my position has always been, since the get go, all the while making every effort not to get angry for having to repeat it, adnaseum

You're having to make an effort not to get angry for having to repeat yourself?

Yes

That is funny.

Not really

I've repeated arguments questions, explanation over and over and over because you keep lying about what I said and not answering questions, and you're having to make an effort not to get angry?

Sorry Prince, the only one lying here is the one who keeps claiming I don't want/support/advocate immigration to this country.  Simply becasue I actually have considered the mindboggling consequences & catastrophic repercussions of the type of open border immigration policy you subscribe to, does not, in any way, equate with me not supporting immigration to this country.  That's your lie.  That would be like me deducing how you apparently support complete anarchy, cradle <--> grave Government control, & internal implosion of this country, since you don't agree with my vision of structured immigration.  I don't "think" that's your position, but if you're gonna play this game of what I must support based on what you support, perhaps I should be making that "reasoned deduction" after all        Well, at least you didn't stoop so low as to call me a nazi racist, like others have

   

[Universe Prince]

Sorry Prince, the only one lying here is the one who keeps claiming I don't want/support/advocate immigration to this country.

Just out of curiosity, who claimed that? I never did, so you must be talking about someone else.

Simply becasue I actually have considered the mindboggling consequences & catastrophic repercussions of the type of open border immigration policy you subscribe to, does not, in any way, equate with me not supporting immigration to this country.

Yes, I know. I've lost count of how many times I have acknowledged that just in this thread alone.

That's your lie.

How can it be my lie when I've never said it? Imagine how I feel having to constantly repeat your position and still have you lie about what I say.

but if you're gonna play this game of what I must support based on what you support,

Actually, it's not a game. It is deductive reasoning. And it isn't based on what I support. It is based on what you said. You're having to make an effort not to get angry? Uh-huh.

[sirs]

Sorry Prince, the only one lying here is the one who keeps claiming I don't want/support/advocate immigration to this country.

Just out of curiosity, who claimed that? I never did, so you must be talking about someone else.

Nope, you (and I suppose Js) have been the ones in this thread laing the groundwork that since I don't support open borders, I by design support letting as few in as possible, perhaps even none.  "you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all or you wouldn't keep bringing up the numbers and complaining about a "flood" of them. So yes, you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America."  Your words, not mine

That's your lie.

How can it be my lie when I've never said it?

See above for a reminder, for who said what

but if you're gonna play this game of what I must support based on what you support,

Actually, it's not a game. It is deductive reasoning.

Well ok, you must obviously be one who is advocating complete anarchy and Federal control of all resources.  I mean, what else can it be, since you don't seem to ascribe to my idea of legal & structured immigration policy.  Simple "deductive reasoning", based on what you support vs what I support

[Universe Prince]

Nope, you (and I suppose Js) have been the ones in this thread laing the groundwork that since I don't support open borders, I by design support letting as few in as possible, perhaps even none.

No one said that. Hint: that sort of screw up is why the paying attention to what people actually say would come handy.

"you are willing to allow some, but clearly not all or you wouldn't keep bringing up the numbers and complaining about a "flood" of them. So yes, you are basically advocating keeping people from immigrating to America."  Your words, not mine

Yes. Please notice that no part of that quote includes the phrases "oppose immigration" "not allowing anyone to enter" or "because you oppose open borders". Also notice that the quote opens with "you are willing to allow some" as in some immigration. Also notice that the "but clearly not all" is immediately followed by a reference to your actual complaint about a flood of immigrants. So, once again, I'm not the one who made a claim that you "don't want/support/advocate immigration to this country." As best I can tell, no one else did either.

Well ok, you must obviously be one who is advocating complete anarchy and Federal control of all resources.  I mean, what else can it be, since you don't seem to ascribe to my idea of legal & structured immigration policy.  Simple "deductive reasoning", based on what you support vs what I support

Sigh. Let's go over this once more. (You're having to make an effort not to get angry?) This time, pay attention. The deductive reasoning is not based on what I support. It is based on what you said. I'll go over this slowly just for you.

T h e

d e d u c t i v e

r e a s o n i n g

i s

n o t

b a s e d

o n

w h a t

I

s u p p o r t .

I t

i s

b a s e d

o n

w h a t

y o u

s a i d.

Did I mention that the deductive reasoning is based on what you said and not based on what I support? How about this: even if I was not a proponent of open borders, the deductions regarding what you said would be exactly the same. Am I getting through yet? Let's try one more. The reason I called it deductive reasoning is because I used what you said as the premises for my deduction.

You're having to make an effort not to get angry? Pooh yi!