Examples of the Hysterical pro-illegal immigration crowd

[Universe Prince]

Ummm....excuse me, but do you now have a new definition of "plain site", that I'm not aware of?

Did I say "site"? Holy crap, I did. That was dumb on my part.

You may not believe this, but I went thru that entire rant looking for an answer to the "appropriate adjective" inquiry, and saw nothing but more ranting.

Actually, genius, I do believe it. I'll see if I can walk you through this.

Sirs: Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided?  Perhaps "well intentioned"? Universe Prince: No, Sirs. If I wanted to say any of that, I would have.

Right there in plain sight, first two sentences of the post. Not really hard to find. But yes, I absolutely believe you went through the entire post and could not find it. I kinda figured that is what would happen. I knew I was wasting my time when I wrote the post. I believe even said so in the post. Even now, I'm not sure you're going to see it.

I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law

I'm not the one arguing that not using the words 'hysteria' and 'hysterical' to refer to those people leaves one somehow outside the realm of substantive debate. So I'm not really the one trying to place a stamp of approval on an adjective to describe anyone.

Anyway, you call them whatever you like, Sirs. Your word choice may be wholly inaccurate, ridiculously hyperbolic and ignorantly stupid, but by all means use any words you like.

As for what other terms I might use, I believe I mentioned a couple way back when I first objected to the whole 'hysteria' bit. Actually, I think you used the phrase "in hysterics". Anyway, genius, I'll use whatever I feel is appropriate, though apparently unlike you I do try not to jump immediately to hyperbolic nonsense. Well, I don't have to try that hard, because I generally just don't do it anyway. I learned along time ago that jumping immediately to hyperbolic nonsense is stupid, willfully ignorant, irrational and not in the least bit useful in constructing a substantive argument.

I feel that I'm missing something. Oh yeah. I was going to start using your own debate tactics against you.  I'm sure I can come up with something. Let's see now...

I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law

Oh, so people in law enforcement are never racist or authoritarian? I guess you think they're saints and angels who can do no wrong. So you're going to minimize anything they do wrong, just ignore any racism that crops up? What are you going say? They're just doing their job? Hm? What argument will you use to explain away when white folks are largely trusted their identification is real and brown-skinned folks are disproportionately not trusted their identification is real? That the police there are just enforcing the law? Are you just going play down the racism, thereby facilitating and enabling people to use and get away with racism?  Honestly, Sirs, if you cannot even admit that police officers and legislators can be racist and authoritarian then I don't know how anyone could engage you in substantive debate.

How do you like them apples?

[Universe Prince]

What is the diffrence between jokeing and thanking outside the box?

That seems like a topic for another thread.

For many of the immagrants the  motive is economic , how much are we able to controll the economic circumstances that cause the problems?

I don't know how much we control them, but not dumping cheap surplus corn and grain into their market might help. Of course, we'd have to end the farm subsidies to do that, and even talking about that will get you accused of wanting small farms to be overtaken by evil corporations and wanting to leave the farmers of those small farms to starve.

My favoriate idea is a revamped guest worker program that made it safe and leagal to cross the border , recrossing with a sack of rightfully earned swag a month or two later.

That would be a good step in the right direction. But now you're talking about eroding the authority of the government to control the borders and leaving the borders unsecured. No, really you're not, but that is pretty much the argument thrown at me when I talk about allowing more people to legally more easily enter the country.

What could be changed to change the basic situation and give the leagal immagrant  advantage over the illeagal ?

Letting immigrants enter and leave the country with relative ease would do it. Set up multiple check-in stations, use fingerprint and facial recognition checks to help keep out known violent criminals, get people to declare anything they bring in or take out, make sure they don't show obvious signs of illness (and if they do make them see a doctor or quarantine them or send them back) and let them be on their merry way. Simple and easy to come in. Simple and easy to go out. Then they don't have to sneak across, so then they don't have to work off the books or with false identification bought on the black market, so then they don't have to hide from police (well, maybe from Joe Arpaio and his officers), and all their paychecks get taxed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Also, they can then easily go back to Mexico or wherever when they want and/or need to do so because they no longer have to worry about risking their lives to cross. I have yet to see a substantive argument as to why this cannot and/or should not be done.

Do we even owe our own workers any defense against competition?

I'd ask what do you mean by "we", and what you have in mind as defense against competition, but I'm not sure my poor little ego could stand CU4LG posting that photo of a drawer one more time.

[Plane]

Hmmmm...

   If the system for leagal working visits were improved in the way you just described , would you accept a taller, tougher fence, additional patrolls and a lot more electronic monitoring devices?

If the changes you just listed were enacted to make leagal crossing much easyer to acheive for honest workers and visitors , perhaps this could be understood as a freindly workforce , not a threat.*

But there would be an unfreindly element still and makeing it harder for them at the same time as we made it easy for the honest would be ideal. Is it possible to make it so convienient for the honest to come in at proper gates that we could start assumeing that everyone cutting through the fence was malicious?







*Ignoreing for the moment that a lot of Americans want to be shielded from working competition, honest or not.

[sirs]

You may not believe this, but I went thru that entire rant looking for an answer to the "appropriate adjective" inquiry, and saw nothing but more ranting.

Actually, genius, I do believe it. I'll see if I can walk you through this.

Sirs: Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided?  Perhaps "well intentioned"? Universe Prince: No, Sirs. If I wanted to say any of that, I would have.

Right there in plain sight, first two sentences of the post. Not really hard to find. But yes, I absolutely believe you went through the entire post and could not find it. I kinda figured that is what would happen. I knew I was wasting my time when I wrote the post. I believe even said so in the post. Even now, I'm not sure you're going to see it.

Ummm, Prince, sorry to inform you but that didn't answer the question with what the appropriate Prince-approved adjective is, that was answering with what you wouldn't say, like a punt, as if you're pleading the 5th.  You can't even apply one of the least offensive adjectives I sarcastically used for you, like well intentioned??

I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law

I'm not the one arguing that not using the words 'hysteria' and 'hysterical' to refer to those people leaves one somehow outside the realm of substantive debate. So I'm not really the one trying to place a stamp of approval on an adjective to describe anyone.

I'm not demanding you use my term.  I'm asking you what you would call folks who cry out that AZ law enforcment, their legislature, and their Governor, are being racist & acting as nazis for enforcing existing Federal immigration law.  This is largely the 3rd time I've specifically requested that, and you just keep throwing up more dren.  If you want to plead the 5th, or don't want to answer the question, fine.  It just reinforces what I've been assuming all this time, is all.  You want to keep wasting time with irrelevent tantrums, be my guest

I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law

rant...rant....rant.  How do you like them apples?

I'd like them far better if you'd actually have answered the question being posed

[Universe Prince]

Ummm, Prince, sorry to inform you but that didn't answer the question with what the appropriate Prince-approved adjective is

Sorry to inform you, Mr. Memory, but that wasn't a question you had asked at that point. But you seem to have trouble comprehending plain English. I'm a patient and generous man. To a fault some might say. So I'll go over the answer in more detail in futile hope that this time you can grasp the meaning of it. You said, "Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided?  Perhaps 'well intentioned'?" (Notice that no where in there was the phrase "What is the appropriate Prince-approved adjective?") My answer was "No, Sirs. If I wanted to say any of that, I would have." As in, no, Sirs, I do not want to use the terms or to simply refer to them as 'somewhat misguided' or 'well intentioned'. In reference to your question, this is what 'no' meant. Are you aware of how the word 'no' works in the English language, or do we need to have a thread about that too?

I'm not demanding you use my term.

Sure you are, Mr. "not sure how anyone can have a substantive debate with you".

I'm asking you what you would call folks who cry out that AZ law enforcment, their legislature, and their Governor, are being racist & acting as nazis for enforcing existing Federal immigration law.  This is largely the 3rd time I've specifically requested that, and you just keep throwing up more dren.  If you want to plead the 5th, or don't want to answer the question, fine.  It just reinforces what I've been assuming all this time, is all.  You want to keep wasting time with irrelevent tantrums, be my guest

Don't you ever read? I repeat:
As for what other terms I might use, I believe I mentioned a couple way back when I first objected to the whole 'hysteria' bit. Actually, I think you used the phrase "in hysterics". Anyway, genius, I'll use whatever I feel is appropriate, though apparently unlike you I do try not to jump immediately to hyperbolic nonsense. Well, I don't have to try that hard, because I generally just don't do it anyway. I learned along time ago that jumping immediately to hyperbolic nonsense is stupid, willfully ignorant, irrational and not in the least bit useful in constructing a substantive argument.

I'd like them far better if you'd actually have answered the question being posed

I have answered it. Your failure to read the answer during your rush to your juvenile blathering is not my fault.

[sirs]

Yea, I see...you answered it by not answering it.  I do appreciate you validing my whole supposed misassumption, this entire time. 



 

[Universe Prince]

If the system for leagal working visits were improved in the way you just described , would you accept a taler tougher fence, additional patrolls and a lot more electronic monitoring devices?

Unlikely. I would question all the more why such devices would be needed.

If the changes you just listed were enacted to make leagal crossing much easyer to acheive for honest workers and visitors , perhaps this could be understood as a freindly workforce , not a threat.

Perhaps, over time, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

But there would be an unfreindly element still

Yes, and that makes this different from any other time in our history, including the times we had much greater freedom of immigrant entry, exactly how?

But there would be an unfreindly element still and makeing it harder for them at the same time as we made it easy for the honest would be ideal. Is it possible to make it so convienient for the honest to come in at proper gates that we could start assumeing that everyone cutting through the fence was malicious?

Start assuming? No. Suspect with greater likelihood of being correct, possibly. But then, I still don't see why we need a fence.

[Universe Prince]

Yea, I see...you answered it by not answering it.  I do appreciate you validing my whole supposed misassumption, this entire time. 

There ya go. Any answer you don't like, just call it not answering and declare victory. That, boys and girls, is real "substantive" debate. I mean, you just can't argue with him when he does that, can you? It is as stupid as a ventriloquist's dummy, but you can't argue with it. No siree.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Clip from Civil War by Guns N' Roses

[Plane]

But there would be an unfreindly element still

Yes, and that makes this different from any other time in our history, including the times we had much greater freedom of immigrant entry, exactly how?

There is more now than there was then , and the means exist now to watch the line 24/7 as never did before.

So e have a greater need to hold back the malicious and a greater ability also , if we are determined to use it.

I think that makeing the honest into honored guests who are welcomed at proper ports of entry might stop the dilution of the malicious with the harmless that clogs our enforcement with too many persons to hope to seaparate them , preventing us from treating the honest and malicious diffrently.

[sirs]

Yea, I see...you answered it by not answering it.  I do appreciate you validing my whole supposed misassumption, this entire time. 

There ya go. Any answer you don't like, just call it not answering and declare victory.

LOL...YOU DIDN'T GIVE AN ANSWER PRINCE.  How can I not like it when you didn't even provide it??     

[Plane]

If the system for leagal working visits were improved in the way you just described , would you accept a taler tougher fence, additional patrolls and a lot more electronic monitoring devices?

Unlikely. I would question all the more why such devices would be needed.

Why is that unclear?

   If the obsticles to honest people seeking work were trivial , we would still want the obsticles to dishonest behaviors to be steep.

    Workers seeking work would go to the proper port of entry ,fill out a form, present ID,have their luggage examined and board the bus.

     Smugglers , Pimps , Counterfeiters , Kidnappers , Fugitives ,etc.. would still need to cut the fence in the back country , but  would no longer be surrounded by hoards of relitively innocent  persons who are only smuggling their ability to do work.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Thats right Plane....many of the supporters of mass-immigration-of-poor-non-english speaking-immigrants claim they want "comprehensive immigration reform"....which usually means in large part...amnesty.

Ok fine....give amnesty to 10, 20, 30 million law breakers....but how does that solve or prevent another 10, 20, 30 million more lawbreakers from coming in illegally right after you give amnesty to the one's already here? That would be like if we had a huge problem with bank robbery and we said "well lets give amnesty to everyone thats already robbed a bank".....ok...but how the hell does that prevent the next wave of bank robberies? There are really two issues....dealing with the ones that are already here and preventing tens of millions more that will continue to come and flood our schools/hospitals if we do nothing besides deal with the ones already here.

[Plane]

Thats right Plane....many of the supporters of mass-immigration-of-poor-non-english speaking-immigrants claim they want "comprehensive immigration reform"....which usually means in large part...amnesty.

Ok fine....give amnesty to 10, 20, 30 million law breakers....but how does that solve or prevent another 10, 20, 30 million more lawbreakers from coming in illegally right after you give amnesty to the one's already here?

There is a large portion of the migrant worker population who love their homeland and want to return there .

If we treated them with respect and facilitated their comeings and goings we would thereby know where they were most of the time , few criminal behaviors would be caused or assisted by honest people being conducted openly to their honest work. When their working period is over we should hold a ceremony and a party to send them home properly.

The ones that want to become American citizens should still need to learn English and civics and whatnot as we require now.

[sirs]

The ones that want to become American citizens should still need to learn English and civics and whatnot as we require now.

Boy, that's a mighty racist thing to say there, Plane.  Dare I say, hysterical even?  You Nazi