Surge 2014: A debate on Illegal Immigration and US Policies.

[The Archregimancy]

1. You can when innocent lives are at stake.
2. They became your problem when the horrible conditions in their own countries prompted them to flee to the one nation that has gone to great lengths to portray itself as the Land of Opportunity. These are human beings seeking refuge in your country because their own countries have not only failed to protect them, but have become an outright threat to their lives. You don't get to treat them as if they were some undesirable vermin or an unwanted imported gift.

The most plausible reason for the terrible conditions in Central America is genetics. Letting them in unvetted would result in the deterioration of the US' genepool, most likely resulting in the US turning into Brasil Norte.

Now, what's this....

viewtopic.php?p=20877543#p20877543

It's a warning for trolling for describing Central Americans as violent.

Less than one week later, you trump that by openly stating that allowing genetically problematic Central Americans into the US without 'vetting' would "result in the deterioration of the US' genepool". Which certainly sounds like you're openly arguing that Central Americans are genetically inferior.

Since you're not learning, let's escalate this to a *** 1-day ban for trolling Central Americans ***.

[The TransPecos]

Sorry but they are actually illegal aliens. They are not citizens so they are aliens. They do not have the correct documentation to be present in this country so they are here illegally. If in doubt, check the IRS webpage for verification.

It is time to stop sugar-coating illegal acts and presence.

Goodness, man! These are human beings we're talking about, you know, like you and I. You are trying to dehumanize them - it is time to stop sugar-coating your dehumanizing, demonizing and ultimately, baseless rhetoric.

We have a problem on the Mexican border primarily because there is a land bridge available. If your approach is valid, we would take any illegal alien who can somehow set foot on U S territory. Makes an entire joke of any kind of legal immigration, doesn't it! Not mention just how dehumanizing it is for the cartels to force children to be mules, human trafficking, and so on.

There are laws. They need to be enforced. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. But then that's actually the problem isn't it? Congress won't act and the President will not perform his constitutional duty of enforcing the law.

[New Bierstaat]

Sorry but they are actually illegal aliens. They are not citizens so they are aliens. They do not have the correct documentation to be present in this country so they are here illegally. If in doubt, check the IRS webpage for verification.

It is time to stop sugar-coating illegal acts and presence.

Goodness, man! These are human beings we're talking about, you know, like you and I. You are trying to dehumanize them - it is time to stop sugar-coating your dehumanizing, demonizing and ultimately, baseless rhetoric.

He never said they weren't humans. He only said that their presence in the United States is illegal, so therefore, they are illegal aliens.

[Aelyrias]

He never said they weren't humans. He only said that their presence in the United States is illegal, so therefore, they are illegal aliens.

There have been immigrants to the US from Latin America for yonks, nem con. We only care now as there is a media storm, nem con. Why is there a media storm? Because the number of immigrants has dramatically increased, namely the proportion and number of children, which elicits a strong response. Igitur, we can state that what people are railing about is the massive increase in immigrants, not the institution per se. Why? Because some take issue at the perceived detriment this will effect upon the US, others take issue at their indignation.

So let's examine claims:
1) Immigrants bad - take jobs
Jobs are created by demand, demand is affected by the factors 'PACIFIC'. P stands for 'population'. Ergo, more chaps, more demand, more jobs. Huzzah! Difficulties come with the discrepancies of employment, we call this unemployment. This is caused by factors 'VSFSTC'. Applicable to this situation are 'Frictional', 'Structural' and small bits of 'Technological' and 'Cyclical' unemployment. Protests based on frictional are bogus as they imply that more immigrants prolong the time the indigenous population spends looking for a job, which is just life and numbers and has no long term effect.

A structural stance, however when tweaked for meaning more population, means that people will be unable to gain jobs as they have inapplicable skills and qualifications and are geographically immobile. This is also bogus. What do you expect happens when population grows, do more people become unemployed? Not proportionally. Sure, there will be a time lag between when you get a job and when you leave the previous, but this does not preclude the existence of the job. Demand must inevitably grow to require it.

No, it hasn't happened you say. There are still good Muricans out of work. mendax es! Nu-uh. Look at the jobs themselves, the jobs being taken are those left over. Further, immigrants have ludicrously high entrepreneurial rates. Bu-bu-bu-but that siphons market share from the Murican workers. Free market economics; if you can't take it don't dish it out, looks stoopid.

Of the 465 civilian occupations, only four are majority immigrant. These four occupations account for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans comprise 47 percent of workers in these occupations.

CIS

This part makes the above academic anyways.
2) Illegal is illegal.
Ish. Were runaway slaves despicable lowlifes whom northern juries should have convicted? Tis called 'jury nullification'. By the same token, these people are not nasty job-leechers or jobless parasites but refugees. As we have established, the massive rise in number is the bit we care about. This rise is caused by forced displacement, not lax control or Obama's Perfect New World Vision. Anyone who disputes this is wrong. Why would kids risk death, rape, debilitating disease and maiming? Because if they survive they have a shot at the life we all take as given. You think they want to break laws? Moreover, to hell with the definition someone touted of refugee not squaring properly, I know the whole nine yards of that law and it grants them the status.

3) Miscellaneous...
- Resources: yer Murica ain'tcha? Metric butt ton of cash. Mebbe reduce some of dat defence or budget or say, 'ya know what, let's take the hit on the NI to pay for saving lives.' Yer debt is not that much of a deal when it comes to lives, or are you for murdering the refugees. More money means more resources, too. This point seemed singularly impermeable to Viritica, who had modified (mutated) their position ad nauseam by then.
- Sovereignty: err, look that one up. The countries are not passing laws mandating that America look after the poor mites.
- Crime and other security issues: risible. You're a doctor; would you save a baby from death if there was a chance he might cause the extermination of our race? I would. We have no right to impinge upon Human Rights of so many when they need them most to satisfy paranoia. Don't even mention Mara gangs - the US created them in their War on Drugs and, besides, how many of are suggesting that you simply ignore the immigrants, granting carte blanche to any would-be nasties? Nada.

Instead, document 'em all, provide essential services and compassion. Treat the life refugees and not malicious, seditious, calculating crooks. The only point of contention I foresee comes as those against forking out to save lives. Soon they'll be running 'your' country.

And so, chaps and chappettes, the finish. Play fair - some ad hominems were nasty. Also, be cool. My learned friends have sometimes been apt to use dishonest techniques, not truth, to gain edges, as witnessed by the consistent antics of Viritica in maintaining ever smaller and more obscure positions. Bravo Liriena.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

He never said they weren't humans. He only said that their presence in the United States is illegal, so therefore, they are illegal aliens.

There have been immigrants to the US from Latin America for yonks, nem con. We only care now as there is a media storm, nem con. Why is there a media storm? Because the number of immigrants has dramatically increased, namely the proportion and number of children, which elicits a strong response. Igitur, we can state that what people are railing about is the massive increase in immigrants, not the institution per se. Why? Because some take issue at the perceived detriment this will effect upon the US, others take issue at their indignation.

So let's examine claims:
1) Immigrants bad - take jobs
Jobs are created by demand, demand is affected by the factors 'PACIFIC'. P stands for 'population'. Ergo, more chaps, more demand, more jobs. Huzzah! Difficulties come with the discrepancies of employment, we call this unemployment. This is caused by factors 'VSFSTC'. Applicable to this situation are 'Frictional', 'Structural' and small bits of 'Technological' and 'Cyclical' unemployment. Protests based on frictional are bogus as they imply that more immigrants prolong the time the indigenous population spends looking for a job, which is just life and numbers and has no long term effect.

A structural stance, however when tweaked for meaning more population, means that people will be unable to gain jobs as they have inapplicable skills and qualifications and are geographically immobile. This is also bogus. What do you expect happens when population grows, do more people become unemployed? Not proportionally. Sure, there will be a time lag between when you get a job and when you leave the previous, but this does not preclude the existence of the job. Demand must inevitably grow to require it.

No, it hasn't happened you say. There are still good Muricans out of work. mendax es! Nu-uh. Look at the jobs themselves, the jobs being taken are those left over. Further, immigrants have ludicrously high entrepreneurial rates. Bu-bu-bu-but that siphons market share from the Murican workers. Free market economics; if you can't take it don't dish it out, looks stoopid.

Of the 465 civilian occupations, only four are majority immigrant. These four occupations account for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans comprise 47 percent of workers in these occupations.

CIS

This part makes the above academic anyways.
2) Illegal is illegal.
Ish. Were runaway slaves despicable lowlifes whom northern juries should have convicted? Tis called 'jury nullification'. By the same token, these people are not nasty job-leechers or jobless parasites but refugees. As we have established, the massive rise in number is the bit we care about. This rise is caused by forced displacement, not lax control or Obama's Perfect New World Vision. Anyone who disputes this is wrong. Why would kids risk death, rape, debilitating disease and maiming? Because if they survive they have a shot at the life we all take as given. You think they want to break laws? Moreover, to hell with the definition someone touted of refugee not squaring properly, I know the whole nine yards of that law and it grants them the status.

3) Miscellaneous...
- Resources: yer Murica ain'tcha? Metric butt ton of cash. Mebbe reduce some of dat defence or budget or say, 'ya know what, let's take the hit on the NI to pay for saving lives.' Yer debt is not that much of a deal when it comes to lives, or are you for murdering the refugees. More money means more resources, too. This point seemed singularly impermeable to Viritica, who had modified (mutated) their position ad nauseam by then.
- Sovereignty: err, look that one up. The countries are not passing laws mandating that America look after the poor mites.
- Crime and other security issues: risible. You're a doctor; would you save a baby from death if there was a chance he might cause the extermination of our race? I would. We have no right to impinge upon Human Rights of so many when they need them most to satisfy paranoia. Don't even mention Mara gangs - the US created them in their War on Drugs and, besides, how many of are suggesting that you simply ignore the immigrants, granting carte blanche to any would-be nasties? Nada.

Instead, document 'em all, provide essential services and compassion. Treat the life refugees and not malicious, seditious, calculating crooks. The only point of contention I foresee comes as those against forking out to save lives. Soon they'll be running 'your' country.

And so, chaps and chappettes, the finish. Play fair - some ad hominems were nasty. Also, be cool. My learned friends have sometimes been apt to use dishonest techniques, not truth, to gain edges, as witnessed by the consistent antics of Viritica in maintaining ever smaller and more obscure positions. Bravo Liriena.

[Basseemia]

1) Immigrants bad - take jobs
Jobs are created by demand, demand is affected by the factors 'PACIFIC'. P stands for 'population'. Ergo, more chaps, more demand, more jobs. Huzzah! Difficulties come with the discrepancies of employment, we call this unemployment. This is caused by factors 'VSFSTC'. Applicable to this situation are 'Frictional', 'Structural' and small bits of 'Technological' and 'Cyclical' unemployment. Protests based on frictional are bogus as they imply that more immigrants prolong the time the indigenous population spends looking for a job, which is just life and numbers and has no long term effect.

A structural stance, however when tweaked for meaning more population, means that people will be unable to gain jobs as they have inapplicable skills and qualifications and are geographically immobile. This is also bogus. What do you expect happens when population grows, do more people become unemployed? Not proportionally. Sure, there will be a time lag between when you get a job and when you leave the previous, but this does not preclude the existence of the job. Demand must inevitably grow to require it.

No, it hasn't happened you say. There are still good Muricans out of work. mendax es! Nu-uh. Look at the jobs themselves, the jobs being taken are those left over. Further, immigrants have ludicrously high entrepreneurial rates. Bu-bu-bu-but that siphons market share from the Murican workers. Free market economics; if you can't take it don't dish it out, looks stoopid.

But...but...but but but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f38Y0i0-mHA

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Refugees from Central America are like spray paint on a wall? Interesting, I thought they were human beings. Silly me.

They broke the law, and since they are illegal aliens, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Only to taxpaying American citizens.

False

American Permanent Residents have Constitutional Rights
Worker Visa Holders have Constitutional Rights
Student Visa Holders have Constitutional Rights
TPS Visa Holders have Constitutional Rights
Refugees have Constitutional Rights
Illegal Immigrants don't have Constitutional Rights but Human Rights which are established by International Law; also, arguably, since they are now in the jurisdiction of the U.S. they are subject to obey the laws of the land, and that also means upholding the Constitution, which gives them the rights of said document.

Try harder to conceal your xenophobic bullshit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You want to fly unattended children on a plane, drop them off to an airport where they may possibly get lost. And some of these children would probably have little to no documentation on them either.

Do you know what kind of international relations shitstorm would brew from this idea? Even Congo would laugh at how they treat refugees better than us.

What in the name of Zeus makes you think they would just be dropped off at an airport? Do you have any idea how illogical that is? Arrange for them to be picked up by the proper state officials of their respective countries and then send them home.

What "home"?

You DO realize several of those children may be homeless and have nothing in their home countries, right? So, what "home" are you talking about? The municipal dumpster?

[Norstal]

What in the name of Zeus makes you think they would just be dropped off at an airport? Do you have any idea how illogical that is? Arrange for them to be picked up by the proper state officials of their respective countries and then send them home.

What "home"?

You DO realize several of those children may be homeless and have nothing in their home countries, right? So, what "home" are you talking about? The municipal dumpster?

Exactly what I was thinking.

And what makes you think they want, or even capable of, handling such things if they're in a crisis? If their government even cares for these refugees, they wouldn't be refugees in the first place. It's obvious they're trying to escape from something, whether it'd be the state or other circumstances.

Well, forty illegals were just sent home, so I'm assuming the situation was handled well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/undocumented-women-children-deported-honduras-n155606

To which they're going to be, for a lack of a better term, fucked in their home country. Refugees are different than normal immigrants. Refugees are going to be fucked if they go back to where they came from.

Look, if you don't care what happens to them, fine. Just say it. Don't try to hide it by saying our foster system can't handle it or whatever. Although again, I pointed out that the world's last remaining superpower not being able to handle refugees makes us the laughingstock of the world.

[Kiruri]

What in the name of Zeus makes you think they would just be dropped off at an airport? Do you have any idea how illogical that is? Arrange for them to be picked up by the proper state officials of their respective countries and then send them home.

What "home"?

You DO realize several of those children may be homeless and have nothing in their home countries, right? So, what "home" are you talking about? The municipal dumpster?

And several others do have homes, families, etc. both in the us and in their home country, soldi xP

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What "home"?

You DO realize several of those children may be homeless and have nothing in their home countries, right? So, what "home" are you talking about? The municipal dumpster?

And several others do have homes, families, etc. both in the us and in their home country, soldi xP

So does that mean we should deport them all, not judging on a case-to-case basis?

I am not sure what your argument against really is here.

[Ucropi]

I say kick out all the Mexicans and find some american citizens that will work picking fruit for $3 a day.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I say kick out all the Mexicans and find some american citizens that will work picking fruit for $3 a day.

Yea, why don't we just make all native-born American citizens slaves? That'll be more efficient.

[Kiruri]

And several others do have homes, families, etc. both in the us and in their home country, soldi xP

So does that mean we should deport them all, not judging on a case-to-case basis?

I am not sure what your argument against really is here.

not arguing anything, that's why you're not sure what it is.

I was just stating xP two sides of the coin and all that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So does that mean we should deport them all, not judging on a case-to-case basis?

I am not sure what your argument against really is here.

not arguing anything, that's why you're not sure what it is.

I was just stating xP two sides of the coin and all that.

Ah, very well then

[Great Argonia]

I say we build a huge fence with armed guards on the Mexican border to keepmout illegal immigrants. Then we reform the immagration policy to make it a lot easier to get in legally. This should bring in the good ones that will not break laws and contribute to society, while at the same time keeping drug lords, rapists, terrorists, etc out. As for the kids, let them stay, give them a good education, and they could be great productive members of society. Maybe when they are 18 we give them the citizenship test, and if they pass, grant them citizenship.

[Spoder]

I don't want to appear racist, but it helps the economy when people work for a larger salary >.>

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't want to appear racist, but it helps the economy when people work for a larger salary >.>

That isn't really racist >.>

You're right though, but then again if that means that people working for a higher salary boosts the economy, then it seems like more reason to document illegal immigrants. Makes it easier as well to collect taxes and not have to guesstimate by the owner's speculations of the wages of the employee (yes, many businesses that employ illegal immigrants pay extra taxes to compensate for their surplus in income, effectively hiding illegal immigrants behind the books).

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't want to appear racist, but it helps the economy when people work for a larger salary >.>

How could that in any way be taken as a racist comment O_o But yes, larger salaries are always good.

[New Bierstaat]

He never said they weren't humans. He only said that their presence in the United States is illegal, so therefore, they are illegal aliens.

There have been immigrants to the US from Latin America for yonks, nem con. We only care now as there is a media storm, nem con. Why is there a media storm? Because the number of immigrants has dramatically increased, namely the proportion and number of children, which elicits a strong response. Igitur, we can state that what people are railing about is the massive increase in immigrants, not the institution per se. Why? Because some take issue at the perceived detriment this will effect upon the US, others take issue at their indignation.

So let's examine claims:
1) Immigrants bad - take jobs
Jobs are created by demand, demand is affected by the factors 'PACIFIC'. P stands for 'population'. Ergo, more chaps, more demand, more jobs. Huzzah! Difficulties come with the discrepancies of employment, we call this unemployment. This is caused by factors 'VSFSTC'. Applicable to this situation are 'Frictional', 'Structural' and small bits of 'Technological' and 'Cyclical' unemployment. Protests based on frictional are bogus as they imply that more immigrants prolong the time the indigenous population spends looking for a job, which is just life and numbers and has no long term effect.

A structural stance, however when tweaked for meaning more population, means that people will be unable to gain jobs as they have inapplicable skills and qualifications and are geographically immobile. This is also bogus. What do you expect happens when population grows, do more people become unemployed? Not proportionally. Sure, there will be a time lag between when you get a job and when you leave the previous, but this does not preclude the existence of the job. Demand must inevitably grow to require it.

No, it hasn't happened you say. There are still good Muricans out of work. mendax es! Nu-uh. Look at the jobs themselves, the jobs being taken are those left over. Further, immigrants have ludicrously high entrepreneurial rates. Bu-bu-bu-but that siphons market share from the Murican workers. Free market economics; if you can't take it don't dish it out, looks stoopid.

Of the 465 civilian occupations, only four are majority immigrant. These four occupations account for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans comprise 47 percent of workers in these occupations.

CIS

This part makes the above academic anyways.
2) Illegal is illegal.
Ish. Were runaway slaves despicable lowlifes whom northern juries should have convicted? Tis called 'jury nullification'. By the same token, these people are not nasty job-leechers or jobless parasites but refugees. As we have established, the massive rise in number is the bit we care about. This rise is caused by forced displacement, not lax control or Obama's Perfect New World Vision. Anyone who disputes this is wrong. Why would kids risk death, rape, debilitating disease and maiming? Because if they survive they have a shot at the life we all take as given. You think they want to break laws? Moreover, to hell with the definition someone touted of refugee not squaring properly, I know the whole nine yards of that law and it grants them the status.

3) Miscellaneous...
- Resources: yer Murica ain'tcha? Metric butt ton of cash. Mebbe reduce some of dat defence or budget or say, 'ya know what, let's take the hit on the NI to pay for saving lives.' Yer debt is not that much of a deal when it comes to lives, or are you for murdering the refugees. More money means more resources, too. This point seemed singularly impermeable to Viritica, who had modified (mutated) their position ad nauseam by then.
- Sovereignty: err, look that one up. The countries are not passing laws mandating that America look after the poor mites.
- Crime and other security issues: risible. You're a doctor; would you save a baby from death if there was a chance he might cause the extermination of our race? I would. We have no right to impinge upon Human Rights of so many when they need them most to satisfy paranoia. Don't even mention Mara gangs - the US created them in their War on Drugs and, besides, how many of are suggesting that you simply ignore the immigrants, granting carte blanche to any would-be nasties? Nada.

Instead, document 'em all, provide essential services and compassion. Treat the life refugees and not malicious, seditious, calculating crooks. The only point of contention I foresee comes as those against forking out to save lives. Soon they'll be running 'your' country.

And so, chaps and chappettes, the finish. Play fair - some ad hominems were nasty. Also, be cool. My learned friends have sometimes been apt to use dishonest techniques, not truth, to gain edges, as witnessed by the consistent antics of Viritica in maintaining ever smaller and more obscure positions. Bravo Liriena.

Thank you for repeatedly attacking the strawman.

The only thing I mentioned in that post was the validity of the term "illegal alien". They are breaking the law (their presence on US soil is illegal), and an "alien" is defined as:

a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization

so the term is valid.

No more strawmen. This was the only point I posted about. I don't care if they take jobs or not, and I don't care what drove them to come here. The term "illegal alien" is valid, so stop calling it dehumanizing or racist or whatever else.

I will continue to defend the validity of the term "illegal alien" each time you attack someone for using it.

And furthermore, stop denigrating my points of view (and those of others who disagree with you as I do) by using mocking terms and intentionally poor grammar when describing your opponents' points of view. Nobody appreciates being talked down to, and that sort of language isn't going to get anyone to change their minds and agree with you. For someone who ends his "argument" with a "play fair" paragraph admonishing ad-hominems, you're looking like quite the hypocrite right now.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There have been immigrants to the US from Latin America for yonks, nem con. We only care now as there is a media storm, nem con. Why is there a media storm? Because the number of immigrants has dramatically increased, namely the proportion and number of children, which elicits a strong response. Igitur, we can state that what people are railing about is the massive increase in immigrants, not the institution per se. Why? Because some take issue at the perceived detriment this will effect upon the US, others take issue at their indignation.

So let's examine claims:
1) Immigrants bad - take jobs
Jobs are created by demand, demand is affected by the factors 'PACIFIC'. P stands for 'population'. Ergo, more chaps, more demand, more jobs. Huzzah! Difficulties come with the discrepancies of employment, we call this unemployment. This is caused by factors 'VSFSTC'. Applicable to this situation are 'Frictional', 'Structural' and small bits of 'Technological' and 'Cyclical' unemployment. Protests based on frictional are bogus as they imply that more immigrants prolong the time the indigenous population spends looking for a job, which is just life and numbers and has no long term effect.

A structural stance, however when tweaked for meaning more population, means that people will be unable to gain jobs as they have inapplicable skills and qualifications and are geographically immobile. This is also bogus. What do you expect happens when population grows, do more people become unemployed? Not proportionally. Sure, there will be a time lag between when you get a job and when you leave the previous, but this does not preclude the existence of the job. Demand must inevitably grow to require it.

No, it hasn't happened you say. There are still good Muricans out of work. mendax es! Nu-uh. Look at the jobs themselves, the jobs being taken are those left over. Further, immigrants have ludicrously high entrepreneurial rates. Bu-bu-bu-but that siphons market share from the Murican workers. Free market economics; if you can't take it don't dish it out, looks stoopid.

CIS

This part makes the above academic anyways.
2) Illegal is illegal.
Ish. Were runaway slaves despicable lowlifes whom northern juries should have convicted? Tis called 'jury nullification'. By the same token, these people are not nasty job-leechers or jobless parasites but refugees. As we have established, the massive rise in number is the bit we care about. This rise is caused by forced displacement, not lax control or Obama's Perfect New World Vision. Anyone who disputes this is wrong. Why would kids risk death, rape, debilitating disease and maiming? Because if they survive they have a shot at the life we all take as given. You think they want to break laws? Moreover, to hell with the definition someone touted of refugee not squaring properly, I know the whole nine yards of that law and it grants them the status.

3) Miscellaneous...
- Resources: yer Murica ain'tcha? Metric butt ton of cash. Mebbe reduce some of dat defence or budget or say, 'ya know what, let's take the hit on the NI to pay for saving lives.' Yer debt is not that much of a deal when it comes to lives, or are you for murdering the refugees. More money means more resources, too. This point seemed singularly impermeable to Viritica, who had modified (mutated) their position ad nauseam by then.
- Sovereignty: err, look that one up. The countries are not passing laws mandating that America look after the poor mites.
- Crime and other security issues: risible. You're a doctor; would you save a baby from death if there was a chance he might cause the extermination of our race? I would. We have no right to impinge upon Human Rights of so many when they need them most to satisfy paranoia. Don't even mention Mara gangs - the US created them in their War on Drugs and, besides, how many of are suggesting that you simply ignore the immigrants, granting carte blanche to any would-be nasties? Nada.

Instead, document 'em all, provide essential services and compassion. Treat the life refugees and not malicious, seditious, calculating crooks. The only point of contention I foresee comes as those against forking out to save lives. Soon they'll be running 'your' country.

And so, chaps and chappettes, the finish. Play fair - some ad hominems were nasty. Also, be cool. My learned friends have sometimes been apt to use dishonest techniques, not truth, to gain edges, as witnessed by the consistent antics of Viritica in maintaining ever smaller and more obscure positions. Bravo Liriena.

Thank you for repeatedly attacking the strawman.

The only thing I mentioned in that post was the validity of the term "illegal alien". They are breaking the law (their presence on US soil is illegal), and an "alien" is defined as:

a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization

so the term is valid.

No more strawmen. This was the only point I posted about. I don't care if they take jobs or not, and I don't care what drove them to come here. The term "illegal alien" is valid, so stop calling it dehumanizing or racist or whatever else.

I will continue to defend the validity of the term "illegal alien" each time you attack someone for using it.

You can use "illegal alien". It is dehumanizing however when you just shorten it to "illegal".

Hopefully you understand the difference in wording.

[New Bierstaat]

Thank you for repeatedly attacking the strawman.

The only thing I mentioned in that post was the validity of the term "illegal alien". They are breaking the law (their presence on US soil is illegal), and an "alien" is defined as:

so the term is valid.

No more strawmen. This was the only point I posted about. I don't care if they take jobs or not, and I don't care what drove them to come here. The term "illegal alien" is valid, so stop calling it dehumanizing or racist or whatever else.

I will continue to defend the validity of the term "illegal alien" each time you attack someone for using it.

You can use "illegal alien". It is dehumanizing however when you just shorten it to "illegal".

Hopefully you understand the difference in wording.

Precisely, because the word "illegals" by itself implies that their existence itself is illegal, which is not as pejoritive as it is inaccurate, making the user of the term appear uneducated and uninformed (but it is still pejorative as well).

[Aelyrias]

I will continue to defend the validity of the term "illegal alien" each time you attack someone for using it.

Don't worry, it's cool. I did not take issue with you personally, simply prefer to reply to posts directly before me. As you read, my points were mainly not directed against you - I'm aware that the interwebs sometimes mask this and make everything personal. It wasn't.
Purely academically now, no aggression: if they are defined as refugees are they also illegal? Food for thought. It would seem that the two are mutually exclusive, in that the one denotes criminality while the former does not. So the people who are later designated refugees, granted the status, etc. will not be illegal, no? Of course this is not applicable to those at the US/Mexico border, just interesting (unless you delve into distilled semantics, which would be disingenuous )

[New Bierstaat]

I will continue to defend the validity of the term "illegal alien" each time you attack someone for using it.

Don't worry, it's cool. I did not take issue with you personally, simply prefer to reply to posts directly before me. As you read, my points were mainly not directed against you - I'm aware that the interwebs sometimes mask this and make everything personal. It wasn't.
Purely academically now, no aggression: if they are defined as refugees are they also illegal? Food for thought. It would seem that the two are mutually exclusive, in that the one denotes criminality while the former does not. So the people who are later designated refugees, granted the status, etc. will not be illegal, no? Of course this is not applicable to those at the US/Mexico border, just interesting (unless you delve into distilled semantics, which would be disingenuous )

If they are designated as refugees through the proper governmental channels, then no, their presence is not illegal. I don't know exactly how that works.

But please, refrain from using mocking language to describe the viewpoints of people who disagree with you. It's the most sure-fire way I know of to ensure that the other person never considers your point of view.

[Libertarian California]

The recent protests over this surge give me hope.