It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DerBeobachter
That´s almost the whole population of the former US, except the afro americans(brought to the former US, as slaves) and native americans, that shouldn´t be comfortable!
We are talking about I L L E G A L immigrants and i didn´t learn that the occupiers were invited by the native americans, the so called indians. To legally murder them, to legally steal their land, to legally make them alcoholics, drug addicts and put them in concentration camps, called reservations...
originally posted by: seasonal
It does if the number (%) is insignificant.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Jonjonj
But it also doesn't automatically mean criminal and there are a few legal options that allow people to argue a special situation.
If you are going to cite the law then you have to understand that it isn't the oversimplification often cited in soundbites.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Jonjonj
I did read it. Your response didn't really addressing the point of that post either.
Invasion is not justified and apologists don't have the moral right to hide behind current laws.
Be that as it may, current laws don't say what you think they do.
originally posted by: Jonjonj
The thread is about government position on illegal immigrants.
Nothing more nor less than that. You brought in criminal and all that hoopla and guess what?
NO SURPRISE THERE!
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Jonjonj
The thread is about government position on illegal immigrants.
You told me to read the post you were replying to. I figured that was the context and not the OP.
Nothing more nor less than that. You brought in criminal and all that hoopla and guess what?
NO SURPRISE THERE!
Makes no difference in your oversimplification of the matter. That is why people are always "SURPRISED" when someone is released or given a stay or something similar.
originally posted by: Jonjonj
I refuse to teach you basic English comprehension. Pay me and I might.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Jonjonj
I refuse to teach you basic English comprehension. Pay me and I might.
I don't need nor am I asking your to teach me anything.
I'm saying that your statement is an oversimplification of the current immigration laws and therefore incorrect.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Jonjonj
That is wrong as well.
Your claim that illegal is illegal is what I am arguing against. There is a whole process and legal options that a person can use to change illegal to legal.
So your oversimplification is incorrect.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Jonjonj
It isn't in my eyes. The legal procedures exist. You can't even argue against that.
You can argue that they shouldn't exist but that doesn't mean that they don't.