ICE Director: No Illegal Immigrant Should ‘Be Comfortable'

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...

Take it to the court of human rights. In the meantime, illegal here means illegal according to the laws of the USA.

SMH

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.

a reply to: daskakik

What % of the average illegal fits into refugee status from a foreign country?

a reply to: seasonal

I don't know, but I do know that it doesn't make a difference to the point I was making.

a reply to: daskakik

Wouldn't refugee status fit into the "legal options"?

originally posted by: seasonal
Wouldn't refugee status fit into the "legal options"?

Yes but if it is .01%, 1% or 10% doesn't change the point being made.

a reply to: daskakik
It does if the number (%) is insignificant.

originally posted by: seasonal
It does if the number (%) is insignificant.

No because the point is that the option is there. It is even if nobody applies for it.

ETA: If you didn't notice the post I replied to was talking "the laws of the USA" not about how many fit into any one category.

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.

Absolutely not the point. Read the comment I was replying to before you respond.

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: 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.

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: 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: 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.

I refuse to teach you basic English comprehension. Pay me and I might.

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

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.

And I am saying that you have stuck your foot in and should shhh because your argument isn't with me.

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

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.

There is in your eyes. And therein lies the whole bloody problem right now.

Always looking for a way around the rules.

Here are the simple facts: if you are an illegal immigrant be afraid!
Full stop!

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.

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.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and leave this as it is without deciding you are trolling.