It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 3n19m470
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator
I gave you a star, as that seems important to you.
I did comment, good observation. I don't see your point though. Someone who thinks this is dumb isn't allowed to say so?
On the contrary. Just commenting on the ridiculousness of posts such as this.
Also, I see that you skimmed right over the part of my comment that actually addressed the OP. Who is pro-illegal immigration? I haven't seen any evidence of this, although a small fringe group or 2 probably believe in it.
Hence, my point: Why post this, other than to contribute to the echo chamber? Everyone agrees with the OP, illegal immigration is bad. What constitutes illegal immigration is up for debate, but the actual act of illegal immigration to game our system is wrong. Show me evidence of someone saying otherwise.
Ok, you've seen your evidence- Sanctuary cities. They are a thing. Now will you admit this thread isnt just a pointless star grab and is actually relevant to the issues we are facing today?
originally posted by: network dude
This is the simplest way to understand "redistribution of wealth". A person, or persons, who haven't enough money to survive, need to supplement their income somehow. I posit that going to the bank, where money is literally stored in bulk, it the smartest way, and most efficient way to collect that money. But to punish a person simply for trying to acquire the necessary money they require to survive is inhumane. Should these people just starve?
If you disagree with my premise, but you agree with allowing illegal immigration, please explain what makes one law more just than the other. And yes, it's a trap.
eta: included link to why this is a conversation topic:
link to imorality.
There's a difference in opinion on what constitutes illegal immigration, and the bigger difference in opinion is how to combat illegal immigration
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, orshall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact,
originally posted by: narrator
...illegal immigration is bad.
...they actually deport a lot of law-breaking illegals.
originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: network dude
Your point is taken. The fact is illegal immigration is down in the U.S. To further my point, most illegals don't cross the boarders in Mexico.
The people coming to the boarders in caravans, are seeking asylum, not to enter the country illegally, but legally. I say, let them go through the process, and most will be sent home. If most are sent home, no caravans will come. Now, if there are people in those caravans who SHOULD, receive asylum, so be it, that is part of what makes America Great. Protect the inoccent.
You misunderstand me, but I think you're doing it on purpose. For your sake though, I'll explain what I meant, just in case I'm wrong and you actually misunderstood me.