Federale's Immigrant Of The Day: Francis Hernandez of Guatamala

[Brit4064]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the bigger portion languishes in detention or in courts usually for years on end, thereby just straining our judicial and penal systems and resources because the problem is just transferred from one agency to the next but the problem still remains, leaving millions upon millions at large. It's a de facto amnesty to me for them to stay on US soil for an open-ended period of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Consider this. All the time they are locked up in detention, whose paying the bill? We taxpayers of course. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to allow them to work and get the tax off them so they are benefiting society?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How could LIFE Act of 2000 help where one of its provisions require INA Sec. 245(i) beneficiaries to stay continuously on US soil, otherwise their coverage benefits will be lost (in contradiction to the 3/10 year bar provision of the above-mentioned IIRAIRA of 1996)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Unique can tell you, most don't get approved under this act because they can't prove continuous residency. What's the point in having it?

[thewomen]

RoughNeighbor, again, I have to say we greatly disagree on what constitutes real harm or those who intend it. Per your description it's limited only to those with bombs strapped to their belts, lunatics in a pilots seat, and others of that ilk. In mine it trickles down to any illegal who willfully and purposefully conducts a criminal act to the detriment of any United States citizen within our borders. I will give an allowance for those infractions where an individual is not harmed, like a speeding ticket or being drunk in public. What won't be forgiven is taking a job from one of our own and causing their children to suffer as a result of it. We shouldn't tolerate having their children in our schools slowing down the class because they can't speak a **** of English. Is it fair for any of our children to be denied what is theirs just so someone who has no right to be here can benefit? I wonder, do you have any school age children of your own? How would you feel if their education were impeded because of the illegals in the class?


You didn't come out and say raids etc. are not a good thing, true, but the innuendo was clear as day.


If it's true many illegals are allowed to abuse our legal system then it needs to be trimmed. If appeals processes are being exploited, those should be discarded and the process be made very simple. Either you're here legally or you are not. It should be that simple. If you're not, home you go, that day. One day, one speedy trial, that's it. If the home country is good enough for the millions there it's good enough for the fool who stole their way into this country.


I can see numerous deficiencies with your piecemeal references. You have a problem with there being a fence on the southern border only? The solution should be appropriate to the problem. It's the Mexican border that produces the vast majority of illegals. It's simple logic to put our energies to that stretch of land. I will say this. We need more than a fence. Our military should be on that border.

I'm not familiar with those specific legal citations you gave. Based on what you said those need to be gotten rid of. The more things written into the law the more loopholes are created. We need to get back to basics. Apply for a visa and if approved, come on it. If not, get out and stay out. If you're caught here illegally you should never be allowed to come back.


4now, here is the site.

http://www.azchamber.com/news/view_article.cfm?ID=564

This has the article about the 54%. There is a new plan being put together to increase the number of illegals turned away. I agree with you concerning the breaking up family garbage. Their families can go with them. People move all the time. Often they are force to when they lose a job or through divorce and other things. The government doesn't step in and make things easier for them. Why should we do it for someone who isn't supposed to be here. I like your graphic, it's cute.



This is off our discussion. Who is Iperson? Is she really the granddaughter of Genghis Khan? If she is, she's very old. Genghis died about 800 years ago. I think she needs to add a few more "grand" prefixes before the daughter.

[Rough Neighbor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thewomen:
RoughNeighbor, again, I have to say we greatly disagree on what constitutes real harm or those who intend it. Per your description it's limited only to those with bombs strapped to their belts, lunatics in a pilots seat, and others of that ilk. In mine it trickles down to any illegal who willfully and purposefully conducts a criminal act to the detriment of any United States citizen within our borders. I will give an allowance for those infractions where an individual is not harmed, like a speeding ticket or being drunk in public. What won't be forgiven is taking a job from one of our own and causing their children to suffer as a result of it. We shouldn't tolerate having their children in our schools slowing down the class because they can't speak a **** of English. Is it fair for any of our children to be denied what is theirs just so someone who has no right to be here can benefit? I wonder, do you have any school age children of your own? How would you feel if their education were impeded because of the illegals in the class? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This "harm to America thing" is becoming so boring. This is my last one on this. My final statement on the subject in my immediately preceding post was: criminality is criminality that shouldn't in any instance be justified and condoned. Interestingly, we're somewhat more on common grounds than we differ on the issue, hence, let's leave it at that. Just like in the famous scholarly anecdote figuring Albert Einstein and Walter Ritz, let's "agree to disagree." By the looks of it, we're not getting anywhere anyway. I prefer to disagree without being too disagreeable.

The illegals taking jobs from Americans is another contentious issue. Again, there would be conflicting studies, researches, and reports out there. So it would again be a case of an 'I say' - 'You say' thing. I'm not so thrilled to get there unless you insist.

And about my children sharing classroom seats with both their legal and illegal immigrant peers, this is only as much I can say. Setting aside my personal opinions, biases, and prejudices about the matter, I totally submit to what the US Supreme Court ruled in 1982 in re: Plyler vs. Doe. This case law is still in effect as we discuss up to this moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You didn't come out and say raids etc. are not a good thing, true, but the innuendo was clear as day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As to what's supposedly implied by my words is a matter of your own opinion, over which I have no control whatsoever. Very seldom do I talk on innuendos, or I can barely remember it, if I ever do so at all. For me that's unnecessary in an anonymous forum on the internet or anywhere else for that matter. I mean what I say and I say what I mean - all the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it's true many illegals are allowed to abuse our legal system then it needs to be trimmed. If appeals processes are being exploited, those should be discarded and the process be made very simple. Either you're here legally or you are not. It should be that simple. If you're not, home you go, that day. One day, one speedy trial, that's it. If the home country is good enough for the millions there it's good enough for the fool who stole their way into this country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How I wish everything is that simple. That's the problem with most of you antis. You talk as if the current immigration mess is as clean and clear cut as everyday logic. But lo and behold, the US of A has the best of the best minds known to all mankind running her government since 1776 onwards. While the arrival of foreigners on her shores is much older than her founding, as early as when the Mayflower dropped anchor on Cape Cod Bay in 1621, the immigration problem that besets this nation today is not at all new. If it’s that simple and easy to solve, why should everybody needlessly live with such troubles everyday then? Or why should it be allowed to flounder into such a magnitude in the first place?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can see numerous deficiencies with your piecemeal references. You have a problem with there being a fence on the southern border only? The solution should be appropriate to the problem. It's the Mexican border that produces the vast majority of illegals. It's simple logic to put our energies to that stretch of land. I will say this. We need more than a fence. Our military should be on that border. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

‘Numerous’ deficiencies, namely… … …?

Okay, let’s talk about why I take issues on the border fence along ‘part’ of the Mexican border (only).

I subscribe to the fact that the magnitude of the immigration mess is a "social reality and a legal impossibility." We as a sovereign nation cannot change (influence perhaps but change? I don’t think so) the nature and character, politically and economically, of another sovereign nation(s) to our south. The 700-mile fence, unbelievably expensive as it is – for a 4,000-mile long aggregate border – is a clear example of a country grappling to find a solution to the unsolvable. "Technological fence," as some exponents refer to it, is no match to the "fundamental common sense” of human creativity.

It may serve as a deterrent for some time, but time has its own way to ‘heal’ temporary misgivings. Eventually, eager prospectors would figure out how to go under it, over it, through it, around it, or just devise sneaky ways across the other unfenced expanse. When oh when has there been any kind of physical barriers built successfully, permanently, against human ingenuity?

So, due to our porous borders and the confused state of our visa structures and processes, and outdated – oftentimes conflicting – immigration laws, we have the 12M undocumented in our midst today. But unfortunately, the available solutions like: amnesty is unthinkable; mass deportation is impossible; raids and checkpoints have palliative effects; systematic self-deportation (through drying up of jobs) is a silly idea.

So what's next? Just enforce the laws on the books? Oh, but don’t forget the piecemeal and patchwork approaches… Then you’ll say it’s simple and easy… just do this and do that… And I say, nahhh! And I ask, how? The arguments will just go round and round… Then suffice it to say that there would still be the 12M illegals in their untouched glory, and counting…

Our military along the border? Members of the National Guard are on call there, by the way. Or better yet, pull out our troops from Iraq and deploy them along the Mexican border. They’re not supposed to be in Iraq in the first place anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm not familiar with those specific legal citations you gave. Based on what you said those need to be gotten rid of. The more things written into the law the more loopholes are created. We need to get back to basics. Apply for a visa and if approved, come on it. If not, get out and stay out. If you're caught here illegally you should never be allowed to come back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That’s so candid, thank you, but also unfair. Please disprove my initial impression that it’s just a waste of time to engage in this debate. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but you tend to be a huge disappointment too. I’m doing my homework whereas you don’t seem to be inclined to do yours even just a bit. Let me tell you, immigration is a very complex issue – very, very complex – that’s why it’s vested in the three major branches of the federal government – the executive, legislative, and judiciary – and not in the states because our Constitution says so.

The two houses of congress (legislative) make, revise, or repeal immigration laws that last (or have been there) for ages and affect the destinies of a lot of people for generations. What you say ‘getting rid of’ or ‘getting back to the basics’ is not an ‘event’ but a long and tedious ‘process’ characterized by a whole lot of bargaining, bickering, and compromises. It sometimes forms part in defining legacies by some administrations (executive), and from it emanates hallmark case laws (judiciary) that form part of how we conduct our business of governance.

Therefore, it should be talked about with the requisite wisdom because one’s reasoning alone based on raw emotions won’t do it. It makes great sense that the brain is located above, not beside, nor below, the heart. Immigration is a very deep and complicated subject that it shouldn’t be dealt with superficially and with shallowness. Having said that, it’s not meant to be an insult but rather as a dare or a challenge. When you’re ready, let’s talk. I’m just always around the corner. As I always say… I’m just a click of the mouse away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4now, here is the site.

http://www.azchamber.com/news/view_article.cfm?ID=564

This has the article about the 54%. There is a new plan being put together to increase the number of illegals turned away. I agree with you concerning the breaking up family garbage. Their families can go with them. People move all the time. Often they are force to when they lose a job or through divorce and other things. The government doesn't step in and make things easier for them. Why should we do it for someone who isn't supposed to be here. I like your graphic, it's cute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This portion isn’t addressed to me but with due respect I can’t hold back the temptation to respond just the same. The new plan isn’t at all new. I mentioned this in one of my previous posts: http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/for...10034541#52710034541

HR 5515 (New Employee Verification Act) or NEVA was first introduced in the spring of 2008. It never even came out of the committee for general floor debate. Naturally it didn’t become law. The new reintroduced version might suffer the same fate. I can’t see any convincing evidence to believe otherwise. Again, piecemeal proposals like this one may never see the light of day without concomitant full-scale reform of the dysfunctional immigration system. Simply because the sum of enforcing dysfunctional parts would just accentuate further the total dysfunction. Random, partial, patchwork, and piecemeal approaches won’t get us out of this mess. I’m willing to put my maximum bet on this anytime, anywhere, and with anybody.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is off our discussion. Who is Iperson? Is she really the granddaughter of Genghis Khan? If she is, she's very old. Genghis died about 800 years ago. I think she needs to add a few more "grand" prefixes before the daughter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Used to be one of the regulars here. Posting sparingly lately. Bade final farewells and goodbyes countless times. Can’t keep any, keeps on coming back instead. I’m groping for descriptive words that would fit, nothing, just an obsessed lunatic.

[thewomen]

To summarize the direction of your answers, applying increased control to diminish illegal immigration won't work. Prior to that you said we have the greatest thinkers. A give and take it away approach isn't acceptable either. We can control our borders if the will exists. The motivation and decision to accomplish what we must is all we need. What they're waiting for is for the rest of us to guess.

I admit I am not an expert beyond what I see and experience outside the houses of government. My fleeting crash course in the immigration "system" left me with more questions than answers. It becomes complex and an entanglement by design. The legislature made it what it is. Each body of law is complex to those not familiar with it's breadth of knowledge. Perhaps that is what needs evaluation and redefined. What are we trying to do? At the root of either extreme position in the debate is a different answer to that question. The further from center the easier the answer. I am not an "anti" by the way.

It doesn't need to be a patchwork. Few are happy with what we see as insufficient effort put to the problem. My own belief is this. It's no different than you and I arguing over our friend wearing a pink dress to a wedding. What we don't know is, she isn't going to a wedding. We weren't privy to that fact. The same holds true in our government and this debate. The arguments made are to a solution not in the minds of those making the decision.

The strategy being carried out is to a different result. We do have the best minds and I agree. There is an objective. One neither side of the known debate will acknowledge, or for that matter, may even be aware of.

Now that we are on the subject of pink. I can't help but notice iperson giving you a hard time. A suggestion if I may. Your graphic should be changed. With a rainbow as it's dominate feature it's attracting the wrong element.

[Rough Neighbor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson.
You keep framing me, RN as you've done throughout those years. You wanted everyone to think I was the one who's obsessed with you all the while you are the one obsessed with me. You succeeded in it quite well but lies have short legs, as they say. I should keep a tally of all your identities and stealthy appearances on other sites- oh how I could prove your obsession with my person. But then you'd frame me as a lunatic so I am not even going to try.
Ironically, you are the one who wants me to keep in touch and stay on the site. Despite "irreconcilable differences", "conflicts of interest", etc. whatever that means.
And you don't listen to what I am telling you, so give me one reason why I should stay here and talk to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

iperson, beyond your accusations that I have multiple ID or that I'm this and that on this site and that I'm visiting other discussion boards on the net, what concrete evidence have you presented to be believable? None! Ok, perhaps now you can show even just one evidence that I have another ID here aside from Rough Neighbor. Just one. But you're frenchybee. That's a common knowledge. You admitted it too. It's you who's doing what you're accusing me of. Whereas I don't have any other and I don't need to have it. I'm happy and doing fine with just one so far.

[Rough Neighbor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thewomen:
To summarize the direction of your answers, applying increased control to diminish illegal immigration won't work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say that. You did. What I said was that the current patchwork and piecemeal solutions won't work. If you have evidence to refute this, please bring it on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Prior to that you said we have the greatest thinkers. A give and take it away approach isn't acceptable either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said this, not me. My 'best of the best minds' statement was in response to what you said that the solution to this grave problem is simple and easy. I asked you why it's not done by these great minds if indeed it's simple and easy as you put it. I stand to be corrected as long as the contradictory evidence is convincing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We can control our borders if the will exists. The motivation and decision to accomplish what we must is all we need. What they're waiting for is for the rest of us to guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what it is. Immigration is a hot-button issue. Lawmakers would be d.amned if they sway to the left and d.amned if they sway to the right. Hence it's best to remain in their comfort zones. They secretly curse why elections come too often. It's a don't ask, don't tell policy as long as their political survivals are never put on the line. Governing is politics and people in government are politicians.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I admit I am not an expert beyond what I see and experience outside the houses of government. My fleeting crash course in the immigration "system" left me with more questions than answers. It becomes complex and an entanglement by design. The legislature made it what it is. Each body of law is complex to those not familiar with it's breadth of knowledge. Perhaps that is what needs evaluation and redefined. What are we trying to do? At the root of either extreme position in the debate is a different answer to that question. The further from center the easier the answer. I am not an "anti" by the way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're an anti and one that's full of hate and ignorance of the whole immigration picture. Real-life crash courses won't suffice (especially one that's emotionally charged as the relationship didn't prosper as you said) when debating on the issue. I can't see any evidence lately to make me believe otherwise.

It brings back to mind one poster who used to be a regular here. An anti-immigrant too, of course. But mind you, he was cuddling an Asian illegal on the other side of his bed all along. And after exhausting every available waivers on the books with the help of the best of the best immigration lawyers, the Asian's undocumented status was legalized. I recall one burger commercial that says: 'Don't bother me, I'm eatin'!'

Hahaha! Oh, you learned from that mistake. And what a h.ell of a bad education it has been, I'm telling you. Well, just the same, it's d.amn if others do, it's not when it's you who's doing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It doesn't need to be a patchwork. Few are happy with what we see as insufficient effort put to the problem. My own belief is this. It's no different than you and I arguing over our friend wearing a pink dress to a wedding. What we don't know is, she isn't going to a wedding. We weren't privy to that fact. The same holds true in our government and this debate. The arguments made are to a solution not in the minds of those making the decision.

The strategy being carried out is to a different result. We do have the best minds and I agree. There is an objective. One neither side of the known debate will acknowledge, or for that matter, may even be aware of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm lost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now that we are on the subject of pink. I can't help but notice iperson giving you a hard time. A suggestion if I may. Your graphic should be changed. With a rainbow as it's dominate feature it's attracting the wrong element. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

iperson is giving me a hard time? Wrong. She tried and failed many times in the past. When the going got tough, she pleaded with me on PM for some letup. Also to no avail. I'm naughty when in the mood and when provoked. Look how she's refusing to argue with me head-on lately. Her excuse is to deflect it by playing dumb as though I were not me but somebody else with multiple ID. Of course that's a flimsy excuse. And she knows that I know it. But the worse thing is that, she knows that I know that she knows it. She's just playing dumb to escape the humiliation.

[Rough Neighbor]

I said give me even just one evidence to support your claim. Then you're here giving me a conjecture and a gut-feel. Give me a glaring proof, say, like one that establishes that you're frenchybee. A post of mine that "occurred right during the time..." doesn't look like a concrete evidence to me. Try again please, and better luck next time. I'm still waiting. Or if you want to debate without playing dumb as if I'm not who I am but another poster with multiple ID, I'm more than ready now that I'm bored.

[Rough Neighbor]

'No doubt in your mind' is hardly a proof. Be considerate to me and probably others who might want these accusations and back-and-forth to be done with once and for all.

[Rough Neighbor]

Here comes the name-dropping again. I don't accept any of those. I'm going out for an hour or two, I hope to see something sensible and convincing when I get back. Byeeee! See yaaa...

[Brit4064]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here comes the name-dropping again. I don't accept any of those. I'm going out for an hour or two, I hope to see something sensible and convincing when I get back . Byeeee! See yaaa... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In here??! You have to be joking

[Rough Neighbor]

Brit, I said 'I hope' I did not say 'I believe...'

[Rough Neighbor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
Run, "Dave", Run!
The cowardly dust behind you won't settle for a while, it's how fast you're running. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm back. Oh my, my, is the Dave quote another accusation? It will add up to your long line of burdens of proof! My going out appeared to you as cowardice, eh? Silly, I went out when the ball was in your park to toss into the open even just one solitary evidence to support your allegations. But till now I can't see any. Let's settle this once and for all, I plead.

[thewomen]

I don't like barging in on something more interesting, but I have to add a few comments.

YOU said:

"You're an anti and one that's full of hate and ignorance of the whole immigration picture. Real-life crash courses won't suffice (especially one that's emotionally charged as the relationship didn't prosper as you said) when debating on the issue. I can't see any evidence lately to make me believe otherwise."


Just because we don't agree on how lax the immigrations laws should be makes me a hater? Was that intended to upset me? I don't think so dear. You'll need to do much better than that to rattle my nerves. Your idea of hate is a sinisterly played watered down version. It dilutes the impression hate has by repetitiously spouting the term and wearing down it's impact. You have no idea what "real" hate is. Real hate is being called a ****** *****. Real hate is being stabbed in the back because you're the wrong color. Real hate is being denied because of your ancestry when you have "EVERY" right to it. I didn't choose being black, and proud of it by the way! The people who broke our immigration laws made a conscience willful choice. There is no hate to it. It's being held accountable for your actions. A crime is a crime and deserves the punishment befitting it.

Where did I say things were emotionally charged? For your information, things ended amicably.

You're lost? I thought you had more smarts than that. Since you like to read old posts, go back a few and read mine on why the border is so porous.

[Rough Neighbor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thewomen:
I don't like barging in on something more interesting, but I have to add a few comments.

YOU said:

"You're an anti and one that's full of hate and ignorance of the whole immigration picture. Real-life crash courses won't suffice (especially one that's emotionally charged as the relationship didn't prosper as you said) when debating on the issue. I can't see any evidence lately to make me believe otherwise."


Just because we don't agree on how lax the immigrations laws should be makes me a hater? Was that intended to upset me? I don't think so dear. You'll need to do much better than that to rattle my nerves. Your idea of hate is a sinisterly played watered down version. It dilutes the impression hate has by repetitiously spouting the term and wearing down it's impact. You have no idea what "real" hate is. Real hate is being called a ****** *****. Real hate is being stabbed in the back because you're the wrong color. Real hate is being denied because of your ancestry when you have "EVERY" right to it. I didn't choose being black, and proud of it by the way! The people who broke our immigration laws made a conscience willful choice. There is no hate to it. It's being held accountable for your actions. A crime is a crime and deserves the punishment befitting it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Just because we don't agree on how lax the immigrations laws should be makes me a hater?" Your words. I say no, our disagreement isn't that narrow and shallow. I don't agree with: 1) the simplistic way you look at the very complex immigration problems, 2) your belief that lawlessness by some immigrants (that I happen to abhor too) is solely to blame for this mess, 3) that the government's status quo enforcement-only, patchwork, and piecemeal solutions would do the trick, and 4) that it's OK to call my views 'retard' and 'cheap' and that discussing with me is a 'waste of time.'

All this taken together (setting aside the thing about your ethnicity that you yourself raised, not me because I didn't know it in the first place, and secondly, I think that's altogether irrelevant in our debate), this makes you an anti and one that's full of hate and ignorance of the whole immigration picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Where did I say things were emotionally charged? For your information, things ended amicably. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't say it, I did. If taken from the proper context of my statement, it's not incorrect. I said: Real-life crash courses won't suffice (especially one that's emotionally charged as the relationship didn't prosper as you said) when debating on the issue. You used the word 'fiancee(sic)' so it's a given to signify amorous affection in reference to him (a visa violator hence an illegal alien), not as a friend, a chum, a companion, a colleague, or anything like that. Deny it if you will but in any form of universally accepted standards, 'emotions' are inevitably involved in this kind of human affair. Whether it ended amicably or in mutual disgust, it didn't change what I said about the fact that 'the relationship didn't prosper.' With this background alone and a crash course derived from it, one isn't so well-equipped to engage in a debate on immigration. That's what I said. And I stand by this statement. You can refute it again all you want.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're lost? I thought you had more smarts than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overestimating your adversary isn't always a wise thing to do. The flaw may rest on an off tangent analogy that derailed the logical flow of the discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since you like to read old posts, go back a few and read mine on why the border is so porous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No thanks. No need. From our exchanges all by themselves, I already read enough to draw my unfavorable conclusion. That to engage in a discussion about immigration based on raw emotions alone absent the required basic background knowledge of the whole picture is faulty.

[federale86]

So iperson and Houston are h.omosexuals? Is that why they are kissing?