(11-01-2018 02:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

I was referring to this statement by Mr. O'Rourke:

"...wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

As usual from the left, no distinction is made between lawful and unlawful immigrants.

didn't catch that? Shocker.

Um, there is a word that comes three words later that addresses your comment.

As O'Rourke says, he wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.

I guess you didn't catch that?

Nope, i saw that. I also saw that he did not limit that lawful path to lawful immigrants. That's the part you missed. Twice.

What US immigration laws have the immigrants that are traveling in caravans through Central America broken?

What makes them an illegal immigrant?