(11-29-2018 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.

I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".

You again...

Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).

I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!

You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?

Not avoiding that at all. I've specifically said that if a situation arose where a mob of people became violent and needed to be dispersed, then tear gas is an appropriate response.

And to be frank, you haven't asked, until now, how I would stop people from trying to cross. If you could point out where you did before, I'd appreciate that.

Border patrol should continue to stop people trying to cross ILLEGALLY. My preference would be to, frankly, continue what we do now. Use a combination of border agents and UAVs to monitor the border and apprehend people who are not using lawful means to enter the border. That would then result in their deportation. But, from my perspective, if you provide sufficient legal means of entry, then you would decrease the amount of illegal immigration, and you'd primarily only have those trying to commit crimes be those crossing illegally.

Sounds like you are good with the recent use of tear gas to stop those trying to enter illegally. Is that right?

In the end, yes. But there were so many things I would have done differently along the way to the use, that it likely wouldn't have been necessary because the situation would not have arose.

Our administration should be making all efforts to put people into the asylum queue as quick as possible, and they didn't. Instead, they resorted to the most brutish tactics.