LeviF

If they otherwise qualified and went through all of the proper channels to obtain naturalization? No. My argument was against your actual position (the bailey): that we should allow unfettered immigration and essentially go borderless.

I have given you one justification, you just don't like it. If you don't like the way the laws are, lobby and vote to change them. It's a non-sequitur because travelling from California to Texas is fundamentally different from travelling from Mexico or Canada or wherever to the United States. There's no comparison to be made until California or Texas secedes, as they are wont to threaten to do. I never said I want the law to say people from Mexico can't come here. Please supply a quote if I did. And if you really want to have fun with google-fu internet forum fallacies, here's one for you: motte and bailey. It's a game you've been playing for four pages in this thread.

Why can't you follow the logic? When did I say anything about "liberals"? Or spying on people? Or restricting travel within a nation? California and Texas aren't sovereign; your comparison is a non-sequitur, just like your drunk driving analogy.

Delete this or I will report you for outing me

Borders exist for a reason - they reflect differences in culture and values. Mexico, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic. Canada, as another example, does not have guarantees of free speech or religion, and the Canadian people seem largely ok with this. I am not Catholic, and I enjoy the Constitutional protections my rights are afforded by the First Amendment. I would oppose millions of people from either country being allowed to come here and vote without any sort of barrier simply because people's values influence their voting. In any case, you're creating a false dichotomy; your drunk driving analogy falls flat when you realize that in order for it to work, immigration on its own must be illegal. This is not the case. There are avenues from people all over the world from hundreds of countries to immigrate to the United States. Wrong. If barriers and borders are most important for a sovereign state, the state enforces the laws that create barriers to citizenship/permanent status, not just "make them legal." Just "making them legal" makes your barriers and borders irrelevant because you've abandoned your protection of them. And yes, you can say "they can't come in because I decided they can't come in" if you're a sovereign state. Just like I can say that people can't come into my home because I've decided they can't come in. That's the point of sovereignty. I don't need a logical reason, neither does the state. Not all laws are based on hard and fast logic, and neither the Constitution nor the courts say they need to be.

They all hate short quarterbacks because of some weird projection of their self-loathing?

Associate Professor of Pedanticism, Dept. of Anal Orifices. Professional huckster.

Sting is British, I don't think he cares.

You are arguing against the sovereignty of a nation state by saying that the state shouldn't disallow people from coming into their country simply because they don't want them. Borders and barriers to citizenship are two of the most important distinctions of a nation state. Its sovereignty hangs on both being strong.

The fact that they don't understand why people are able to travel freely between Colorado and Louisiana and not between Canada and the US is indicative of either: 1. Retarded sovcit type "logic" or 2. just retarded.

Stop moving the goalposts, shitposter extraordinaire.

I'm against murderer immigration to the US.

Weren't you the one bitching the other day about "ad hominem" ****?

Park at Hammer's and hang out after the game with the TBD group. Pay per car. Bring booze. Eating is for sissies.

I demand to know what mod has been stepping on Darin's toes. The scrubbing in this thread is outrageous!

Well luckily all you have to pay back is the fake fiat paper money!

You're a ****ty poster. Not in the shitposting sense, but just a bad effort overall. I get away with shitposting because...well I don't actually know why but the point is you suck haha

Quoting for posterity. Because you're this much of a moron

I agree with you generally, but that's some sweet lawyerspeak you threw in there.

Oof, no thanks.

Pre-nups don't matter half the time anyway. A judge is more than happy to tear it up to allow a poor, helpless woman divorce rape her husband.

In a few years? Probably half of everything he's got.

Why do anything? BUY GOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLLD and ammo and enjoy the decline.

The plumber that lived across the street from me when I was growing up retired at 45 and bought a boat and a hot young wife there are tradeoffs with everything. I don't regret how my life has gone so far, but that doesn't stop me from wondering.