San Francisco is terrible

[LeviF]

9 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

 

 

The other was because you said so

 

So if a person from Mexico ( different culture) and was (a liberal democrat)

 

Would you reject their citizenship?

 

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.

[westerndecline]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

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 never said unfettered

 

I said a background check, quick interview and issue the ss#

Once granted the dual citizenship, now it's interstate travel obviously....

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, westerndecline said:

Notice the trump travel ban in the middle east has a reason

 

 

U won't even give a reason

Your reason was culture and politics about free speech

 

 

The other was because you said so

 

So if a person from Mexico ( different culture) and was (a liberal democrat)

 

Would you reject their citizenship?

 

Herein lies the problem with ALL immigration discussions: illegal residency is not citizenship.  It's the problem with the whole Democratic platform, from campaign bull **** straight to DACA.  Very few people are against immigration (and those that are tend to be nuts).  What people are against is illegal residency - not the least reason for which is that the Democrats' equating the two does a gross disservice to those illegal residents by giving them the illusion of citizenship without conveying any rights of citizenship whatsoever.

 

The most pissed-off people I know over illegal immigration are the immigrants who spent ten years getting naturalized.  It's not because they're racist - to quote my coworker, "I'm a brown person too!"  It's because they're pissed off that people can break the law with impunity.

[westerndecline]

https://youtu.be/bbFZQfBlg-0

[Albwan]

On 12/4/2017 at 1:36 PM, westerndecline said:

Again

 

There's no (reason) to be against any form of immigration unless u r racist

 

Give me a reason why ppl can't go to Colorado for whatever reason 

 

 

     There is a reason ...it's called ILLEGAL what is it that democrats don't get (or care) about that?

Just calling it UNDOCUMENTED does not make legal.

     Also the word racist is only used by dimwits who have no other avenue of logical arguing 

I like it that it's thrown around so much, it's a useless word to begin with, because tell me a race

that doesn't love their own race over other races? Are you kidding me? I grew up in a mixed environment,

and all I ever heard was white boy this, white that, not one day went by where i didn't hear cracker, white bread 

etc etc etc and yet not one time ever did it ever bother me or did I ever feel the need to run around like a

chicken with his head cut off screaming RACISM...

     Whatever happened to ignoring words and having self esteem.

[TH3]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 3:43 PM, LeviF91 said:

 

Borders exist for a reason -  they reflect differences in culture and values.  Mexico, for example, is overwhelmingly Catholic and the United States ignored its borders in the past and simply annexed much of what is now Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.  Canada, as another example, does not have guarantees of free speech or religion except that it pretty much does so ignore that part of this sentence, and the Canadian people seem largely ok with this because they do have freedom of speech and religion in much the same manner is the US.  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.

 

 

.

[LeviF]

40 minutes ago, baskin said:

.

 

Wars have consequences.  Mexico is welcome to attempt to take back Tay Haas and whatever else.

 

And no, Canada does not "pretty much" have guarantees of free speech or religion.  You either do or you don't.  Canada does not.

[westerndecline]

4 hours ago, Albwan said:

     There is a reason ...it's called ILLEGAL what is it that democrats don't get (or care) about that?

Just calling it UNDOCUMENTED does not make legal.

     Also the word racist is only used by dimwits who have no other avenue of logical arguing 

I like it that it's thrown around so much, it's a useless word to begin with, because tell me a race

that doesn't love their own race over other races? Are you kidding me? I grew up in a mixed environment,

and all I ever heard was white boy this, white that, not one day went by where i didn't hear cracker, white bread 

etc etc etc and yet not one time ever did it ever bother me or did I ever feel the need to run around like a

chicken with his head cut off screaming RACISM...

     Whatever happened to ignoring words and having self esteem.

If your biggest hang up is their status as illegal,

 

 

Then why not just make them legal???

[DC Tom]

16 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

If your biggest hang up is their status as illegal,

 

 

Then why not just make them legal???

 

THERE you go!  

And it only took SEVEN !@#$ing pages to grasp the concept.  

[westerndecline]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

THERE you go!  

And it only took SEVEN !@#$ing pages to grasp the concept.  

Please take your meds today stalking nutjob