So, just so we're clear, if you told me the data didn't support my conclusion, and then I linked a historical anecdote in defense of a much broader claim, you would be cool with that? You're smart enough to know how data should be used in a political discussion.

My claim is that I'm believing the same things while all the other Republicans have changed.
I showed both Reagan and Bush making arguments that Trump would laugh at.
Whether Reagan or Trump is right is besides the point and don't be distracted by that.
The point is that the Republican party is moving, and fast.

Are you still living in 1980? Circumstances have greatly changed. 

Mexicans can find employment in Mexico, that was not true in 1980.

The US did pass a comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan. It failed, and became a blanket amnesty, the enforcement side being totally ignored. Conservatism does not require one to be fooled twice.

In 1980 the illegals were coming to find jobs and become American citizens. Now more than 50% are coming to get US welfare while still holding 
allegiance to their original countries. There are a much higher percentage of criminals among them. Do you really believe that Reagan and Bush would welcome this batch?

Reagan also spoke of the concern of Mexico being another Cuba, and a satellite of the Soviet Union. That was a huge concern in 1980, but is inapplicable now.

There were and still are debates about trade deals. The bottom line is that Trump has been fixing bad deals made by previous administrations. Apparently you don't like that, and prefer that other countries get more favorable terms.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't dispute that Republicans are moving right. I dispute the implication that Republicans are moving away from Americans and a shared set of facts as a result of them moving right. This is essentially a post hoc fallacy. People and, by extension, parties tend to move when presented with new circumstances, and so it should be expected considering how different the culture was in 1980 compared to today. You may believe the same things as a 1980s conservative, but that is irrelevant in 2018, as we are dealing with an entirely different culture.

The simple fact is that both parties are moving because they have different agendas and, therefore interpret information differently. The more those agendas are realized the greater the push-back will be until an equilibrium is found. This can not happen in today's political climate. The data shows the Republican party moving at slower pace than the Democrats. More over, Republicans tend to become more moderate with a Republican President. Democrats have been getting progressively more, well, progressive no matter who is in office.

I haven't seen any "data" on that.  I guess you're referring to polls?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My claim is that I'm believing the same things while all the other Republicans have changed.
I showed both Reagan and Bush making arguments that Trump would laugh at.
Whether Reagan or Trump is right is besides the point and don't be distracted by that.
The point is that the Republican party is moving, and fast.

Are you still living in 1980? Circumstances have greatly changed. 

Mexicans can find employment in Mexico, that was not true in 1980.

The US did pass a comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan. It failed, and became a blanket amnesty, the enforcement side being totally ignored. Conservatism does not require one to be fooled twice.

In 1980 the illegals were coming to find jobs and become American citizens. Now more than 50% are coming to get US welfare while still holding 
allegiance to their original countries. There are a much higher percentage of criminals among them. Do you really believe that Reagan and Bush would welcome this batch?

Reagan also spoke of the concern of Mexico being another Cuba, and a satellite of the Soviet Union. That was a huge concern in 1980, but is inapplicable now.

There were and still are debates about trade deals. The bottom line is that Trump has been fixing bad deals made by previous administrations. Apparently you don't like that, and prefer that other countries get more favorable terms.

I wasn't even born in 1980.  I'm not going to debate that circumstances have changed since 1980; they may have changed even more than you're accounting for.

In 1980, school districts in Texas, representing Texas voters and tax payers, were at that moment arguing their way up to the Supreme Court that they should be able to keep children of illegal immigrants out of school.  And California and Arizona both were going to pass a state amendment that illegal immigrants shouldn't get services from the state. 

It would have been very easy for Reagan or Bush to stake out an angry, aggressive position on the issue.  They would have gotten a lot of support.  Instead they both asked their supporters to think about the common humanity of Mexicans.  They both asked their supporters to think long term, about what the future would look like if a sub class of children grew up with no education.


But what hasn't changed is that illegal immigrants and their children are still equally human as us, with the same dignity.  What hasn't changed is that how we treat them says more about us than it does about them.

While Trump's rhetoric hasn't touched on public schools, yet, he has said that we should discriminate between immigrants on the basis of religion, and that we should separate parents from children.  These are equally offensive to their value as humans and ours.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Are you still living in 1980? Circumstances have greatly changed. 

Mexicans can find employment in Mexico, that was not true in 1980.

The US did pass a comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan. It failed, and became a blanket amnesty, the enforcement side being totally ignored. Conservatism does not require one to be fooled twice.

In 1980 the illegals were coming to find jobs and become American citizens. Now more than 50% are coming to get US welfare while still holding 
allegiance to their original countries. There are a much higher percentage of criminals among them. Do you really believe that Reagan and Bush would welcome this batch?

Reagan also spoke of the concern of Mexico being another Cuba, and a satellite of the Soviet Union. That was a huge concern in 1980, but is inapplicable now.

There were and still are debates about trade deals. The bottom line is that Trump has been fixing bad deals made by previous administrations. Apparently you don't like that, and prefer that other countries get more favorable terms.

I wasn't even born in 1980.  I'm not going to debate that circumstances have changed since 1980; they may have changed even more than you're accounting for.

In 1980, school districts in Texas, representing Texas voters and tax payers, were at that moment arguing their way up to the Supreme Court that they should be able to keep children of illegal immigrants out of school.  And California and Arizona both were going to pass a state amendment that illegal immigrants shouldn't get services from the state. 

It would have been very easy for Reagan or Bush to stake out an angry, aggressive position on the issue.  They would have gotten a lot of support.  Instead they both asked their supporters to think about the common humanity of Mexicans.  They both asked their supporters to think long term, about what the future would look like if a sub class of children grew up with no education.


But what hasn't changed is that illegal immigrants and their children are still equally human as us, with the same dignity.  What hasn't changed is that how we treat them says more about us than it does about them.

While Trump's rhetoric hasn't touched on public schools, yet, he has said that we should discriminate between immigrants on the basis of religion, and that we should separate parents from children.  These are equally offensive to their value as humans and ours.

What the voters in Texas and California wanted in 1980 has nothing to do with the vast difference between the illegals in 1980 vs. the illegals of 2018, which a conservative (or anyone with a IQ higher than chopped liver) would instantly recognize as an apples to oranges comparison. Your first three paragraphs are a deflection.

I don't think a person actively and illegally committing a crime by crossing a border to take money from other people has the same dignity as me. You can speak for yourself. And your position of claiming they deserve the fruits of other people's labors just because they are equally human does say a lot about YOU. Forced income redistribution has never been a conservative position.

As for the last paragraph, that's a flat out lie on your part (probably parroting a lie you read on one of the Far Left websites you frequent). Trump has been opposed to separating families, but chose to uphold the existing law that was in place under Obama. Of course a family would not be separated if they didn't break the law and enter the US illegally to begin with. The parents actively chose to have their family separated. I feel sorry for the children of such parents, but it's a big world with lots of evil and no magic wand to fix everything. If they were US citizens the child welfare authorities would remove them from those parents too.

And don't even try to claim these are "asylum" seekers. They could seek asylum in any of a dozen or more countries much closer than the US, with the same language and much similar cultural values. Most are coming here solely to live off the dollars taken by force from working Americans.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Are you still living in 1980? Circumstances have greatly changed. 

Mexicans can find employment in Mexico, that was not true in 1980.

The US did pass a comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan. It failed, and became a blanket amnesty, the enforcement side being totally ignored. Conservatism does not require one to be fooled twice.

In 1980 the illegals were coming to find jobs and become American citizens. Now more than 50% are coming to get US welfare while still holding 
allegiance to their original countries. There are a much higher percentage of criminals among them. Do you really believe that Reagan and Bush would welcome this batch?

Reagan also spoke of the concern of Mexico being another Cuba, and a satellite of the Soviet Union. That was a huge concern in 1980, but is inapplicable now.

There were and still are debates about trade deals. The bottom line is that Trump has been fixing bad deals made by previous administrations. Apparently you don't like that, and prefer that other countries get more favorable terms.

I wasn't even born in 1980.  I'm not going to debate that circumstances have changed since 1980; they may have changed even more than you're accounting for.

In 1980, school districts in Texas, representing Texas voters and tax payers, were at that moment arguing their way up to the Supreme Court that they should be able to keep children of illegal immigrants out of school.  And California and Arizona both were going to pass a state amendment that illegal immigrants shouldn't get services from the state. 

It would have been very easy for Reagan or Bush to stake out an angry, aggressive position on the issue.  They would have gotten a lot of support.  Instead they both asked their supporters to think about the common humanity of Mexicans.  They both asked their supporters to think long term, about what the future would look like if a sub class of children grew up with no education.


But what hasn't changed is that illegal immigrants and their children are still equally human as us, with the same dignity.  What hasn't changed is that how we treat them says more about us than it does about them.

While Trump's rhetoric hasn't touched on public schools, yet, he has said that we should discriminate between immigrants on the basis of religion, and that we should separate parents from children.  These are equally offensive to their value as humans and ours.

Trump's rhetoric? We welcome more immigrants every year than any country on earth, bar none, but we have a system, a documented rule of law process.

Under U.S. immigration law, migrants can petition for asylum by presenting themselves at a U.S. port of entry, but the executive order under consideration would override that provision on national security grounds.

Administration officials say the order is based on the same provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that President Trump invoked to implement the partial travel ban in 2017. The provision — section 212(f) of the INA — allows the president to block the admission of any “class of aliens” into the country if their entry is determined to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The legality of a travel ban was affirmed in Trump v. Hawaii in June, when the Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on entry by citizens of six Muslim-majority nations known to export terrorism as consistent with the president’s authority. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited national security justifications for the travel ban and the deliberate, thorough process used.

Approximately 1,500 of the invaders have accepted for asylum in Mexico, and hundreds have returned to their homes in Central America.


https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/trump-border-migrant-caravan-travel-ban/

---

I wasn't even born in 1980.  I'm not going to debate that circumstances have changed since 1980; they may have changed even more than you're accounting for.

In 1980, school districts in Texas, representing Texas voters and tax payers, were at that moment arguing their way up to the Supreme Court that they should be able to keep children of illegal immigrants out of school.  And California and Arizona both were going to pass a state amendment that illegal immigrants shouldn't get services from the state. 

It would have been very easy for Reagan or Bush to stake out an angry, aggressive position on the issue.  They would have gotten a lot of support.  Instead they both asked their supporters to think about the common humanity of Mexicans.  They both asked their supporters to think long term, about what the future would look like if a sub class of children grew up with no education.

But what hasn't changed is that illegal immigrants and their children are still equally human as us, with the same dignity.  What hasn't changed is that how we treat them says more about us than it does about them.

While Trump's rhetoric hasn't touched on public schools, yet, he has said that we should discriminate between immigrants on the basis of religion, and that we should separate parents from children.  These are equally offensive to their value as humans and ours.

What the voters in Texas and California wanted in 1980 has nothing to do with the vast difference between the illegals in 1980 vs. the illegals of 2018, which a conservative (or anyone with a IQ higher than chopped liver) would instantly recognize as an apples to oranges comparison. Your first three paragraphs are a deflection.

I don't think a person actively and illegally committing a crime by crossing a border to take money from other people has the same dignity as me. You can speak for yourself. And your position of claiming they deserve the fruits of other people's labors just because they are equally human does say a lot about YOU. Forced income redistribution has never been a conservative position.

As for the last paragraph, that's a flat out lie on your part (probably parroting a lie you read on one of the Far Left websites you frequent). Trump has been opposed to separating families, but chose to uphold the existing law that was in place under Obama. Of course a family would not be separated if they didn't break the law and enter the US illegally to begin with. The parents actively chose to have their family separated. I feel sorry for the children of such parents, but it's a big world with lots of evil and no magic wand to fix everything. If they were US citizens the child welfare authorities would remove them from those parents too.

And don't even try to claim these are "asylum" seekers. They could seek asylum in any of a dozen or more countries much closer than the US, with the same language and much similar cultural values. Most are coming here solely to live off the dollars taken by force from working Americans.

The bold text there is totally wrong.  Most of the people we're talking about are crossing at posted locations and telling the police there that they intend to claim asylum as refugees.  There is nothing illegal about that.  And even if it was illegal we would then have to ask, like Augustine or MLK Jr., if the law was just.
Anyhow, after they cross, legal proceedings begin to find out if they are legitimately refugees or not.  We count the number of people who cross in this circumstance, and find out their names and where they intend to stay.  We give them court dates.  The vast majority keep their court dates.  They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I wasn't even born in 1980.  I'm not going to debate that circumstances have changed since 1980; they may have changed even more than you're accounting for.

In 1980, school districts in Texas, representing Texas voters and tax payers, were at that moment arguing their way up to the Supreme Court that they should be able to keep children of illegal immigrants out of school.  And California and Arizona both were going to pass a state amendment that illegal immigrants shouldn't get services from the state. 

It would have been very easy for Reagan or Bush to stake out an angry, aggressive position on the issue.  They would have gotten a lot of support.  Instead they both asked their supporters to think about the common humanity of Mexicans.  They both asked their supporters to think long term, about what the future would look like if a sub class of children grew up with no education.


But what hasn't changed is that illegal immigrants and their children are still equally human as us, with the same dignity.  What hasn't changed is that how we treat them says more about us than it does about them.

While Trump's rhetoric hasn't touched on public schools, yet, he has said that we should discriminate between immigrants on the basis of religion, and that we should separate parents from children.  These are equally offensive to their value as humans and ours.

Trump's rhetoric? We welcome more immigrants every year than any country on earth, bar none, but we have a system, a documented rule of law process.

Under U.S. immigration law, migrants can petition for asylum by presenting themselves at a U.S. port of entry, but the executive order under consideration would override that provision on national security grounds.

Administration officials say the order is based on the same provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that President Trump invoked to implement the partial travel ban in 2017. The provision — section 212(f) of the INA — allows the president to block the admission of any “class of aliens” into the country if their entry is determined to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The legality of a travel ban was affirmed in Trump v. Hawaii in June, when the Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on entry by citizens of six Muslim-majority nations known to export terrorism as consistent with the president’s authority. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited national security justifications for the travel ban and the deliberate, thorough process used.

Approximately 1,500 of the invaders have accepted for asylum in Mexico, and hundreds have returned to their homes in Central America.


https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/trump-border-migrant-caravan-travel-ban/

OK, once more, for the people in the back,
After the Pulse nightclub shooting, Presidential Candidate Trump called for all Muslims to be barred from entering the United States.  US Citizen or not.  Green Card holder or not.  That's what he said.
After becoming President, he realized that it is not only unconstitutional to do this, it is impossible because passports typically do not document a person's religion.  So he tried to quickly bar entry from certain countries instead.
But his order netted green card holders.  That is also beyond his authority. 
So he finally revised the order into something within his authority and legally enforceable.  Which is fine. 
But it doesn't change the fact that as a candidate he called for a policy that was not only impossible, but hateful and unconstitutional, and he has never actually backed off from that.  That's the rhetoric I'm talking about.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Hateful? Lol.

---

Are you still living in 1980? Circumstances have greatly changed. 

Mexicans can find employment in Mexico, that was not true in 1980.

The US did pass a comprehensive immigration reform under Reagan. It failed, and became a blanket amnesty, the enforcement side being totally ignored. Conservatism does not require one to be fooled twice.

In 1980 the illegals were coming to find jobs and become American citizens. Now more than 50% are coming to get US welfare while still holding 
allegiance to their original countries. There are a much higher percentage of criminals among them. Do you really believe that Reagan and Bush would welcome this batch?

Reagan also spoke of the concern of Mexico being another Cuba, and a satellite of the Soviet Union. That was a huge concern in 1980, but is inapplicable now.

There were and still are debates about trade deals. The bottom line is that Trump has been fixing bad deals made by previous administrations. Apparently you don't like that, and prefer that other countries get more favorable terms.

I wasn't even born in 1980. 

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What the voters in Texas and California wanted in 1980 has nothing to do with the vast difference between the illegals in 1980 vs. the illegals of 2018, which a conservative (or anyone with a IQ higher than chopped liver) would instantly recognize as an apples to oranges comparison. Your first three paragraphs are a deflection.

I don't think a person actively and illegally committing a crime by crossing a border to take money from other people has the same dignity as me. You can speak for yourself. And your position of claiming they deserve the fruits of other people's labors just because they are equally human does say a lot about YOU. Forced income redistribution has never been a conservative position.

As for the last paragraph, that's a flat out lie on your part (probably parroting a lie you read on one of the Far Left websites you frequent). Trump has been opposed to separating families, but chose to uphold the existing law that was in place under Obama. Of course a family would not be separated if they didn't break the law and enter the US illegally to begin with. The parents actively chose to have their family separated. I feel sorry for the children of such parents, but it's a big world with lots of evil and no magic wand to fix everything. If they were US citizens the child welfare authorities would remove them from those parents too.

And don't even try to claim these are "asylum" seekers. They could seek asylum in any of a dozen or more countries much closer than the US, with the same language and much similar cultural values. Most are coming here solely to live off the dollars taken by force from working Americans.

The bold text there is totally wrong.  Most of the people we're talking about are crossing at posted locations and telling the police there that they intend to claim asylum as refugees.  There is nothing illegal about that.  And even if it was illegal we would then have to ask, like Augustine or MLK Jr., if the law was just.
Anyhow, after they cross, legal proceedings begin to find out if they are legitimately refugees or not.  We count the number of people who cross in this circumstance, and find out their names and where they intend to stay.  We give them court dates.  The vast majority keep their court dates.  They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

So illegals are fine breaking the law Trump is at fault for following it?  Got it.

---

The bold text there is totally wrong.  Most of the people we're talking about are crossing at posted locations and telling the police there that they intend to claim asylum as refugees.  There is nothing illegal about that.  And even if it was illegal we would then have to ask, like Augustine or MLK Jr., if the law was just.
Anyhow, after they cross, legal proceedings begin to find out if they are legitimately refugees or not.  We count the number of people who cross in this circumstance, and find out their names and where they intend to stay.  We give them court dates.  The vast majority keep their court dates.  They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

So illegals are fine breaking the law Trump is at fault for following it?  Got it.

Crossing the border and claiming to be a refugee is not illegal.  They give you a court date.  Failing to show up or failing to obey the judge would be illegal.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What the voters in Texas and California wanted in 1980 has nothing to do with the vast difference between the illegals in 1980 vs. the illegals of 2018, which a conservative (or anyone with a IQ higher than chopped liver) would instantly recognize as an apples to oranges comparison. Your first three paragraphs are a deflection.

I don't think a person actively and illegally committing a crime by crossing a border to take money from other people has the same dignity as me. You can speak for yourself. And your position of claiming they deserve the fruits of other people's labors just because they are equally human does say a lot about YOU. Forced income redistribution has never been a conservative position.

As for the last paragraph, that's a flat out lie on your part (probably parroting a lie you read on one of the Far Left websites you frequent). Trump has been opposed to separating families, but chose to uphold the existing law that was in place under Obama. Of course a family would not be separated if they didn't break the law and enter the US illegally to begin with. The parents actively chose to have their family separated. I feel sorry for the children of such parents, but it's a big world with lots of evil and no magic wand to fix everything. If they were US citizens the child welfare authorities would remove them from those parents too.

And don't even try to claim these are "asylum" seekers. They could seek asylum in any of a dozen or more countries much closer than the US, with the same language and much similar cultural values. Most are coming here solely to live off the dollars taken by force from working Americans.

The bold text there is totally wrong.  Most of the people we're talking about are crossing at posted locations and telling the police there that they intend to claim asylum as refugees.  There is nothing illegal about that.  And even if it was illegal we would then have to ask, like Augustine or MLK Jr., if the law was just.
Anyhow, after they cross, legal proceedings begin to find out if they are legitimately refugees or not.  We count the number of people who cross in this circumstance, and find out their names and where they intend to stay.  We give them court dates.  The vast majority keep their court dates.  They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

Regarding the first part in bold, you most certainly are wrong about that.  They don't cross at "posted locations" and stay as far away from police as they can.  I've seen and witnessed it first hand.

Regarding the second part in bold, specifically the part in red.  I would love to see your source for that information.

I think you are confused regarding people that actually immigrate here legally vs. the illegal aliens that we have coming over the border every day.  It doesn't really surprise me that a millennial like yourself is so easily confused.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The bold text there is totally wrong.  Most of the people we're talking about are crossing at posted locations and telling the police there that they intend to claim asylum as refugees.  There is nothing illegal about that.  And even if it was illegal we would then have to ask, like Augustine or MLK Jr., if the law was just.
Anyhow, after they cross, legal proceedings begin to find out if they are legitimately refugees or not.  We count the number of people who cross in this circumstance, and find out their names and where they intend to stay.  We give them court dates.  The vast majority keep their court dates.  They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

Regarding the first part in bold, you most certainly are wrong about that.  They don't cross at "posted locations" and stay as far away from police as they can.  I've seen and witnessed it first hand.

Regarding the second part in bold, specifically the part in red.  I would love to see your source for that information.

I think you are confused regarding people that actually immigrate here legally vs. the illegal aliens that we have coming over the border every day.  It doesn't really surprise me that a millennial like yourself is so easily confused.

Different people do different things at different times.
Let's try to be clear.
I only brought this up in the context of family separation.
The vast majority of the families that came across the border as a unit and were later separated, did so at a legal point of entry, and sought out the authorities.  They are given an opportunity to prove that they should be considered refugees.  If they are able to prove it, no law was broken.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regarding the first part in bold, you most certainly are wrong about that.  They don't cross at "posted locations" and stay as far away from police as they can.  I've seen and witnessed it first hand.

Regarding the second part in bold, specifically the part in red.  I would love to see your source for that information.

I think you are confused regarding people that actually immigrate here legally vs. the illegal aliens that we have coming over the border every day.  It doesn't really surprise me that a millennial like yourself is so easily confused.

Different people do different things at different times.
Let's try to be clear.
I only brought this up in the context of family separation.
The vast majority of the families that came across the border as a unit and were later separated, did so at a legal point of entry, and sought out the authorities.  They are given an opportunity to prove that they should be considered refugees.  If they are able to prove it, no law was broken.

Can you give some kind of source?  I personally have seen families come across the border NOT at a point of legal entry and they certainly did NOT seek authorities.  You should probably go down to New Mexico sometime and see what exactly is going on.

While yes, many illegal aliens are families looking for a better life, they certainly are not the "vast majority" coming over.  The ones that have children separated are NOT the ones that seek asylum.

Again, a millennial like you probably doesn't understand it and doesn't know the reality of it.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Different people do different things at different times.
Let's try to be clear.
I only brought this up in the context of family separation.
The vast majority of the families that came across the border as a unit and were later separated, did so at a legal point of entry, and sought out the authorities.  They are given an opportunity to prove that they should be considered refugees.  If they are able to prove it, no law was broken.

Can you give some kind of source?  I personally have seen families come across the border NOT at a point of legal entry and they certainly did NOT seek authorities.  You should probably go down to New Mexico sometime and see what exactly is going on.

While yes, many illegal aliens are families looking for a better life, they certainly are not the "vast majority" coming over.  The ones that have children separated are NOT the ones that seek asylum.

Again, a millennial like you probably doesn't understand it and doesn't know the reality of it.

Help me understand.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What the voters in Texas and California wanted in 1980 has nothing to do with the vast difference between the illegals in 1980 vs. the illegals of 2018, which a conservative (or anyone with a IQ higher than chopped liver) would instantly recognize as an apples to oranges comparison. Your first three paragraphs are a deflection.

I don't think a person actively and illegally committing a crime by crossing a border to take money from other people has the same dignity as me. You can speak for yourself. And your position of claiming they deserve the fruits of other people's labors just because they are equally human does say a lot about YOU. Forced income redistribution has never been a conservative position.

As for the last paragraph, that's a flat out lie on your part (probably parroting a lie you read on one of the Far Left websites you frequent). Trump has been opposed to separating families, but chose to uphold the existing law that was in place under Obama. Of course a family would not be separated if they didn't break the law and enter the US illegally to begin with. The parents actively chose to have their family separated. I feel sorry for the children of such parents, but it's a big world with lots of evil and no magic wand to fix everything. If they were US citizens the child welfare authorities would remove them from those parents too.

And don't even try to claim these are "asylum" seekers. They could seek asylum in any of a dozen or more countries much closer than the US, with the same language and much similar cultural values. Most are coming here solely to live off the dollars taken by force from working Americans.

(1) The vast majority keep their court dates.  (2) They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  (3) Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

(4) I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  (5) Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

(1) Wrong!

(2) First off, you cited Reagan and Bush. They were not talking about just those seeking asylum. So you changed the focus of the discussion (congratulations, that now makes you an official TDS sufferer). Those coming here illegally do get money from the government (meaning the fruits of labor of American citizens taken by force). Just because the government isn't supposed to give them money doesn't mean they don't get it. Presumably so do the subset of "asylum seekers,' and whether or not they get it does not change the fact that that was why they came.

(3) Once again, your original video was not just about 'asylum seekers.' If there was no illegal entry and it was limited to 40,000 per year I'd guess that no one on this board would consider it a big deal. But that's not  what this is about, it's about hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the US each year. In Reagan's day most came for jobs. Now, most come to partake in taxpayer dollars.

(4) You have defended Obama several times on this board. You continually cite lies that come from Leftist websites and memes, so I call [BLEEP] on your claim that you aren't a Leftist.

(5) The president doesn't micromanage the government. That was a program under the Justice Department continued by inertia (a good reason that the swamp needs to be drained), so if you blame anyone it should be Jeff Sessions. Trump spoke against it when it was revealed by the press (using photos of children in cages from the Obama era). Funny how that the press never criticized the program when Obama was POTUS. That there is irrefutable evidence that the mainstream press is totally Left-wing biased, yet you still cite Politifact and other Left wing publications as if they were unbiased.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

(1) The vast majority keep their court dates.  (2) They don't get money from the government unless they present enough evidence to the judges that they really are refugees.  (3) Less than 40,000 people per year are granted this status.  It's a drop in the bucket.  It's not a significant amount of money in the end.  It's such a small number for the reasons you cite: many of them realize that they'll fit in better and have more success in places like Mexico.

(4) I'm not actually a leftist, so if you want to blame Obama or Clinton for requiring families to be separated while these legal procedures go through, I'm not going to argue with you.  (5) Even if you're right about that, though, I still blame Trump for continuing it.  Tu quoque is a fallacy.

(1) Wrong!

(2) First off, you cited Reagan and Bush. They were not talking about just those seeking asylum. So you changed the focus of the discussion (congratulations, that now makes you an official TDS sufferer). Those coming here illegally do get money from the government (meaning the fruits of labor of American citizens taken by force). Just because the government isn't supposed to give them money doesn't mean they don't get it. Presumably so do the subset of "asylum seekers,' and whether or not they get it does not change the fact that that was why they came.

(3) Once again, your original video was not just about 'asylum seekers.' If there was no illegal entry and it was limited to 40,000 per year I'd guess that no one on this board would consider it a big deal. But that's not  what this is about, it's about hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the US each year. In Reagan's day most came for jobs. Now, most come to partake in taxpayer dollars.

(4) You have defended Obama several times on this board. You continually cite lies that come from Leftist websites and memes, so I call [BLEEP] on your claim that you aren't a Leftist.

(5) The president doesn't micromanage the government. That was a program under the Justice Department continued by inertia (a good reason that the swamp needs to be drained), so if you blame anyone it should be Jeff Sessions. Trump spoke against it when it was revealed by the press (using photos of children in cages from the Obama era). Funny how that the press never criticized the program when Obama was POTUS. That there is irrefutable evidence that the mainstream press is totally Left-wing biased, yet you still cite Politifact and other Left wing publications as if they were unbiased.

You may want to read that Marshall project article you linked to again.  It says that, historically, 75% of these people show up for their court dates. The number has unfortunately been lower, lately, for cases that involve whole families, however these cases are small fraction of the total.

And if you could provide some Citation with evidence for your claim that in the seventies and eighties they just came for jobs, while now they are coming for some sort of hand out that didn't exist in the 80s, that'd be great.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

(1) Wrong!

(2) First off, you cited Reagan and Bush. They were not talking about just those seeking asylum. So you changed the focus of the discussion (congratulations, that now makes you an official TDS sufferer). Those coming here illegally do get money from the government (meaning the fruits of labor of American citizens taken by force). Just because the government isn't supposed to give them money doesn't mean they don't get it. Presumably so do the subset of "asylum seekers,' and whether or not they get it does not change the fact that that was why they came.

(3) Once again, your original video was not just about 'asylum seekers.' If there was no illegal entry and it was limited to 40,000 per year I'd guess that no one on this board would consider it a big deal. But that's not  what this is about, it's about hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the US each year. In Reagan's day most came for jobs. Now, most come to partake in taxpayer dollars.

(4) You have defended Obama several times on this board. You continually cite lies that come from Leftist websites and memes, so I call [BLEEP] on your claim that you aren't a Leftist.

(5) The president doesn't micromanage the government. That was a program under the Justice Department continued by inertia (a good reason that the swamp needs to be drained), so if you blame anyone it should be Jeff Sessions. Trump spoke against it when it was revealed by the press (using photos of children in cages from the Obama era). Funny how that the press never criticized the program when Obama was POTUS. That there is irrefutable evidence that the mainstream press is totally Left-wing biased, yet you still cite Politifact and other Left wing publications as if they were unbiased.

You may want to read that Marshall project article you linked to again.  It says that, historically, 75% of these people show up for their court dates. The number has unfortunately been lower, lately, for cases that involve whole families, however these cases are small fraction of the total.

And if you could provide some Citation with evidence for your claim that in the eighties they just came for jobs, while now they are coming for some sort of hand out that didn't exist in the 80s, that'd be great.

75% is not a "vast majority."

As far as the '80s, I have no idea what percentage came for jobs, but that's the premise Reagan and Bush were describing. Today over 50% of illegals receive welfare (I posted the links earlier).

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You may want to read that Marshall project article you linked to again.  It says that, historically, 75% of these people show up for their court dates. The number has unfortunately been lower, lately, for cases that involve whole families, however these cases are small fraction of the total.

And if you could provide some Citation with evidence for your claim that in the eighties they just came for jobs, while now they are coming for some sort of hand out that didn't exist in the 80s, that'd be great.

75% is not a "vast majority."

As far as the '80s, I have no idea what percentage came for jobs, but that's the premise Reagan and Bush were describing. Today over 50% of illegals receive welfare (I posted the links earlier).

So you pointed to a study, from an institute who mission is to make you want stricter immigration laws, about the current % on welfare, but you never did get around to agreeing with anyone about what is welfare and what is not, and you have zero data from earlier times to compare it to, but your message remains that this data is Very Important and Should Change My Mind.  Ok.

And you hand wave away your lack of data to compare by saying that I should trust Bush and Reagan when they said 38 years ago that most of them were coming for work.
But you say I should not trust Jeb Bush from 2 years ago when he said the exact same thing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

75% is not a "vast majority."

As far as the '80s, I have no idea what percentage came for jobs, but that's the premise Reagan and Bush were describing. Today over 50% of illegals receive welfare (I posted the links earlier).

So you pointed to a study, from an institute who mission is to make you want stricter immigration laws, about the current % on welfare, but you never did get around to agreeing with anyone about what is welfare and what is not, and you have zero data from earlier times to compare it to, but your message remains that this data is Very Important and Should Change My Mind.  Ok.

And you hand wave away your lack of data to compare by saying that I should trust Bush and Reagan when they said 38 years ago that most of them were coming for work.
But you say I should not trust Jeb Bush from 2 years ago when he said the exact same thing.

You are the one who did not agree on what welfare is, and wanted to include a program where people paid in advance for later benefits. That's strictly a Leftist view, equating Social Security and Medicare with payments (WIC, SNAP, Medicaid) that did not require prior financial participation. In any case inclusion of SS and Medicare would not lower the percentage of illegals on welfare (over 50%). Another diversion from your original argument.

You used a 1980 video of Reagan as proof of your claim that the conservative position has shifted to the right. I'm saying that a change in the conservative position on illegal immigration is consistent with a change in the makeup of the illegal immigrants, and not a shift to the right. Reagan would not support foreigners coming illegally into the US to get food stamps. That was not what he described.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"