Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

As I stated before, I have no idea.

Did you want me to give you some estimate in the millions (similar to what was done, for example, during the passage of the Affordable Care Act) so that you could make the point that we're calling people "illegal" people who have not been convicted? I can do that if it would help you make your point. Alternatively, you could just do it yourself. It's easy to find those statistics on google or bing or whatever search engine you use. Or we could just keep playing this fun game.

I don't get why you're "dogging" me on this- I'm not irritated that you didn't want to answer the question, or didn't know how to find out.

You're getting overly worried that i might push you to make a point that doesn't agree with your ideals? Is that what concerns you?

Because there's clearly something that concerns you about questioning the application of the word illegal.

So we're going to keep playing the fun game? Cool.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

As I stated before, I have no idea.

Did you want me to give you some estimate in the millions (similar to what was done, for example, during the passage of the Affordable Care Act) so that you could make the point that we're calling people "illegal" people who have not been convicted? I can do that if it would help you make your point. Alternatively, you could just do it yourself. It's easy to find those statistics on google or bing or whatever search engine you use. Or we could just keep playing this fun game.

I don't get why you're "dogging" me on this- I'm not irritated that you didn't want to answer the question, or didn't know how to find out.

You're getting overly worried that i might push you to make a point that doesn't agree with your ideals? Is that what concerns you?

Because there's clearly something that concerns you about questioning the application of the word illegal.

So we're going to keep playing the fun game? Cool.

You're just being silly now- you want to say that the evidence is so easy to find that it's on google, but you also want to say that you have no idea what the evidence is.

Which is it TGD? You can't have it both ways, that you don't know how many "illegal" immigrants there are and that it's also so obvious how many there are that you shouldn't have to say.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

As I stated before, I have no idea.

Did you want me to give you some estimate in the millions (similar to what was done, for example, during the passage of the Affordable Care Act) so that you could make the point that we're calling people "illegal" people who have not been convicted? I can do that if it would help you make your point. Alternatively, you could just do it yourself. It's easy to find those statistics on google or bing or whatever search engine you use. Or we could just keep playing this fun game.

I don't get why you're "dogging" me on this- I'm not irritated that you didn't want to answer the question, or didn't know how to find out.

You're getting overly worried that i might push you to make a point that doesn't agree with your ideals? Is that what concerns you?

Because there's clearly something that concerns you about questioning the application of the word illegal.

So we're going to keep playing the fun game? Cool.

You're just being silly now- you want to say that the evidence is so easy to find that it's on google, but you also want to say that you have no idea what the evidence is.

Which is it TGD? You can't have it both ways, that you don't know how many "illegal" immigrants there are and that it's also so obvious how many there are that you shouldn't have to say.

The evidence that YOU are looking for is easy to find on google. What you're looking for (for the second time) is the statistics that show how many illegal immigrants are believed to be in the United States. The statistic is regularly used and I believe, in my heart of hearts, that you know how to use google and so you can find that statistic. Then you can make your point about the United States being unconcerned with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Since I don't hold to your view of what a typical US citizen should think, I've somehow confused you. Perhaps if you had simply made your point in the first place, instead of playing games, you could have baited someone else into having this argument.

To answer your specific question, for the third time, I do not know how many illegal immigrants are in the United States. I suspect that most of them who are still here are awaiting deportation in some sort of prison. I doubt I could find those numbers as they likely change on a daily basis. Do you want me to get Night Strike or Phatscotty in here so you can have this discusison with them?

thegreekdog wrote:Do you believe my position is an "extreme right wing position?"

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Do you believe my position is an "extreme right wing position?"

Yeah- I owe you an apology. Sorry, that was unfair, and not what I believe. I think you hold a fairly radical right wing political position. extreme right is an unfair characterization.

thegreekdog wrote:At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
Stop whining.

Is your problem that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is applied haphazardly to people who may or may not be actual illegal immigrants?

TGD... do you actually expect to get a real answer from him?

You know he's not going to clarify his "point" because he doesn't have one.

Was that your point? Thanks for the contribution, as always.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

I know what he wants and I'm not providing it to him because I don't fit his broad generalization of Americans (conservative Americans to be precise). He has a problem with everyone in the US (and by everyone I mean pretty much everyone) using the term "illegal immigrants" to refer to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. I'm not entirely sure what his point is though since I suspect the same or similar term is used in the UK, but I'm sure he has an awesome point and is just waiting for the right time to reveal its awesomeness. Alternatively, someone who fits Symmetry's gross generalization of Americans could post here and he could have his discussion with that person. Or we could keep playing this game.

AndyDufresne wrote:Fun Fact, the term 'illegal immigrant' originally had a very specific definition (of which I was unaware until now). Thanks OED:

illegal immigrant n. orig. a Jew who entered or attempted to enter Palestine without official permission during the later years of the British mandate; now used more generally.

Times 1931 May 11/1 "Illegal immigration into Palestine probably dates back to Turkish times, but it is now assuming alarming proportions."


--Andy

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

I know what he wants and I'm not providing it to him because I don't fit his broad generalization of Americans (conservative Americans to be precise). He has a problem with everyone in the US (and by everyone I mean pretty much everyone) using the term "illegal immigrants" to refer to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. I'm not entirely sure what his point is though since I suspect the same or similar term is used in the UK, but I'm sure he has an awesome point and is just waiting for the right time to reveal its awesomeness. Alternatively, someone who fits Symmetry's gross generalization of Americans could post here and he could have his discussion with that person. Or we could keep playing this game.

I hope his point isn't that minor.

I was expecting some significant criticism against the US and how it convicts immigrants who got here illegally (or "illegal immigrants" in the commonly known sense).

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

I know what he wants and I'm not providing it to him because I don't fit his broad generalization of Americans (conservative Americans to be precise). He has a problem with everyone in the US (and by everyone I mean pretty much everyone) using the term "illegal immigrants" to refer to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. I'm not entirely sure what his point is though since I suspect the same or similar term is used in the UK, but I'm sure he has an awesome point and is just waiting for the right time to reveal its awesomeness. Alternatively, someone who fits Symmetry's gross generalization of Americans could post here and he could have his discussion with that person. Or we could keep playing this game.

I hope his point isn't that minor.

I was expecting some significant criticism against the US and how it convicts immigrants who got here illegally (or "illegal immigrants" in the commonly known sense).

So did I. Hell, MeDeFe even provided him the support for that argument (and by support I mean one example). Maybe he'll eventually get to his point, but I really doubt it.

And wait until I tell him my stance on illegal immigration. That will really blow his view of Americans.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

I know what he wants and I'm not providing it to him because I don't fit his broad generalization of Americans (conservative Americans to be precise). He has a problem with everyone in the US (and by everyone I mean pretty much everyone) using the term "illegal immigrants" to refer to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. I'm not entirely sure what his point is though since I suspect the same or similar term is used in the UK, but I'm sure he has an awesome point and is just waiting for the right time to reveal its awesomeness. Alternatively, someone who fits Symmetry's gross generalization of Americans could post here and he could have his discussion with that person. Or we could keep playing this game.

I hope his point isn't that minor.

I was expecting some significant criticism against the US and how it convicts immigrants who got here illegally (or "illegal immigrants" in the commonly known sense).

So did I. Hell, MeDeFe even provided him the support for that argument (and by support I mean one example). Maybe he'll eventually get to his point, but I really doubt it.

And wait until I tell him my stance on illegal immigration. That will really blow his view of Americans.

I've been waiting for your view for a while now, alas, you're a bit of a tease.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
I've been waiting for your view for a while now, alas, you're a bit of a tease.

Okay. We're done now.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And wait until I tell him my stance on illegal immigration. That will really blow his view of Americans.

I've been waiting for your view for a while now, alas, you're a bit of a tease.

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And wait until I tell him my stance on illegal immigration. That will really blow his view of Americans.

I've been waiting for your view for a while now, alas, you're a bit of a tease.

What "stance" is there to be on the subject of illegal immigration???

I'm confused... your OP wasn't asking for people's stance on illegal immigration, but rather on the due process necessary to prove a particular person is (or is not) an illegal immigrant. No?

Are you now changing your question and the whole point of the thread?

What are you saying... that there's no such thing as illegal immigration?

Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.

Symmetry wrote:I'm up for people's takes on the issue regarding immigration. As the thread has gone the way of "illegal" immigration, what's your take on it? Should an immigrant be presumed innocent before a trial has been held?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

I know what he wants and I'm not providing it to him because I don't fit his broad generalization of Americans (conservative Americans to be precise). He has a problem with everyone in the US (and by everyone I mean pretty much everyone) using the term "illegal immigrants" to refer to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. I'm not entirely sure what his point is though since I suspect the same or similar term is used in the UK, but I'm sure he has an awesome point and is just waiting for the right time to reveal its awesomeness. Alternatively, someone who fits Symmetry's gross generalization of Americans could post here and he could have his discussion with that person. Or we could keep playing this game.

I hope his point isn't that minor.

I was expecting some significant criticism against the US and how it convicts immigrants who got here illegally (or "illegal immigrants" in the commonly known sense).

So did I. Hell, MeDeFe even provided him the support for that argument (and by support I mean one example). Maybe he'll eventually get to his point, but I really doubt it.

And wait until I tell him my stance on illegal immigration. That will really blow his view of Americans.

I've been waiting for your view for a while now, alas, you're a bit of a tease.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Three more pages, TGD. Three more pages, and Symmetry may successfully articulate whatever's going on in his gray jellies.

I know what he wants and I'm not providing it to him because I don't fit his broad generalization of Americans (conservative Americans to be precise). He has a problem with everyone in the US (and by everyone I mean pretty much everyone) using the term "illegal immigrants" to refer to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. I'm not entirely sure what his point is though since I suspect the same or similar term is used in the UK, but I'm sure he has an awesome point and is just waiting for the right time to reveal its awesomeness. Alternatively, someone who fits Symmetry's gross generalization of Americans could post here and he could have his discussion with that person. Or we could keep playing this game.

I hope his point isn't that minor.

I was expecting some significant criticism against the US and how it convicts immigrants who got here illegally (or "illegal immigrants" in the commonly known sense).

So did I. Hell, MeDeFe even provided him the support for that argument (and by support I mean one example). Maybe he'll eventually get to his point, but I really doubt it.

And wait until I tell him my stance on illegal immigration. That will really blow his view of Americans.

I've been waiting for your view for a while now, alas, you're a bit of a tease.

He has given it many times before. Forgive me for iterating, but I do think you are assuming something incorrect.

Basically, he doesn't think there should be limits to immigration itself. Anyone should be able to come here, but if they cause trouble, are not able to support themselves, etc.. then "goodbye" (or to jail, if warranted, of course).

I feel similarly, though when you get down to some details on how it might be implemented, I believe he and I disagreed (but I don't think by much).

Symmetry wrote:I think the detail part is kind of how the issue relates to the thread to be fair- I understand that the thread has taken on the American aspect of the word "illegal" as a kind of slang term for undocumented immigrants, bypassing the more commonly understood use of the word.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I think the detail part is kind of how the issue relates to the thread to be fair- I understand that the thread has taken on the American aspect of the word "illegal" as a kind of slang term for undocumented immigrants, bypassing the more commonly understood use of the word.

I could be wrong on the exact number, but there are a number of "illegal" immigrants who are actually "documented" in that they stayed past their original documentation (visas).

Illegal is a very simple term. Anyone whose immigrant status is not in compliance with immigration law, is illegally an immigrant.

So my favorite summer parish priest, who didn't get a work visa here, but got a tourist visa, if he were to have said a Mass at my Parish (he didn't) he would have been an illegal immigrant for violating his tourist visa. He has documentation, it just would not apply to "work" situations.