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).