That's why the term "illegal alien" is better; if removes the faux equivalence between those who go through the difficult legal channels and those who just take what they want. It's the difference between a guest and an intruder.Again with the ignorance. <sigh>
You chose to use the term "returning immigrant" over a variety of other, more accurate terms like "illegal immigrant" purposefully. Your purpose in choosing "returning immigrant" is transparent and obvious.
When deception becomes necessary to advance the cause, it's time to start questioning the cause...
It wasn't until recently had Obama made drastic changes to how he handled immigration. It's a statistic fact that under Obama has deported immigrants by millions. Feel however you like about how the President handled reform but a change in the policy is needed. because "kickin' 'dem illegals out" hasn't been working.
This administration has done everything it can to frustrate the immigration laws to enable more illegals to enter and stay in this country and we just can't afford it. No other country in the world advocates this much relaxation in their laws or enforcement. This administration will push it past the limit to obfuscate the immigration laws and enforcement. "Univision Town Hall, March 28, 2011: ‘The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws."
Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration - The Washington Post
That is why Jeh Johnson is getting slapped by a federal judge around for over stepping his constitutional authority at the behest of the administration.
Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security chief, others ordered to court by judge - Washington Times
So I just don't buy the argument that Obama is hot on any type of action when it comes to solving the immigration problem.
I'm not arguing that Obama unilaterally used Executive action to reform immigration laws. What I am arguing is that prior to this, under Obama illegal immigrants were being deported at a far faster rate than under Bush or Clinton. Obviously the old laws were not working, why enforce legislation and laws that don't solve the problem?
Not a ban, just a registration and accountability process.
He NEVER enforced the old laws so he, through executive action, made the enforcement weaker. That just doesn't make any sense.
What do you qualify as enforcing the law, exactly? Because as I have pointed out earlier, Obama was deporting illegal immigrants at a far faster pace than George W Bush. If that isn't enforcing the law, then I'm quite frankly lost.
You are assuming that I think that Bush did a good job. Frankly Bush was as screwed up as Obama so using him as a standard is kind of a fail.
registration is the prerequisite for a ban. and you are on record for demanding a complete ban so I don't buy your CURRENT claim. btw, criminals cannot be forced or punished for failing to register weapons. why do you gun banners support laws that ONLY apply to people who have not misused guns?
registration is the prerequisite for a ban.
Yeah... I remember when the government made it compulsory to register cars... now nobody drives. Or when I had to go and register my daughter's birth with the US gov. Now nobody has babies... or... well I think you're starting to see where I'm going with this.
The other laughable thing here is, people don't realize how often crimes are solved because a police officer was able to run a plate number and get all the suspects information.
I'm not arguing that Obama unilaterally used Executive action to reform immigration laws. What I am arguing is that prior to this, under Obama illegal immigrants were being deported at a far faster rate than under Bush or Clinton. Obviously the old laws were not working, why enforce legislation and laws that don't solve the problem?
Why is registration a prerequisite for a ban. If you use this logic, you can pretty much reason your way to making everything free to do no matter what it is. I mean, if you force people to register cars, it could lead to involuntary confiscation. If you force people to carry around money with serial numbers on it, it could result in tracking and confiscation of that money at any time. I mean, really, if you have no better argument then that, you just have to be chalked up as one of those people that we call "gun nuts" in anyone's book. You don't want to solve the problem, and you are more then happy or, simply just don't care what the consqeuences of doing nothing are.
And I have also explained my reasoning several times to you and you keep asking the same question. Reasoning that seems logical and is actually completely factual. First, they need to ban sales at gun shows unless they are forced to do background checks. Second, they need to ban second hand sales without a background check, and third, every gun needs to be registered and traceable to its current owner. You can decide weather you want a DMV like process where you have to visit them and use them as the intermediary in order to make a legal sale to a 2nd party, or weather you want there to be laws drawn up where that responsibility is left on the seller and buyer themselves. Either way, the only way you will be able to put a dent into firearm paliferation into illegal hands, or hands they should not be in at all, is to come up with a registration and accountability process. No other solution will solve the problem and you will be left with the label of gun nut...
I'm just using one of TD's most often used arguments to defend gun ownership. Hopefully, he'll see that both his previous arguments and mine are similar... and you know, drop the matter.
why is it that every group that supports a gun ban supports registration.
your argument is moronic and there is no evidence that registration of guns in Hawaii allowed the solving of crime.
how are serial numbers on a gun going to be evident to observers? its like saying the VIN number on a vehicle was used to solve lots of crime. STUPID ANALOGY YOU HAVE MADE
btw where have you ever seen a politician arguing for car bans?
this is turning into a True Detective episode. and it will gain momentum and become a BIG part of the upcoming election. It could really give the GOP candidates traction, no doubt.
Source?
Nope, my argument simply addressed the fallacious slippery slope nature of your statement. There are quite a few things which need to be registered to day, none have been banned. :shrug:
So I take it that you'll no longer make analogies between guns and cars?
I don't, its liberals who stupidly claim guns should have the same licensing requirements-usually because gun banners don't understand the reality: you don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or use a car on private property
So what? Why do you think that ends the argument?
there is no argument because the gun banners have no facts on their side
:roll:
There it is again. Registration = ban. Background check = ban. ****, I bet you'd be up in arms about a regulation that says "gun manufacturers must ensure their guns don't spontaneously explode in the hands of the user."