We can discuss my answers without talking about me. This speculation on my state of mind or ability to reason borders on incivil so take the 'you, you, you' out of it and we can keep talking.
Granted, I should have avoided borderline incivility in two sentences of sarcasm. I will make an effort to moderate its practice. But be reminded that it was you that first chortled "That's easy", so if you want to avoid talking about you, then I suggest you don't - after all, to "talk about you" and then be offended over my contrarian view of your own braggadocios comment is not sporting.
Also this is a dialogue, and dialogs are done in the first and second person (not the third person). If you don't like personal exchange, I suggest you don't use "FORUMS", which are places of personal political discussion. Till then when "you" are avoiding answering a question, as is customary, you will be alerted to it. When you keeping making an assumption with no apparent reasoning, you will be encouraged to acknowledge it. And when I see that what you don't say is as reveling about left of center views as what you do say, I will also point that out as well.
Now back to my answers, perhaps I didn't quite catch the original wording. On point A, iI don't subscribe to the idea that the status quo equals 'encouraging illegal immigration'. Congress clearly feels enough is being done already and it keeps the problem manageable. Therefore this compromise, in the form of the spending allocated in the bill shows that Dems in congress also believe resources should be allocated to border security.
First, it is self-evident that the status quo encourages illegal immigration and fake asylum immigration claims - providing sanctuary jurisdictions to protect the unlawful from the consequences of breaking the law always encourages that continued illicit behavior. In fact, catching and releasing the unlawful also encourages others to act unlawful. Routinely failing to arrest the unlawful that is found anywhere within the US also encourages that behavior. Failure to punish the unlawful, even if they are deported, encourages many to try another act of unlawful behavior. What about the "status quo" policies encouraging the unlawful don't you get?
Second, the bill does not preserve the status quo. It closes 20 percent of the available space for the housing of illegals, encouraging more catch and release, as well as intentional dispersal within the US population.
Last, apparently too much is being done to detain illegals, given the above paragraph (and by the way, what Congress as a whole feels and what a majority in the house of representatives feels are two different characterizations).
On B, I don't have an objective benchmark (such as a number) just as long as people aren't streaming across bringing crime and disease and raping willy-nilly, which for the most part they are not. I don't really feel the need to impose a benchmark in order to form an opinion. My position is that illegal immigration is to a point relatively harmless. Obviously humane steps must be taken to mitigate and limit it because a country can't take in everyone forever, but yes, back to point A again, I think it's enough without a wall.
So you don't "feel" a need to develop objective criteria for your support of the unlawful? If people do not have a need of objective criteria as a part of opinion, what do they have, other than a need to blind their cognition to their gut of touch-feely emotions?
Ambiguous words like "willy-nilly" and the consultation with one's gut on the meaning of "relatively harmless" isn't an opinion, its an emotional excretion.
Emotions are the lowest form of cognition. Alone, they do not merit opinion; one does not "feel" an opinion, people think and then believe an opinion - through principles, facts, and the application of reason. Your emotions are not "self-validating" because they are yours, nor are they a source of respectable conviction - no matter how strongly you "feel". An argument is NOT you telling us your opinion based on your gut feelings.
For example:
“The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico.”
(Quote of published federal crime statistics at :
Illegal Aliens Murder at a Much Higher Rate Than US Citizens Do )
BUT what's the point of informing you? If you can't tell me how many murders by illegal border crossers a year means the border security is acceptable, or why that number is acceptable, then there is nothing to argue over. What is "acceptable" is whatever "feelings" move you in the moment.
Cont.
