How many questions can an illegal immigration advocate answer?

[Hatuey]

Are you really saying that because illegal immigration didn't hurt America back at a time when the population of this entire country doesn't even add up to a quarter of what it is now that what's going on today with today's number of people and illegal immigrants it still won't hurt America? Really? You have any idea how silly that sounds?

Lmao, people were arguing that illegal immigration 'hurt' America back then too and that the country was overpopulated then too! You're essentially repeating the same arguments from 100 years ago which still hold no water. Most people have kids, eventually join the American fabric, and become Americans. That's simply the way things are. They aren't going to change just because people on the internet think Mexicans hate white people.

You should get used to it.

Actually human trafficking WAS legal back then. So yeah, legal immigration.

Lmao, not really. Human trafficking has never been 'legal' in any sense of the word. People have justified it for their communities, without much caring for what the rest of the world does legally speaking. Please understand that the word 'legal' is referenced once in all secessionist declarations; and in reference to grievances towards Union soldiers supposedly killing southerners.

When you start off so categorically wrong, you really should stop.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You disagree because you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm 100% correct.

If you say "Cities with X are more" then all you need are pure statistics". If you say "Policy X makes cities more safe" then you need to show causation. They were discussing "are these cities safer" and the guy showed that they were.

That's just a fact. It's fine if you want to argue causation all day, and I agree, I don't think it's proven that all of this is caused by sanctuary policies, but the guy was right and Tucker was a douche like usual.

Except that the guy argued that it was because they were sanctuary cities that they were "safer". That demands proof of causation.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Lmao, people were arguing that illegal immigration 'hurt' America back then too and that the country was overpopulated then too! You're essentially repeating the same arguments from 100 years ago which still hold no water. Most people have kids, eventually join the American fabric, and become Americans. That's simply the way things are. They aren't going to change just because people on the internet think Mexicans hate white people.

You should get used to it.

Ummm...no, the overpopulation argument was not used. That is a flat out lie.

Lmao, not really. Human trafficking has never been 'legal' in any sense of the word. People have justified it for their communities, without much caring for what the rest of the world does legally speaking. Please understand that the word 'legal' is referenced once in all secessionist declarations; and in reference to grievances towards Union soldiers supposedly killing southerners.

When you start off so categorically wrong, you really should stop.

Umm again...yes it was legal. Do you not know what the word "legal" means? You're trying to use an argument about a time period that you apparently know nothing about. Even President Lincoln said that he would keep slavery legal if it meant keeping the country together. Did you not know that? Do you also not know that the reason the South tried to secede was because they thought that the Northern States were going to try and make slavery illegal? That they believed Lincoln to be anti-slavery? Not to mention the simple fact that slavery had been legal in the US from the founding to the time of Lincoln which covers a little less than 100 years. (1776-1862 if you want exact date from the founding until the emancipation proclamation).

Your argument is falling flat over many points. You're the one that should stop such a stupid argument.

 

[backpacker]

Actually Tucker specifically asked "Do you agree with that" The first time he asked. That is not asking the guy to speak for other people. That is asking the guy for his own opinion on what was said. The second time he asked the question he specifically said:



How you think that is Tucker expecting him to speak for others is either you misunderstanding what was said or you intentionally spinning what was said in order to dismiss based on a lie that you invoke.

What he asks at 25 seconds is not what he asked at 3 minutes no matter how many times you pretend it is.

 

[Kal'Stang]

What he asks at 25 seconds is not what he asked at 3 minutes no matter how many times you pretend it is.

Actually what was asked at the 25 second mark has more relevance than a question simplified due to frustration at someone that was refusing to answer the actual question. All you're attempting to do is take things out of context in order to spin something into something that it wasn't.

 

[Hatuey]

Ummm...no, the overpopulation argument was not used. That is a flat out lie.

You're so easy to debate, it's almost laughable. Here is a 1900s cartoon literally telling people that we cannot accept anymore than 3% of Europe's immigrants into the country, a funnel. A funnel filtering Europe's hordes, Kal'stang:

Here is yet another anti-immigrant cartoon with some guy literally warning Uncle Sam about how many of them there are and discussing 'the evils of unrestricted immigration':

Here is a more middle of the road cartoon, which still has the reference of 1,000,000 immigrants showing up in 12 months:

When you have no idea what it is you're talking about, it becomes obvious. I stopped taking you seriously after you claimed a bunch of Jews in NYC were a hate-group. Now, I take you even less seriously on this topic. Now, I know that never in your life have you come across most of this material. However, overpopulation as an argument against immigrants has literally been around for 120+ years. You're not original in your political beliefs.

__________________________________________________

Umm again...yes it was legal.... u're trying to use an argument about a time period that you apparently know nothing about. Even President Lincoln said that he would keep slavery legal if it meant keeping the country together.

Okay, I'm going to cut you off because this is the actual quote:

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it

Please notice that it does not say, make it illegal. It says 'free the slaves'. Lincoln full well understood that slavery wasn't a matter of legality. It was a matter of justification. Once slavery was no longer justified, it was ABOLISHED, not made illegal. The difference is pretty important. Things that are illegal, can be legalized again. Things abolished? Not so much. Which is why we haven't seen a movement of any real sort to bring back slavery. FYI - the word illegal was around during Lincoln's time.

 

[roughdraft274]

Except that the guy argued that it was because they were sanctuary cities that they were "safer". That demands proof of causation.

No, it requires statistics. If he had said "sanctuary policies result in" or "sanctuary policies cause" then you'd be correct. But if he only says "cities with sanctuary policies are safer than those that aren't" then you only need simple statistics. Arguing otherwise is stupid.

 

[backpacker]

Actually what was asked at the 25 second mark has more relevance than a question simplified due to frustration at someone that was refusing to answer the actual question. All you're attempting to do is take things out of context in order to spin something into something that it wasn't.

I am not spinning anything or taking anything out of context. I made a post about three minutes into the interview, not about 25 seconds into the interview. Thus far all I can see it you struggling to create a straw man out of another part of the interview having nothing to do with what I posted about the three minute mark segment which started ramping about the 2:45 mark or so as best as I recall.

 

[Moot]

You might need a piece of paper to keep track of the questions, but no paper is necessary to keep track of the answers he gives.

This is just stunning... and don't think for a minute it is unusual, because it isn't... it's the norm.




.

It looks like Tucker got schooled by Alex.

 

[Grim17]

It looks like Tucker got schooled by Alex.

LMAO... You must be joking.

The man didn't answer one damned question and cited a study to falsely claim illegal aliens make cities safer and increase wages, when the poll never concluded either of those things.

Tucker Carlson exposed the man's dishonesty and you say he schooled him? LMMFAO

.

 

[Moot]

LMAO... You must be joking.

The man didn't answer one damned question and cited a study to falsely claim illegal aliens make cities safer and increase wages, when the poll never concluded either of those things.

Tucker Carlson exposed the man's dishonesty and you say he schooled him? LMMFAO

.

Tucker lied and said there weren't any studies....and Alex proved him wrong. Then Tucker tried to put words in his mouth...but Alex nipped him the bud.

Tucker was hysterical and all over the map...while Alex remained calm and focused.

Tucker exposed his own dishonesty.

It's only a matter of time before Tucker sticks his foot in his mouth and gets canned...again.

 

[Harshaw]

Everyone breaks the law when the law is ****ing idiotic. Shall we deport everyone in the country with a speeding ticket or a parking ticket too? Did we round up and arrest everyone who drank alcohol under prohibition before we repealed prohibition? No, the law was stupid so nobody was following it so we did the smart thing and got rid of it.

To be honest I think I'd almost rather deport legal immigrants. Anybody dumb enough to wait in a line for 10 years when you could easily just hop across the border is probably an idiot.

Congrats; you've just explained to yourself why simply making the illegals "legal" doesn't actually solve the full panoply of problems.

I take it you are for open borders, then? I ask this because you say immigration law "****ing idiotic."

 

[Grim17]

Tucker lied and said there weren't any studies....and Alex proved him wrong. Then Tucker tried to put words in his mouth...but Alex nipped him the bud.

Tucker was hysterical and all over the map...while Alex remained calm and focused.

Tucker exposed his own dishonesty.

It's only a matter of time before Tucker sticks his foot in his mouth and gets canned...again.

LMAO... the man cited that study as proof that illegal aliens make sanctuary cities safer and they raise local wages... That study does no such thing. The man tried to BS Carlson and his audience, and was called out on it.

It really is no surprise that you endorse a man that lies and deceives people in order to prop up his beliefs. It's not like you haven't done it before on this forum.

.

 

[Grim17]

No, it requires statistics. If he had said "sanctuary policies result in" or "sanctuary policies cause" then you'd be correct. But if he only says "cities with sanctuary policies are safer than those that aren't" then you only need simple statistics. Arguing otherwise is stupid.

He was there to argue in favor of the government not deporting illegal aliens. There was only one reason in the world for him to bring up that study, and that was to imply that illegal aliens benefit sanctuary cities by raising wages and making them safer... something we both know is pure BS.

I don't understand why you are choosing to parse words and play dumb? You know exactly why he brought that study up and I can't believe you're pretending you don't.

If you disagree, then please tell me why in the world he would bring that study up, when it did not support the argument he was making?


.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I am not spinning anything or taking anything out of context. I made a post about three minutes into the interview, not about 25 seconds into the interview. Thus far all I can see it you struggling to create a straw man out of another part of the interview having nothing to do with what I posted about the three minute mark segment which started ramping about the 2:45 mark or so as best as I recall.

You made an out of context argument. Here's what was said starting at the 2:55 mark all the way to the 3:07 mark (at which point Alex then said that he wasn't going to speak for the speaker...which he was never asked to do and then tried to go back to a bogus claim).

"Do me the favor of addressing what she actually said, that it was ethnic cleansing. Ok but do you think that it, why does it always take a turn into racial demagoguery. You're accusing Trump of being a racial demagogue and then when people say things like ethnic cleansing, murdering people cause of their race? Come on now.

Please show me where Tucker asked Alex to speak for her. The only thing he asked for Alex to address is what she said. Not to speak for her, but to address what was said.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, it requires statistics. If he had said "sanctuary policies result in" or "sanctuary policies cause" then you'd be correct. But if he only says "cities with sanctuary policies are safer than those that aren't" then you only need simple statistics. Arguing otherwise is stupid.

As has already been pointed out to you...the guy was there to argue on behalf of illegal aliens and sanctuary cities. Why would he bring up that study while trying to defend illegal aliens and sanctuary cities and then say that Sessions was attempting to make those cities more dangerous when all Sessions is doing is attempting to stop illegal aliens from having a sanctuary? Nothing Sessions is doing is going to make those cities less safe for anyone. The only way that it could be made less safe by removal of illegal aliens and sanctuary status is if that "study" was in fact true and that illegal aliens are responsible for all the things Alex claims they are responsible for. But in order for it to be true then it would have to have proven causation. Which has not been proven.

Context is everything RD. You're argument requires that we strip all context out of the conversation. Which is dishonest. And I've never pegged you as such. So please please do not attempt to disregard the context, and thereby honesty, in favor of political ideology.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It looks like Tucker got schooled by Alex.

It looks like you didn't even watch the video. All I saw was someone refusing to answer any question posed to him and instead used the opportunity to be on TV to do more propaganda BS.

 

[Hatuey]

It looks like you didn't even watch the video. All I saw was someone refusing to answer any question posed to him and instead used the opportunity to be on TV to do more propaganda BS.

You're so easy to debate, it's almost laughable. Here is a 1900s cartoon literally telling people that we cannot accept anymore than 3% of Europe's immigrants into the country, a funnel. A funnel filtering Europe's hordes, Kal'stang:

Here is yet another anti-immigrant cartoon with some guy literally warning Uncle Sam about how many of them there are and discussing 'the evils of unrestricted immigration':

Here is a more middle of the road cartoon, which still has the reference of 1,000,000 immigrants showing up in 12 months:

When you have no idea what it is you're talking about, it becomes obvious. I stopped taking you seriously after you claimed a bunch of Jews in NYC were a hate-group. Now, I take you even less seriously on this topic. Now, I know that never in your life have you come across most of this material. However, overpopulation as an argument against immigrants has literally been around for 120+ years. You're not original in your political beliefs.

__________________________________________________



Okay, I'm going to cut you off because this is the actual quote:



Please notice that it does not say, make it illegal. It says 'free the slaves'. Lincoln full well understood that slavery wasn't a matter of legality. It was a matter of justification. Once slavery was no longer justified, it was ABOLISHED, not made illegal. The difference is pretty important. Things that are illegal, can be legalized again. Things abolished? Not so much. Which is why we haven't seen a movement of any real sort to bring back slavery. FYI - the word illegal was around during Lincoln's time.

Pst. Respond whenever you want.

 

[Moot]

It looks like you didn't even watch the video. All I saw was someone refusing to answer any question posed to him and instead used the opportunity to be on TV to do more propaganda BS.

All you saw was you wanted to see....as usual.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Pst. Respond whenever you want.

What you found there was sentiments about legal immigration. As such, nothing to respond to in a discussion regarding illegal immigration. :shrug:

And all you're doing with Lincoln is using semantics on what he said in that one quote. Again, not worth responding to. :shrug:

 

[Kal'Stang]

All you saw was you wanted to see....as usual.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Moot]

Pot, meet kettle.

If thats all you saw then I don't think you watched the video.

 

[Hatuey]

What you found there was sentiments about legal immigration. As such, nothing to respond to in a discussion regarding illegal immigration. :shrug:

Sentiments where the problem was the overcrowding of the country because of immigrants legal and illegal. Again, you're not that original in your philosophy, bro. You're repeating the same nonsense proven to be untrue by the 70 years of the Irish going from Need Not Apply to being US presidents. The funny thing? His forefathers were alleged to be criminals who thrived on bootlegging. Hell, morons on this forum swear that they were criminals after their family members became presidents.

You made up what Lincoln said to suit your needs. The problem with that is that Lincoln's words are pretty clear in an age where 'illegal' wasn't a rare word. He plainly states that his goal is freedom for slaves to save the union. These aren't ambiguous words. The matter was ideological for Lincoln (as well as the Confederacy). It wasn't about whether we'd keep it legal. It was about whether we'd erase it as an institution. It wasn't about whether it could be given a status changeable through legislation (like a legality issue is).

You've displayed an amazing ignorance of the issue if you think it was about legality. Weed is a legality issue. We haven't fought wars over it. Women's rights is a legality issue for the most part (like, is it legal for a woman to own a house?). We haven't fought wars over it. Slavery was an institution of the economy. For abolitionists, it was a question of what it meant for blacks to be freed. There is no other "legality" issue over which people have marched by the hundreds of thousands to war for.

Good grief, no wonder you didn't know your argument was rehashed nonsense from 100 years ago.

 

[Hatuey]

If thats all you saw then I don't think you watched the video.

One thing I've learned in this forum, the more muted the response - the better. When people are just resorting to memes, they're pretty much done arguing and can't really expand on the topic any further. Don't take it as a bad thing. This thread was made with the goal of showing how much a better speaker a TV anchor was than a guy whose job it is to read through legislation and defend Latin Americans. In their world, they think they've won something.

Outside the internet world, we know that people like the speaker are challenging Trump's presidency and some of its more questionable actions. I'll take them over loudmouths like Tucker. Stewart made him look like an idiot and he stopped wearing the bow ties while he was on CNN. If that doesn't show just how much of a hack Stewart isn't, I don't know what. The guy savaged him.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Sentiments where the problem was the overcrowding of the country because of immigrants legal and illegal. Again, you're not that original in your philosophy, bro. You're repeating the same nonsense proven to be untrue by the 70 years of the Irish going from Need Not Apply to being US presidents. The funny thing? His forefathers were alleged to be criminals who thrived on bootlegging. Hell, morons on this forum swear that they were criminals after their family members became presidents.

You made up what Lincoln said to suit your needs. The problem with that is that Lincoln's words are pretty clear in an age where 'illegal' wasn't a rare word. He plainly states that his goal is freedom for slaves to save the union. These aren't ambiguous words. The matter was ideological for Lincoln (as well as the Confederacy). It wasn't about whether we'd keep it legal. It was about whether we'd erase it as an institution. It wasn't about whether it could be given a status changeable through legislation (like a legality issue is).

You've displayed an amazing ignorance of the issue if you think it was about legality. Weed is a legality issue. We haven't fought wars over it. Women's rights is a legality issue for the most part (like, is it legal for a woman to own a house?). We haven't fought wars over it. Slavery was an institution of the economy. For abolitionists, it was a question of what it meant for blacks to be freed. There is no other "legality" issue over which people have marched by the hundreds of thousands to war for.

Good grief, no wonder you didn't know your argument was rehashed nonsense from 100 years ago.

I suppose you can show me where in this thread I have argued that immigration is a concern due to over crowding? No? Then you need to stop with the strawman arguments. In fact I support legal immigration fully. I would even like the system streamlined to let more in. So yeah....another strawman attempt by you that failed.

And no, I paraphrased Lincoln because that is exactly what he was talking about. Like it or not, slavery was a legal institution. Which means that they were here legally. Not illegally. Anyone that claims otherwise does not know what the word "legal" means.