Think about it!

Illegal Entry (keyword ILLEGAL) is illegal. Go figure. It’s a go***mn crime.

That just means the goverment needs to reconsider what the call legal, no?
If I'm wrong then argue on that instead.

No, not quite. You can’t just make it so anyone can come into our country. That allows terrorists. It allows people who have dangerous intent. I think the government needs to simplify the process, speed it up some, but it needs to stay safe. We can’t just allow anyone to waltz in, no one else does, so why should we?

If the government can think of a solution that prevents Mexicans from entering the US in the first place then great. Maybe build a wall, if that doesn't work then try thinking if a different strategy.

If they are already in the US then deport the bad guys, not the good guys. No?

The bottom line is that if you entered illegally you aren’t a good guy. Your intentions don’t matter after you’ve done something intentionally that you know is illegal. A wall would work, but it wouldn’t stop those who enter from other borders. We’ll always need to deport people because no matter how hard we try, we can’t indefinitely stop people from entering illegally. Trump though has already gone after most of the really bad people. The gang members, the terrorists, the “less” bad criminals. He hasn’t gotten everyone, obviously, but going after those first leaves mostly just people who’ve entered illegally.

Isn't the question about if entering should be illegal in the first place?
This is getting confusing, here is my argument in formal logic.

1. If humans do no harm, then no one/nothing has the right to force them around.
2. Non-harmful Mexicans are humans.
3. Therefore, if non-harmful Mexicans do no harm, then no one/nothing has the right to force them around.
4. Non-harmful Mexicans do no harm (by definition).
5. Therefore, no one/nothing has the right to force them (non-harmful Mexicans) around.

If this logic is wrong, then please point out the premises that are incorrect. If all 5 premises are true, then my point stands.

Jesus you’re persistent.

The spitting on them, as I suggested, would represent those who have committed crimes other than illegal entry. The house relates to the country because while it’s not private property, it is our nation, and our nation has laws, regardless of if YOU want to follow them or not.

If you have a family who crosses the border illegally and you let them stay in your home or on your land, for whatever reason you chose to do that, then you’ll be arrested for harboring criminals, and they’ll be deported for illegal entry. It’s as simple as that. So yes, sure, control your land how you want but the consequences that follow are earned by your actions.

Your last paragraph essentially says if one family owns land, and they want someone to be safe on it, that’s allowed. Correct? Cause that’s not how it works, and if you think a little bit past just someone who illegally crossed, then you’ll see that.

Say you walk into someone’s house uninvited. You’ll be kicked out, right? Now say you walk into someone’s house uninvited and spit on them. You’ll get kicked out harder, right? Immigration is the same way. Come in legally, or you’ll get kicked out. Come in illegally AND harm a citizen, or do some shady drug or gun related dealings? Then you’ll get kicked out even harder. That’s the best way I can explain it.

"Spitting on them" doesn't apply to premise 1 since it says "If humans do no harm" and presumes that no harm is done. And what house? The USA is a land, not a piece of private property. There are multiple people in charge of different parts of the land with their own rights, rights which they do not share with the goverment whatsoever unless given explicit consent.

The decision on who or what treads on their property is their decision and their decision only. The government is not allowed to interfere with that decision whatsoever. If they say no, then will the goverment get involved, no sooner, and preferably no later.

1. If humans do no harm no harm should come to them. But if they break a countries rules, they chose to disrespect them. We have a difference between legal and illegal entry for a reason, same as every other country.
2. I never said they weren’t humans, but they need to respect our national rules the same way we would going anywhere else. This includes our rule of how you enter the country.
3. Again, circling back. If you break our rules, including the illegal entry one, then yes, we can push you around, i.e. deportation.
4. I understand, but by letting people, harmful or not, puts the idea in people’s mind that anyone is welcome, including those who do have harmful intent. Also, how are we to decide whether they’re harmful or not? If they’ve entered illegally, why do they have any incentive to follow the rest of our laws if we seemingly don’t care about that one?
5. If you want to be here, cross legally. There isn’t any other way to put it.

So the premise you disagree with is premise #1, saying that disrespect is another reason to force them around?

He entered the country without permission or under false pretenses. Adios!

How is that wrong?

😂 it’s self explanatory.

How so? Why does he need permission? Is he violating somebody's rights?

He needs the permission because we have borders Mr. Biden. Just like all other countries have and it’s against our law to enter without permission.

If a family on the other side of the border welcomes the Mexican then the government has no right to say otherwise, it's their property that the Mexican is entering. The government is ruled by the people, the people aren't ruled by the government.

I may sound like a leftist for saying this, but just because I don't agree with one particular party on absolutely everything they say doesn't mean I belong to their rival party. I'm not going to follow one particular party on everything.

You are absolutely wrong. Those people are harboring a fugitive and so are also guilty of a crime, and the government has every right to control who enters the country. As a matter of fact it’s one of their primary reasons for existence. You can’t just bring over a foreigner who may be a terrorist and say it’s ok because he lives in my house.

I agree that no one party has all the solutions, but the current iteration of the Democrat party is a communist enemy of the USA.

If the person in question is a terrorist, murderer, r*pist or any other bad guy then this would apply to Asians, Africans, Europeans and Americans as well as other races besides just Mexicans. The point I'm trying to make is assuming that they AREN'T that kind of person, if they are, then it really doesn't matter if the are Mexican or full-blooded American and doesn't change my point.

“ if they are, then it really doesn't matter if the are Mexican or full-blooded American and doesn't change my point.”

Of course it applies to all illegal immigrants and Mexicans don’t have a free pass. In America we have a representative government. So it is the will of the people the government acts for. So it is the people, not the government who created the laws.

Let me elaborate what I mean by it being confusing:

Statement 1:
"Of course it applies to all illegal imagrants" (presumably referring to the point that ANY human being who've done such horrors should be removed from society)

2:
"Mexicans don't have a free pass" (My argument is defending that they shouldn't need a "free pass")

3:
"In America we have a representative government. So it is the will of the people the government acts for. So it is the people, not the government who created the laws."
(Even if it were true that every person in the USA wanted a Mexican to leave, it doesn't affect the Mexicans human right to stay as long as he doesn't trespass on anyone's property or violate their rights.)

Can you clarify your point? It is a bit confusing and appears to go in different directions.

Let me elaborate what I mean by it being confusing:

Statement 1:
"Of course it applies to all illegal imagrants" (presumably referring to the point that ANY human being who've done such horrors should be removed from society)”

Yes migration laws apply to everyone whether they have committed terrorism or not. The comment About harboring a terrorist was an example of why you dont get to individually decide who can come in.

2:
"Mexicans don't have a free pass" (My argument is defending that they shouldn't need a "free pass")”

Meaning you don’t believe in countries or borders? What about the Mexicans rioting over Americans in Mexico City telling them to speak the language or better yet go home? Why are they so racist?

3:
"In America we have a representative government. So it is the will of the people the government acts for. So it is the people, not the government who created the laws."
(Even if it were true that every person in the USA wanted a Mexican to leave, it doesn't affect the Mexicans human right to stay as long as he doesn't trespass on anyone's property or violate their rights.)”

It doesn’t have to be every person agreeing. Not every person agrees on all laws enacted. That’s the breaks in a democracy. Human rights don’t include sponging of another countries resources or illegally crossing their border.

1. Then that's why we need a more creative solution to the problem, no? If we want to block out terrorists then we don't do it by violating other people's rights. Do we?
2. One could make a border and hope people don't cross it, but if the Mexican isn't trespassing on private property, he is doing no harm to anyone whatsoever.
3. Who's rights is he violating?

They are not the ones destroying it

El Salvador?
Is that where Libweirdo Karens can hook up with an Eco-sabateur,
errr, a just plain arsonist on the lam?

Yousef Deba or Joseph Dibee could stand up for basic constitutional property rights.
Instead of hiding out in El Salvador on the way through Cuba to Russia ?
Allegedly Blonde's prefer the risky bad boy behavior of an Ecosabateur on the lam

https://www.abcf.net/blog/2021/02/

There is no conspiracy being alleged whatsoever. Silly claim.
There is just the comparison plainly of El Salvador
Unsurprisingly, where you stated "Deport Them to El Salvador"

A coincidence is not a claim of conspiracy.
I agree with you in your assertion that
"...I have no idea what you're talking about"

Hence, the link that was shared, so if you felt free to remedy that situation, and get an idea,
you could.
Whether you do so or not is your call.

Define Karen. Sounds like you just hate white people.

Said unironically, no less.

The only one thing anything about hating white people. Is you. Repeatedly. In this meme alone.

Is that not a picture of a white lady he called a Karen? Is Karen a name associated with any ethnic group more than others? Anytime there is a post of a Karen it’s a white person so you can code talk however you want but if a black women does the same she’s just being assertive and not a Karen.

However I did ask for a definition in case he had one.

Hate to break it to you, but Karen is not exactly necessarily the name of the woman in the photo. Nor is the name race restricted.

One of yours made the same error the other day. He said the New England Patriots and the New York Yankees referred to 'White' people.
Yous gotta brush up on life over here.

If a 'Black' woman does the same, she would be called "uppity." She may be also called "Karen," in keeping with today's lingo.

Again, you need to brush up on life over here and leave those foreign stereotypes of us behind.

Karen is a colloquial term most often applied to white women who complain or ask to speak to the manager. It is almost exclusively applied in a racist manner at privileged women. What women are privileged according to a leftist?

I'm digging the slightly altered copypaste. It's a colloquial term? That's good to know. Asking to speak to the manager?

You overdo the "They hate white people" thing. Notice how others here with the constant "us," "our," "we" ... overly forced in their attempts to convince everybody that they're Americans while the very thing they're doing to convince everyone is a giveaway that they are not? Same thing.

I'm white, and I'm not the one who made a meme about deporting white liberal women.

So what, many white people hate their own and their heritage. Define a Karen, can’t do it?

Karen is a colloquial term most often applied to white women who complain or ask to speak to the manager. It is almost exclusively applied in a racist manner at privileged women.

That’s my definition so we agree you understand it to mean white wonen and you hate them and believe they are all privileged.

That's your belief, not mine.

I asked for your definition and you posted mine.

Stupid biotch should have hired a legal citizen in the first place

Welp, sucks to be you then

Only on foreign goods…whole lotta paint and brushes made right here, tariff free

Good thing the donald's more recent tariffs will be totally different.... Right guys......? Right.............? 😅

I guess welfare folks are more bothered by them than I am

You think those two are the same!

The right just switches on and off when they choose give a f*ck about things and its obvious.

Off the top of my head:

Inflation
The National Debt
"Printing money"
Unemployment
The Epstein files
The TikTok ban
The Stock Market
Polls
The Constitution
"Innocent until proven guilty"
Law and Order
"Back the Blue"
States Rights
Etc

A few more for your list:

Bribing the big guy
Cancel culture/censorship
Pardons
Lawfare

The act of entering the country without the proper process is cause for arrest. End of discussion. I don’t care if you’re a gang member or have committed crimes other than that, it only makes me want you arrested more. But if you entered illegally then you’ve committed crime enough to be held accountable.

isnt there something in the constitution about "right to due process" and you guys love defending the constitution, right?

Yes, there is. But you get detained before said due process is enacted. And if you’ve crossed illegally, or are suspected to have crossed illegally, then you’ll be detained and given your due process. Punishment will follow as is owed.

Hopefully at the very least they actually determined that was the case beforehand. Based on what I've seen happening so far with this admin, I would not make that bet.

Seems to me like they're literally putting on masks and just rounding people up like Trump's f*cking gestapo.

On the plus side they're no longer sending them to a foreign maximum security prison without due process (even breaking court orders to do so).

You're in law enforcement?

I don’t need to be in law enforcement to know the law.

My mistake, I misread what you said about arrested. I read it as if you wanted to do the arresting.

I reread it and saw my error.

Also doesn’t mean he hasn’t already been ordered deported or committed some other crime. Have investigated this person? They have.