Oinions welcome, no guarantees I won't challenge them. I'm inclined to believe that it's wrong so feel free to change my mind.

In my opinion, there are no such things as an oinions.

Whoops...

You sound like a liberal saying crap like that. There is a distinct difference in legal and illegal immigrants.

If I am insane, then prove me wrong. So far you haven't done that once in the entire debate.

Maybe I'm not worth your time, or you haven't disproven a single one of my points in the entire debate and don't want to lose your last. But if you insist, I'll take that as a resignation since you started this debate in the first place. Good discussion, nice chatting with you.

The liberals are against immigration because the Republicans are for it. I don't think immigration is right because it doesn't make sense to me. We are not the same. I am willing to change my mind if a good argument is provided, but "protecting limited resources" shouldn't apply to violating the rights of individuals (again, assuming they did nothing wrong).
What makes them illegal besides that the Goverment said no? Since when does the government decide who gets to come on OUR property?

No one wants to get out of the comfort of their house to go help them. Only a few Christian churches still send missionaries to help those people. But let's go and discriminate against Christians because we want to do what we want.

Even if it were true that everyone will avoid a Mexican like the plauge, does that make them any less human?

What part of what I said was not true?

I have a hard time understanding how anything you said gives the goverments the right to kick people out of a country (assuming as they did nothing wrong).
The arguments I've seen were about:

Protecting limited resources (if true then we have the right to deport every unemployed individual)

How there's a better way to help the person (forcing a "better way" on citizens)

The assumption that no one wants to help them (if true then we have the right to deport every person in need out of any lazy neighborhood).

None of these follow that the government has the right to forcefully drag out of the country even without my examples. Could you elaborate on what you mean by these if there's a misunderstanding, clarify a point that I've missed or provide a new one (or defend your existing points)?

Crossing the border of a sovereign nation illegally is enough. They could be murderers or rapist scaping judgement from their own country.

So what you're saying is...

1.ccrossing the border is illegal (according to the government law) and should be deported due to illegal action.

2. There is possibility that they are muderers or rapists, so they should be taken off the streets like any other American criminal.

Is this correct?

Correct.

That still doesn't answer the question...
Let me give a reminder of what the question is:

"Let's say a person drew a line on a map, and told a human to not cross it. He does not own the line.
The human crosses the line designated on the map and does not violate the rights of anyone.
Did the person who drew the line get to force the human back to the other side?"

Two things contradictory to your answer were in this question:
1. It is stated that "He does not own the line", referring to the person.
2. It is stated that the human "does not violate the rights of anyone", meaning that he didn't trespass on any of the persons private property.

Your answer was:
-"if a person draws a line in a map of a land he owns and tells the other person not to cross -it, he has the right to protect his land and dispose of the other person by any means necessary if that other person tries to cross it."
Which does not answer the question because it is explicitly stated by the sentence that the person does NOT own the line.

Will there be an answer given or will you avoid the question?

You still failed to specify who the lands belong to. I mean, if the land does not belong to anyone, then they can share or fight for it. Humans are a territorial species and they are not the only territorial species in the animal kingdom. Now, clearly you have an issue with people you don't know entering your property, just as I do with undocumented people entering my country.

Ok, here are my counter points.

1. Aren't we debating weither or not it SHOULD be illegal?

2. Then we are obligated to figure out weither they are that sort of person, but shouldn't we treat the immigrant with due human respect and not commit force on him/her until we know he/she is guilty?

Nope. Not if they do not respect our border laws. You are working it to sound as there are gray areas but are all very black and white. They do not get my human respect if they do not respect my country's border laws. Why is this hard to understand?

But if you choose to leave the argument as it is I'll respect that.

I believe it is quite the opposite. Let me provide a map of the argument (not including any personal attacks):

unexplainable point(s): The libertarian principle that if they do no harm, they receive no harm.

Fauscovai point(s): Doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.

unexplainable point(s): The goverments says so doesn't change the argument, like what they called "illegal".

Fauscovai point(s): No one wants to take care of the Mexicans.

unexplainable point(s): Doesn't change their human rights.

Fauscovai point(s): Nothing Fauscovai said is false. (Did not speak in third person)

unexplainable point(s): Summary and attack of Fauscovais points with examples of possible American citizens and government forcing ways.

Fauscovai: Alternative points: Possibility of murderers/rapists/etc... and crossing border deserves force.

unexplainable: Summary of Fauscovais points.

Fauscovai: Confirmation of unexplainables summary.

unexplainable: Counterpoint against muder/rapist point, never mentioned again. The point of this argument is to ask if it should be illegal in the first place.

Fauscovai: Regardless of legitimacy of laws, if they break the law then it doesn't matter. They committed a sufficient crime to get deported.

unexplainable: Attempt to use analogy to show how human rights are superior to goverment laws (as long as no harm is done), with analogy: One person telling another to not cross a line that they do not own, then questioning weither it is right to forcefully reverse the actions of the person who was commanded to not cross the line, if he did infact cross the line, all things considered.

Fauscovai: A line on the dirt is not the same as a nation's borde (does not answer nor state if the question is un-answerable, just claims irrelevancy of the question and attacks the assumed conclusion).

unexplainable: Doesn't answer the question.

Fauscovai: Yes it does. You can't compare this question to the nations border. (attacking the assumed conclusion). Second point: The land could've belonged to someone else so this question is ridiculous.

unexplainable: Makes improved version of question (that clarify that no rights were violated and the owner doesn't own the line).

Fauscovai: Attacks assumed conclusion of analogy.

unexplainable: Answer the question.

Fauscovai: Assumes the line was owned and points out the right of protection of property (contradicting the question).

unexplainable: Claims contradiction of question.

You are not worth my time.

Fauscovai: Other people besides the 2 people could've owned the line.

unexplainable: Claims that it was previously assumed that no rights were violated so this possibility is ruled out. Re-askss question.

Fauscovai: They can fight for it.

unexplainable: Claims that Fauscovai is still avoiding the question, re-phrases question with identical assumtions with the same purpose.

Fauscovai: Claims to lose motivation to continue and claims to expose unexplainable for being in a particular political party and does not answer question.

If you want to continue this then please do, otherwise I don't think I'm the one on the losing side of this argument.

No matter what my political position is (which is irrelevant to the debate), your *only* standing argument is that crossing a nations border is superior to human rights (assuming the human didn't do any harm whatsoever), which I am trying to disprove with an analogy that you avoid with: Attacking the assumed conclusion and manipulating the analogy to something that it is not.

Am I wrong? If I am, let's continue and please knock my counter-arguments down like a deck of cards, and save your last argument that is currently on life support.

You are insane. Typical leftie.

You're clearly avoiding the question, which only makes it look like you're seeing the point I'm about to make and trying to avoid it. Not saying that's true, but that's what you're making it look like. Just tyring to help both of us here.

This time I'll be as clear as possible. In this scenario:
1. The "human" and the "person" are distinct free entities with human rights.
2. The person says to not cross a line on the ground.
3. The human crosses it anyway and -does not violate anyone's rights in the process-. He still isn't at this point and does not wish to go back to the other side of the line.

These facts are assumed in this scenario.

Does the person has the right to force on the human (who does not want to move) to the other side of the line?

I specified that it didn't belong to the person and it wouldn't violate anyone's rights to cross the line so therefore any attempt to assume that the human IS violating someone's rights to cross the line, via trespassing, then that attempt would fail since that is still contradicting the question.

Can you PLEASE answer the question and not avoid it like the plauge?

They can share it or fight for it. What does that has to do with illegal immigrants crossing United States border?

Will you answer the question or will you continue to assume conclusions and not answer it at all?

Okay, your address pls.

I already asnwer it 3 times. You just do not like the answer I am giving you. But here it goes again if a person draws a line in a map of a land he owns and tells the other person not to cross it, he has the right to protect his land and dispose of the other person by any means necessary if that other person tries to cross it.

Ok, what about this?

Let's say a person drew a line on a map, and told a human to not cross it. He does not own the line.
The human crosses the line designated on the map and does not violate the rights of anyone.
Did the person who drew the line get to force the human back to the other side?

Just a simple question.

But that is not how it works. You are imagining things, a fantasy. In the real world there are such thing as sovereign nations. Here is the definition.

"A sovereign nation, or sovereign state, is a political entity with supreme authority over its own territory and affairs, free from external control. It possesses defined borders, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Essentially, it's a country that governs itself. "

In some countries they will kill you for crossing their border. United States is VERY relaxed compared to most nations.

Now, I have answered your question. Now can you give me your address so that I can pay you a surprise visit? Or are you a hypocrite?

If a person drew a line on a map, and told a human to not cross it, and the area the line was within was not their property, do they have the right to throw the human back to the other side of the line when they cross it just because they said so, all things considered?

Ah, a what if scenario. You are comparing someone drawing a line on the dirt to a sovereign nation's border...are you that dumb? Do you own a house and do you not lock the doors of the house so that intruders do not go into your house when you sleep? If you lock your doors you are a hypocrite. If you do not, give me your address so that everyone here goes to pay you a visit.

Will you answer the question and stay on subject or do you wish to discuss my home security and IP address?

You also lack context in your question. You did not specified if the land belonged to someone. So it was a half ass question, but I knew the direction you were going. Just as you knew the direction I was going with my house example which you got triggered. If a dude draws a line in his property's front yard I will not cross it because I respect that person's private property. Just as if a mexico government officials draws a line in a mexico territory, I will not cross it to respect their land. There.

I did answered it, do not get triggered. You are comparing oranges to apples. What is your address? I want to go visit your unlocked house.

Nah, I do not care about it. I just exposed you to being a leftie, liar, and hypocrite. Good luck coming out with a new name for your new alt account and deleting the one you used for this most intreaguin conversation.

And also, please stop using dr. Strange for your memes, you are giving him and libertarians a bad name.

How much you do not know.

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.

Doesn't change my point.

You really can't change anyone who has been brainwashed by the media from many years of programming and conditioning with just a single post.

What I meant is that you haven't changed my POINT, not my mind. I've stated that just because I disagree with the Republicans on a few things does not follow that I'm a leftist. It just means I disagree on a few things. No?

Point or mind is the same thing. I am here to expose people. Many come here with the disguise of being libertarian but will vote democrat the first chance they get. They just give libertarian a bad name. What point can you make when government is not kicking any immigrants, just those who come here illegaly as they should. You had no validity from the start.

If you think I'm leftist then there really is no point in denying it, I have before posted anti-leftist posts on this stream, but since this is a first impression you aren't gonna change your assumption. Might as well get back to the subject.

Which immigrants is the government kicking out?

Apologies for the confusion, I am referring to "Illegal" immigrants in this post, not immigrants in general. I will be more careful with my wording next time, but I think it was generally understood that I meant Mexicans that went to the US without goverment permission, and under the assumption that they didn't do anything wrong.

Can we continue now?

So, you are not longer confused about government kicking illegal immigrants out?

No, I'm just clarifying a mistake I made when wording out my post.

Well, glad you realized you made a mistake. The wording is very important.