Immigration Activist to Leave Sanctuary

[Fandango 1,439]

Not getting defensive here...but what do you mean by this?

What's so 'unbelievable' about my argument, exactly?

LisaD,

really meant no offense. you express yourself quite clearly and forcefully. My response did not elaborate on my point. which was centered on your challenge to Steve to open up his house to illegals, etc... That, imo, is over the top and funny.

Fair enough, but isn't that what Steven's been advocating? Just on a larger scale, mind you.

USA=OUR HOUSE. Think about it.

You called it 'over the top'...and that's exactly how I see pandering to illegals. No one would leave their home open for anyone to come and take what they want, would they? hrmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh, no offense taken btw

Edited August 17, 2007 by LisaD

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I think that very recent events have impressively shown that there are significantly more Americans that can identify with Lisa's argument than with your's or Steven's. For the illegal crowd, your statement may apply. That crowd doesn't matter, though.

i think you are missing the point Steve, I, and others have tried to make. To try to summarize the situation: the lady is here illegally? yes. does she have any right to advocate change that would help her situation? (here some of say yes and other say no). just because some feel she has no right to do so doe not mean she cannot do so. Not too hard. unless you get stuck on the 'what part of illegal dont you understand' logic.

Daniel

:energetic:

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I don't exactly understand the concept of the one line comeback 'you're a riot' unless you just can't figure out how to actually address what I said.

Lisa, It means i've fallen and I can't get up.

it meant her argument, in some ppl's estimation, went way past the line of believability. thus, a riot.

Daniel

:energetic:

Daniel, I see your wife is from Mexico. You need not be so defensive. The two of you did what was needed to be done the right way. Tell me how you feel about people who cut in line in front of you?

Marc,

si, mi esposa es de Mexico.

(yes, my wife is from Mexico)

Defensive? How so?

Yes, we did it the right way.

Cut in line in front of us? Who did that? Certainly you do not mean the illegals. they don't have green cards. my wife does. they can be deported. my wife won't be. they fear deportation/negation of services/abuse/etc... My wife from Mexico, does not. I give thanks for this great country of ours. I give thanks that I had the right and wherewithal to bring the lady of my life to live with me. Again, tell me who cut in line in front us.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, what part of illegal is hard to understand?

Since you brought it up....

just because some feel she has no right to do so doe not mean she cannot do so.

Yanno...if I go outside my house and see someone swimming in my pool, I don't give a ###### how hot they are, that does not give them the right to trample MY rights and take what doesn't belong to them.

But I'm glossing over the icing on the cake in this story...she WAS afforded due process....EVEN WITH all the bs. Now she's got to go.

Edited August 17, 2007 by LisaD

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Max outta pocket for us is 2500.00

Yanno, you bring up a good point...dunno if my policy had a max OOP. It was a jacked up time for me...don't think I ever checked!

lol

You definately gotta keep your eye on your coverage.My company changes shite around once a year.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Not getting defensive here...but what do you mean by this?

What's so 'unbelievable' about my argument, exactly?

LisaD,

really meant no offense. you express yourself quite clearly and forcefully. My response did not elaborate on my point. which was centered on your challenge to Steve to open up his house to illegals, etc... That, imo, is over the top and funny.

Fair enough, but isn't that what Steven's been advocating? Just on a larger scale, mind you.

USA=OUR HOUSE. Think about it.

You called it 'over the top'...and that's exactly how I see pandering to illegals. No one would leave their home open for anyone to come and take what they want, would they? hrmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh, no offense taken btw

LisaD,

thanks for not taking offense. I never mean to offend ppl. But aswe all know, this medium lends itself to misunderstandings when none was meant.

I don't think Steve, or most ppl advocate for illegal immigration. What you will see is that they advocate certain solutions to the fact there is a large number of illegal aliens in this country. How to solve it? many ways. Which is best? That is the discussion.

The comparison of a house and the country although appealing, really does not do the problem justice. Way more complicated than that.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Fandango 1,439]

Not getting defensive here...but what do you mean by this?

What's so 'unbelievable' about my argument, exactly?

LisaD,

really meant no offense. you express yourself quite clearly and forcefully. My response did not elaborate on my point. which was centered on your challenge to Steve to open up his house to illegals, etc... That, imo, is over the top and funny.

Fair enough, but isn't that what Steven's been advocating? Just on a larger scale, mind you.

USA=OUR HOUSE. Think about it.

You called it 'over the top'...and that's exactly how I see pandering to illegals. No one would leave their home open for anyone to come and take what they want, would they? hrmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh, no offense taken btw

LisaD,

thanks for not taking offense. I never mean to offend ppl. But aswe all know, this medium lends itself to misunderstandings when none was meant.

I don't think Steve, or most ppl advocate for illegal immigration. What you will see is that they advocate certain solutions to the fact there is a large number of illegal aliens in this country. How to solve it? many ways. Which is best? That is the discussion.

The comparison of a house and the country although appealing, really does not do the problem justice. Way more complicated than that.

Daniel

:energetic:

Of course the analogy is simplistic...aren't most?

What is also at issue is what type of precident this makes. What does that say to the world really? 'oh you can disregard our laws, get deported, come back again, have an anchor baby, then be hailed as an 'activist'!' That's bs. The problem is not just immediate fix no matter what...and yes, of course it's always good to consider the 'path of least resisitance' insomuch as how we deal with this issue....but at the end of the day, we need to not only control the issue at hand, but prevent the issue from rapidly growing like a giant tumor on the backside of America.

I'm rambling a bit cos it's late & I'm about to go to bed, but hopefully this makes sense to more than just me, lol.

Edited August 17, 2007 by LisaD

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Well, what part of illegal is hard to understand?

Since you brought it up....

just because some feel she has no right to do so doe not mean she cannot do so.

Yanno...if I go outside my house and see someone swimming in my pool, I don't give a ###### how hot they are, that does not give them the right to trample MY rights and take what doesn't belong to them.

What part of illegal don't I understand? I think you misunderstand what I understand. I know quite well that she/he/they are here illegally. period. happy?

Because she is here illegally and has been caught (previously) shw most likely WILL be deported. happy? maybe so maybe not. Is it the best way to handle this? maybe so maybe not. she, and others advocate that it is NOT the best way to handle this. maybe she is right maybe she is not. but advocate she does. and some of feel is her human right to advocate.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, what part of illegal is hard to understand?

Since you brought it up....

just because some feel she has no right to do so doe not mean she cannot do so.

Yanno...if I go outside my house and see someone swimming in my pool, I don't give a ###### how hot they are, that does not give them the right to trample MY rights and take what doesn't belong to them.

What part of illegal don't I understand? I think you misunderstand what I understand. I know quite well that she/he/they are here illegally. period. happy?

Because she is here illegally and has been caught (previously) shw most likely WILL be deported. happy? maybe so maybe not. Is it the best way to handle this? maybe so maybe not. she, and others advocate that it is NOT the best way to handle this. maybe she is right maybe she is not. but advocate she does. and some of feel is her human right to advocate.

Daniel

:energetic:

reread the question...I never said 'you'. I meant that generally speaking, Daniel

She has human rights...but technically she has no American rights. There's a difference

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Not getting defensive here...but what do you mean by this?

What's so 'unbelievable' about my argument, exactly?

LisaD,

really meant no offense. you express yourself quite clearly and forcefully. My response did not elaborate on my point. which was centered on your challenge to Steve to open up his house to illegals, etc... That, imo, is over the top and funny.

Fair enough, but isn't that what Steven's been advocating? Just on a larger scale, mind you.

USA=OUR HOUSE. Think about it.

You called it 'over the top'...and that's exactly how I see pandering to illegals. No one would leave their home open for anyone to come and take what they want, would they? hrmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh, no offense taken btw

LisaD,

thanks for not taking offense. I never mean to offend ppl. But aswe all know, this medium lends itself to misunderstandings when none was meant.

I don't think Steve, or most ppl advocate for illegal immigration. What you will see is that they advocate certain solutions to the fact there is a large number of illegal aliens in this country. How to solve it? many ways. Which is best? That is the discussion.

The comparison of a house and the country although appealing, really does not do the problem justice. Way more complicated than that.

Daniel

:energetic:

Of course the analogy is simplistic...aren't most?

What is also at issue is what type of precident this makes. What does that say to the world really? 'oh you can disregard our laws, get deported, come back again, have an anchor baby, then be hailed as an 'activist'!' That's bs. The problem is not just immediate fix no matter what...and yes, of course it's always good to consider the 'path of least resisitance' insomuch as how we deal with this issue....but at the end of the day, we need to not only control the issue at hand, but prevent the issue from rapidly growing like a giant tumor on the backside of America.

I'm rambling a bit cos it's late & I'm about to go to bed, but hopefully this makes sense to more than just me, lol.

you make lots of sense LisaD. you have many valid points. i see bot sides of the arguments. actually i see many sides. i wish we did not have this problem in the first place. but we do and now we have to deal with it. it is a sensitive issue because bottom line is we are dealing with human beings. meat cleaver solutions aren't pretty and won't sit well with a big segement of our population. at least I would hope not.

ok, i too must go to bed. you all take care now.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Max outta pocket for us is 2500.00

Yanno, you bring up a good point...dunno if my policy had a max OOP. It was a jacked up time for me...don't think I ever checked!

lol

You definately gotta keep your eye on your coverage.My company changes shite around once a year.

How the he!! did this happen?

Not getting defensive here...but what do you mean by this?

What's so 'unbelievable' about my argument, exactly?

LisaD,

really meant no offense. you express yourself quite clearly and forcefully. My response did not elaborate on my point. which was centered on your challenge to Steve to open up his house to illegals, etc... That, imo, is over the top and funny.

Fair enough, but isn't that what Steven's been advocating? Just on a larger scale, mind you.

USA=OUR HOUSE. Think about it.

You called it 'over the top'...and that's exactly how I see pandering to illegals. No one would leave their home open for anyone to come and take what they want, would they? hrmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh, no offense taken btw

LisaD,

thanks for not taking offense. I never mean to offend ppl. But aswe all know, this medium lends itself to misunderstandings when none was meant.

I don't think Steve, or most ppl advocate for illegal immigration. What you will see is that they advocate certain solutions to the fact there is a large number of illegal aliens in this country. How to solve it? many ways. Which is best? That is the discussion.

The comparison of a house and the country although appealing, really does not do the problem justice. Way more complicated than that.

Daniel

:energetic:

Of course the analogy is simplistic...aren't most?

What is also at issue is what type of precident this makes. What does that say to the world really? 'oh you can disregard our laws, get deported, come back again, have an anchor baby, then be hailed as an 'activist'!' That's bs. The problem is not just immediate fix no matter what...and yes, of course it's always good to consider the 'path of least resisitance' insomuch as how we deal with this issue....but at the end of the day, we need to not only control the issue at hand, but prevent the issue from rapidly growing like a giant tumor on the backside of America.

I'm rambling a bit cos it's late & I'm about to go to bed, but hopefully this makes sense to more than just me, lol.

you make lots of sense LisaD. you have many valid points. i see bot sides of the arguments. actually i see many sides. i wish we did not have this problem in the first place. but we do and now we have to deal with it. it is a sensitive issue because bottom line is we are dealing with human beings. meat cleaver solutions aren't pretty and won't sit well with a big segement of our population. at least I would hope not.

ok, i too must go to bed. you all take care now.

Daniel

:energetic:

Danny, it's not really sensitive it's just common sense.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Max outta pocket for us is 2500.00

Yanno, you bring up a good point...dunno if my policy had a max OOP. It was a jacked up time for me...don't think I ever checked!

lol

You definately gotta keep your eye on your coverage.My company changes shite around once a year.

How the he!! did this happen?

you cross poster you!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think that very recent events have impressively shown that there are significantly more Americans that can identify with Lisa's argument than with your's or Steven's. For the illegal crowd, your statement may apply. That crowd doesn't matter, though.

i think you are missing the point Steve, I, and others have tried to make. To try to summarize the situation: the lady is here illegally? yes. does she have any right to advocate change that would help her situation? (here some of say yes and other say no). just because some feel she has no right to do so doe not mean she cannot do so. Not too hard. unless you get stuck on the 'what part of illegal dont you understand' logic.

Steve's point has been that the law ought not to be applied in a black-and-white kind of way but that mitigating circumstances ought to be considered. He refuses to take note that the latter has occured as this lady has already been afforded due process. As a result of that process, it has been determined that she needs to leave. Not too hard. Unless you get stuck on the 'lawful orders issued as a result of due process do not apply to illegals that would rather stay' logic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...and some of feel is her human right to advocate...

While I don't believe that the "right to advocate" is actually a human right that is recognized anywhere (you may prove me wrong here), I think she should have a right to advocate. Anything she wants to advocate. Just about anywhere but here in the US. She can advocate the plight of illegal immigrants in Mexico, for example, where they are far worse off than they'll ever be in the US.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think that very recent events have impressively shown that there are significantly more Americans that can identify with Lisa's argument than with your's or Steven's. For the illegal crowd, your statement may apply. That crowd doesn't matter, though.

i think you are missing the point Steve, I, and others have tried to make. To try to summarize the situation: the lady is here illegally? yes. does she have any right to advocate change that would help her situation? (here some of say yes and other say no). just because some feel she has no right to do so doe not mean she cannot do so. Not too hard. unless you get stuck on the 'what part of illegal dont you understand' logic.

Steve's point has been that the law ought not to be applied in a black-and-white kind of way but that mitigating circumstances ought to be considered. He refuses to take note that the latter has occured as this lady has already been afforded due process. As a result of that process, it has been determined that she needs to leave. Not too hard. Unless you get stuck on the 'lawful orders issued as a result of due process do not apply to illegals that would rather stay' logic.

As I said before, court decisions can and do get overturned. I don't know the exact circumstances surrounding her deportation, but it happened as a sweep under national security right after 9/11, when she was doing janitorial work at the airport. Unless you can find information on her case, neither of us know whether her case was brought before a court which decided to deport her or whether she was automatically deported. As I stated before, I don't know whether she is justified in her actions or not because I don't know all the circumstances and neither do you, but based on the facts that you know, you believe she should be automatically deported, and I've said that a court should consider all the circumstances, particularly her 8 yr. old son, as to whether to deport her or not. It's really pointless to carry this argument out any further than that.