[rdb3]

Not as simple as your straw man distortion of the position of border security patriots, surely. So the solution to the border and illegal immigration crisis in your view is "not as simple" as simply enforcing the law, which calls for deportation of illegal aliens as the primary "solution" for illegal entry? But we're still to believe that you don't support open borders? Mmm-hmmm, you don't support an open borders policy---but you're OK with accepting its results. Very convincing.

Look, my patience has run out with the likes of you. You don't debate in good faith, and you know it.

I made no strawmen. That's YOU saying that. You should have asked me what I meant when I said that I don't believe that it's as simple as that. Illegals who have been here for a while, what do you do? You conduct sweeps, stings, what? And when you do that, what prevents them from simply crossing over the border again?

This is a matter of proper planning. So what should be done first? Well, to me (and your mileage may vary), an actual tightening of the border must happen BEFORE any mass deportations because if it remains as it is, it just becomes a revolving door.

People like you make this debate impossible for those actually interested in it. Your "may way or the highway" approach is worthless.

Stop destorting my views, which you have egregiously done here. It's pathetic! I'm not going to allow you to lie on me. Fuhgedaboudit. I ain't Catholic, but this one is named after that new saint, St. Happening.

No arguments you attribute to me have I actually made myself. NONE!

So, LORD forgive me, back the hell up.

I'm broadcast live in front of a pre-recorded studio audience.

[Map Kernow]

And when you do that, what prevents them from simply crossing over the border again?

You SECURE THE BORDER, what's so hard about that???? How can you think deportation and border security shouldn't go hand in hand? Or is THAT something that's NOT SO SIMPLE either? You make the self-serving assumption that pro-immigration enforcement people are not also in favor of---nay, CLAMORING FOR---a secure border---more BP agents that your "great leader" won't fund and deploy---a WALL. You're not willing to admit that the position of border security patriots is "not so simple" as some demand that the US "deport them all now."

"Back the hell up" yourself, and let people who really care about America's security and sovereignty and the integrity of her laws and society debate this issue. You're obviously here just to provide "cover" for Bush's refusal to enforce the law. When you do more than that, that's when I'll believe you're not in favor of open borders.

[inquest]

Well, to me (and your mileage may vary), an actual tightening of the border must happen BEFORE any mass deportations because if it remains as it is, it just becomes a revolving door.

Nonetheless, an actual tightening of the border must happen. Not implying that you disagree or anything, but I just wanted to emphasize that point.

Generally, I agree with you that it would make little sense to expend massive amounts of resources on deportation before that happens. On the other hand, we could free up the states to expend those resources. Did you catch that recent case out of New Hampshire where a judge overruled an attempt by a sherriff to enforce the law against some illegals who were in his jurisdiction. The judge overruled it on the grounds that the sherriff was trampling on Congress's turf, because Congress has decided to regulate immigration. Congress could put a stop to that charade right now by emphasizing that states do indeed have the power to add any new penalties, and take whatever action they deem appropriate against illegals (limited only by the Constitution itself).

It wouldn't be a complete solution without proper border security, but if illegals who keep showing up in a particular state or locality find themselves deported or even arrested, it would enable jurisdictions throughout the country to protect themselves from the onslaught.