You’re just in another one of your brain funks, my friend.
Did you even notice what the articles were about? The President is granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. If that’s not supporting immigration I don’t know what is.
I didn’t say you did. So ironically it is you who has created a straw man so that you might accuse me of creating a straw man.
No, you don’t understand me correctly.
First of all you are committing a false dichotomy fallacy by assuming it either has to be good or bad…not only that, but in all instances as well.
Second, all that transpired here was you asked: “Lifting restrictions on who can go onto your property is a bad thing?” And I responded that surely you could come up with a scenario or two where it could be…
And your response is “you think the state ought to use force to prevent people who happened to be born outside an arbitrary line to enter the property of willing people inside the line?”
Do you seriously not see anything logically, intellectually, or conversationally flawed with that?
sigh
Fine. I’ll play your game. If you make the case that the US should have completely open borders, how can you say it will inevitably be an economically good thing when US residents are already granted access to an enormous welfare net that already less than half the population pays into? Exactly how long do you think the country would last with millions upon millions of new people being added to the dole, and being able to vote in more despots who will take away more from the haves to offer more crumbs to the have-nots? Maybe 1 year? Maybe 5 years? Maybe 0? And while we’re in the business of electing people who promise to give you stuff by taxing your neighbor, why not actually also vote for legislation to kick original US citizens out? After all, the immigrants will certainly outnumber the original residents in many areas. Again, the line between citizen and immigrant is arbitrary.