From: Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Can You Tell Us WHY You Want Illegal Alien Gang Members To Have Due Process And Stay In America?
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 05:04:03 -0600
Organization: UTB
In article <393696290.767066118.448916.recscuba_google-
huntzinger.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote:
> > In article <1033618142.767038163.174453.recscuba_google-
> > huntzinger.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <1601913815.766801634.333602.recscuba_google-
> >>> huntzinger.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <vtqbjq$6bga$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>> chine.bleu@yahoo.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 16/4/25 18:41, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Did Laken Riley get due process?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> She's dead because an illegal migrant killed her.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And there are many others like her.
> >>>>>>>>>>> She's dead because a PERSON killed her.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and that person was an illegal immigrant.
> >>>>>>> Bingo.
> >>>>>>> And totally preventable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's the point the libbys ignore.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So no illegal immigrants then no murders.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who said that? Oh YOU did.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet it is historically correct.
> >>>
> >>> No it isn't. Are all liberals as dumb as you?
> >>
> >> It is precisely what you?re trying to imply?and are now trying to play dumb
> >> when you?ve been called out for it.
> >
> > I never said that. But there would be a lot less.
>
> Thus, why I said ?imply?.
>
> And good luck trying to prove your ?a lot less? claim, because on a per
> capita basis, it?s known that immigrants commit fewer murders than native
> born Americans.
>
>
> >>>>>> The concept of an 'illegal immigrant' is only from the 1920s.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cross the right way.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the ?right? way would be to have a totally fair & impartial system which
> >>>> doesn?t contain racist, misogynistic, or bigoted exclusions ? right?
> >>>
> >>> The right way. What part of that don't you understand?
> >>
> >> Dodge attempted.
> >
> > No dodge. Enter the right way. Why is following the law so
> > confusing to you libs?
>
> Because you?re still trying to dodge responsibility for the laws on if they
> are honest and just.
>
> Case in point:
>
> >> Again: does the ?right? way would be to have a totally fair & impartial
> >> system which does not contain racist, misogynistic, or bigoted exclusions?
> >
> > You submit your case and if you pass you may enter.
>
> And if they?re not white Christian Europeans?
>
> Current law says 25-70 year waitlists for some countries.
> How can it be just to be so blatantly discriminatory?
>
>
> >> Because what we have today is not ?right? by these metrics. And by you
> >> trying to dodge acknowledgment of this, you?re effectively admitting that
> >> our current immigration policy is not right.
> >>
> >
> > When was the last time you tried to cross the border? Stop
> > being dumb. Come to a legal entry point and it will be
> > determined if you are elegable. Got a crime record. Maybe
> > not.
>
> Last time I crossed the border was earlier this month. How about you,
> Walt?
>
> Because we all know that the ?eligibility? bar varies very widely by where
> you?re from, with very clear undertones on favored race, religion, etc: it
> is *not* based on not having a criminal record, or other impartial
> ?eligibility? metrics: it is explicitly intended to keep some out based on
> things that they have no choice over (country of birth/origin, demographics
> of same, etc).
>
> That?s why you dodge when asked if the ?right? way would be to have a
> totally fair & impartialsystem which does not contain racist, misogynistic,
> or bigoted exclusions: you know that the US system presently does not: it
> fails to be fair, just and right.
>
> >>>>>> No murders during the nineteenth century. Nobody was shot in the
> >>>>>> back of their head whilst watching a play.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gosh, no snappy retort attempt on this satirical comment, eh?
> >>>
> >>> Because it was a stupid statement.
> >>
> >> Not stupid at all: you?re merely mad that your attempt to imply/create
> >> causality from nothing has been called out as logically invalid.
>
> Which is why you still are trying to dodge, because you know is an unjust &
> unfair system that is not right, which is morally indefensible.
>
> Do you refuse to criticize our shortcomings because you?re a coward? Or is
> it because you?re cravenly petty & selfish?
>
> -hh
Cross the right way. It's really that simple.