You seem confused. All I posted was the definition.
Let me try to make it simpler:
I think criminals who illegally cross our border should be punished, not rewarded with jobs and allowed to apply for citizenship.
You are drawing the proverbial line in the sand and waiting for a reaction that you know full well that you will get.
Your line will get crossed.
Those on my side of this can't see the logic in what your espousing. This may be why some will question your motives.
Do you understand what I am saying?
This forum has had loads of purists that have been banned or quit, on many subjects, not just immigration.
Purists draw the line, refuse to listen to alternative or compromise.
It is inconceivable that something of substance is causing the lack of any acceptance to any other alternatives and they refuse to discuss same.
Inconceivable that their is no other motive, and then someone will play the race card or lash out.
I have studied this and looked at possible explanations for some time now.
What is your explanation?
This is the crux of this immigration debate problem. There is no debate between us, because you automatically reject anything that crossed your line.
Basically you are saying that the only acceptable reform is to deport all the illegals to the last and seal the border.
And what you have done, if this idea were to prevail is to guarantee that nothing will be done. Because what you suggest is not possible. Your in a debate, not a pissin contest.