I have never seen a pro illegal immigration post in FR.
To some, if you're not supportive of militarized, "sealed", or "closed" borders, you must then be in favor of illegal immigration.
I oppose the idea of using the armed forces to patrol the borders, I don't believe that borders can be "sealed", and I don't think that they can be "closed" either, and for that I am labeled a supporter of illegal immigration.
I also vehemently oppose ALL entitlement programs--for illegal immigrants as well as for the native born--yet, because I do not agree with the methods, figures, and verbiage used by the supporters of vigilantism, militarized borders, and zero immigration, I am labeled as a supporter of welfare entitlements for illegal aliens.
I do not agree with their ideas on how to solve the problem of illegal immigration, I like my ideas, and I support President Bush's ideas, and for that, just like this guy did, I get accused of being things that I am not.
Having a difference of opinion on the solution to the problem of illegal immigration does not make one a supporter of illegal immigration.
Absolute truth Luis and I think you'll find all of us who are called by some the "FROBL" would agree with you 100%. None of us want open borders or amnesty for illegal aliens but some think not agreeing with their view means we are pro-illegals and pro-amnesty.
Gee, does that include Looey's lunatic rant about how "Charles Lindberg was a Nazi" that he gets from some tinfoil leftwing gay-activist conspiracy theory site that also asserts that the Lindberg Kidnapping was a hoax???