Replies

I've given examples.
FAIR, Tancredo, and Malkin.

Do you have a hard time comprehending that? Don't those highly vocal examples give you an idea as to who I think "immigration restrictionists" are

Yes, I do, apparently. The most obvious thing those you named above have in common is that they all would like ourt current immigration laws fully enforced.
Is that what you mean by "immigration restrictionists?"
Why not just post your definition? Why is that so hard?

By the way, I find it interesting that you say you have not claimed I am a disruptor. Post 416 contains a flat-out out accusation that I am attempting to disrupt a thread.

Which is it?

You are attempting to disrupt this thread, but you are not a disruptor, because you are failing in your attempt.
You've been insincere from your first post here. You've attempted to shift debate to litmus tests about Sam Francis, but are resuloutely cagey about clarifying your own positions, which you toss around in an ad hominem fashion.
You actually, at one point on this thread, attempted to claim that I was trying to silence you by not filling an abuse report against you. That's honestly one of the most unintentionally funny posts I've seen at FR.
Yet repeatedly, when asked to break your silence about your definition of "immigration restrictionists," you've remained silent
Just spell it out: what do you mean when you call people "immigration restrictionists?" Show us the yardstick by which you make these assessments.

I believe when Hchutch uses the term "immigration restrictionists" he means those individuals who wish to set conditions on those who seek legal entry into the country. The requirements for legal entry into the country, presumably involve dire "need"; Dire "need" presumably involves "political persecution".

A quick glance at the entire world would uncover no-one who is not subject to political persecution to some degree.

Clearly, the borders cannot be open to the entire world, so the "immigration restrictionist" would be the one with the power to set the bar at a "persecution level" of his choosing. (Ah! Power! How quickly it corrupts.)

Immigration must obviously be denied to those who commit crimes and/or threaten the safety of our nation, our citizens or their property. Emergency status must be granted to those who would be imprisoned or tortured for fighting communism and tyranny in their own country.

The real debate concerns the openness of the borders to those who do not fit into any one of the above categories.

The "anti-restrictionist", therefore, according to logic, would applaud and reward those who manage to sneak into the country and establish themselves as law-abiding contributors.

In general, those who oppose action against illegals, favor immigration restrictions on those who would seek to enter the country legally.

They use the following argument as their main pillar against deportation; "It would be unrealistic and naive to believe that we are capable of deporting 17 million illegal aliens," and "we need illegals to perform our servant level chores".

They are strangely silent on the natural question that arises following their declaration that illegals should be legalized: How many legal immigrants should we allow into the country? How will they be chosen?