The quislings never provide a yes or no answer. They bob & weave, stonewall and deny, mount an attack which always features te race card, or simply disappear from the thread. Amazing how consistent their behavior is on this one simple question.
I'll address these 1 by 1, even though I doubt you'll address my responses with any intellectual honesty.
1) We can have national sovereignty and still have immigration. It's a smokescreen to attempt to frame the debate in such a way that the two seem mutally incompatible.
2) Cute how you frame the borders like a military issue. Our borders are protected. You aren't concerned with preventing a military invasion. No military force could get within a thousand miles of our borders without us knowing. You're not wanting to protect the borders against military invasion. You want to keep Juan on his side of the border which is a different thing altogether.
3)Which customs specifically do you think are threatened? I know you probably won't give specifics, but what the hell, I'm asking anyway.
4) Same question as above except which traditions? I'm assuming that since listed seperately, they have distinct and seperate meanings. Again, I'm not really expecting specifics, as it's been my experience that you guys just tend to get huffy and angry when asked for anything concrete.
5) I simply refute that loyalty to America has anything whatsoever to do with a dogged adherence to monolingualism. It's simply not the case.
Funny how you forget to include the word ILLEGAL.
Are still we a nation of laws, if our govt turns a blind eye to an invasion of 10-20 million ILLEGAL criminal aliens?
Or just a banana republic in the making, where both entrenched "incumbent parties" ignore the clear will of 80+% of the electorate?
You are so funny, it is to laugh.
As if the only danger to our national security today is some new General Santa Ana leading Mexican armored columns.
Here's a clue: 9-11, Beslan, Madrid, Bali, London etc did not involve an invasion by a hostile army in pretty uniforms.
Perhaps you should google up a dozen or so definitions of "invasion."
Only a very dim bulb, or a Quisling, tries to pretend that an invasion is only synonymous with Normandy or Iwo Jima. Let me help you out:
Invasion: \In*va"sion\, n. [L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See Invade.] [1913 Webster]
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
Perhaps you might care to point out to us examples of other bilingual and bi-cultural nations which were happy and successful over the long term?
In particular, I want to hear about happy and successful nations which were invaded by a second language and cultural group, which did not assimilate, but set up enclaves?
Please point out a few examples, so we may all see the light.
If Juan doesn't have legal permission to enter the United States, then yes, I want Juan to stay in Mexico. On the other hand, if Juan does have legal permission to enter the United States, then he is more than welcome to come here. The same reasoning applies to Werner from Germany, Ivan from Russia, Diego from Argentina, Jiang from China, Enrico from Italy, and Abdullah from Ethiopia.
Now please put away your Race Card and quit embarrassing yourself.
Sorry I missed your earlier post to me. I had to leave for a bit, and by the time I saw your post, my good friend Travis apparently decided to fill in. I agree completely with the views Travis expressed, but if you still want a reply from me I will do my best to provide you with one.