For instance, you said that you don't want the ChiCom government buying land, just individuals. Well, you're a bit late: How Bill Clinton Helped COSCO - Chinese Govt. Front - Take over Long Beach Shipyards .
And this is a point for your side how? You asked me if I agreed with this. Well, I don't. You say "It's already been done!" Well, I disagree with it, same as you. How this translates into a triumph for your side of this argument is beyond me.
One other little bit of reality for you: a corporation is a citizen.
And here is a little bit of reality for you: you asked me my opinion and you got it. I said "individual," not citizen. While the laws may allow for some overlap between these two entities, you asked me about my opinion, not about the law. You are talking about precedents and I am talking about attitudes.
Bin Laden already has interests in the United States, through his family's investments. Theoretically, those assets should be frozen - under this Executive Order . But they aren't. Because to do so would require the freezing of assets held by supposedly uninvolved people - his family!
Well, that's the way it is, then. Surely you don't support laws that would allow the government to seize property when it would involve confiscating it without due process?
So much for your wisecracks.
No, so much you even attempting to understand what I am actually saying. You're too busy taking your frustrations out on me to actually hear anything I'm saying. It's pointless to say it a third time.
The illegal invasion from Mexico isn't the only thing bearing down on the United States.
We've got bigger fish to fry folks . .
===============================
No, your statements are illogical and incomprehensible, because they are driven by emotion and ignorance.
You advocated rewarding foreigners who have willfully broken American laws for their own benefit. Rewarding them with a laundry list of benefits not extended to any citizen.
Principally, and most incomprehensibly, you advocated rewarding them with something sought by billions of people across the planet: citizenship in the United States. The "logic" you employed to justify such a thing was a juvenile justification: if they want it, why can't they have it?
And your ignorance of the situation was shown by your lack of understanding of even the simplest legal consequences. But, of course, being childish and emotional, you dismiss such consequences by prattling about "I'm not talking legal here".
Run it by everyone here again. See how much agreement you get. What you said is that people who have broken multiple federal laws, and state laws, of the United States, people who are not of the citizenry, under law, should be rewarded with the same status as those whose laws they flagrantly violated. Period. There is no arguing that that is what you said.
There is no defense. You advocate not just an amnesty for the crime(s), but nothing less than a reward for those crimes, a reward that countless millions across the planet would die to get. That millions wait patiently for, endless years of waiting to take the oath. And that others have died to preserve.
No two ways about it. That's what you advocate.