A pardon and Sutton's firing would help some, but not the neighbors of Sutton's pet. They are stuck with him living in the US and selling drugs to their kids.
My response was that the smuggler wasn't living in the U.S., because he was only allowed here for the trial.
I'm sure you knew that, you knew the poster had made a false statement, and you should have been able to understand I was correcting a mis-statement of fact.
Instead you responded as if what I was saying was false, implying agreement with the poster who falsely claimed the smuggler was given legal status to stay in the country.
I never would have guessed from your response that you were questioning the technical use of the term "temporary visa" (which I believe IS the correct technical term), because WHAT you call it is a meaningless diversion from the fact that the smuggler was NOT living in the U.S..
Which had nothing to do with my question.
I'm sure you knew that, you knew the poster had made a false statement, and you should have been able to understand I was correcting a mis-statement of fact.
Please don't put words in my mouth. That has absolutely nothing to do with what triggered my question. You stated something as fact that I had not seen anywhere and I asked for a source. It was a simple one-word question--should have been a simple answer.
Instead you responded as if what I was saying was false, implying agreement with the poster who falsely claimed the smuggler was given legal status to stay in the country.
You were saying something unsupported... an opinion. That's fine, just say so. Again--my question was completely independent of any other post on this thread, or elsewhere. Quit telling me what I am implying as you are totally off base.