As a theological point, yes. That doesn't mean that every instance of ahav refers to that exalted level of love. I could give examples, but obviously it is your policy to let your politics define the Scriptures rather than the other way around. Arguing with such a person is not worth anyone's time.
What I find ironic, are people who reject the Law As the end-time deception of using Merely as a point of understanding
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
the first use principle
and YHvH's love for His Friends.
Those who follow His Commandments.
or who believe in three gods and reject the "old god"
desperately combing and quoting the Torah
as support for their rebellion against YHvH.
Law to create Lawlessness,
an example of the falling away.
That's a bit of a characature of the Evangelical Christian view of the Law. What they believe is that certain aspects of the Torah--i.e., the ceremonial mitzvot--were "fufilled in Christ" and therefore do not have the same binding force on Christians today. While you and I would disagree with that, since the current debate is on the proper handling of the "moral law," it's not relevant at the moment.
But which is worse, to hold that parts of the Torah have been "fulfilled" but to try to conform one's life to what you believe to be still in effect, or to hold that it is all true but to attempt to misuse a principle of interpretation to conform the Word to your opinion?
While we were arguing whether illegals should be considered soujorners or invaders, I defended your sincerity and that your interpretation was not unreasonable, though I believe that both you and Marlowe have drifted to the extremes. However, once you started trying to use a theological trick to redefine ger in order to get around the plain teaching that the government is allowed--and indeed, commanded to--set aside resources for the assistance of the alien resident, you stepped out of the realm of a sincere and reasonable exegesis of the Scriptures and into the realm of twisting them because you don't want to have to change your own made-up mind.
Go do a word-search and demonstrate that the Scriptures still make sense if you substitute "maidservant" in every instance of ger and demonstrate that there is another Hebrew word that does mean "foreigner" or find a reputable Hebrew scholar who agrees with you, and we can talk further. But I'm not going to keep going with the "is too/is not" postings.
Shalom