And you have no reading comprehension. I said I was not your enemy, I also said I want fences, enforcement, etc. and I do not defend criminals, in fact, I plainly said I want them kicked out. I said I was responding to one point and one point only...someone posted that there was no enforcement, I called them on it by providing facts that indeed enforcement has increased. That is fact, that is truth, that is no spin.
This is the end of the discussion because you, like the other person, keep going into circular arguments that have no bearing on my original post.
You’re trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. You cannot be both for and against illegal immigration. I suspect that the spin you put on one area of enforcement as representative of all areas of enforcement reveals your true allegiance to illegal immigration, and your list of concerns that conservatives have was just a list taken from the post of someone who really does want to put a stop to illegal immigration. If they were really your concerns, you wouldn’t be spinning lies to make it look like our immigration laws are already being enforced.
I’ve seen your method used in all types of debates. “I support enforcement of our immigration laws, but they’re already being enforced.” “I support the right to life, but denying food and water to brain damaged people isn’t euthanasia, because they aren’t really alive.” “I support the WOT, but there aren’t any terrorists in Iraq.”
Your methods are transparent. You claim to support one viewpoint, without any supporting evidence, but the only “facts” you provide are in opposition to the views you claim to support. Try something new.