[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This is the second paragraph. I've included the first paragraph because it provides context to the second. Note that it is one after the other.

I was really trying my best not to engage with this strawman given that Maher clearly misrepresented the headline of Frum's piece. Yes, that first paragraph is Maher taking the paraphrasing of the title of Frum's essay to more of an extreme, not an actual quote from the author. David Frum has been clear that he did not say that nor was that the tenor of his essay. So givng Maher the benefit of the doubt, assuming he read more than the headline of the essay that Frum wrote and the followup that came afterwards, it seems pretty clear that Maher was talking about all facets of immigration and not "enforcing the border". That view also falls right in line with the second paragraph and specifically this level of immigration. What level? The level from the first paragraph of the essay that says the US admitted more immigrants in the 1990s and yes he specifically stated legally and illegally than we did from 1915 to 1975.

So, to be very clear ... connect the dots for me. Provide my quote where you believe I am incorrect or contradict or (whatever) with the Bill Maher 2 paragraph quote. Or rephrase your "no".

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

I believe otherwise re: legal. But if you have polling/survey evidence to show the "significant portion" (e.g. large minority, large majority?), please provide a link. And hopefully, it provides some clear delineation on attitudes on legal vs illegal immigration, and not conflate the two and just say "immigration".

Last December, a Republican presidential candidate said that he would close border on day 1 if elected. That person is now President Elect with about 50% of the popular vote. Significant enough for you?

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

Beyond that, I would like you to provide evidence that any criticism/negative view of "immigration" only refers to illegal immigration. Provide evidence that everyone just keeps forgetting to make a distinction when they just say immigration as opposed to specifying legal or illegal. I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case. Without such evidence, I think the attempts to convince people that it is the case is just as disingenuous as calling someone fascist for not wanting illegal immigration.

Your main focus is illegal immigration, limiting citizenship etc. You are not alone. You speak on legal immigration as well. From what I can tell, you are very clear when you want to make the distinction. But there are also people whose main focus is on limiting, reducing and yes doing away with all immigration at least for a short term. Those people make compelling cases for not wanting immigration including the ones made by David Frum in essay I posted. Most of those cases are not ones I would agree with but I am comfortable with them making the. I can also do so without suggesting any sort of discrimination because well their arguments are not based in any discrimination other not being American. People like Frum don't need you to provide cover for them who having issues with legal immigration as well by saying they actually mean illegal immigration. Other people don't want you to provide the cover of illegal immigration for people who are explicit when they make the case they don't want anyone from Country X or Country Z because those people are all (insert stereotype here) and thus provide them protection from having their cases accurately judged and portrayed. I promise you that when someone tells an immigrant to go back where they came from, most of the time they don't give two shits whether they are here legally or illegally. All that matters is they want them out of the country and some with go as far as to use whatever means necessary to make that happen. Even it is means hiring a fascist.

To be clear, I'm okay talking about (1) legal and (3) legal non-immigrant only, and in my mind they are 2 very different things. Just wanted to establish that baseline because I was NOT talking about (3) legal non-immigrant and your H1-B conversation threw me for a loop.

Given his wants from the first administration, a guy like Stephen Miller and his acolytes have made it clear all varieties of immigration is on the chopping block including de-naturalization.