[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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

See above discussion on the 4 times I used Maher's quote.

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?

You did not delineate between legal and illegal (which I like to do and I believe is the cause of much confusion between you and me). I want to say you only meant illegal, but then there are times when you say you are only talking about legal.

Question - Can you rephrase your position and explicitly say "legal, illegal, all" for closing the border?

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.

I can't prove this. I never said I could.

However, I can provide evidence that the American public see "legal" and "illegal" immigration differently (e.g. approval levels). I'll dig that up later.

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.

This is fair and per above, I'll dig it up later.

However, to set expectations, I've told you before that I've not found a single Pew/Gallup poll that delineates between legal & illegal. They do talk about it but they never ask the very straight forward question "Do you approve of legal immigration Yes/No" and then immediately followed with "Do you approve of illegal immigration Yes/No".

Best I can do is find evidence from differing polls/surveys. The hole in this is they have different timeframes, different methodologies (sampling size, question phrasing etc.).

But yes, I can provide you evidence based on my caveat above.

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.

It is fair to say that illegal immigration is primary on my mind. But legal immigration is a very high second. Per above, search on "legal and illegal" or "legal & illegal" and you'll see that I am very concerned about both.

Assume if I do not preface a statement/discussion with one or the other that I am talking about both.

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.

I did not read The Atlantic but read NPR interviewing Frum. It's clear that he is concerned about both legal & illegal immigration.

'The Atlantic': If Liberals Won't Enforce Borders, Fascists Will : NPR

Re: Frum and your statement he "not wanting immigration" is not accurate IMO. If you have a quote from The Atlantic, please post it.

From my reading, Frum wants to control the "pace" of the immigration. This is quote from NPR link

FRUM: I don't ground very much of my argument on that at all. What I ground my argument upon is a tendency of the human mind, perceived by psychologists in people of all backgrounds, to be stressed by rapid change.

MARTIN: What's the problem with becoming majority minority?

FRUM: So I'm saying - it's not - that's not the - relevant. I'm saying that - people say this, that your argument is driven by concerns about being majority minority. I'm saying that decision's already made. The question for us is how do we make a success of this? And on present policy, we are in real danger of not making a success of it.

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.

You've made similar statements about legal/illegal distinction is irrelevant and I've disagreed each time.

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.

Illegal immigration, goes without saying. And apparently, well supported with Trump's significant victory & mandate. I cannot defend how Trump will do this (don't know the methods & process yet) so we'll see once the plan is revealed. You already know how President Edward would do it.

For legal immigration, absolutely no problem with more merit based and less family based immigration. Makes complete sense to me (even pre-2016 Trump).

For legal, non-immigrants, the only one I have real background on is F-1 student and H1-B. I do believe we should get more quality F-1 students (not fake ones that I read about entering Canada and UK) and we definitely should reform H1-B. There are definitely some bad practices there.

De-naturalization is an interesting one. I'll break it out separately as it's new topic on this thread and may be worthy of its own thread.