On 2-5-2010 20:41, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2-5-2010 9:07, Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
>>>>> entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
>>>> I think it's more a matter of "what are you going to do?"  If the country 
>>>> won't take him back, it's not like you can leave him in a cardboard box on 
>>>> the front step.
>>>   You send him to his own country's airport and let them decide what to do
>>> with him. Give him the phone number of Amnesty International.
>>>
>> Just never, ever go into politics, please.
> 
>   I'm sorry, but I don't understand.

I know. It is a pity but you seem unable to step over anything you have 
though of and see a little further.
Why I think you should not go into politics based on this case is that 
there are things as laws, constitutions, international laws, human 
rights and simple common decency and you are prepared to give them all 
up just because you think illegal immigration is a big problem.
I know it is a problem, but not of a magnitude that even remotely could 
warrant such drastic action.

That is what also in the other thread of the discussion seems to be the 
problem, you want to kill a mosquito using a canon (or whatever the 
English expression is). A couple of us have again and again tried to 
point to the fact that using canons gives collateral damage. All you do 
is reiterate that you want to kill the mosquito and asking why we want 
to let it live. Well we don't, we just don't want to use that canon.

>   I'm sorry, but if your politics consist of ideas like "the country who
> the illegal immigrant succeeded in entering becomes responsible for feeding
> him", then I honestly wouldn't want that kind of politics. Please never,
> ever go into politics, thank you very much.

Always one of the highlights of a discussion: the returning an argument. 
Anyway, your premise is false hence nothing follows.

BTW: I know you are familiar with the technical term for wrongly 
paraphrasing an opponents point of view and attacking that paraphrase. I 
also know you rather frequently accuse others of it, so why do you do it 
yourself? IMWTK

Post a reply to this message