maryte wrote: 
rgio made this a binary discussion.  And you voluntarily replied.  So it is what it is.

At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst".  That is pure and plain simple logic.

But then again, you only gave a +2 response rather than state that you support deporting the worst of the worst and if you support open borders then your response means nothing.

So. Sad.

 kurtster wrote:

You can conclude whatever you like - as your poorly developed reasoning leads you to . I do not live in your binary world, so your presumptions about what I do or do not believe are, as always, invalid.

 maryte wrote: 
Thank you for your responses. 

Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

+2

 kurtster wrote:

There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.

While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children. 

 rgio wrote: 
You are an amazing piece of work.

How about the fact that no one here has said other than you, that they "support deporting the worst of the worst". It's a really easy thing to do. 

So I lay out a case that logically explains my assertion and you counter with find a quote.  Pretty flimsy on your side.  Until someone else here says that they "support deporting the worst of the worst" there are only two saying so.  You and me.  And FWIW, posting a +1 in support to your post does not equal committing to saying the actual words.

Now, onto your other concern ...

 rgio wrote: 

So you present me with a binary choice of choosing between Trump or the Constitution, right ?  Pretty self righteous demand from someone whose basis for thinking about such matters is bad law is better than no law.  Which ironically is germane to this very topic we are currently discussing.  And then let us not overlook your total inability to size up Biden's mental health and if there ever was a case for the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, you defended against it.  At least until it didn't matter anymore.  So in my opinion, your three legged stool is missing two legs of support.  And just to be clear, I'm not bringing up Biden to compare him to Trump, it is simply just to question your ability to make sound judgements at all regarding the Constitution and your inability to trust your own lying eyes.

That said, since the immediate subject at hand is dealing with illegal immigration and the mechanisms to deal with the problem, I have presented a detailed summary and explanation of how immigration laws work since so many are flat out ignorant on the subject.  And the primary attacks on Trump and the issue itself have been what you and your side cling to the most, a lack of due process with the matter.  And the distinction that immigration laws are civil, not criminal proceedings, where the Constitution does not apply to most of the circumstances involved.

So to give you a direct answer to what you demand as a binary choice, I can and do support both Trump and the Constitution on the subject of immigration affairs.  They are not mutually exclusive.  I trust in the Constitution that the prescribed checks, balances and remedies provided by it will keep everyone involved headed in the right and proper direction.  Based upon your arguments so far, you have no faith in the Constitution being properly instituted and therefore want to bend it to suit your needs which among other things are based upon your prime directive that bad law is better than no law.

So I have presented a detailed explanation for how immigration law works and so far no one has said what is wrong with it.  Just accusations that I am racist.  So much for a detailed response.

So once again, here is the link to the summary.  Once again, if any of it is incorrect, name it and rebut it with your own cited work in support.

Due Process and Aliens: What They Are and Are Not Entitled to in Immigration Proceedings
Or maybe I should post the entire text ?

 rgio wrote:
+1

 kurtster wrote:
You didn't answer, as usual, you deflected.

Your a fraud.   A troll.  No reason.. no logic.. just running interference.

Find one quote from someone here that counters my statement that everyone supports deporting the worst of the worst.  

You won't...but it'll keep you from acknowledging that you don't actually support the Constitution...you support Trump.  

Stop pretending otherwise, and accept that anytime you say "Constitution" in a response, we all know you're full of shit.

 rgio wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
Once you answer this one I will go further with yours, again ...

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Save time. Just call them gulags.

 kurtster wrote:
I asked a pretty direct question, like "is the Earth flat", and you responded with "the fastest motorcycle speed ever recorded was at the Bonneville Salt Flats".  You appear willing to engage in incredibly detailed analysis of some issues, but I asked about your flip-flopping on the Constitution, and you must have exhausted yourself answering the illegal alien due process rules.

I'll throw you a bone and ignore the fifth Amendment...how about the rest?

The Constitution isn't a buffet ....choose what you like... it's a document that you either support or reject on the whole. If you support it, then you should have issues with this administration regarding ALL of the following:

• First Amendment: Protects speech and petition
• Fourth Amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
• Fifth Amendment: Guarantees due process 
• Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection clause
• Article I & Separation of Powers: Congressional oversight rights
• Elections Clause (Article 1, Section 4) - states run elections
• Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9) - protects habeas corpus
• Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) 
• Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7)

So pick a side. Do you support the Constitution or the current administration. It's a binary choice.

 kurtster wrote:

So do you cultivate and smoke your dope in church?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

You need a Civics lesson. Traditionally in the US a sanctuary is a church, or in some cases a foreign embassy.   A refuge from persecution and arrest.  It is not a policy as you state.

Or in the terms you try to apply, that would make the Confederate States of America a Sanctuary to preserve slavery and keep it in place despite federal laws.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

oh, snap

 kurtster wrote:

You always conveniently forget what this "sanctuary" is... it's your local law enforcement opting to not provide services free of charge to the US Government to enforce federal laws. For example, marijuana use is a federal offense. Should local law enforcement be required to haul your ass into federal custody for them? Or should the feds come get you themselves?

 islander wrote:
Fixed your omission. 

Regarding your statement about merit, you are already on the record here long ago rejecting using merit as a criteria for immigration policy.  When did you change your mind ?