Supreme Court allows Texas to begin enforcing controversial immigration law

One example destroyed your position. Your attempts to omit the fact that illegal immigration adds to the victim count have not fooled anyone. I haven’t even started with the long list of victims created by policies that allow bad people to get within arms reach of our citizens. After that, there is a long list of victims south of our border.

 

So I’m thinking the problem is either dishonesty or that you just don’t know what a victimless crime is.

 

You are likely thinking you can use word games to omit facts. We are still stuck on the first example. She is a victim of a crime that could not have been committed if the first crime was prevented.

 

Is jaywalking victimless? What if I jaywalk and then stab someone when I get across the street?
If you prevent people from smoking pot, they won’t drive high and kill someone
If you lie on a gun form and then shoot someone, Is it still victimless?
You’re redefining victimless when it suits you.

 

Jaywalking to the location you moved the goal post can be very dangerous. Here is another victim:

Illegal immigrant, deported 5 times, charged in hit-and-run death of Texas boy

https://www.foxnews.com/us/illegal-immigrant-deported-5-times-charged-hit-run-death-texas-boy

 

More ducking and dodging. If Hunter shot someone with his illegally purchased gun, that you called a victimless crime, would it still be victimless?

 

If you move the goal post any further, you may have to cross a border.

Heres another victim:

ICE called for Salvadoran illegal immigrant to be deported twice before shooting death of 2-year-old

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-call...rant-deported-twice-shooting-death-2-year-old

 

You can’t answer basic questions that expose the obvious holes. in your logic. You win, you’ve exhausted me with your inability to engage on your own claims.

 

My position is still on solid ground. In your attempt to call me out for inconsistency, you have not only solidified my consistent position, you have also revealed the inconsistency in your parites "RULE OF LAW" chant when it involves a political rival.

I presented only a few victims of illegal immigration and your only answer is that the "immigration status" is not the problem. Allowing them to get within reach of innocent people is the same as allowing the crime. I did not even get started on the long list of victims, which will also include innocent people south of our borders as well.

To answer your question, the fact that most illegal immigrants do not commit more serious crimes is no defense for allowing the few that do harm others to have access to our citizens.

 

The final paragraph is all you had to say. You can have that position and admit that illegal immigrantion is a victimless crime. But that would require admitting you don’t really want victimless crime to not be crimes. Clearly that is not something you’re capable of.

 

In your attempt to call me out for inconsistency, you have not only solidified my position, you have painted yourself into a corner. Dems are rebleating the phrase fed to them: "Rule of law!" "No one is above the law!" "law breakers are ba'a'a'a'd!" You admitted that illegal immigration is a crime, and took a position that it is a victimless crime. I am not attacking you, but your position is easily destroyed. Attacking me only reveals ones inability to defend a position on merit.

If you want to move away from the examples I listed, we can move to the cost to tax payers. Now we have a long list of victims from the first crime.