4 ms·
> Do you honestly see people advocated for unrestricted open borders? Absolutely. There are countless articles (mostly fringe) and constant dialogue that vilif
by nodesocket 8y ago
> Do you honestly see people advocated for unrestricted open borders?
Absolutely. There are countless articles (mostly fringe) and constant dialogue that vilifies border patrol and ICE agents. The fact that I am getting down voted for not following the herd and group thinking sort of proves my point.
- IAmEveryone 8y agoMaybe people are just downvoting you because your post is unconnected to the article.
- fogzen 8y agoThe immigration laws in place are inhumane, racist, classist, and anti-American. ICE is hated for the same reason the DEA is hated. People have no respect for those that enforce such stupid laws.
- yaacov 8y agoICE is 15 years old. We didn't have open borders before ICE, and getting rid of ICE wouldn't lead to open borders. I don't have an opinion yet on whether or not the US should get rid of ICE, but the particular argument you're making is a bad one.
- sjwright 8y agoYour ability for logical reasoning appears to be flawed. Being down-voted is not proof of your point. The existence of shoddy articles by your opponents is not proof of your point. The existence of bad arguments or bad conduct doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Because for most durably contentious issues, both sides have plenty of crappy advocates. To contextualise using the issue de jour: There are many good pro-Trump arguments and many bad pro-Trump arguments. There are LOTS of good anti-Trump arguments and LOTS of bad anti-Trump arguments. The solution isn't to point to the bad arguments as evidence for the opposite. All you can do is discount and ignore all the bad arguments and isolate your focus on the good arguments.