3 ms·
It's the same champaign socialist argumentation you are using, just that it's not affecting you, but when it does affect you, you have no argument. The questio
by Cumpiler69 2y ago
It's the same champaign socialist argumentation you are using, just that it's not affecting you, but when it does affect you, you have no argument.
The question was simple, why do you support illegal immigration in a country's borders as being OK, but not crossing in the borders of your house?
It's easy to be virtuous and generous with other people's money/resources.
- mrtksn 2y agoI don't support illegal immigration, I say that people traveling and seeking better lives should not be illegal. I think we are done here since I don't feel spending time for positions I never claimed. I despise this type of argumentation, its a known fallacy and its useless. You can count yourself as won an arguments if you feel like that.
- rangestransform 2y agoIt should be illegal based on the wishes of the people in the destination country alone, even if only to hoard the pie for themselves