Immigrant advocate killed in crash with Salvadoran who sought sanctuary in Colorado Springs church

No, you’re an immigrant regardless if you’re legally or illegally allowed to be in the country. And last time I checked, they were called illegal immigrants which in itself demonstrates the word “immigrant” has nothing to do with legality.

 

I’m guessing this may be a first for you, but how about posting the definition of “immigrant” for us.

 

Go educate yourself on the Immigration and Nationality Act and get back to us after you learn the difference. They are called illegal aliens. There is NO SUCH THING as an illegal immigrant. If you are illegal, you CAN'T IMMIGRATE.

 

No you're not.

If you were an immigrant then you wouldn't be deported for being here.

"illegal/undocumented immigrant" is a term the left created when Carter was POTUS.

The legal term is "illegal alien".

illegal alien
[ ih-lee-guh l eyl-yuh n, ey-lee-uh n ]

1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.Compare resident alien.

 

I would post all the text here except that it's way more than the 16,000 character maximum allowed.

So you can go to school. 8 USC § 1101(a)(15)

The long and short of it is that if you're illegal, you're not an immigrant. See Vman above

 

Comical. You clearly don't understand what the word "immigrant" means. And just for the record, Merriam-Webster disagrees with you as well:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal alien/immigrant

 

Deportation is dependent on immigrant's legal status, not whether or not they're an immigrant.

 

Hey, you blind or something?? Is that you Ray Charles? I gave you the I.&N.A. legal definition. If you can't comprehend, don't project. Just go away quietly.

 

An illegal alien is always deportable.

That makes them not-an-immigrant.

They're an "immigrant" inasmuch as someone breaking into your home is a resident at the address.

 

What? Where do you get that from? Legality is exactly what determines an immigrant.

 

So you think he should be deported?

 

If he has any kind of criminal history, absolutely. I don't know the details of the crash, but if he has any kind of criminal culpability in that, then that would count even if he had no previous criminal history.

 

Then I'm not clear what you are arguing over. Hasn't it already been posted in this thread that he has a criminal history?

 

The claim being made by some is that the crash victim deserved his fate (karma) because he advocated for people to be allowed to immigrate here even with a proven violent criminal history. Additionally, some are fabricating the claim that others on the forum advocate for the same. Has it been posted here that he or really anyone else advocates for that?

 

What does any of that have to do with whether the illegal should have been deported?

 

Check the OP and the rest of the thread for the context.

 

It's an absolute yes on the deflection.

 

Did he have a State issued drivers license showing that he studied and took the test, based on American laws and rules of the road, which make him suitable for driving?

 

Oh I know the context, but that doesn't have anything to do with the comment of yours that I replied to where I asked if he should have been deported. So since I asked the question twice and you tried to change the subject to karma, I'm going to guess that the answer is no.

 

Oh! You mean like the hypocritical left who only scream about the crimes that support their agendas, and are essentially silent on those that dont....

.... kind like this thread?

 

What part of post #138 did you have trouble reading? Or why do you feel the need to misrepresent the clear answer by playing make-believe that the answer was the opposite? If you are going to ask questions, accept answers. If you feel the need to make **** up, feel free to go on ignore with the other trolls.

 

Why?

Lol.

Really?

 

Gang violence is killing people for the color of clothes they wear in which neighborhood.

The real concerning part, that the frequency in which this occurs. But the left continues to use random, and far less homicides to push their anti gun agenda.

Why? I'll help you. Because the left doesnt want to criticize the culture that sparks black-on-black violence for fear of their victimization class turning against them.

And THIS, is why the left sounds stupid going all ape **** over mass shootings while remaining silent on inner city black-on-black murders

 

I understood it, just not in context of your comments in this entire thread.

 

What don't you understand? Be specific.