Geographically, the United States is finite.

The resources of the United States is finite.

We have poor and uneducated US citizens.

The United States can only fit and tend to so many people.

Therefore,

We should take care of those poor and uneducated US citizens before we start taking care of the world's poor and uneducated. kthx. What is Mexico doing by the way besides failing?

Is that a good thing or bad thing?

How does it taste, by the way?

Between the years 1980-2003, 93% of the perpetrators of black homicide were.... *drum roll*.... other blacks.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

According to the FBI, despite blacks only making up around 12-14% of the population and whites making up around 70% of the population, blacks killed by whites is 8% and whites killed by blacks is 15%. The heck? Shouldn't that be reversed? (at the least, because there are more whites). White on white crime is also lower than black on black crime.

This isn't racist guys. Netflix said so.

Calling for the boycott of a movie, book, or show does not equal asking the government to ban said movie, book, or show. Nor does it equate to a publisher or media platform only allowing certain messages to be heard.

Do you understand now?

Which premise do you reject then?

1. if a person is not inclined to break the law, then they're less likely to break the law.

2. An illegal immigrant is a person.

3. An illegal immigrant has broken the law.

Therefore,

4. It is more likely than not that an illegal immigrant is a person who is inclined to break the law.

Therefore,

5. There are more illegal immigrants who are people who are inclined to break laws than there are illegal immigrants who are people who are not inclined to break laws.

---

And if the conclusions (4) and (5) are untrue, then why does the following statistic exist: 75% of federal drug crimes were commited by illegals in 2014. And why is 1/4 of prisoners non US citizens? Isn't that strange? 90% or more of the US population are US citizens. Finally, if illegals are not inclined to crime, then why is Vanessa Pham dead?

1. You're a duck. (FALSE)

2. You speak french. (FALSE)

Therefore,

3. All ducks speak french. (FALSE)

For an argument to be a good one the premises need to be true and the logic valid. The logic of this argument is invalid and the premises are untrue; therefore, the argument is unsound (or not a good one). It's invalid because even if premises (1) and (2) were true, it wouldn't be sufficient for (3).

Now go back to my argument and tell me what's wrong with it; otherwise, how my dick taste?

Thank you for playing.

With the intention of protecting US citizens and preventing another dictatorship like the one they suffered under Great Britain.

Had nothing to do with "advertising". Did your liberal teachers teach you that? That's cute.

You're posting a bunch of Fake News sites. New York Times said Hillary Clinton had a 90% chance of winning before the election. Lmao. They're propaganda, brah.

Look at my logic, brah. Tell me which premise is wrong.

1. A person inclined to break the law is more likely to break the law compared to persons who are not inclined to break the law.

2. An illegal immigrant has broken the law.

3. An illegal immigrant is a person.

Therefore,

4. It is more likely that an illegal immigrant is a person who is inclined to break the law than a person who is not inclined to break the law.

Therefore,

5. More illegal immigrants are people who are inclined to break laws versus people who are not inclined to break laws.

This is just pure undeniable logic.

But there are also statistics to back this up. 1/4 of prisoners are not US citizens (crazy because most of the US population are US citizens). 75% of federal drug crimes in 2014 were committed by illegal immigrants. Etc.

Then there are cases of women being murdered by illegal immigrants, like Vanessa Pham.

Washington Post and Time are fake news.

That's correct. If illegals are ejected from the country or prevented from entering the country, then they cannot take any action inside the country... because they're not in the country. I'm glad you now understand this. So all of these cases where people were raped, tortured, killed, etc., by illegal immigrants--or all of the drug trafficking committed by illegals--would have been prevented if we just enforced immigration law.

It wouldn't matter in that case because the illegal shouldn't have been inside the country... because they're illegal.

Illegals are illegals; therefore, they're illegally inside the country. They shouldn't be inside the country because they're illegal. Therefore, if immigration law is fully enforced, then any action (good or bad) an illegal would take inside the country would be prevented because... they're not inside the country...

That being said, an illegal has a higher chance of committing a crime once inside the country for the simple fact that a person who willingly breaks the law to get inside the country will have a higher chance of breaking the law in other ways compared to a person who goes through the proper channels to become a legal US citizen.

Statistics bear this out. For example, according to the United States Sentencing Commission, 75% of federal drug offenses in 2014 were committed by illegal immigrants.