You're not arguing against leftists, you're arguing against Abraham Lincoln.

If you want to know the answers to your questions, read about Abraham Lincoln.

And no I will never agree that policies created out of racism will somehow bear sweet fruit from poisoned water.

All over this thread you have been misreading and strawmaning others in order to seem more reasonable. Even in this thread you misread me: the vile part was the homeless analogy, not the policy.

It's just time to draw the line in the sand: yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that.

It sounds like you haven't actually thought much about these issues, and you're quoting Lincoln, and fearmongering about "suffering and genocide", as a sort of thought-terminating cliche.

If you want to argue against the administration policies, I suggest you articulate a coherent and attractive philosophy of immigration instead of mudslinging. I'm not arguing with Lincoln--I'm arguing with you.

"yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that"

Why aren't you saying this about the much harsher Swiss policy which was proposed?

I just don't think a country closing its borders is equivalent to "suffering and genocide". It's not the policy I favor for the US. I think you and I might even agree in terms of our preferred policies! But I still find your rhetoric annoying as heck. I want people to argue about immigration on the merits, not engage in melodramatic pearl-clutching.

Let me guess: You would probably claim that when white settlers first came to this continent, if they settled on Native land, and the Natives attacked them for being unwanted immigrants, that would be an act of genocide on the part of the settlers. Am I right?