From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[I acknowledge Conservapedia's right to edit content but ask not to be quoted if the content that I post is censored.] I found this page by clicking on the "immigration" link in the "Conservatism" article, which supports, among other things, enforcement of current immigration laws. Decades ago, an illegal immigrant could become a legal one by marrying a legal US citizen. Government enforcement of current immigration laws, which provide no such protection, would force immigrants who are married to legal citizens to leave the United States (often to return to one with worse living conditions) and thus encourage the breakup of families (I was previously under the impression that Conservapedia took a pro-family stance.). Also, the enforcement of current immigration laws would require vast amounts of taxpayer money (I was also, previously, under the impression that Conservapedia was against both rash government spending and higher taxes.). --X. Dulks


Something has tickled my tiny mind for years. A conundrum, if you will. It goes like this: 18th century arrivals from Britain were not "immigrants" any more than was someone relocating from state to state. It says so in this article. Therefore, how can those who rebelled against Britain, their own country that they had not "emigrated" from, that they are considered a part of in this article, be called "patriots"? Surely a person who rebels against his "King and Country", especially one who had taken an oath of allegiance when commissioned as Washington did cannot be considered to be patriotic.
I have generally been favourable in my attitude towards the rebellious colonials. The States were being treated badly. Anyone who has browsed my hundreds of pages of history articles here would know me to be pretty-well straight up the middle. My beef isn't with the colonials, it is with the misuse of a word.
AlanE (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2016 (EDT)