-Are you going to admit the two parties' rhetoric is vastly different on this issue?

Never disagreed with that. You keep arguing against a point I've never made.

Are you going to admit the two parties' ENFORCEMENT is exactly the same?

Because you've argued this is a problem in rural red areas only and political affiliation IS the reason why no enforcement of the law.

-You as well, obviously.

Hotseshit. I think it's not a huge issue.

Since both democrats sheriffs and republican sheriffs in red counties and blue counties all equally ignore the employers.

Yet it's a huge issue to you.

-So why did you represent as much?

I did no such thing. I asked a question.

-Are you saying your local sheriff has no legal authority to arrest someone he knows is in your town illegally?

I don't know really. But I noticed you managed to type "sheriff" without typing "republican" immediately before it. Coincidence?

I'll ask again, where are we expecting local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration policy?

I remember a sheriff in Arizona trying that ... ..wow, what a story that generated.

-One party wants to kidnap and deport, and the other leans more toward a pathway to citizenship.

Okay ... ..but that's not what I'm talking about nor has it been what you're talking about when you said "Republican sheriff" a thousand times.

The political affiliation of the local sheriff is a huge issue to you.

Employers are getting away with it entirely because the sheriff is a republican

And how do I know that? Because you said so a thousand times.

-Dems aren't the ones trying to kidnap and deport.

Neither is the local sheriff.

I point this out because you've insisted that's where it's supposed to be enforced ... ... and that it's being ignored and the sheriff is a Republican.

How many times has the political affiliation of the local sheriff been an issue to you?

You've put the word "Republican" in front of "sheriff" every single time.

I'm guessing that's because it MASSIVELY mattered.

-I'm against the hypocrisy. Folks pretend they want to address the illegal immigration issue, but then NEVER start frog - marching the hirers.

But we're not actually doing that anywhere.

Democrats in blue cities ignore it
Republicans in red areas ... ... ignore it.

You've insisted it's ignored entirely because the sheriff is a Republican and so is the local chamber ... .who supports that sheriff.

So either you didn't know democrats are in on the exact same conspiracy or you just don't care.

Repeatedly (like a thousand times) you've used the same scenario.

Rural area
Meat packing plant
Republican law enforcement
Republican chamber of commerce.

And that all's true.

But it's the only scenario you choose to use.

And yet most illegals live in 20 blue cities.

You either didn't know that or you don't care.

Which is it?

It's not just about republican hypocrisy, obviously.

-How many Democrat Sheriffs do you think exist in rural Georgia?

How many Republican sheriffs exist in the 20 largest metro areas? Where there are the most illegals

Is there a county or local public entity who is doing what you want? To perp walk employers off to jail?

Anywhere?

You understand why I'm asking, right?

-But ultimately, you're also missing the larger point:

It's not a larger point. Is merely your point.

You're getting much closer to admitting what this is really about to you.

You've discovered it might be about money?

LOL

-doesn't really want to attack the problem.

And that's a problem only where there are fewer illegal immigrants and not where most are?

It's only a problem where republicans win elections and NOT where democrats win elections? You know ... ..where MOST ILLEGALS ARE BEING HIRED?

-I'm also making it about hirers, and landlords, and insurers, and folks who casually look the other way while paying their lawn guys in cash.

But not where most illegal immigrants actually are.

How do you reconcile that?

-No, I'm not.

Sorry. You're making it all about the political affiliation of that sheriff.

-I mean, we're always told it's Republicans who own businesses, right?

are you challenging that? why put a question mark at the end.

either say that's the case or not.

"And I would bet that the hirers are largely Republicans.
I mean, we're always told it's Republicans who own businesses, right?"

I'll bring you back to my original question here........do you understand democrats win elections in this country or not?

who hires the law enforcement?

Does does it matter what political affiliation the law enforcement is or not?

we can concede the employers are republicans but you're making it all about the local sheriff.........you've only done it a million times here.

so does it matter or not.

-I've made my point abundantly clear

not yet you haven't.

we're about to learn your actual point.

-But the fact of the matter is, Republicans want the issue for a wedge ... While refusing to actually attack the main cause.

The hypocrisy of the republican party has been massively conceded by me forever.

20

So you're unaware that there are hundreds of thousands of illegals living and working in .......

NYC
DC
Philly
Seattle
LA
SF
SD
Chicago
Baltimore

Basically every major city in this country (not to mention any area that's within 50 miles of an ocean) with construction, hotels, resorts, lawn, landscaping.....no packing plants.

If you want to make an issue out of who Barney Fife votes for then let's make that the issue.......

I don't know if I can prove it but I would bet it's possible that more illegals work in BLUE area than Red areas.

So.....who convinced the liberal version of Barney Fife (yes, I know we should use Andy Taylor but you drug rural sheriffs into this) to ignore all the illegals working there right under their noses?