# I'm a liberal opposed to illegal immigration **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202 "2017-03-02T14:35:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/21 "2017-03-02T16:14:38Z")
When my great-grandparents arrived in 1907 and 1908, the forces that drove them to the US were the same as the ones driving people from Mexico to the US: poverty, corrupt government at home, etc. At the time, though, the laws were incredibly permissive, and almost anyone could come in and work. The requirements to immigrate now are so dramatically different that none of my ancestors could have come in. The immigration laws are quite simply unjust, and equally clearly dysfunctional if that many millions of people manage to break them. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/22 "2017-03-02T16:22:58Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Why are so many liberals so protective of immigrants who have broken U.S. laws in order to come to or stay in this country? Because the laws are wrong. Because the reason they are here is that we need them. Because they are a net positive to society. Because they simply had zero legal options to immigrate properly. Because it is blatantly obvious that the grand majority of opposition to them is based entirely on racism and xenophobia. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/23 "2017-03-02T16:45:31Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Is a creation of human choice, and can be changed through human choice. > > Here’s the thing, though. When I said that I would prefer a borderless world, you yourself raised a hypothetical: that in a hypothetical borderless world, there would be no obstacles to a Russian takeover of all of Ukraine. > > When you’re the one who introduces the hypothetical, and someone else challenges whether what you say would be the outcome really _would_ be the outcome in such a hypothetical situation, it’s really not relevant to object based on what happens in the world as it is currently constituted, because _the whole point of a hypothetical is to think about the outcomes in a world other than the one we currently have_, in order to figure out what changes we’d like to make to the world as it currently is. Then I suggest you create your own thread on the merits of a borderless world. This topic is about the world in which we live and it has international borders and nations interested in those borders being respected and protected vis-a-vis movement of people. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/24 "2017-03-02T17:34:11Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I am very sympathetic to children who were brought here at a young age, but we do need a solution that somehow acknowledges the law. Can you explain what this means? Let’s say a 3 year old is brought by her parents to the US, and many years later, tries to enroll in college and somehow pops up on the government’s radar screen. I’d be fine with having that person have a path to a green card and eventually citizenship. What do you mean, “a solution that somehow acknowledges the law?” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/25 "2017-03-02T18:02:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Can you explain what this means? Let’s say a 3 year old is brought by her parents to the US, and many years later, tries to enroll in college and somehow pops up on the government’s radar screen. I’d be fine with having that person have a path to a green card and eventually citizenship. What do you mean, “a solution that somehow acknowledges the law?” Right, what we need here is compromise. Yes, a border patrol and some sort of wall (like we mostly have) is not a bad idea. keeps out smugglers too. Deporting criminals is a Good idea. My Compromise: amnesty. If you entered the country legally, paid your taxes, kept your nose clean for 5 years, you get a green card and path to citizenship. If you entered the country illegally, paid your taxes, kept your nose clean for 10 years, you get a green card and path to citizenship. No felony convictions at all. Minors are exempt from how they entered. ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/26 "2017-03-02T18:10:37Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Why are so many liberals so protective of immigrants who have broken U.S. laws in order to come to or stay in this country? > > I am a liberal on most issues, especially social issues. I tend to vote Democratic. But I do have trouble understanding why the prevailing liberal view seems to be to defend immigrants that here without having gone through the legally required process to do so. The only thing in Trump’s entire speech this week that I agreed with was that we are a country of laws. > > I just think people need to obey the law. I am not clear on why so many liberals paint this position as xenophobic or anti-immigrant; I am neither. I live in a very cosmopolitan area, and love the fact that my children have grown up with kids from dozens of other countries. Being anti-illegal immigration isn’t at all the same thing as being anti-immigration. > > The idea of breaking up a family because some of them are here legally and some of them are not is tragic, but the immigrants themselves have to take at least some of the blame for such a situation. Many liberals take these situations to make conservatives out to be heartless. People who did not go through the legal immigration process knew they were taking a risk. I am very sympathetic to children who were brought here at a young age, but we do need a solution that somehow acknowledges the law. (A distantly related issue is foreigners who come here on a legal tourist visa just to give birth to an American citizen, but that is another discussion.) > > Many illegal immigrants (call them undocumented workers if you prefer, but in fact they are immigrants who are here illegally) have made positive contributions to our culture and economy, and have established productive lives here. But that is an “end justifies the means” argument, and is tacit encouragement for more people to follow the same path. > > Many immigrants are willing to take jobs that Americans will not. But if so, then we should make it possible for such people to come here legally, rather than say that the end justifies the means. > > The situation is grossly unfair to those following the law who are still awaiting their opportunity to come here using the legally mandated process. > > I do not know if the arguments against illegal immigration are valid, such as it takes away jobs from Americans, depresses wages, puts an undue burden on public services. The argument that says that illegal immigrants bring violent crime into the country is specious; it’s just an appeal to emotion and foments fear (I think this argument is downright despicable). Let’s assume for the sake of argument all of these points are just a smokescreen. There is still the issue of immigration law. > > There are pragmatic and humanitarian arguments to favoring those who are here without having gone through legally required channels, but you could make similar arguments for [those who break other laws](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/08/mom-who-uses-medical-marijuana-faces-up-to-30-years-in-prison/?utm_term=.f5dcdffca2c6). Why is immigration law treated so differently than laws broken by our own citizens? I suppose it depends on your definition of “liberal.” > [@](#): > > A supporter of liberalism, a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality > [ul] > [li]Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties[/li][li] Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement[/li][li] Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions[/li][li] Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights[/li][/ul] I would consider myself a classical liberal. I view freedom of movement (the ability to vote with one’s feet) to be the most important liberty of all, therefore I view all border/immigration controls as an unwelcome imposition on the right—which should belong to every human simply for being born as such—to go wherever one wants, whenever one wants, with whomever one wishes to accompany (so long as the “whomever” is a willing participant), for any non-violent purpose. A person’s mere presence within some imaginary lines drawn on the map violates no one’s rights, and one of my fundamental beliefs is that persons who have not violated the rights of other persons should have an absolute right to be left alone by all forms of authority, no matter where they find themselves. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/27 "2017-03-02T18:25:14Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > When my great-grandparents arrived in 1907 and 1908, the forces that drove them to the US were the same as the ones driving people from Mexico to the US: poverty, corrupt government at home, etc. At the time, though, the laws were incredibly permissive, and almost anyone could come in and work. > > The requirements to immigrate now are so dramatically different that none of my ancestors could have come in. The immigration laws are quite simply unjust, and equally clearly dysfunctional if that many millions of people manage to break them. QFT. The OP seems to be starting from the premise that if illegal immigrants had just followed the rules, everything would be hunky-dory. In this reality, though, there is no legally-mandated process most of them even could follow, because they’re not eligible under current law. There’s no immigration category for “I’m a hard-working and law-abiding person and I want to be an American.” We simply don’t accept applications from people for whom this is their sole rationale. All would-be immigrants have to fit into one of the approved categories (parent, child, sibling, or spouse of somebody who’s already a citizen, professionals holding advanced degrees, religious workers, Iraqi translators, people with a million dollars or more to invest, etc.); if you don’t fit into a category, you’re not eligible to follow the process. Residents of Mexico, El Salvador, and some other countries aren’t even eligible to apply for the immigration lottery. If we had a realistic immigration process and allowed hard-working Mexican nationals to apply for legal immigration, or even legal work permits, the number of Mexicans trying to sneak across the border would drop sharply. We don’t, and therefore we have the problems we do. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/28 "2017-03-02T18:31:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Then I suggest you create your own thread on the merits of a borderless world. This topic is about the world in which we live and it has international borders and nations interested in those borders being respected and protected vis-a-vis movement of people. It’s about whether or not one should oppose illegal immigration, and my first response was me giving my reason why I oppose it. You’re the one who introduced a hypothetical situation into the discussion–and it, too, was perfectly relevant, because you were trying to discredit my reasoning (a perfectly legitimate thing to do). ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/29 "2017-03-02T18:43:52Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > It’s about whether or not one should oppose illegal immigration, and my first response was me giving my reason why I oppose it. > > You’re the one who introduced a hypothetical situation into the discussion–and it, too, was perfectly relevant, because you were trying to discredit my reasoning (a perfectly legitimate thing to do). Please provide a cite that ‘borders are a human rights violation’. ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/30 "2017-03-02T18:57:41Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Please provide a cite that ‘borders are a human rights violation’. Article 13 of the United Nations’ [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): > [@](#): > > (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. > (2) Everyone has the right to **leave any country** , **including his own** , and to return to his country. Borders are definitely an infringement of the right to leave, so long as any state has the authority to deny entry. The most ridiculous aspect of any of it is this: You can follow the letter of every law and regulation on the books with regard to immigration; you can apply for a visa, pay the fee, and have consular officer approve that visa, and the guards at the border _still_ have the right to refuse you at their _discretion_. They don’t even need a reason any more valid than that they were constipated that morning. They don’t even need to prove that you lied on your visa application. **What is that if not tyranny?** People who are refused entry at airports could easily be out thousands of dollars in travel costs, as well, in spite of having followed every rule on the books, just because the customs agent is in a foul mood. Why is that a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/31 "2017-03-02T18:59:31Z")
A borderless world mean that all nations must needs accept every other nations laws on banning materials that they consider dangerous or harmful. No taxes on tobacco or booze, no gun purchase laws, no drug possession laws, no import taxes. Enemy spies or terrorists can pass freely in, carrying what they need. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/32 "2017-03-02T19:20:30Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Pure ideology. > > In a borderless world, the very concept of an ethnonational state–never mind an ethnonational state with aggressive extra-national imperialist aims such as Russia currently is–would be entirely meaningless. 1. Russia isn’t an ethno-national state, it’s a multinational state (the successor state of two multinational empires). Russian public opinion is more ethnonationalistic than public opinion in America or Western Europe, but that isn’t particularly reflected by their constitution, or the ideology of the ruling party. 2. **QuickSilver’s** question is still a good one, because the whole reason Russia and the Ukraine are currently in a state of conflict is because _Russians and Ukrainians have very different views_ about what sort of society they want to live in. Which is, in part, the same reason countries and borders exist. If you don’t have the right to exclude whoever you want, you don’t actually have much of a society or a community. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/33 "2017-03-02T19:24:04Z")
> [@CoastalMaineiac](#): > > Article 13 of the United Nations’ [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): > > Borders are definitely an infringement of the right to leave, so long as any state has the authority to deny entry.? I don’t accept that “everyone has the right to leave their country” as a general moral rule, but even if I did, your conclusion doesn’t follow. In order for people to be free to leave their country, all that’s really necessary is for _one_ country to welcome immigration, not for _every_ country to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/34 "2017-03-02T19:27:09Z")
> [@CoastalMaineiac](#): > > I suppose it depends on your definition of “liberal.” > > I would consider myself a classical liberal. I view freedom of movement (the ability to vote with one’s feet) to be the most important liberty of all, therefore I view all border/immigration controls as an unwelcome imposition on the right—which should belong to every human simply for being born as such—to go wherever one wants, whenever one wants, with whomever one wishes to accompany (so long as the “whomever” is a willing participant), for any non-violent purpose. > > A person’s mere presence within some imaginary lines drawn on the map violates no one’s rights, and one of my fundamental beliefs is that persons who have not violated the rights of other persons should have an absolute right to be left alone by all forms of authority, no matter where they find themselves. Do you think everyone should have free access to your house? The territory of a country is the collective property of a group of people (whether you define that group in civic or ethnic terms), and of the country’s government, and they have the same right, in principle, to decide to exclude you for any reason (or for _no reason at all_) that you have the right to exclude, say, me, from your house. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/35 "2017-03-02T19:46:32Z")
> [@CoastalMaineiac](#): > > Article 13 of the United Nations’ [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): > > Borders are definitely an infringement of the right to leave, so long as any state has the authority to deny entry. > > The most ridiculous aspect of any of it is this: You can follow the letter of every law and regulation on the books with regard to immigration; you can apply for a visa, pay the fee, and have consular officer approve that visa, and the guards at the border _still_ have the right to refuse you at their _discretion_. They don’t even need a reason any more valid than that they were constipated that morning. They don’t even need to prove that you lied on your visa application. **What is that if not tyranny?** > > People who are refused entry at airports could easily be out thousands of dollars in travel costs, as well, in spite of having followed every rule on the books, just because the customs agent is in a foul mood. Why is that a good thing? It’s an aspirational resolution, but is it practicable given real world geo-politics? Is every country thus guilty of human rights abuses? ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/36 "2017-03-02T19:52:22Z")
I am not opposed to illegal immigration, which is not to say that I am in favor of it. (Just as I am not opposed to abortion, which is not to say that I am in favor of it.) I see the majority of illegal immigrants as victims of untenable circumstances. When I consider someone a victim, I am more sympathetic to their plight. I would very much like to see a friendly approach to immigrants coming over our southern borders (similar to what we saw with mostly European immigrants many many decades ago.) Clearly there is a labor need being filled, we should work harder to support that. I would suggest that by treating so many people as a problem, we are diluting our ability to identify and deal with the real problems. (Kinda like chicken little, eh?) ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/37 "2017-03-02T20:45:30Z")
Any “law” which makes it illegal for a person who is not a convicted felon to move is a bad law and shouldn’t be followed. Seriously, if there was a law that said “People from Tyson’s Corner, VA are not allowed to move to North Carolina”, and there was an employer there who offered you a lucrative job, you wouldn’t consider saying “Screw that, North Carolina, here I come!”? And the borders arguments are ignorant. We had zero laws against immigration in the 19th century, and the US still had borders, laws, and military defense. Illinois has borders, but people from the rest of the country can still pass through them or settle in Illinois without issue. People equating migration with “invasion” are being disingenuous at best. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/38 "2017-03-02T20:48:08Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Is every country thus guilty of human rights abuses? How can this be a serious question? The answer is YES. ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/39 "2017-03-02T20:52:10Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Do you think everyone should have free access to your house? > > The territory of a country is the collective property of a group of people (whether you define that group in civic or ethnic terms), and of the country’s government, and they have the same right, in principle, to decide to exclude you for any reason (or for _no reason at all_) that you have the right to exclude, say, me, from your house. And why should societies have the same rights as individual humans? Society doesn’t have emotion or feeling, neither does it suffer in any way, as those things are experienced only by individuals. Why should the collective be entitled to enforce anything other than peaceful coexistence on individuals? Why shouldn’t all individuals be treated equally under the law, no matter whence they originated? If a person born in Mexico uses his own money to buy or rent house next door to me, and then moves into it without permission from the United States government to immigrate, how have my or anyone else’s rights been violated? What freedoms have I lost as a result of his buying or renting that house and living in it? In what ways have I suffered from the fact that he is not an American or otherwise “legal” resident? Would not my taxpayer dollars be better spent on fighting actual crimes—the kinds of crimes that actually contribute to suffering in this world? Rather than treating someone as a criminal simply because he’s on the wrong side of a national boundary? ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202/40 "2017-03-02T20:57:51Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Any “law” which makes it illegal for a person **who is not a convicted felon** to move is a bad law and shouldn’t be followed. Seriously, if there was a law that said “People from Tyson’s Corner, VA are not allowed to move to North Carolina”, and there was an employer there who offered you a lucrative job, you wouldn’t consider saying “Screw that, North Carolina, here I come!”? > > And the borders arguments are ignorant. We had zero laws against immigration in the 19th century, and the US still had borders, laws, and military defense. Illinois has borders, but people from the rest of the country can still pass through them or settle in Illinois without issue. People equating migration with “invasion” are being disingenuous at best. (emphasis added) Even convicts should have the right to move where they will, providing their sentences have been satisfied in full, in my opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-liberal-opposed-to-illegal-immigration/781202.md?page=3)