Comment: Tangential thought exercise, then, to the topic at hand. :)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It really can be a whopper :) (see in situ)

Tangential thought exercise, then, to the topic at hand. :)

And largely misdirected. I'll play nevertheless, just cuz it's evening, and I'm winding down....)

"You asked a question using the pronoun "we" when I believe you were referring to the government."
Your belief is incorrect. Don't assume to know to what people refer unless they explicitly state it. "We" is bigger than government. Would you have preferred this instead: "Do you advocate people be rewarded, per policy, for breaking the law and short-circuiting the Constitutional and civic education required for legal immigration?"? Or would "per policy" be problematic now?

"A. it's an interesting observation."
(?) Does not compute. Please define "it" from "it's" above.

"B. it's an interesting study as to why you would self identify with government when factually you may not be government."
*Sigh* Your assumption is quickly misleading you to further baseless assumption. I think, more accurately, it may be you who desires to identify me with ___?___ , per what seems to be an agenda of sorts on your part, however ill-defined.

"C. my opinion about the immigration topic is pretty simple but reserved until after the above is settled."
Fine. Don't honor my request. But what needs settling? Your baseless assumptions? [This is like you saying to me, with an air of authority, "Your favorite color is red, so you had better explain why".... when my favorite color is not red but *actually* green. How do I settle / explain something not applicable? BEEP! Does not compute!]

"(I doubt you care about that anyways)"
What a strange thing to say! (Your comment gets weirder the further one reads.) Why shouldn't I care? I mean, yes, I am to you just a font on a page, saying stuff... but why jump to this rather morose conclusion? (You don't have to believe me, but I really *do* care; it's why I come to this site and participate. Jeez!)

"I will say that I am for the cause of individual liberty, and I make a habit of converting unintentional statists as often as I can."
Good. Welcome to the pro-individual Liberty club. Could you be accusing me of being an unintentional statist? Wow. So it's an either / or, black / white issue for you, then? I mean, just because I used the word "we" with respect to policy / law, I'm a statist?! (Throw that label around a lot, do you?)

HELPFUL HINT: If you fancy yourself an evangelist for anti-statism, seeking to convert unintentional statists to the righteous path of anarchy (right? That's the opposite.) or ___?___ (I don't know, because you've been a one man show and have made no real discernible point.), then you need to significantly step up your game! Throwing assumptions around and communicating without clarity--and even with a dash of haughty attitude--won't win you many converts.

"Also, not knowing what government is, why government is, what a border is, and the function it serves appears to be a major source of this discontent."
Indeed! You are correct. Not knowing what these things are conceptually or literally is certainly problematic to the situation being discussed.

QUESTION: I see you offer quotes from Jefferson and Franklin above (the sentiments of which I share). Are they both statists because they created / helped to create government?

(FYI, I don't need lessons on the glaring disconnects between "our government" and "we" the people, btw. LOL! Government largely = absurdity... and a vehicle for a few to exercise unjust control and even criminal actions upon many. I'm all for refreshing the tree of Liberty with blood of tyrants, etc.)

I bid you good evening!

What would the Founders do?