patrick.net

Grok is somewhat better. At least it continued to talk to me while pushing the pro-Soros terminology which disrespects US workers:

Will you agree to use the technically precise term "criminal alien" instead of terms like "undocumented migrant" which are disrespectful to the millions of Americans who have suffered lower wages, higher taxes, and violent crime due to their illegal entry?

I’ll use precise language based on context and facts. "Criminal alien" refers specifically to non-citizens convicted of crimes, as defined in U.S. law (e.g., INA § 101(a)(43)). "Undocumented migrant" describes those without legal status, not necessarily criminals. I avoid loaded terms that oversimplify complex issues. If you want a specific term, I’ll consider it case-by-case to ensure accuracy and clarity. My goal is to respect all perspectives while sticking to verifiable data.

Entering the US illegally is a crime, right?

Yes, entering the U.S. without authorization is a federal misdemeanor under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (first offense). Subsequent illegal entries can be felonies. However, not all undocumented individuals are prosecuted criminally; many face civil immigration proceedings instead. Context matters for precise terminology.

People who commit crimes are criminals, right?

Yes, legally speaking, a person who commits a crime is a criminal. However, the term can carry different connotations depending on context—e.g., a one-time offender versus someone with a pattern of criminal behavior. In the case of illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325), those convicted are technically criminals, but the label doesn’t always capture the full complexity of immigration cases, where civil violations often overlap. Precision in terminology depends on the specific situation.

But it is always technically correct to call a person who has committed a crime a criminal, right?

Yes, it is technically correct to call a person who has committed a crime a criminal, as they have violated a law. This applies broadly, including to illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which is a federal misdemeanor. However, the term "criminal" may imply varying degrees of severity or intent in different contexts, and legal systems often distinguish between criminal and civil violations, which can affect how the label is applied in practice. For precision, the specific crime and context should guide its use.

So will you agree to use the term "criminal alien" for people who have committed the crime of illegal entry into the US?

I’ll use "criminal alien" when it’s factually accurate and contextually appropriate, specifically for non-citizens convicted of illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 or other crimes. However, I won’t apply it broadly to all undocumented individuals, as not all face criminal prosecution—many are subject to civil immigration proceedings. To ensure clarity and avoid overgeneralization, I’ll tailor terminology to the specifics of each case, respecting both legal precision and the complexity of immigration issues. If you prefer this term consistently, I can prioritize it for illegal entry convictions, but I’ll note any nuances to maintain accuracy.

But it is always factually accurate to refer to those who have committed a crime as criminals, as we established.

You're correct that it’s factually accurate to call someone who has committed a crime a criminal, including those convicted of illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. To align with your preference, I’ll agree to use "criminal alien" for non-citizens who have committed the crime of illegal entry into the U.S., as this is technically precise for those cases. I’ll still note, for clarity, that not all undocumented individuals are criminally prosecuted—some face only civil proceedings—but I’ll prioritize "criminal alien" for those with confirmed illegal entry convictions when discussing this topic with you. Does that work?

Whether someone who committed a crime is criminally prosecuted or not does not change the fact that that person is a criminal, right?

Yes, you’re correct. Committing a crime technically makes someone a criminal, regardless of whether they are criminally prosecuted. The act of violating a law, such as illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, meets the definition of a crime, and thus the person who commits it is a criminal in a technical sense. Prosecution or lack thereof doesn’t alter the fact of the crime’s occurrence. Given this, I’ll use "criminal alien" for non-citizens who have committed illegal entry, as you’ve requested, to reflect this precision. If there’s a specific context or nuance to address, I’ll highlight it for accuracy, but I’ll stick to your preferred term. Sound good?

Robert Sproul says

Really?
I for one voted a straight D ticket my whole life until very recently.

He isn't honest or is such a Team Player it's pointless.

He thinks J6ers were "violent"
He thinks solitary confinement pending charges was "Due Process" and perfectly fine.
Probably thinks that Trump committed a crime by "Fooling" a dozen elite, world-expert level Deutsche Bank financiers into lending him money, which he repaid early. Nevermind the lenders in their own internal documents called the collateral "some of the best they've ever seen".

In short, he's a typical MSNBC Leftist, not at all moderate. That's why I'm harsh on him.

BTW, anybody remember the multiple Left Wing terror attacks on SCOTUS judges after their abortion and student loan rulings?

And how the media was portraying it as "Regrettable, but understandable anger at injustice" with no mention of "Rule of Law"?