JM can't mean he'd send people to their deaths.

In the post "Gill-Head Waves Cross", JM makes a remarkable claim that he would have no trouble sending Christians or others to their deaths. My guess is he didn't mean it, but simply didn't think through what he was saying, blinded by his desire to disagree with me.

In my post, I said the following:

Yep, if you are a Christian who has fled persecution from a Muslim country, and you don't otherwise qualify for legal immigration, our nation's LAWS allow you to LEGALLY stay in the country -- but only if you qualify, which often can require a lawyer to put together the legal proof.
...
Those of us in the Christian community support the asylum process, which is a LEGAL METHOD to stay in this country, and is LEGALLY granted to people even if they arrived here without legal basis.

Now, I'm certain that Paul Nichols supports the law of asylum. America IS the beacon of protection for those, especially Christians but also Jews and those of other religious faiths, who would otherwise face torture and death. I'm guessing that even JM supports the asylum laws in our legal immigration rules.

JM first says:

Note the euphemism "they arrived here without a legal basis." What Charles means is "they arrived here illegally."

It wasn't a euphemism. If you enter the country without the appropriate papers, but you do so BECAUSE you have a reasonably founded fear of persecution, you are actually NOT here illegally. You can make a legal request for asylum, and being here already is NOT held against you in those procedings. Of course, the same is true if you came on a legal visa, but it is about to expire and deportation has started to coincide with the termination date (in which you are actually legal until the date).

Then JM insists that, if someone has come here "illegally", by whatever definition he has, then they should be deported:

At this point Charles' skills as a mindreader fail him. If someone enters the United States illegally then I am in favor of deporting them, each and every time.

Remember, we are talking specifically about people who have fled their home country because they fear religious persecution. These people are sneaking out of their country to escape capture, and going to one of the few countries in the world that actually offer protection.

I thought JM would understand the concept of a religious people fleeing persecution in their own countries, who might arrive without proper papers. In World War 2, Jews were fleeing Germany under threat of persecution, and they didn't have passports, visas, or a right to be in the countries they were fleeing to.

The United States put Asylum into our immigration law because a majority of Americans support protecting people from religious or political persecution. I assumed (falsely, apparently) that JM was with a majority on that issue, but he has made it clear that, if a Muslim convert to Christianity has fled Syria with his family, and makes the mistake of showing up where JM makes the rules, that family is heading right back to Syria where they will be publicly and painfully executed as an example.

After all, they didn't file the the proper applications and wait their turn.

I trust that others, even who support JM's attack on Faisal, don't support deporting Christians and Jews to their deaths by islamic extremists.

Here I'd say that I trust that even JM wouldn't really do that, except he's already faulted me for putting words in his mouth, so I guess for now I'll take him at his own word.