I'm sorry what? you're waiting for me to quote the acts of the constiution?

Wow, name calling and swearing. I love an intelligent debate.

Anyway... I really have no idea what you're getting at with regards to my statements on these matters, nor do I know how you would know what my opinions or actions were 4 years ago.

I do understand that you are concerned that Smith didn't comment on these actions 4 years ago but has much to say now... and are therefore questioning his motives. Which of course is your right. I've already said there could be many reasons for this. Some could be questioned, some could be completely innocent. Who knows?

I find the message he is putting across to be sound and backed up with facts so I have no reason to question the motives behind it.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. That's just my reading of the situation.

Sorry... what? I have no idea what point you're trying to put across here let me try and decipher. You're saying what Fred Smith says now doesn't apply because he didn't comment on the situation four years ago? Is that right?

Why does it matter if the message is sound?

Hahaha... as I said, carry on... it really is hilarious.

At no point did I say he was. Please re-read the conversation, neither did I mention anything about 'paths to citizenship'. I don't know why you're bringing it up in response to my comment..

He isnt... that's the point...

Constitutionally... no he cannot

No it doesn't. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this its just silly. Also who on EARTH said that they should?

just because something isnt practical doesnt make it legal, and just because the Minister has decided he can sign off deportations... that also doesn't make it legal.. Next...