Don't switch this around; your original post asked how Cher's tweet is germane to the immigration debate followed by (after my inference explanation) your link to an article aggregating politicians' responses to the Trump proposal:

But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

and

Nevertheless, https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjU4tv5ltXhAhUFvJ4KHZevC3IQzPwBCAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.axios.com%2Fwhat-theyre-saying-mayors-sanctuary-cities-welcome-trumps-latest-immigration-idea-1829d5c7-6577-4644-8f40-bb582003da86.html&psig=AOvVaw2-TMvTjnN-TodVt3OYx6OE&ust=1555523557136146

So then you turn the debate to the accuracy of the meme:

It doesn't matter, the fact is that OP's meme is incorrect.

To which I point out that even if this were true you haven't stated facts to back your position followed by a lengthy post discussing why you should. Yes, I even intimated that you are either lazy or stupid for not doing so after all the comments prior and telling you for the second time that unfounded emotional statements won't cut it.

What do you do? Why, attack OP's (unverified) motives of course and try to shut down the discussion when you were called out:

OP's meme is not a friendly call for debate, it's an accusation of liberals being hypocrites. It's demonstrably wrong, it's pathetic, end of story.

So now you're accusing me of moving the goal posts!

You're trying to move the goal posts.

...and trying to slip away from the debate (recall it was you who posted the "we're city leaders and we love illegal aliens" quote article) by saying that you're not debating about immigration at all when the record will show you in point of fact were discussing the immigration debate:

This post is not about the nuances of the immigration debate

Then you say:

[this is about a meme] which the link I posted above handily proves to be false

NO. IT. DOESN'T. I showed that the population's view differs considerably from the quotes cited in your article and I stated clearly that those who made them have a vested interest in doing so. I said:

To this I'd say you're right--I read an article that read about a politician slamming the President for the idea but careful to also say that the immigrants are welcome.

When we ask the population [link to Gallup poll], however, we find that they feel immigration should be reduced. I highly suspect that the outcome would be sharper if we factored for race. Notice I'm not racist, just stating the numbers.

What I've given you is the courtesy of pointing out the fallacies in your "argument" (lack of supporting facts, red herring, etc.) and what I've received in return is slippery tactics and a completely unfounded claim that your article serves as definitive "proof."

I don't mind quality debate but you need to clearly state your opinion, provide facts to support your opinion, and not slip the debate around to other areas. When you do the above your credibility goes to zero, and I'm being charitable.

Correction: you will see my link to the Immigration Gallup Pole in the comments above, not in response to your post. Here's a synopsis of research on how Americans feel about immigration.

Addendum: Presuming you're not trolling me, please, for the love of God, understand the principles of good debate.

Correction II: No, wait, I did refer you to the Gallup pole in my response directly to you; apparently you were too goddamn lazy to read it.