The problem i see with the implementation of massive immigration(in some countries) is that there is not enough effort invested to really integrate all of them,often they feel isolated and stick with their community and culture without having a good chance at making contact with the other citizens.

They should be our new neigbours we can relate with and not only group together to be an isolated culture inside another culture.

Illegal or not,i'd give my taxmoney to anyone needing healthcare and that wont be such a big moneydrain as sacrifice to be a bit humane.

Exactly.  A lot easier to protect small countries.  

Terrain also makes a big difference in how easy it is to stop illegal immigration.  

Flat terrain = high visibility = easy to catch

Mountainous terrain = low visibility = hard to catch

>you cannot reward illegal behavior

-It's not rewarding illegal behavior.  It's applying the same rights to everyone.  Other rights are protected regardless of citizenship.  

-Most importantly you're conflating illegality with morality.  Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it bad.  It just means that the area had some reason to pass a law.  

- you can't have universal healthcare without also covering non-citizens.  Universal healthcare is important because otherwise you end up with costs that aren't getting covered.  

>why would these people want to improve the quality of their life in their respective countries if the USA hands them free stuff

-People aren't leaving their families and friends and their country for free stuff.

-Most of those countries literally already provide that "free stuff".

> anyone who claims asylum most follow the legal procedures established by the UN.

You don't have to enter legally, to apply for asylum.  Asylum can be applied for regardless of status.  That is the law.  

>the USA isn’t the nanny of the world

-No one said it was.

-nanny of the world doesn't even make sense in this context, because again most countries already offer universal healthcare

>how long until the tax payers cannot sustain that flawed system.

And i'm sure you are also fighting against the billions of dollars that go towards oil subsidies.  

Sorry but I respectfully disagree with everything you just said.

>dems are pretty much saying they want open borders

No they aren't. 

>support the idea of free healthcare for illegals

Just like Republicans supported emergency healthcare for illegals.

>Hence, they're making promises you only hope they wouldn't actually attempt.

yes, those impossible promises that nearly every western country on the planet has successfully implemented.

> Hence, the open border thing we have and push for free stuff isn't really that compatible

Illegal immigrants aren't even eligible for most free stuff.  

>especially when we already spend far more than the taxes collected

Our spending is a big mix of things.  Why not blame the military, which we spend 10x on that compared to food stamps.  

Italy doesn't have thousands of miles of border.  They also don't have a direct land border that connects directly with a line of poorer countries.  

>All dem candidates raised their hands when asked if they wanted free health care for illegals.

It's almost like illegals are still people, who deserve certain rights.  

Considering a good portion of that was fact, you can't just "disagree".  

Both the man and woman are responsible for intentional pregnancies. Not just the woman.
But if a woman doesn't want go get pregnant, unwanted pregnancies are primarily caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men.

Men frequently pressure women to have sex without a condom. And are willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career, just so that they can experience a few minutes of _slightly_ more pleasure.
Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk by having non-condom sex, in order to experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure. And during the c.a. 2 days each month when a woman even can get pregnant. Because it's not enough for them to have unprotected sex during the safe days.

While for women having a condom is not just much safer (don't have to take other forms of birth control with dangerous side effects), but much more convenient for them as well. (Much easier to clean up afterwards, etc.)

So it's interesting that you only pointed a finger at women.

The other post blamed women for pregnancies in general, presenting no reasoning. And you had no complaints about that. 
Instead you make a passive aggressive comment towards me, ignoring that I said that both are responsible for wanted pregnancies. And as if 'primarily' means 'everything'.
I hope this is not how you commonly respond to comments.

I explained that men often pressure/guilt women into unprotected sex during the ~2 days a month they can get pregnant, risking their health/lives for the sake of a bit more pleasure. It's also not unheard of for men to trick women and remove the condom during sex without telling them.

While some women may agree to it, that doesn't mean that the ones pressuring them into it aren't the primary issue.
Since the other poster was keen on blaming only one side, I thought it was imperative to bring that up.

If there's a bad comment I tend to add "While I disagree with the other comment..." to my posts, or else it's understandable if people think I don't have a problem with it, if I only attack the post that disagreed with it.

I didn't 'shift all to man'. I pointed out why they're more commonly the issue for unwanted pregnancies.
Which is why I found the comment that only blamed women in general to be particularly strange. If he was keen on pointing the finger only one way, why women over men? I couldn't highlight why him pointing at women was particularly strange without explaining what I said in my post.
It's not something I would have brought up out of the blue, like he did. Because I have no particular reason to bash on men. But in response to a comment like that, I will point it out. So the question is why he brought it up, and why women over men.

In your example, the man also the power to not go through with it. The difference in that situation is that he is pressuring her.

A pregnancy con is not an unwanted pregnancy though. And that doesn't seem to be what the other poster was referring to. But on that note, which do you think occurs more often? A woman poking holes in a condom to get pregnant, or a man pressuring/guilting a woman to have unprotected sex?

Like I said, I'm pointing this out because that's the reason why it seems extra dubious for someone to only point at women.