What?

Exactly what I said. Many illegal aliens didn't cross the border illegally.

Some are folks who entered legally but remained unlawfully. Some are folks who entered the country at a port of entry by claiming asylum status, and are either pending or have lost their hearings. Some are folks who entered the country with one of the many Temporary Protective Status authorizations or other legal status that has since expired or been affirmatively revoked by the Trump Administration. And some were brought as minors into the country, which means that while they might have been brought into the country without authorization they would not have committed any crime.

I’ve replied to you each time. Is this your way of exiting your double speak, ummm, valid arguments?

No, it's a response to your "case closed" statement, as if the fact that someone were to have committed a crime in coming here that it would completely settle the issue entirely. It does not. The points I raised upthread are the arguments that are raised that even if someone has committed a crime by entering the country, one can still reasonably disagree over whether expelling them from the country is the appropriate consequence. And that such disagreement does not constitute support for criminals, but a rational dispute over what should be done when someone has committed a crime. You might prefer not to engage with those arguments and explain why you disagree, and instead merely assert "case closed" - but that doesn't mean that the arguments aren't sound, and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist as alternatives to the belief system you are wrongfully attributing to people who disagree with you.