This is not the post I intended to do next. But Dan has again compelled me to change my plans due to his shamefulness and hate. So this is in response to the comments section of this post, which is his lamentation about a Biden immigration move. To get to the problem I saw, apparently Biden's move runs afoul of a 1980 Refugee Act, which I, to be honest, haven't studied in depth. Basically, Dan's whine is the this act allows alleged refugees and asylum seekers to pass through countries which could offer them asylum to come here, and the fact that they made it to our borders means they get to enter and be welcomed without fear of deportation, regardless of where along our lengthy border they choose to enter. That is, they're able to be allowed in even if they avoid legal ports of entry.
I find this to be incredibly stupid, as it provides for all manner of abuses. If one is being persecuted, and the next country across the border is a place where I can find sanctuary, that's the country where I'm obliged to seek asylum. Dan insists, due to this goofy 1980's act, that they can ignore all other countries between their home and here which might provide them asylum in order that they can avail themselves of our racist threats all they like. As Dan insists, it seems clear he wants all seeking "asylum" to come here only. He's an idiot.
So I will be going through comments he allowed me to post, and his less than accurate restatement of those he deleted to demonstrate the stupidity of leftist immigration policy and how shameful it is. Let's begin:
As he deleted my initial response to his post, he says of me "that he disagrees with the 1980 Refugee Act - without giving any reason
more than it was BS" and "it likely never anticipated what we now face
along our border thanks to Biden and other open borders...'supporters'", and " He seemed to object that people could say they're fleeing danger when he doubts it." Neither of these is close to an accurate reflection of my actual comment, except for what those who crafted the 1980 law expected would happen down the road. There was nothing like the number of illegal border invaders in 1980 as there has been over the last ten to twenty years, and damn sure without a doubt what we've suffered since his presidential choice was inflicted upon us since Jan 21, 2021. But while I said it was a BS bill, I didn't say only that. What I stated at the outset of this post was a more fleshed out example of what I did say. Dan jumps on anything he thinks will disparage those who disagree with his marxism. Then, of course, I NEVER said anything even most liars would construe as what he said my objections truly are with regard to the invaders themselves.
My position has been crystal clear for quite some time: We're not obliged to accept as truthful every claim of people insisting they're fleeing danger, and more so, our government is absolutely obliged to make sure such claims are actually true. Dan doesn't care if a claim of persecution is true or not, because to dare question such a claim spoils Dan's desire to posture as a compassionate Christian, which is just something Dan tries to exploit to push his marxist crap. The primary obligation of the government of the United States of America is the people of the United States of America. Our safety and welfare, not the safety and welfare of foreigners. And any policy which fails to fully vet each and every foreigner seeking asylum here, to ensure they are not acting contrary to our laws, is a threat to the safety and welfare of the people this government must regard as of primary importance. For those allowed to make a claim, they must be housed in a secure facility and NOT allowed free access to the nation until they are confirmed as actual refugees from legitimate harm. None of this crap of assigning court dates too many ignore once allowed free movement into this country.
"Marshal complained that progressive and rational people are concerned about actual white supremacy and nationalism in our nation and them asked why any refugees would want to come here."
Pretty damned logical question to actual rational people, I insist. But of course Dan lies here, as I never described his ilk as "rational". If he's going to quote me, he should actually quote what I actually say. Here we see the shamefulness of his practice of deleting comments for whatever lame-assed reason he'll pull from his backside. But the rest is, as I said, logical. If the left insists we're such racist, nationalist assholes, how could anyone truly concerned for actual refugees do nothing to dissuade them from coming here. How much safer will they be with all the racists and nationalists roaming about? One of the two positions is a lie. Either racism is a real issue here among those who wish for a secure border, or it's not. Either this is a safer destination than their home, given our rampant racism, or it's not. It can't be both. Keep in mind, there are those who say our nation is not a safe place for foreigners, but it ain't due to "white nationalists" or "racists", but by thugs Dan also defends. Dan follows with this moronic gem:
"Ignoring the point that self-determination is a human right."
This statement was attached to the previous, and obviously it has no relation to it. But I'll put that aside and just insist it is yet another concept Dan and his ilk corrupts to push his agenda. Here, he's saying "self-determination" justifies ignoring the laws of our country regarding immigration. We as a nation are not allowed to determine if we benefit in any way by the invasion of these people alleging they're fleeing harm. But it doesn't stop with "refugees"...legit or otherwise. No. To Dan, it includes people who want to find a job, as if they were starving in their host countries. Has anyone reading this observed any invaders who look like they missed a meal...who are wearing rags? No. To Dan, "self-determination" means "F**k the Americans and what they want! They must subordinate their desires to OUR 'self-determination'!" We're under no such obligation in any way, shape or form.
"Marshal said he didn't care about other nations offering asylum or doing so in a way that wasn't safe for refugees..."
Another intentional lie on Dan's part...which he does as much as his Biden does. I said I didn't care that other nations don't provide to the same degree as we do. If refugees insist other nations they passed through weren't safe enough, that doesn't mean they weren't safe enough to satisfy international law regarding where one should take refuge. "Well, they're safe...just not as safe as the United States." That's pretty easy to say. But why should our nation simply accept that excuse for why they didn't take refuge there? Again, morons like Dan don't care. Morons like Dan are trying to posture as more caring...except where fellow Americans are concerned.
"...that it's all about we who are here (read, "the white people like me who are here and don't want them here...")
Again, my point is that it's all about our government putting its own people first, and not pretending there's no risk to them by welcoming foreigners about whom nothing is known except whatever story they tell of themselves...no vetting...and allowing them to freely roam under the promise they'll show up for their court hearing to determine whether or not they qualify as refugees or asylum seekers. Dan prefers we just assume there are no liars among the crowd, that they're all just innocent "victims of oppression" simply because they say they are.
And of course, Dan the racist can't help accusing those with rational and fact-based opinions of racism, as if it matters at all to me from where any migrant comes and what race they might be, because...you know...embrace grace.
"...and ended with an appeal to national sovereignty, ignoring that a nation that is sovereign but turns away refugees is not a good nation."
First, "national sovereignty" is no small thing. It's the authority of a state to govern itself...it's "self-determination" which Dan believes is of primary importance for anyone but ourselves. All nations claim this authority...this "right"...without which there is no nation.
Then Dan lies by implying there's a specific call to turn away refugees, rather than close the border in order that we can in a more orderly fashion, determine who among those claiming to be refugees truly are. This of course also calls into play what "refugee" means, or what constitutes a refugee to whom we might have any legitimate obligation...morally or otherwise. Again, Dan is cool with simply accepting any person who claims to be one. And to Dan there is no right belonging to any nation to dispute what constitutes a "refugee". "I'm fleeing abject boredom!" "No problem! C'mon in!" We're under no obligation to accept anyone without question. Dan insists we must, or that we who aren't morons like him intend to deny those who are truly in danger. Because...you know...embrace grace.
"Marshal also ignores that we HURTING for employees and WE would benefit from more workers coming here, if he's wanting to be just selfish about it and ignore the human rights side of the things."
As is so typical of the fact adverse left, we are NOT "hurting" for employees such that we need to allow unregulated invasions of foreigners to fill any void. As with open borders proponents from both sides of the aisle, Dan ignores so much in pretending his is a rational argument:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/16/do-we-really-need-more-immigrant-workers/
In a very real sense, this argument represents another manner of artificially affecting the economy, most especially wages. There's nothing selfish about being priced out of work due to invaders being hired at lower wages. It's not a human rights issue to allow such to happen in order for posers like Dan to posture as caring, compassionate people while the lives of his own countrymen are disrupted.
"And Marshal, I get that you personally don't care about the laws (and common sense) that ensure as a basic human right the liberty to seek asylum, but it IS the law."
We often see Dan whine about "unjust laws", but where he finds a law just, we all should just accept that it is, which the 1980 law isn't quite. But more importantly, aside from the fact that I haven't suggested ignoring or breaking any law like Dan allows the invaders to do, it's not a question of seeking asylum. It's a question of ensuring those who insist they need it, those who insist they're refugees from some great danger, can prove it. Again, Dan would have us be as moronic as he is and simply accept whatever the invader says is the truth. In the meantime, screw the Americans killed in various ways by the hands of the invaders. Like most lefties, Dan doesn't care about anyone, but truly cares least for his own. Just let everyone in so the Trabue-type asshats can pretend they've done good, while people, including invaders as well, are harmed and exploited. Our nation has always welcomed both legal immigrants and actual refugees seeking asylum. I haven't said or done anything to oppose that.
"I can't fathom WHO is opposed to people seeking asylum?"
There's very little Dan can't fathom, and he refuses to acknowledge the truths of what he can. So here again we see him lying, as the more than implicit message in his comment is that such opposition exists, choosing to pretend it's about actual asylum seekers as opposed to those coached to say they're asylum seekers when they're caught crossing the border illegally, or to simply seek out officials to whom they can pose as people fleeing danger.
"WHO is opposed to people leaving an impoverished area to try to find a less impoverished area to be able to support themselves?"
No one I've ever met. But we have protocols for that, and it doesn't include sneaking or barging in without regard for our sovereign borders and laws...or the private property of our fellow Americans.
"The right to self-determination is a basic human right.
Can you at least affirm that much?"
It's not at all at issue here. That crap argument doesn't justify subordinating the self-determination of our nation.
" If the place - the nation - where you live became dangerous and you couldn't live there and feed yourself, would YOU want the freedom to move - immediately! - to some place that is safe and where you could feed yourself?"
When you can pick out of that crowd who of the tens of thousands are fleeing actual danger directed specifically at them, who are without the ability to feed themselves (I've yet to see anyone who looks emaciated), then we'll talk. For those who simply want or need a better gig, they can wait in line at the front door, like so many good people have done and still do. There's an actual, legal definition of "refugee" in U.S. immigration law. It goes like this:
(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country
of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no
nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually
resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the
President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title)
may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's
nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within
the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is
persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who
ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution
of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of
determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort
a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been
persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for
other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be
deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a
person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to
undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure,
refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of
persecution on account of political opinion.
Pick out those from the tens of thousands at the border who match that definition. Then we can talk about asylum, which looks like this:
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
- Meet the definition of refugee
- Are already in the United States
- Are seeking admission at a port of entry
Note the first and last point. That seems to conflict with the 1980 Refugee Act, but it's from the USCIS website: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum
I'm going to leave it there. I'll be doing possibly two more on this issue depending on how long the post gets, but I wish to address Dan wetting his panties over comments I made at his blog.
32 comments:
Anyone supporting our open border is some combination of ignorant, malicious, or selfish.
I can think of other words as well.
Why? Why is it not possible that
1. People of good faith support people having the human right of self determination to decide for themselves where they want to live because human rights are a morally good thing?
2. That they do so from a place of being well-educated on the topic and on human rights?
Why must you all imagine bad intent of those who dare to disagree with your human opinions?
And as a clarification before you all make bad presumptions, being supportive of more open borders is NOT saying, "so, let's just welcome murderers and rapists and puppy eaters..." It's just saying that regular non-criminal people seeking to move from Here to There have that as a basic human right. Because, Why in the name of all that is good and decent wouldn't they?
Dan
The libertarian, free market argument for more open borders...
"Under open borders, all human beings, regardless of citizenship, are free to work for willing employers, rent from willing landlords, and buy from willing vendors. It's a simple deduction from the basic libertarian principle that government should not interfere with capitalist acts between consenting adults...
What about the broader effects of immigration? Standard economic estimates say that open borders would have massive economic benefits — roughly DOUBLING global production. "
https://fee.org/articles/there-is-a-strong-case-for-open-borders/?gclid=CjwKCAjwvJyjBhApEiwAWz2nLSthjAFG86m-K2A4DFjuKB3EE5CfUpnzHF7TNe2tY9jcjMMDmRg1ZBoCoCQQAvD_BwE
Dan
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-case-for-open-borders
"We're not obliged to accept as truthful every claim of people insisting they're fleeing danger, and more so, our government is absolutely obliged to make sure such claims are actually true. "
1. Nor are we obliged to distrust every claim from people saying they're fleeing danger.
Indeed, we know as an observable fact that many places around the world ARE unsafe, less safe. We know that many people fleeing Latin American nations have reasons to fear for their lives.
WHY, then, is it rational to begin with an assumption of distrust?
Consider, a teen-aged girl runs to your door, knocking and yelling for help, saying someone is chasing her. Do you LEAD with, "prove it! I have no reason to trust you?" Or do you lead with an offer to help?
If the latter, what sort of person are you?
2. No one is saying we can't research stories and try to verify immigrants and asylum seekers are not who they say they are.
It seems like people like you are leading with distrust and fear, is that correct and if so, why?
Rest assured, if you ever have a loved one seeking safety, they will find refuge in the community of people I live within.
Dan
"Dan doesn't care if a claim of persecution is true or not..."
Stupidly false. Why do you make such ridiculous claims? Truth always matters. I've never said otherwise.
"because to dare question such a claim spoils Dan's desire to posture as a compassionate Christian, which is just something Dan tries to exploit to push his marxist crap."
How is supporting more reasonable and more open borders policy, Marxist?
And, like it or not, I and folks like me ARE relatively compassionate Christians, not that it's a big deal. That's a pretty low bar. "If someone is seeking refuge from a dangerous situation, do you support reasonable efforts to help...?" Of course. Not so much being a compassionate Christian as being a low level decent human.
Really, would you NOT help a stranger who came to your door? Would you NOT want to help my friend who was a reporter in Mexico who had to flee with his family to the US to escape death threats? Where waiting for "his turn in line" could literally kill him... AND his children?
There is nothing heroic or unusual about having this basic level of human decency... do you not have that within yourself? In spite of your sometimes vulgar brutishness, I have to think you'd agree to it, on a one-to-one level. Same for brother Neil. I believe you all are better humans than you portray.
Dan
"If the left insists we're such racist, nationalist assholes, how could anyone truly concerned for actual refugees do nothing to dissuade them from coming here. "
"The Left" is not saying we're ALL racists. Just being honest and recognizing that we do have SOME racists and some racist/harmful policies. But our nation is great in many ways and certainly when it comes to human rights as compared to other nations.
The GOP continues to try to push more harmful, anti-liberty, anti-expert policies but fortunately, we have progressives and moderates pushing back in support of majority opinions.
Dan
"Either racism is a real issue here among those who wish for a secure border, or it's not. Either this is a safer destination than their home, given our rampant racism, or it's not. It can't be both. "
In many cases, we are certainly safer than their home nation. But of course, both things can be true. We can be a safer option for many AND at the same time, many in the GOP can be pushing for less-ideal or even harmful policies. Fortunately, the rest of us, the majority, are a moderating counterbalance to the GOP's less helpful attitudes and policies.
But the main point would be, these immigrants believe we're a safer option and as free people, they should be able to determine that for themselves.
Why is that such an unbearable thought for you?
Dan
"my point is that it's all about our government putting its own people first, and not pretending there's no risk to them by welcoming foreigners about whom nothing is known..."
"Putting it's own people first..."
WHICH people? Not me and others like me who deeply value and appreciate our status as a nation of immigrants.
Not the families of many first generation immigrants, who'd like to bring more of their family here.
Not companies like mine who are benefitting from immigrants filling roles we can't keep filled to support adults with disabilities.
Not those people with disabilities whose lives are being threatened by the lack of support, who would be exceedingly glad to be able to hire more immigrants for more support.
You should be clear that you are not speaking for all us citizens, just the portion that is more xenophobic and fearful of a made-up threat of potential bad guy immigrants coming in to simply live.
As to "risk," there is LESS risk from immigrants than from us citizens, according to the data and the risk is minimal.
Do you just live in a cocoon of fear and trembling about the Other?
Dan
I'm well aware of the libertarian arguments which ignore the negative consequences of having no borders. And yes, "open borders" is the same as "no borders". Without borders there is no nation and without borders no government can adequately protect the nation it governs. It's absurd on its face, but sends a tingle in the nether regions of marxists like you. What's more, like typical lefties lacking wisdom and common sense, it ignores the many and varied costs of easy entry by those even typical lefties lacking wisdom and common sense can't deny. This is among the reasons why conservatives do not pretend libertarians are conservatives.
""The Left" is not saying we're ALL racists. Just being honest and recognizing that we do have SOME racists and some racist/harmful policies."
Bullshit. When it serves your American-destroying agenda, you lefties whine about the greatest threat to the nation being "white nationalism" or "white supremacy", when the true greatest threat to the nation is you and those like you.
"The GOP continues to try to push more harmful, anti-liberty, anti-expert policies..."
More bullshit. You lefties lie about better policies the GOP offers as being "more harmful, anti-liberty, anti-expert policies" because as usual, name calling and fear mongering is easier than proving lefty policies are worth a damn beyond expanding lefty power and abominations. And again, and as usual, those cited as "experts" by lefties are activists who pander to the stupid. Those who are devoted to facts, truths and evidence...that is, experts lefties likes Dan dismisses, insults or pretends do not exist. This is known by honorable people as "lying".
"...but fortunately, we have progressives and moderates pushing back in support of majority opinions."
A bullshit twofer!
1. There's nothing "fortunate" for anyone by progressive activism.
2. Majority opinion doesn't in the least denote moral, truthful, beneficial anything. But again, lefties aren't up to the task of defending their indefensible positions. Thus, they use tactics like this "most people want" crap.
May 19, 2023 at 7:37 AM
"Why? Why is it not possible that
1. People of good faith support people having the human right of self determination to decide for themselves where they want to live because human rights are a morally good thing?"
First of all, if we're talking about actual "people of good faith", a category no thinking person would ever put the likes of you, "good faith" doesn't mean "intelligent".
Secondly, as discussed elsewhere, the "right" of self-determination...otherwise known as the pursuit of happiness...does not impose upon others any obligation to ensure that one can realize that self-determination. So, to have the right to pursue one's agenda is not denied anyone.
Third, what marxists like you choose to regard as a human right is not akin to "rights" as presented in our founding documents. Whenever a leftist speaks of "rights"..."human" or otherwise...honorable people prepare for the worst.
"2. That they do so from a place of being well-educated on the topic and on human rights?"
Again, you wish to include yourself among "people of good faith", and I reject that lie. You demonstrate that if you are "well-educated" on the topic of immigration or "human rights", you ignore aspects which conflict with your marxism...just as you do with Scripture.
"Why must you all imagine bad intent of those who dare to disagree with your human opinions?"
Imagining bad intent on the part of those who disagree is always case specific. When someone like Craig, Glenn or Stan, for example, disagree with me, I don't suspect any bad intentions on their part. But none of them are leftists. With leftists, their intentions are so routinely damaging to the general welfare...even damaging to those they say they mean to help...to ever regard those intentions as "good" requires a presumption of stupidity on their part. Stupid people with good intentions can cause all manner of harm. So the question is whether or not lefties intend bad outcomes, don't care if the outcomes will be bad or are too stupid to think through their plans far enough to consider the potential for bad.
"And as a clarification before you all make bad presumptions, being supportive of more open borders is NOT saying, "so, let's just welcome murderers and rapists and puppy eaters...""
But it is. So it's clear you're among the stupid who disagree with me if you think there's no high potential for bad actors taking advantage of open borders. Because truly, that's about as stupid as stupid can be. No sane nation allows open borders for that very reason. A responsible government isn't interfering in capitalist acts between consenting adults by regulating the flow of people over its borders. Again, rank stupidity to suggest such a thing. The policies we've always had for determining who does or doesn't get in were also created to provide for good, productive people who desired entry. Such people are also at risk by not regulating against the assholes of the world welcomed by open borders policy.
May 19, 2023 at 8:13 AM
Wow! I couldn't get through half this article, it's so stupid! Caplan's a moron and his "vision" is rife with assumptions which he couldn't support if I helped him. One question was, how productive could you be in Haiti? Maybe Craig could answer that well, but for me, it's clearly a stupid question. A better one is, why aren't they more productive in Haiti, such that Haiti becomes a place to which others might choose to go for opportunity? No. The open borders crowd simply invites the world to crowd in here, to ignore the idea of improving their homes. However can other, mostly third world countries, become first world countries if their allegedly productive people leave? The result is more suffering for those who can't, more desire to take risky chances to travel to where they believe life will be better.
Caplan pretends nothing will change with regard to bad actors coming in, as he suggest some kind of criminal background check. But that's not open borders and that's what we've been doing forever. The problem he ignores is with those third world countries who haven't a legit and/or reliable system for tracking their own scumbags. It was a problem brought up by Trump when lefties were stupidly criticizing and demonizing him for caring about his own people more than lefties do. But it was a legit concern which has yet gone unaddressed by either the moronic lefties or the nations with said problems in record keeping.
So, Dan simply provided another idiotic link to another libertarian idiot who doesn't address all the problems inherent in open borders policy, but will shut the hell up and act like they played no part when those problems manifest and Americans...and decent immigrants (including those who simply broke our immigration laws to enter)...are greatly harmed.
May 19, 2023 at 8:38 AM
"1. Nor are we obliged to distrust every claim from people saying they're fleeing danger.
Indeed, we know as an observable fact that many places around the world ARE unsafe, less safe. We know that many people fleeing Latin American nations have reasons to fear for their lives.
WHY, then, is it rational to begin with an assumption of distrust?"
It's called "verification", Dan. It's what all people do when total strangers make a claim (to the extent one is able to procure verification). It's what governments are obliged to do in order to protect their own people...their FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT obligation and reason for their existence. Few things are more rational than this duty of government. This objection is stupid and childish.
"Consider, a teen-aged girl runs to your door, knocking and yelling for help, saying someone is chasing her. Do you LEAD with, "prove it! I have no reason to trust you?" Or do you lead with an offer to help?"
I certainly don't let her in as if I totally believe her claim. Only morons do that. And I will do what I can to verify her story, keeping my eye on her as best I can while I have a family member scan the perimeter for signs of the alleged assailant. If I'm alone, I lock the door and keep her in view while I call the cops. This is a minimum and it allows for both possibilities of truth or lie on her part. It's called "verification". I'm sure you'll just believe her and your family will be victimized as she lets in her accomplice having secured another moron who bought her tale.
I'm the sort of person who puts my family first over total strangers, even total strangers who might appear sincere in their cry for help. I don't owe the stranger a damned thing where my family's safety might be compromised.
There was a time such vigilance wasn't required in most parts of this country. You lefties f'd that up big time. Now, only a fool doesn't take precautions.
"2. No one is saying we can't research stories and try to verify immigrants and asylum seekers are not who they say they are."
This is a lie, because one can't have open borders and verify any stories of anyone trying to enter. Our current system accounted for it pretty well, but you assholes invited the hordes to come with an attitude of entitlement they demand this nation honors. Now the routine is to let them in on the promise they'll show up for a hearing to determine what should have been determined first, and the vast majority don't show up for those hearings. You're idiots and this stupidity is just one manifestation of you lefties being the greatest threat to our nation.
"It seems like people like you are leading with distrust and fear, is that correct and if so, why?"
You asked this already. Verification is the governments responsibility to protect it's own. You want to call it "distrust and fear" as if there aren't hundreds of cases of American (and immigrant) deaths as a result of your open borders policies (and that's not at all including immigrants dying in their attempt to get here). Hundreds of scumbags on terror watch list, criminals deported numerous times already, and you want to pretend there's no legit reason to be concerned for the safety of Americans. You're as stupid as stupid gets.
"Rest assured, if you ever have a loved one seeking safety, they will find refuge in the community of people I live within."
Rest assured, if you ever have a loved one die because you didn't verify the character of the one claiming a need for sanctuary, you will have murdered your own loved one just as if you put a gun to their head yourself and pulled the trigger. This nation has always been charitable with regard to true seekers of safety. You asshats simply demand that all who claim to be among them be believed. Worse, you assume there's no reason to fear despite the hundreds of cases where harm and death resulted from someone who should never have been allowed in.
May 19, 2023 at 9:30 AM
"Stupidly false. Why do you make such ridiculous claims? Truth always matters. I've never said otherwise."
YOU are "stupidly false". I speak the truth and what I said is a fact. Truth doesn't matter to you and your years of blog posting is proof of that, as your blog posts are rife with lies.
"How is supporting more reasonable and more open borders policy, Marxist?"
It begins with the notion that immigrants are the oppressed victims of oppressors. While in the case of legitimate refugees fleeing danger in war-torn nations it's clearly the case, those like you regard all seeking entry here to be some form of oppressed victim. But it goes further:
https://ironink.org/2015/12/mr-bojidar-marinov-his-insistence-that-open-borders-is-not-marxist-policy/
"And, like it or not, I and folks like me ARE relatively compassionate Christians, not that it's a big deal."
If we're to talk about YOU and people like you, you're not Christian at all. So here's a tip: Don't bring it up again, and especially don't speak of "people 'like' you".
And again, our nation has always provided for actual refugees from danger. Only lefty liars insist we must treat all who try to come here as some form of that.
"Really, would you NOT help a stranger who came to your door? Would you NOT want to help my friend who was a reporter in Mexico who had to flee with his family to the US to escape death threats? Where waiting for "his turn in line" could literally kill him... AND his children?"
Alright. I'm going to "pull a Dan" here and pose some questions you are required to answer before submitting any other comments or responses:
Did you know this "friend" before you learned he was fleeing death threats, or did you just accept his story of impending doom and became friends without first finding his claim was confirmed?
Did this reporter come to you first and seek refuge in your home, or had he already been granted asylum in this country before you met him?
Your alleged friendship seems rather incidental, if not completely irrelevant to your larger question. Why did you feel the need to mention it...assuming he's an actual friend and not just an acquaintance with whom you don't actually have regular contact or intimacy?
YOUR ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE WILL LIKELY COMPEL MORE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ANSWER THEM IN THE LAME, EQUIVOCATING MANNER COMMON TO YOU. I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN I'M SATISFIED ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. UNTIL THEN, PRETEND YOU DON'T PLAY DOUBLE STANDARD GAMES AND AWAIT SAD NOTICE BEFORE COMMENTING FURTHER.
"There is nothing heroic or unusual about having this basic level of human decency..."
Oh my gosh! Aren't you the humble one!! ��
"do you not have that within yourself? In spite of your sometimes vulgar brutishness, I have to think you'd agree to it, on a one-to-one level. Same for brother Neil. I believe you all are better humans than you portray."
This is typical shameful bullshit for you. You've no just cause to doubt our character, but only prefer to demean us because we don't buy into your false posturing and your corruption of basic morality, virtue, truths and facts. And give there is no more vulgar brutishness than murdering in the most barbaric fashion the most innocent and vulnerable people, and the butchery of confused young people, you'd be hard-pressed to provide an example which comes close to your evil among anything I've ever said or proposed. Indeed, I fully believe you are EXACTLY the vile human you've clearly exposed yourself as being. And like me, I'm certain Neil does not regard you in any way a brother. He's an actual Christian.
Dan
May 19, 2023 at 10:30 AM
"WHICH people? Not me and others like me who deeply value and appreciate our status as a nation of immigrants."
Given this "nation of immigrants" has no real value, I still won't say that I don't also find it an appealing bit of trivia. But by "which people", obviously I mean the people of this nation...citizens, born here or naturalized. What kind of moronic question was that? The purpose of government, especially as our government was formed by the founders of our nation, is the benefit of the CITIZENS of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NOT the citizens of the world. And despite you're clearly undeserving of being a citizen of this once great nation you and your kind have totally f'd up, you are indeed among the people the United States of America government is duty bound to prioritize over all others on earth. Jeez!!
"Not the families of many first generation immigrants, who'd like to bring more of their family here."
Yes, them, too. But only if they're legal or otherwise officially allowed to be in the country.
"Not companies like mine who are benefiting from immigrants filling roles we can't keep filled to support adults with disabilities."
No, not companies like yours if they're willfully filling jobs with illegals. Then, you can go scratch. Your company is part of the problem in that case. Is that what you're saying??? Your company fill jobs with illegals as well as legal immigrants?? That's not benefiting so much as being a detriment to other employers and employees priced out of the market by the actions of your company.
"Not those people with disabilities whose lives are being threatened by the lack of support, who would be exceedingly glad to be able to hire more immigrants for more support."
No, not those people if they're hiring illegals for support. They can go scratch to whatever extent their disability allows. But for any disabled American who hires legal immigrants, naturalized or on visas they won't purposely overstay as if they don't have to renew or go back, then yeah, the purpose of government is to put them first over foreigners.
"You should be clear that you are not speaking for all us citizens, just the portion that is more xenophobic and fearful of a made-up threat of potential bad guy immigrants coming in to simply live."
If I wasn't speaking for all citizens, I'd have said so. But yeah, I'm even speaking for the citizen assholes like you who don't give a flying rat's ass for their fellow Americans that they'll allow other assholes to enter the country in breach of our laws. There's nothing "made up" about the threat of unfettered entry to our nation by anyone who decides to do so. Only morons and assholes pretend that's a thing. You're both.
"As to "risk," there is LESS risk from immigrants than from us citizens, according to the data and the risk is minimal."
That's absolute bullshit and it is based on a raw numbers comparison. The percentage of immigrants in prisons across the country is disproportionately larger than the percentage of immigrants among the total population of the United States. THAT is the fact. Among illegals, the disparity is far greater since so many assholes sneak in and are among the "gotaways". More importantly, you say "immigrants" when this discussion is absolutely a matter of preventing illegal invasion. Thus, I don't worry about how many legal immigrants are a risk, because if they're legal, they're Americans and the ethnicity of asshole Americans
doesn't matter to this discussion. Being an asshole yourself, I'm sorry to dismiss discussion of other asshole Americans, but it's off topic.
"Do you just live in a cocoon of fear and trembling about the Other?"
I'm sure you'd like to think so, but as someone who actually studies and understands Scripture, I'm well aware of the existence of evil in this world...you're a definite manifestation of it yourself...and the need to protect and defend against it. That's what responsible adults do. It's called "reality". Your kind have made it more dangerous, and you clearly won't be satisfied until you can make it worse than you've already made it.
"Did you know this "friend" before you learned he was fleeing death threats, or did you just accept his story of impending doom and became friends without first finding his claim was confirmed?"
Not that it's relevant, but I learned of the story only fairly long after getting to know him. Because his life is still potentially at risk, he doesn't just share the story with just anyone.
I get that your default for immigrants is to presume guilt until they prove innocence, but people of grace within God's beloved community don't need to act that way.
The story has since been confirmed in many ways, as was evident from the beginning.
"Your alleged friendship seems rather incidental, if not completely irrelevant to your larger question. Why did you feel the need to mention it...assuming he's an actual friend and not just an acquaintance with whom you don't actually have regular contact or intimacy?"
The purpose of sharing a personal story was to show this is not just a random statistic. These are real people, real lives actually at risk. These are some personal friends from church who are some of the many real stories I have first hand knowledge of.
Why not embrace grace?
Dan
"I get that your default for immigrants is to presume guilt until they prove innocence, but people of grace within God's beloved community don't need to act that way."
I don't "get" that. It's another lie you project upon those who abide the law. There's no presumption of any kind, but a recognition of the high potential for harm to American citizens by the entry into our country by bad actors who exist in the world with the desire to inflict that harm. Until we can determine the character of those seeking entry, all who do are subject to this righteous and necessary scrutiny. You can't get on a plane without a similar degree of scrutiny. You can't get a loan without a degree of scrutiny. You can't get a gun without a degree of scrutiny. You can't get a driver's license without a degree of scrutiny. By your twisted graceless logic, these are all examples of a presumption of guilt.
What's more, immigration laws in this country always required criteria which is scrutinizing those applying for entry or citizenship. This is, again, a necessary task for the benefit and safety of our people. You don't allow strangers into your home until you engage in some level of scrutiny. No doubt your standards are low because you're a moron and don't care about the safety of your wife and kids. But normal people aren't quick to allow just anyone into their home without scrutinizing that anyone as well as they can. The same is true for our national home. Lefties should never have any say in how that is carried out, because they're morons and without scruples.
God's TRUE "beloved community" do not reject Scriptural teachings regarding adherence to the laws of the land. God's TRUE "beloved community" recognizes the fact that we live in a fallen world, made worse by the policies and agenda of those like yourself. God's TRUE "beloved community" doesn't put their families and other members of that community at risk in order to posture as "Christian".
"The story has since been confirmed in many ways, as was evident from the beginning."
This doesn't make a lick of sense given your statement this guy wasn't keen on offering info in the beginning due to his fears of discovery by those seeking to kill him. And if his story was "evidently" true, what need was there for confirmation. But without confirmation, what made his story "evidently true?
"The purpose of sharing a personal story was to show this is not just a random statistic."
It's anecdotal and by virtue of that fact means its random at best, and not necessarily true as related by someone of your low character. Indeed, I wouldn't bet against it being entirely made up by you.
"These are real people, real lives actually at risk."
I've never so much as hinted that real people are fleeing real danger and hope to enter our country in the belief their lives will be spared the degree of danger they are fleeing. Thus, this is an irrelevant statement intended to project the lie that conservatives and other intelligent types don't think such people exist.
"These are some personal friends from church who are some of the many real stories I have first hand knowledge of."
This is not even close to a compelling argument. Your word has no value here, due to your years of lying, distorting and equivocating.
"Why not embrace grace?"
Another lie in that you're more than implying that my position suggests a lack of graciousness. One who allegedly embraces grace doesn't do that. So why don't YOU "embrace grace" for a change?
My friend, not that it matters, is now a US citizen. He just won a humanitarian award and for years now has played in a group that blends Latino music and Appalachian music that's made up of half Anglo and half Latin American. They bring joy and love and unity and are a great benefit to our state and community. We are a nation of immigrants and FAR and away, we are better off and strengthened by the diversity which makes us strong.
Dan
"And if his story was "evidently" true, what need was there for confirmation. But without confirmation, what made his story "evidently true?"
Character. It's not an impossible to recognize, Here is a genuinely good set of humans. What's so strange is, your type can look at an obviously bad human being entirely lacking in character and decency (Trump, Taylor Green, DeSantis, etc) and wonder why everyone doesn't embrace these bad people, but then question us recognizing good humans seeking refuge.
Dan
"My friend, not that it matters, is now a US citizen."
Good for him. I'll say no more than that about the news.
"He just won a humanitarian award and for years now has played in a group that blends Latino music and Appalachian music that's made up of half Anglo and half Latin American."
What humanitarian aware given by whom?
So this guy who fled death threats is now performing in public. Given you claim his tale of woe was confirmed in many ways, was it confirmed in many ways that the threat is now ended such that he can expose himself on stage? How so?
Who's been doing this "confirming", either for his story about fleeing death or his current freedom from death squads?"
"We are a nation of immigrants and FAR and away, we are better off and strengthened by the diversity which makes us strong."
This is not provable and in fact is far more likely to be false.
Provide evidence that "diversity had made us strong", after first explaining what you mean by "diversity". Be specific. No platitudes.
"Character. It's not an impossible to recognize"
There were two questions. Here they are again:
1) And if his story was "evidently" true, what need was there for confirmation, and 2) But without confirmation, what made his story "evidently true?
You answered the second without having first answering the first. Why would you need to confirm a story you (and ostensibly everyone else in your weird world) view as "evidently true"?
How can you judge the character of a foreigner in such a way that a story like his does not need confirmation, because it's "evidently true"? These are bullshit answers and suggest your story is not as you tell it. Clearly you'd have been better off not inserting another weak anecdote where you lack a real argument.
"What's so strange is, your type can look at an obviously bad human being entirely lacking in character and decency (Trump, Taylor Green, DeSantis, etc)..."
What's truly strange is your eases with insulting people you don't know as lacking character and decency while pretending anyone believes you're an actual Christian. "Character and decency" does not include support for murdering infants. You might want to keep that in the forefront of your small corrupted mind before daring to disparage others. In the meantime, all three of those people you named are of higher character and decency that you. And Trump even welcomed Bruce Jenner to use his hotel restrooms (don't know which he was to use) after pretending he's actually a woman. How decent to accommodate a disordered individual like Bruce! In the meantime, you constantly support and celebrate all manner of low character people, choosing as cover the lie that their varied misbehaviors are somehow not sinful and corrupt. Another stark example of the shameful nature of your kind.
"...and wonder why everyone doesn't embrace these bad people, but then question us recognizing good humans seeking refuge."
Oh, I don't wonder at all why lefties don't embrace better people who have done so much good for the benefit of ALL Americans (even those like you!) with policies that are far superior to the America destroying policies so typical of the morons you support. It's some combination of incredible stupidity and hatred of all which has made America great.
And yeah, I totally question your perception of those seeking refuge. Our long-standing policy for doing so was quite effective. The left has no policy but "let them all in!"
1) And if his story was "evidently" true, what need was there for confirmation, and
For me, there WAS NO NEED. I could see that this man and woman had been through a lot. I am educated enough to know about the country they came from. The wife was involved in helping sorting through mass graves of people who killed by the government as part of a truth commission. The husband had reported on it. I knew/know that this is a thing that happened in this nation's history.
Now, is it possible that they researched these events so that they could speak authoritatively and from an informed position so that they could PASS as actual reporters and truth commission workers? Well, sure, but there was NO EVIDENCE of lies, NOTHING that said, "Wait a minute... something is askew here." And WHY would they make up these stories in the first place to tell to a bunch of people in casual conversations in a church setting?
It's POSSIBLE, I suppose, that they got some joy out of pretending to be people they aren't just for some sense of making themselves feel important... but was it LIKELY? No.
Additionally, these people were friends of friends. We had common connections with other people of good will who had been involved in Latin American support and research. There just was no There there.
And before you miss the point or assume something that's stupidly false, it's not the case of a bunch of "left wing do-gooders" who just believe whatever is told to them. Again, remember who you're speaking about. We're a church (and community beyond the church) full of social workers, mental health workers, people regularly working with the disabled and homeless and other people struggling to get by. We GET that some people tell false stories. We don't assume every story told to us is 100% factual simply because it's been told. That's true for the marginalized people we work with and it's true for the conservatives and politicians who we also deal with. Not every story is credible or should be taken at face value.
But some stories SHOULD be taken seriously. As adults operating in the real world, we can do this and do it relatively well.
2) But without confirmation, what made his story "evidently true?
We knew some basics of the story. We knew the reality of the story on the ground where they had come from. We knew people who knew these people. We recognized the signs of trauma that people who'd been through their stories will exhibit. On and on it goes. The point being, they were believable and trustworthy as we first met them and got to know them AND the more details we learned, the more the story held up.
Here's the distinction: We're fine with verification. We do this all the time in our various lines of work. It's vital. These immigrants themselves ALSO had to deal with verifying details. That's what a reporter does. That's what a Truth Commission worker does. We're fine with verification.
The difference is, if we have someone approaching us with a traumatic story and in clear struggle, we do not LEAD with suspicion. We lead with welcome and sympathy and support. And if their stories don't hold up, they don't hold up. But that doesn't mean we're suspicious and hostile to begin with.
That would be a jerky, graceless way to live and be.
I'm pretty much done with this line of discourse because all you're doing is confirming how full of crap you are. For example:
"For me, there WAS NO NEED. I could see that this man and woman had been through a lot. I am educated enough to know about the country they came from."
You act as if it's not common knowledge. The corruption in third world environs is well known to most. Hell, they make movies about it! Worse is that you think you're capable of judgement regarding this couple. You're not a picture of rational, moral discernment, Dan. I wouldn't take your word on anything. What's more, you said this guy wasn't keen on discussing his situation, and I'm to believe he was unable to hide that he "had been through a lot" from the likes of you? You really do associate with other morons, don't you?
But you're judgement isn't confirmation that what you thought you saw in him was a victim of death threats directed at him specifically. In fact, it's worthless here. But it does lead me to believe that you have no idea about such things. "Been through a lot" could mean anything, even in a guy from a dangerous place. And if he had been working hard to enter the country illegally, that would also be "been through a lot".
"The wife was involved in helping sorting through mass graves of people who killed by the government as part of a truth commission. The husband had reported on it. I knew/know that this is a thing that happened in this nation's history."
But these are two different things: a story of people involved in this work in a dangerous place, and knowing that such things go one in dangerous places. The latter isn't confirmation that the former is true of this couple. What confirmation did you have that it was true of them?
"Now, is it possible that they researched these events so that they could speak authoritatively and from an informed position so that they could PASS as actual reporters and truth commission workers? Well, sure, but there was NO EVIDENCE of lies, NOTHING that said, "Wait a minute... something is askew here." And WHY would they make up these stories in the first place to tell to a bunch of people in casual conversations in a church setting?"
No evidence of lies??? As if you could tell!!! You also haven't provided any evidence of truths!!! And as I've always maintained, I've little doubt that you and your merry band of grace-embracers NEVER see anything in the stories of these hapless refugees that exposes them as liars...because you simply believe every one of them. Why would they make up elaborate stories? So that their line jumping to get in the country won't be questioned. You really want to pretend this doesn't happen, when reports of illegals being schooled are rampant?? So what confirmation...legit, official confirmation...that they were legit? You haven't provide a thing so far.
" It's POSSIBLE, I suppose, that they got some joy out of pretending to be people they aren't just for some sense of making themselves feel important... but was it LIKELY? No."
And you base that on what, exactly? That you "know" such stories reflect a reality of the dangerous place they claim to flee? Not even close to "good enough"! But no, their "joy" is in being here rather than where they didn't want to be. "Feeling important" is something you pulled out of your ass to attribute to me. What a stupid suggestion! Typically so, and dishonest as well for presuming that ever crossed my mind.
"Additionally, these people were friends of friends. We had common connections with other people of good will who had been involved in Latin American support and research."
This is just so sad. This also doesn't come close to being worth shit in this discussion. I'm not especially impressed with anyone you know simply because you promote them as special in some way. So for future reference, in any conversation in which I might take part or simply follow along, anyone "like you"...anyone you regard as "friend", are as suspect as you are. I regard them as low as I regard you because your refer to them as "like you". Each person you know is, for all intents and purposes, another "Dan Trabue" and as such, another lying moron. OK? Do you need any more clarification on this point? Citing "friends of friends" is NOT legit, official confirmation. Case in point:
"And before you miss the point or assume something that's stupidly false, it's not the case of a bunch of "left wing do-gooders" who just believe whatever is told to them. Again, remember who you're speaking about. We're a church (and community beyond the church) full of social workers, mental health workers, people regularly working with the disabled and homeless and other people struggling to get by."
Your word means nothing to me. Your regard for people I don't know means less and I can't help thinking it's insulting to those people you know. But by your own admission, you and yours ARE a bunch of left wing do-gooders". The question is just how much good you're all doing while also promoting and enabling so much bad...which you clearly do proudly. And assuming you're all doing what you say you do, I'm not about to take your word that any of you people do any of it at all well. Your word is worthless as proof or evidence of anything.
"We GET that some people tell false stories. We don't assume every story told to us is 100% factual simply because it's been told."
Tell me how many people you've exposed as liars, tell me how you confirmed THAT, and I'll pretend I believe it (but don't forget I'm only pretending).
"But some stories SHOULD be taken seriously. As adults operating in the real world, we can do this and do it relatively well."
That's funny. You're such a cut-up!
"We knew some basics of the story. We knew the reality of the story on the ground where they had come from."
Again, common knowledge. So what?
"We knew people who knew these people."
Meaningless and useless as an example of confirmation. It still requires trusting your judgement...and that includes all of the "we" to whom you might be referring. How did you confirm any of it? Still waiting.
"The point being, they were believable and trustworthy as we first met them and got to know them AND the more details we learned, the more the story held up."
This comes with the expectation on your part that anyone would not consider you and yours gullible morons. That's a big ask.
And what "details"? More shit someone said without confirmation to back it up?
"Here's the distinction: We're fine with verification."
Why you choose not to provide it when it's specifically what I freakin' asked for is beyond me...except for the obvious reason that you're just talking out your ass.
"And if their stories don't hold up, they don't hold up. But that doesn't mean we're suspicious and hostile to begin with.
That would be a jerky, graceless way to live and be."
This is just you trying to make out like those in governmet tasked with protecting Americans are simply "suspicious and hostile to begin with", which is your grace-embracing way of being a dickhead. Again, how many do you reject, and when they've gotten as far as Louisville, are you seeing they get deported if their stories don't hold up? Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. You're totally dodging your obligation to support your sad story of a guy who was in fear of his life, but accepted a Humanitarian Aware and played publicly in a band, both of which exposes him to the death squad seeking to take his life.
I'm suspicious of people like you who are hostile to those who wish to protect their fellow Americans by expecting those who seek entry do so according to the law. You failed here, Dan, in epic fashion. Not unexpected, but the two questions remain unaswered. Your tap dancing is NOT an answer. You simply chose to believe his story and have no procured legit, official confirmation that his story is true. So it's game over. From this point I'll go over what came after this interruption and see what other nonsense you presented in your comments.
Excuse the way the previous four comments look. I was typing on another document to transfer, and spacing between paragraphs was not what I intended. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand any of it...except for maybe Dan's arguments.
I doubt that Dan even knows what words like "authoritative" and "possible" mean.
"Anonymous"
First of all, use that creative wit of yours to come up with a unique nom de plume so that you can distinguish yourself...even anonymously...from others who post under "Anonymous". You could also man up and use your actual name, but I don't hold anyone to that.
Secondly, I really have but one rule, and that is that no visitor can use profane/obscene appellations to reference other visitors, even if the other visitor is an actual asshole. That's MY job and I'm quite possessive of it. All are free to unload on me, but not my visitors. I will then return fire as I see fit to do so.
So, find a better way to insult someone you don't like if that's all you intend to do when you post a comment.
Post a Comment