https://www.libertynation.com/new-mexicos-sunland-park-becomes-border-death-zone-for-illegals/
The above article describes the dangers inherent in illegal invaders' attempts to circumvent state established obstructions to illegal invasions across the state/Mexico border. These deaths, which are none too few by any compassionate standard, are the sole responsibility of those who do nothing to oppose the Dem open border policy which makes this all too possible for way too many.
No. Instead, as is clear in an example near the end of the article, the leftists suggest that the mortal sin of protecting one's borders is responsible for the deaths, because illegals who insist on forcing their way into our interior, the success of which they believe will insure their ability to stay, seek areas with the least obstruction. These areas are usually the most dangerous due to their environments. Deserts typically are dangerous even for those equipped for the journey. The article supplies a great analogy of this leftist lie. Paraphrasing:
Dan Trabue secures his doors and windows such that one seeking entry can't find access on the ground floor. The intruder sees an open window on the second floor and believes he can reach it by climbing a nearby tree. In the attempt to succeed in this endeavor, the branch onto which he steps breaks and he plunges to the ground, breaking his neck. By the leftists' logic, Dan is responsible for this guy's injury because he didn't leave his first floor doors and windows unlocked.
This stupidity plays out in basic arguments for change. Because we're only allowing so many in through legal means, we're forcing those too impatient for whatever reason to sneak in any way they can. Their criminal travel agents...the cartels...have no concern for the health and safety of the invaders, and thus are willing to take their money and get them close enough to the border to then take their chances crossing at dangerous points of entry.
So the leftist argument is thus: The current laws suck, so we'll just invite all to come and blame those with concern for OUR safety when the invaders die attempting to invade. The progressives are too stupid to consider how much easier it would be to accommodate the very, very few of the millions coming here if those millions weren't possessed of the impression that they have a chance of getting in and not being sent away. They get this impression by the progressive asshats and those they elect. Blocking their entry by any avenue not approved, as well as deporting all who are found to have entered through those unapproved avenues, will eventually send the message in no uncertain terms that the door is closed and entry is impossible without approval before crossing the border. It's the only way. And then those who are actual refugees fleeing actual danger can be properly helped out.
In the meantime, Dems/leftists/progressives/marxists/America-haters (all the same things) should just shut the hell up and leave immigration policy to honest, moral and intelligent adults. They don't have any.
104 comments:
Um... there IS a difference between breaking and entering to get into a house and moving from City 1 to City 2 to escape danger and starvation. The first is reasonably a crime and the second is just reasonable.
And that is the difference between the reasonable Democrats support for immigrants and the irrational opposition to all immigrants of the GOP.
Once again: Look, you do not have to APPROVE that many people in nations who are suffering from danger and poverty will seek to move to a safer place... you can tell them to go to hell and die in hunger if you want. You don't have to approve it, but you MUST recognize it's going to happen and that it's not unreasonable for people to be self-determining and seek safety. It's going to happen. Period.
The question is not, will we approve of it or not? The question is, what will we do with this reality?
The Democrats would like for Congress to take action and create policies that will deal with this reality. Increased funding for dealing with the reality of people being self-determining and seeking safety so that, when they do cross the border, they don't have to sneak in because we're sending them back to dangerous settings. When they DO cross the border, they CAN come in at legitimate checkpoints because they recognize they will be treated with dignity, not demonization. Not automatic rejection.
It is precisely the GOP/anti-immigrant demonization of immigrants that pushes refugees and immigrants into hiding and sneaking in. Because they KNOW they'll be treated with disdain, abuse and arrest. A more fully-funded process where people can make their case and have it rapidly reviewed will decrease the "sneaking" in problem.
Make policies and fund them. THEN we can talk about how to deal with people who are still sneaking in or the tiny, tiny percentage who might actually have ill-intent involved in crossing the border. But the GOP can't both block taking action AND criticize that nothing's being done.
Reasonable people can see through that.
I've found that the leftist lie around this is the those on the right demand a fence, but ignore that we want a fence with defined gates and a defined process for entry. I think most of us accept the reality that immigration itself is not a problem. This is clearly not True, but is a useful club for the Dans of the world to use when necessary. The fact that it's considered strange to want to control our borders, not close them, is offensive when many other countries have much harsher restrictions is bizarre.
Craig,
Your comment is a bit confusing, but I think I understand your position based on previous comments.
And as you can see from Dan's recent submission above, the lies continue with his kind.
I've found that the leftist lie around this is the those on the right demand a fence, but ignore that we want a fence with defined gates and a defined process for entry. I think most of us accept the reality that immigration itself is not a problem.
1. As long as we have "ladder" and "airplane" technology, "fences" are pretty meaningless and more of an appeal to racists/xenophobes.
2. As long as you all only want to see "fences" on the border with brown people, your appeal for "fences" are pretty meaningless and more of an appeal to racists/xenophobes.
3. I/we are not ignoring that you all are fine with "some" immigration. You can tell by the way I/we never said that.
4. I/we are noting you all want that to be extremely limited in numbers and scope. I/we are noting that you're willing to turn away people seeking safety and a better life IF they don't fit a very narrow gate that YOU all want to define.
5. WE want a defined process and WE tried to get the GOP to cooperate to create some laws and provide some funding for that process. The GOP are the ones who bowed to Trump's demands to do nothing.
If nothing else, you need to understand that. WE offered the GOP a chance to collaborate and deal with border questions and the GOP refused because of your orange pervert prince's disdain for people darker than his orange.
"Um... there IS a difference between breaking and entering to get into a house and moving from City 1 to City 2 to escape danger and starvation. The first is reasonably a crime and the second is just reasonable."
Um...I made NO reference to any motivation on the part of the person attempting to enter Dan Trabue's home. Thus, you prefer that I refer to a criminal motivation in order to contrast such a person with the illegals sneaking into our country. At the same time, you prefer to assume all who sneak into our country are simple peasants fleeing direct danger to their lives. The analogy highlights the one parallel which matters...illegal entry, and thus any harm which results as a consequence of entering either home or country illegally. In both cases, illegal or unapproved entry is obstructed...the home by locked doors and windows, and the countries by border walls, fencing, border patrol agents or any other means to prevent unauthorized entry. To suggest that the fictitious Dan Trabue or the United States government or any state government is responsible for any deaths or other harm to illegals because of efforts established to prevent unauthorized entry left illegals with no better recourse than dangerous avenues of entry is incredibly immoral, but typical of the lengths to which your kind will go to lie about better people in order to posture as a good person yourself. You're not.
"And that is the difference between the reasonable Democrats support for immigrants and the irrational opposition to all immigrants of the GOP."
This is a lie in two ways: First and most obvious is the lie that conservative opposition to illegal border crossings represents "the irrational opposition to all immigrants". That's a hellish, purposeful and intentional lie, because it bears no relationship to the truth about conservative regard for LEGAL immigration or any other legal approval of entry to the United States by those of foreign countries.
The second lie is that Democrat support for immigrants is in any way reasonable. That's not simply a lie, it's stupidly untrue. It disregards all of the many and varied negative consequences on the premise that all who seek entry are deserving of being allowed to enter and remain. In this way the progs feel justified in regarding themselves as compassionate White Saviors of the brown foreigners against the "evil" conservatives who dare consider the welfare of the nation as the 1st concern of our government.
"When they DO cross the border, they CAN come in at legitimate checkpoints because they recognize they will be treated with dignity, not demonization. Not automatic rejection."
It's never been any other way, you moronic lying sack of shit! We've always had provisions for legal entry for all sorts of people, with "automatic rejection" being case specific. But WE get to choose what criteria will be put in place for any of it...not the foreigners and certainly not the dumbass progressives!
"It is precisely the GOP/anti-immigrant demonization of immigrants that pushes refugees and immigrants into hiding and sneaking in."
Another straight and consciously told lie! The GOP has never been "anti-immigrant", though Democrat organizations like the KKK have been. Nor has the GOP "demonized" legal immigrants, though Dems have done so for all of American history. You demonize them as too stupid to suppose there might be a problem crossing our border illegally. There's no need for hiding or sneaking in when one comes here by our laws and procedures. Those who do know they have no legit claim to be here, don't care to obey our laws and procedures for entering and simply wish to take advantage of whatever they can get before discovered. Dems make that criminality possible, as they do all forms of criminality.
"A more fully-funded process where people can make their case and have it rapidly reviewed will decrease the "sneaking" in problem."
Honest and intelligent people prefer their cases be "thoroughly" reviewed, regardless of the time it takes to do so. But there already exists such procedures and your complaint stems from the horrific consequences of your party of dumbshits and the clusterfuck they've made of the already troubling illegal immigrant problem. As such, even if we employ the roughly 80% of Americans who are adults to process all these allegedly true victims of oppression, we'd still have others waiting. Too fucking bad some have to wait. Close the border, deport those we catch who are here illegally and we'll have a better chance to thoroughly vet those truly needy who seek refuge here.
"But the GOP can't both block taking action AND criticize that nothing's being done."
Sure they can when the "action" Dems seek to take is dangerously stupid (as it has been with regard to this issue) and when Dems refuse to join with the GOP's sensible actions (as it has been every time). Each represents nothing being done because bad policy is worse than nothing, and refusing to participate with effective policy (border walls, for example) constitute doing nothing on the part of your asshole party of assholes.
Truly reasonable people (not the morons of your kind you stupidly label as such) can see through that.
At the same time, you prefer to assume all who sneak into our country are simple peasants fleeing direct danger to their lives.
Well, I look at the data and go with what the data shows. FAR AND AWAY the people entering our nation are seeking either safety from real threats at home or a better life/escape from poverty.
Can you at the very least agree that these are reasonable positions to take - wanting to escape threats to one's life and wanting to escape poverty?
Can you acknowledge that the data shows that this is, far and away, why most immigrants come here? That, indeed, Trump's insane claims of marauding rapists is a stupid lie, racist and hellish?
That, say, .01% of people entering have negative intentions and we should respond to ALL entering as if they were the .01%, is irrational and morally wrong? Seeking to blame the majority for the actions of a tiny minority... that this is morally and rationally wrong?
The analogy highlights the one parallel which matters...illegal entry, and thus any harm which results as a consequence of entering either home or country illegally.
"Illegal" only matters if the law is moral and just. IF a law is immoral or causes harm, then the law is the problem, NOT those who violate the law. Do you agree with this principle?
That is, when the nuns in Sound of Music stole car parts and broke the car belonging to the Nazis to allow innocent people to escape, the NUNS were engaged in moral activity, EVEN while they broke the law. The problem was the immoral law.
Agreed?
I fear you may not agree, but you tell me.
Additionally, refugees are not breaking the law in seeking refuge. Our laws allow for refugees to seek entry, because of course, they do. That we are not funding/providing the resources to process the refugees from seeking refuge, that is not the fault of the refugee, it is our fault.
https://www.vera.org/news/yes-its-legal-to-seek-immigration-asylum-in-the-united-states
July 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM
"1. As long as we have "ladder" and "airplane" technology, "fences" are pretty meaningless and more of an appeal to racists/xenophobes."
Yeah...we saw tons of ladders being employed everywhere a wall exists. Sure, dumbass. It's so easy to lug around ladders, and Border Patrol is incapable of finding and taking/destroying them. What's more, anywhere a wall exists is purposed to either keep people out or people in. In this case, it's the former and use of ladders is confirmation of illegal trespass and therefore easier to prosecute as such. As to "airplane" tech. We also have anti-aircraft capabilities for those who refuse to identify themselves crossing our airspace.
Fencing and walls have appeal to those who care about preserving our sovereignty and observing the law. Liars pretend it's about racists and xenophobes, because liars have no real argument against protecting our borders against illegal crossings.
"2. As long as you all only want to see "fences" on the border with brown people, your appeal for "fences" are pretty meaningless and more of an appeal to racists/xenophobes."
More racism from the racist White Savior, Dan the asshole. We don't want fences. We don't want walls. We want foreigners to respect our borders and laws governing migration into our land. Since our southern border is inundated with people of all races for 100 countries or more, we want fences and walls to keep out all who ignore our laws. Should Canadians begin sneaking in from Manitoba into North Dakota, I'll support a wall across our northern border as well. I would not be surprised that we'll someday begin securing our entire circumference so long as dumbass lefties continue to enable criminality.
"3. I/we are not ignoring that you all are fine with "some" immigration. You can tell by the way I/we never said that."
The implication is clear with every claim that the GOP is "anti-immigration". Tap dancing around it now won't cut it, liar.
"4. I/we are noting you all want that to be extremely limited in numbers and scope. I/we are noting that you're willing to turn away people seeking safety and a better life IF they don't fit a very narrow gate that YOU all want to define."
Given you have no real idea of what we want with any specificity, I'll just regard this comment as more stupidity, since that covers pretty much every aspect of your open border assholery. But generally speaking, there are more than a few factors which go into how many we let in. Seeking a better life is not one of them all by itself. We're in no way obliged...and never have been in all of American history...to accommodate on that extremely limited and narrow reasoning.
"5. WE want a defined process and WE tried to get the GOP to cooperate to create some laws and provide some funding for that process. The GOP are the ones who bowed to Trump's demands to do nothing."
Dems have NOT proposed sensible answers to this shit-show they've created, so you're lying again. Trump does not have the final say in how GOP Congressmen and Senators respond to moronic legislative proposals from your Moron Party. The GOP members are smart enough to see shit without first having to step in it...particularly the truly conservative members are.
"If nothing else, you need to understand that. WE offered the GOP a chance to collaborate and deal with border questions and the GOP refused because of your orange pervert prince's disdain for people darker than his orange."
You're an idiot. I'm gonna stick my neck out and suggest you never even studied the Dem proposal, or you're more of an idiot than I thought. The border proposal was shit. Period. But this is common with Dems. They put out shit and then pretend the GOP was evil for not going along with it, simply because of the superficial aspect of the proposal. This proposal was akin to throwing gasoline on a fire and then criticizing the GOP for refusing to go along with that which would not resolve the problem in any way.
And always keep in mind, that when you refer to Trump as a pervert king or prince, I know you're again deflecting from your embrace of actual perversions and deviancy. YOU are more perv than Trump has ever been. That's a clear and proven fact.
We want foreigners to respect our borders and laws governing migration into our land.
But WHY do you all have this arbitrary wish for "laws" to stop people from entering (or to delay it nearly indefinitely)? IF a family is dealing with real death threats where they come from, why would they NOT try to escape? Can you agree that it's RATIONAL and moral for them to try to move to safety?
IF a family isn't facing an immediate threat from violence, BUT they are starving or otherwise suffering from poverty, WHY do you want to stop them from coming in? WHY do you want to say, "If you just jump through our hoops and wait ten or twenty years, maybe then you can get in "legally..."? WHY do you want to make it so hard for people to simply practice self-determination?
These are the questions you all leave unanswered. A simple, "Because that is the way WE want to do it!" is rationally and morally lacking and limpid.
Trump does not have the final say in how GOP Congressmen and Senators respond to moronic legislative proposals from your Moron Party.
Clearly he does. Clearly, the cowardly, sniveling members of the modern GOP DO bow down to kiss the orange conman's ass. The proposal put forth by the Democrats was a TERRIBLE proposal... it was basically the GOP wishlist of a more punitive approach to border policies. And EVEN GIVING them what they wanted, the GOP just ran and hid behind their pervert prince.
Do you even read the news?
And always keep in mind, that when you refer to Trump as a pervert king or prince, I know you're again deflecting from your embrace of actual perversions and deviancy.
Indeed, this is one of the key differences between you and I.
I love folks for who they actually are and support them in living their lives to the fullest as their actual selves so long as they're not harming anyone.
I support gay fellas getting married and adopting a dog and living their lives together in a faithful loving home up into their retirement years. It's chaste, it's holy, it's beautiful, it's wholesome.
I support the lesbian grandmothers who age together in a loving marriage, taking care of the children in the neighborhood and their children and grandchildren, in the beautiful, neighborly, loving and gracious way. I support the surviving grandmother when her dear spouse passed away, as did my church, pouring out love and support on them as they did to the community their whole lives. It's chaste, it's holy, it's beautiful, it's wholesome.
I support the loving and sweet transgender person who is living their lives in a way that pours love on to the community. I support them when they take part in their Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in their drag-nun efforts to spread love and grace. EVEN WHEN they express patience and concern for people like you who may be spreading messages of hate towards them, they insist that you just need patience and love and grace. My LORD, what a picture of grace and wholesome sweetness they represent.
That's what I support and what YOU call "perversion" in your graceless ignorance.
In the meantime, you support the "grab them by the *****" pervert who enjoys ogling teenage girls in stages of undress, using and abusing his privilege power and money for the opportunity to ogle those girls. You support him in his LAUGHING about sexual assault and "getting away with it" because he's rich and privileged. You support that pervert when he mocks those with cerebral palsy with his "spastic" hand motions to denigrate and attack a reporter who happens to have a disability.
THAT is what you support and call "good," somehow.
Now, I would just ask you to look at the loving lesbian grandmothers, gay couple, Sisters who are perpetually patient and loving AND THEN look at your deviant.
Can you not see the vast degree of difference between the wholesomeness of the teachers/social workers/givers/helpers I'm talking about and the actual pervert you defend and vote for?
If you can't see it, can you at least recognize that MOST people will look at the widowed lesbian grandmother, the gay couple who've aided the homeless for years, the Sisters who are patient with people like you... and then look at the orange deviant... and it will be clear which ones are and are not wholesome, loving and good?
If you can't recognize that... why not? Who hurt you so much that you defend rapists and those who talk like rapists and attack giving, sweet grandmothers who happen to be lesbian?
Get help, son. That is what my LGBTQ friends would hope for you, even in the face of your anger and vitriol.
"YOU are more perv than Trump has ever been. That's a clear and proven fact."
See? This is part of y'alls problem. Here I am, and others in my community... we're faithful, loving spouses dedicated to our families. In my case, I'll be celebrating 40 years faithfully we'd to my wife next year. We're loving, supportive parents to our children - and in many cases, loving supportive nurtures to children who are not our flesh and blood. We pour out our lives in support of the homeless, those with addictions, those with disabilities, teenagers in the LGBTQ community who've been kicked out of their families and conservative churches, teachers, social workers, mental health workers... pouring our lives out in service to others... and in your twisted minds, WE are the perverted ones and Trump is a good man.
Your religious bigotry causes you to say things like that, as if WE are somehow perverse with our lives of service and support... and any rational person can look at your irrational claims and they'll say, WTH??
You're only serving to further make the case that there's something wrong, something broken with you.
Embrace grace, don't be irrational. You're only hurting/embarrassing yourself.
Dan
July 12, 2024 at 3:26 PM
"At the same time, you prefer to assume all who sneak into our country are simple peasants fleeing direct danger to their lives."
"Well, I look at the data and go with what the data shows. FAR AND AWAY the people entering our nation are seeking either safety from real threats at home or a better life/escape from poverty."
The "data" shows nothing of the kind. More specifically, there's no data suggesting a large percentage of the invaders are actually fleeing true danger which threatens them directly. They say this is the case, but they are schooled to say this is the case. Whether or not it's true is in question, and if it's true, there's no justification for allowing them into the country until it can be confirmed to our own satisfaction.
As to seeking a better life, this lessens our obligation considerably, as "seeking a better life" is not a legitimate justification for obligating us to allow entry. Again, their "self-determination" places no obligation on our country in any way. For example, some foreigner can be well off and still seek a "better" life here. It means nothing.
So, what you're doing is conflating two disparate issues and pretending them to be equal as far as any "obligation" we might have at all...despite having NO obligation of any kind. Keep in mind. It's not what some asshole named Dan Trabue thinks. It's what our government is obligated to do with regard to non-citizens.
"Can you at the very least agree that these are reasonable positions to take - wanting to escape threats to one's life and wanting to escape poverty?"
Asserting these reasons does not have any weight whatsoever. Proving one is fleeing actual danger has weight which, depending on whether or not it can be determined to be a true plea. "Escaping poverty" has no weight whatsoever in and of itself. We're not obligated to help anyone...even our own citizens...escape poverty.
"Can you acknowledge that the data shows that this is, far and away, why most immigrants come here? That, indeed, Trump's insane claims of marauding rapists is a stupid lie, racist and hellish?"
There's no such data available to confirm that about the vast majority of invaders. Trump's recognition of the criminal element seeking entry is legit, and more so than claims of any significant percentage of the 10+ million invaders fleeing danger.
Just so we're clear, and in a vain hope that you'll stop lying about better people, no conservative or Republican has a problem with those who seek to come here for a better life. That's not even the issue with the current situation. It's a source of pride that...despite leftist disparagement of our country...people of the world still regard America as a land of opportunity. That doesn't buy them entry.
"That, say, .01% of people entering have negative intentions and we should respond to ALL entering as if they were the .01%, is irrational and morally wrong? Seeking to blame the majority for the actions of a tiny minority... that this is morally and rationally wrong?"
First of all, you have absolutely no legitimate way to determine what the percentage of criminal migrants is. We don't need to know such a thing. All we need to do is to prevent entry until we can be assured that an applicant for entry is worthy of our allowing it. Period. What we do know is that there are plenty of cases of criminality from invaders, beginning with their illegal entry.
Think of it this way, you moron. If I'm in need, I may knock on your door and ask for help. I won't just enter your home and expect that you'll help. I won't just enter and expect anything, because that's disrespectful of the person to whom I make my plea. I knock, I await a response, I make my plea, and I accept whatever response I get. By your fucked up logic, you have no say in the matter except to give whatever I demand. It doesn't work that way, you dumbass, nor should it.
"The analogy highlights the one parallel which matters...illegal entry, and thus any harm which results as a consequence of entering either home or country illegally."
""Illegal" only matters if the law is moral and just. IF a law is immoral or causes harm, then the law is the problem, NOT those who violate the law. Do you agree with this principle?"
Bullshit, you America-hating liar. "Illegal" is that which is in conflict with existing law, regardless of whether or not some progressive fake Christian named Dan Trabue likes it. Our immigration laws are not immoral until you can provide a legitimate argument to the contrary. Just because our laws can't easily accommodate ten million+ invaders doesn't make them immoral or unjust. You're an asshole with no mature argument to serve your stupidity.
And again, it's not the law which causes harm. It's the attempt to circumvent the existing laws which causes harm. Those who abide the law are not harmed.
"That is, when the nuns in Sound of Music stole car parts and broke the car belonging to the Nazis to allow innocent people to escape, the NUNS were engaged in moral activity, EVEN while they broke the law. The problem was the immoral law."
So we're nazis now you lying motherfucker???? We're like nazis because our law regulating entry don't accommodate anyone and everyone to YOUR dumbfuck satisfaction??? That's really the asshole argument you're trying to use here? What a scumbag you are!
"Agreed?"
Abso-fucking-lutely not, you lying piece of shit!
"I fear you may not agree, but you tell me."
Really? You "fear" I might disagree with abject stupidity and lies? Fucking surprising!
"Additionally, refugees are not breaking the law in seeking refuge. Our laws allow for refugees to seek entry, because of course, they do. That we are not funding/providing the resources to process the refugees from seeking refuge, that is not the fault of the refugee, it is our fault."
Bullshit, you incredibly stupid turd of a man-child! Refugees who enter counter to our protocols are willfully in breach of our laws. They're law-breakers. Period. Refugees who seek refuge according to our laws are not. It's pretty fucking simply such that even the simply minded like fake Christians like yourself should be able to understand. Fleeing danger isn't a free pass to break our laws. We must first determine the status of such people. Their say so isn't enough.
Good God, you're a vile lying scumbag!
https://www.vera.org/news/yes-its-legal-to-seek-immigration-asylum-in-the-united-states
I didn't read your link, because I have no doubt it supports your lawbreaking enabling. There's a vast difference between seeking refuge..."asylum"...and sneaking in and then saying one is seeking refuge. The latter doesn't oblige any accommodation of any kind. One who legitimately seeks refuge FUCKING ASKS for protection. They don't assume it will be given and sneak in and upon being found out insist they're seeking refuge. That's bullshit and there's no legitimate excuse for it.
July 12, 2024 at 3:53 PM
"But WHY do you all have this arbitrary wish for "laws" to stop people from entering (or to delay it nearly indefinitely)? IF a family is dealing with real death threats where they come from, why would they NOT try to escape? Can you agree that it's RATIONAL and moral for them to try to move to safety?"
"Arbitrary"???? What the fuck, asshole! We have laws in hopes that all will live in accordance with them, regardless of their situation. There's nothing the least bit "arbitrary" about such an expectation. If we expect our own to obey our laws, how much more or less are we rational in expecting foreigners to obey them? Are you really this much of a dumbfuck? (Rhetorical question. Of course you are!)
It's not a question of who is truly fleeing danger. It's a question of how they choose to enter our country in order to avoid it. By your logic, anyone who sneaks in and when caught claims to be fleeing danger must be believed. C'mon in, sad foreigner! If you say you're fleeing danger, who are we to question you? You're a fucking moron! We've always had protocols for determining the validity of such claims. There's no need to sneak in contrary to our laws and then, when such time comes when discovered, make this claim. There's no obligation to presume the claim is legit under such circumstances.
"IF a family isn't facing an immediate threat from violence, BUT they are starving or otherwise suffering from poverty, WHY do you want to stop them from coming in?"
Because that's the most effective way to deal with such situations. Just letting them enter to do what they want is not.
"WHY do you want to say, "If you just jump through our hoops and wait ten or twenty years, maybe then you can get in "legally..."? WHY do you want to make it so hard for people to simply practice self-determination?"
It's not a matter of making it hard, and all the legal immigrants I've encountered do not whine about it taking as long as it might. Of course everyone would prefer it would be immediate. What makes things hard is you assholes opening the doors, telling the world to come and then whining we don't have the ability to accommodate them to your liking. Fuck you.
"These are the questions you all leave unanswered. A simple, "Because that is the way WE want to do it!" is rationally and morally lacking and limpid."
Except that the way WE want it is morally and practically beneficial for all. Yours is just a clusterfuck with the expectation that others will foot the bill.
Once again, we see that those like you are to have no voice in how to deal with any of this. You're just too fucking stupid.
July 12, 2024 at 4:06 PM
"Clearly he does. Clearly, the cowardly, sniveling members of the modern GOP DO bow down to kiss the orange conman's ass. The proposal put forth by the Democrats was a TERRIBLE proposal... it was basically the GOP wishlist of a more punitive approach to border policies. And EVEN GIVING them what they wanted, the GOP just ran and hid behind their pervert prince.
Do you even read the news?"
Yes, dumbfuck. That's why I know the proposal was a piece of shit. There was nothing in it to give the GOP any reason to support it. Trump's opinion of it was irrelevant even if spot on. Anyone with a brain could see it for the crap sandwich it was.
Of course, you're no fucking genius, so STFU!
July 12, 2024 at 4:51 PM
"Indeed, this is one of the key differences between you and I.
I love folks for who they actually are..."
Really, dickhead??? You love pedophiles? The incestuous? The bestial? That's not how God operates.
"I support gay fellas getting married and adopting a dog and living their lives together in a faithful loving home up into their retirement years."
Thus, you're a pervert of the worst kind. You pretend to abide God's Will while enabling those who don't.
" It's chaste, it's holy, it's beautiful, it's wholesome."
No. It's abomination. I know this because that's what God says according to Scripture. You're not a Christian, so you clearly don't know. You're to into perversion to give a flying fuck what God wants.
"I support the lesbian grandmothers who age together in a loving marriage, taking care of the children in the neighborhood and their children and grandchildren, in the beautiful, neighborly, loving and gracious way."
Ah! So because lesbians do nice things their willful rebellion against the unmistakable Will of God is just fine. What a fake Christian you are!
"I support the surviving grandmother when her dear spouse passed away, as did my church, pouring out love and support on them as they did to the community their whole lives. It's chaste, it's holy, it's beautiful, it's wholesome."
It's enabling overt abomination. Too bad you didn't care about the soul of the departed while she was still alive, you Satanic fuck!
"I support the loving and sweet transgender person who is living their lives in a way that pours love on to the community."
More evidence of your perversion, as supporting those who reject God's Will males you worse they they are.
" I support them when they take part in their Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in their drag-nun efforts to spread love and grace."
Now there's no doubt. You hate God by supporting those who express their hatred for God and His Will. You are validating my opinion that you are far more the pervert than Trump could ever be!
"EVEN WHEN they express patience and concern for people like you who may be spreading messages of hate towards them, they insist that you just need patience and love and grace. My LORD, what a picture of grace and wholesome sweetness they represent."
My Lord, what clear and unambiguous evidence of rebellion against God than to support those who clearly hate God. To pretend they're responding to Godly responses as if those responses are "hate" clearly proves you're no Christian at all. Indeed, it's crystal clear you're no Christian at all!
"That's what I support and what YOU call "perversion" in your graceless ignorance."
Really? The clear and unambiguous display of that which is totally in contradiction with all the natural world attests is normal is "graceless ignorance"????? You're a fucking liar and a true enemy of the One True God. I may not be as Christian in my response to your evil as Christ would like, but fuck you, you totally fake Christian!
"In the meantime, you support the "grab them by the *****" pervert"
There you go again...lying overtly and with no care at all.
" who enjoys ogling teenage girls in stages of undress, using and abusing his privilege power and money for the opportunity to ogle those girls."
Yeah, because a cheap response to a cheap asshole on a radio show is like gospel to haters like you. Keep embracing grace, asshole.
"You support him in his LAUGHING about sexual assault and "getting away with it" because he's rich and privileged."
He never said any such thing you lying fake Christian.
" You support that pervert when he mocks those with cerebral palsy with his "spastic" hand motions to denigrate and attack a reporter who happens to have a disability."
He never did any such thing you lying fake Christian! You continue to lie after all these things have been explained to you, because your unChristian hatred won't allow you to accept reality. You're a fucking liar from start to finish. Good gosh, you're Satanic!
"Now, I would just ask you to look at the loving lesbian grandmothers, gay couple, Sisters who are perpetually patient and loving AND THEN look at your deviant."
Deviancy is deviancy and those you hold up as somehow more "normal" than Trump are true deviants by definition. It's a true expression of hatred and dishonesty to suggest that a man's appreciation for feminine beauty is somehow "perverse" because the female is of a lower age, as if being that lower age makes a difference. No. The truth is that you use this as an excuse to rationalize your perverse hatred for an otherwise very normal individual. Is it moral to covet? No. But it's not perverse unless one covets one of the same sex. You're an immoral fuck, Dan. And your attacks on Trump are proof of that fact.
"Can you not see the vast degree of difference between the wholesomeness of the teachers/social workers/givers/helpers I'm talking about and the actual pervert you defend and vote for?"
When you compare the two on an honestly apples to apples basis, Trump comes out on top. Having the hots and desires for women/girls of exceptional beauty is not at all perverse, even if immoral. YOUR favored creeps are perverts through and through by definition. A womanizer doesn't concern me nearly so much as an actual pervert of the type you defend. Neither are ideal. Your pervs are the least ideal.
"If you can't see it, can you at least recognize that MOST people will look at the widowed lesbian grandmother, the gay couple who've aided the homeless for years, the Sisters who are patient with people like you... and then look at the orange deviant... and it will be clear which ones are and are not wholesome, loving and good?"
NO, because you're pretending that which is not true. If some dyke is "patient" with those like me, they are not better people for their patience while insisting being a dyke if fine. It is not. What's more, they're "patience" is in regard to the righteous rebuke of their choice of indulging their perversion. What do I care that such people are "patient" with those like me who are devoted to the Will of God on such matters?
What's more, the good that Trump has enabled by his policies as president are no small thing, and homo-lovers who think he's a bad guy despite his good work as president are simply lying assholes.
"If you can't recognize that... why not? Who hurt you so much that you defend rapists and those who talk like rapists and attack giving, sweet grandmothers who happen to be lesbian?"
There's no evidence whatsoever that Trump is a rapist or talks like one. That's just you being an asshole hater who only pretends to be a Christian, while enabling actual perverts because they do nice things now and then. Lesbos are in direct rebellion against the clearly revealed and unequivocal Word of God. We don't "attack" them, unless speaking truthfully about the clearly revealed and unequivocal Word of God constitutes an attack to pervs like you.
"Get help, son. That is what my LGBTQ friends would hope for you, even in the face of your anger and vitriol."
That's funny. I'm concerned about the everlasting souls of your perv friends and you think it's I who needs to seek help. You're clearly given over to your corruption. Good luck with that, dickhead!
July 12, 2024 at 8:25 PM
"See? This is part of y'alls problem. Here I am, and others in my community... we're faithful, loving spouses dedicated to our families."
I'm not concerned with any fictitious members of your "community", Dan. I don't ever hear frm any of them, and if they're in any way, shape or form like you, their assholes, too. I speak only of you and referencing those who don't submit comments to any of our blogs is just another attempt to lie. So cut the crap and defend your own immoral ass.
"In my case, I'll be celebrating 40 years faithfully we'd to my wife next year. We're loving, supportive parents to our children - and in many cases, loving supportive nurtures to children who are not our flesh and blood."
Doesn't mean you're not a fag or any other kind of pervert. Homosexuals have married those of the opposite sex for centuries. You're a moral reprobate regardless.
"We pour out our lives in support of the homeless, those with addictions, those with disabilities, teenagers in the LGBTQ community who've been kicked out of their families and conservative churches, teachers, social workers, mental health workers... pouring our lives out in service to others... and in your twisted minds, WE are the perverted ones and Trump is a good man."
No, asshole. We don't deny Trump's moral failings, but we don't pretend he's worse than the immoral reprobates you defend as good Christians because they do nice things. By that standard, Trump is still a better man, for he's done more for more people as president for four years than your sorry ass has done in your entire life.
"Your religious bigotry causes you to say things like that, as if WE are somehow perverse with our lives of service and support... and any rational person can look at your irrational claims and they'll say, WTH??"
No truly rational person would question my objection to your perversions. They might not agree, but no rational honest person would suggest any inconsistency in my position versus the faith which influences it. You like to falsely use the term "rational" as if speaking the word means you're accurately identifying rational behaviors or positions. It's juts you lying again. Standing firmly behind the Word of God doesn't make me a bigot. It makes me one who seeks God's favor and one who desires to please Him. You choose to please perverts.
"You're only serving to further make the case that there's something wrong, something broken with you."
That's a common argument of the morally bankrupt and those who rebuke God's Will.
"Embrace grace, don't be irrational. You're only hurting/embarrassing yourself."
I don't give a flying fuck what reprobates like you think of what I think or do. If scumbags like you find fault in me, that's evidence I'm right with God. You're a cluster fuck. I fear you're far beyond redemption, but I trust that such determinations are God's choice. Good luck with your enabling of perversion and sin.
Art,
My position is that a fence is a good and appropriate measure. Yet the fence should have gates where people can pass through in a legal and orderly manner in accordance with our laws.
I see that Dan's lies are already in full strength.
The root of his problem is twofold.
1. He conflates those who are genuinely in need of some sort or refuge from actual danger, with the random folks who just don't like it where they are or who want to engage in criminal activity.
2. He assumes that the only possible place these people can find any sort of refuge is in the US, and that the US is obligated to take any and every person who shows up.
He also seems to be (intentionally or unintentionally) ignoring what the results of the policy he supports are playing out in real time all across Europe.
Craig,
"My position is that a fence is a good and appropriate measure. Yet the fence should have gates where people can pass through in a legal and orderly manner in accordance with our laws."
Really no different than my position. Ports of entry should be positioned based on how convenient it is for us, as regards expense, personnel and the like. If that means we only have one port of entry, so be it and too bad for those who must wait their turn. They'll just have to deal.
In addition to what you say about Dan, he also presumes that every migrant seeking entry here is a poor pathetic peon with violent oppressors hot on their tails. He pretends he accounts for those who "want a better life", but he treats them all as refugees.
As to refugees, I'm inclined to reject outright any who are not from an adjoining nation. To pass through other countries where refuge could have been taken to get here suggests their story is bullshit. They're using the tale to improve their chances of entry and by doing so harming the chances of legitimate refugees to whom we might extend aid. This is also why it's imperative to accept refugees contingent on their stay lasting only as long as the threat to them exists. That is to say that their stay is similar to any temporary worker or student visa, with deportation immediate upon conviction of any criminal action on their part. By coming here for refuge, they are asking a great favor, and as such should expect to prove they're worthy of having favor granted.
Some of those so-called refugees are from OUR enemy countries, such as the scads of military-aged Chinese men coming in as well as all the Muslim men. All are intent on harm.
Glenn,
Clearly, we can suppose anything about any of them...positive or negative. But until we can vet them, our government has no right or authority to risk any of us by allowing entry without that information having been confirmed. And until we can figure the best means for dealing with the 10 million or more who've illegally crossed since Biden took office, all entry must be denied without said vetting in full.
Just by way of clarification:
[Dan] conflates those who are genuinely in need of some sort or refuge from actual danger, with the random folks who just don't like it where they are or who want to engage in criminal activity.
No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I never said that. You can tell by the way that I've said that there are a range of reasons for people seeking to migrate here.
2. He assumes that the only possible place these people can find any sort of refuge is in the US, and that the US is obligated to take any and every person who shows up.
No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
He also seems to be (intentionally or unintentionally) ignoring what the results of the policy he supports are playing out in real time all across Europe.
No, I literally do not.
Dan also presumes that every migrant seeking entry here is a poor pathetic peon with violent oppressors hot on their tails.
No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
He pretends he accounts for those who "want a better life", but he treats them all as refugees.
No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
What I've said consistently and clearly is that people migrate to the US for a range of reasons. A large number of them - according to the data - are coming here seeking a better life. Period. Full stop.
Of those who come here seeking a better life, they come here for a range of reasons. Some are actively, imminently in danger of being killed, raped and imprisoned. According to the data.
Some have a high likelihood of being killed, raped, imprisoned or harmed, but may have no imminent (as it's going to happen today for sure) threat.
For some, they may be ten times as more likely to die early if they stay where they live, for others, they may only be twice as likely to die early.
Probably for most of them, there is no way to put a definitive likelihood to the threat, but the threat is real.
cont'd.
For some, they are seeking economic opportunities, as in, if they stay where they are, there children are likely to have fewer opportunities and may not live to a full life, as the life expectancy is lower, and they don't want to see themselves or their children to die young.
And on like that. There is of course, a range of reasons and threats and the data shows that all the threats are real. (by way of data, the life expectancy of an average person in the US is 79 years old. The life expectancy of an average Guatemalan is 71 years old. Etc. Of course, those living in poverty are more likely to die younger and those living in nations with increased violence are more likely to die younger, EVEN IF there is no one defined imminent threat.
THAT is what I'm saying.
And I'm further saying that it is reasonable for a family or person in Guatemala or another struggling nation to seek improvements to their life's situation and their life expectancy... and that people more likely to die WILL seek solutions. Even if crossing an arbitrary border is a misdemeanor in the other nation.
I further support the human rights of people to be self-determining and seek a better life for themselves, even if that means moving away from where there life expectancy is lower and their lives are at risk. Because of course, I do.
Finally, I support people's self-determination to say, "If I move from Guatemala to Mexico, I may be slightly less likely to be killed or die young, but if I move to the US, I'm much less likely to be killed or die young... and so, I'll go where it makes most sense to me..." Because, of course, I do.
What is wrong with that reasoning of my actual positions, not the misunderstandings you have about my positions?
In short, I'm looking at the data that shows that most immigrants/refugees are not a threat to us and I'm a supporter of human rights and self-determination. If some people say, "Ah, but if we let immigrants and refugees in, they'll rape us and kill us and take our jobs..." I don't believe in fear-mongering or "replacement" conspiracy theories. I believe in the data.
July 14, 2024 at 2:45 PM
"Just by way of clarification:"
You're not "clarifying" here. You're equivocating.
"[Dan] conflates those who are genuinely in need of some sort or refuge from actual danger, with the random folks who just don't like it where they are or who want to engage in criminal activity."
"No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I never said that."
Yes. You literally do. Not saying so literally doesn't mitigate the reality. When we speak of the ten million+ invaders who have illegally crossed our borders, you defend the practice on the premise that there are true refugees among them and thus, we mustn't dare stop the flow. We've been consistent in our position and specific about who and what we're referencing. You keep it ambiguous so you can bleat on about what a grace embracing individual you are...while people die.
"2. He assumes that the only possible place these people can find any sort of refuge is in the US, and that the US is obligated to take any and every person who shows up."
"No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I've never said that."
Yes. You literally do. Always and in the manner described above. We aren't allowed to question how many refuge offering countries through which that person from Tierra del Fuego passed in order to cross our border illegally. We're only supposed to let them in and provide whatever they demand. And no, we're not allowed to question their sad tale of danger and woe.
"He also seems to be (intentionally or unintentionally) ignoring what the results of the policy he supports are playing out in real time all across Europe."
"No, I literally do not."
Yes. You literally do. At the very least, when the problems being realized as having gone to far in other countries is mentioned...by Craig or news outlets...that reality is ignored and dismissed as having no relation to the same problems happening here. It's not a concern, just let the poor unfortunates in, because of course they're all poor unfortunates to whom fake Christians like you insist we have some sort of moral obligation with no limitations or conditions.
"Dan also presumes that every migrant seeking entry here is a poor pathetic peon with violent oppressors hot on their tails."
"No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I've never said that."
Yes. You literally do. We can tell by how you default to that premise whenever we're speaking on closing the border to stem the flow and deporting all those who sneak in illegally.
"He pretends he accounts for those who "want a better life", but he treats them all as refugees."
"No, I literally don't. You can tell by the way I've never said that."
Yes. You literally do. You reject every legitimate and very real concern with regard to the open border problem and conflate every damned migrant with those fleeing danger. It's only when having exposed this do you mention anyone else, but still accept them as if their "wanting a better life" is as obligatory on us as those fleeing actual, direct danger to their persons.
"What I've said consistently and clearly is that people migrate to the US for a range of reasons. A large number of them - according to the data - are coming here seeking a better life. Period. Full stop."
First, you have no data. None. You just say, "according to the data" and expect us to respond like we're moronic progressives, too.
Secondly, what you pretend to say consistently is a moot point from the jump. It's freakin' obvious and need not be said. You don't mitigate your bullshit position by saying this as it lends to your position in any positive manner. It's useless fluff. Worse, it's irrelevant to the fact that who gets in is a matter of OUR choosing and willingness to do the favor. It's a matter of how WE benefit. Period. Full stop.
"Of those who come here seeking a better life, they come here for a range of reasons. Some are actively, imminently in danger of being killed, raped and imprisoned. According to the data."
Stop with the "according to the data" as if you have any to present...which, by the way, you're obligated to provide if you want to make a truth claim. In this instance, it is again a moot point and one which goes without saying as we're well aware that there exists actual refugees fleeing danger. That's not at all the point or relevant to the question of who gets it and who gets to decide who gets in.
"Probably for most of them, there is no way to put a definitive likelihood to the threat, but the threat is real."
What precedes the above is true for most every American. The threat has been elevated by the moronic opening of our borders and the welcome to over 10 million invaders. Worse is the willingness on your part to give not one fuck as to that likelihood, but presume it's high at all times. Adults don't act that way. Governments who care about the people they're entrusted to govern never should.
July 14, 2024 at 2:45 PM
"For some, they are seeking economic opportunities, as in, if they stay where they are, there children are likely to have fewer opportunities and may not live to a full life, as the life expectancy is lower, and they don't want to see themselves or their children to die young."
Boo hoo. That doesn't oblige us because people living elsewhere don't have what we have. You know how so many economic opportunities came to exist in this country? People went out and made them, that's how. They can do as much where they are.
"THAT is what I'm saying."
What you're saying is any and every reason imagined or invented obliges us to let any and everyone in who demands entry. More stupidity proving my point that those like you must never be allowed to play a role in crafting immigration/border policy for the United States. You're too fucking stupid and dishonest.
"And I'm further saying that it is reasonable for a family or person in Guatemala or another struggling nation to seek improvements to their life's situation and their life expectancy... and that people more likely to die WILL seek solutions."
"Even if crossing an arbitrary border is a misdemeanor in the other nation."
This has been explained to you and you continue to lie...as is your character. Imagine how clogged the courts would be if every initial illegal crossing was charged as the felony it should be. Thus, we've decided to leave that to second and subsequent offenses for OUR benefit...NOT because crossing our non-aribitrary border isn't a serious affront to our national sovereignty. Your property isn't a matter of "arbitrary" borders. It's a fixed legal parcel of land with specific measurements. It's the same for our nation and individual states and municipalities. Only assholes regard our national borders so flippantly. Stop doing that, asshole.
But that doesn't oblige the United States government in any way.
"I further support I further support the human rights of people to be self-determining and seek a better life for themselves, even if that means moving away from where there life expectancy is lower and their lives are at risk. Because of course, I do."
Irrelevant, because what others want to do to improve their situations doesn't oblige us in any way, shape or form. You think "the human 'rights' of people to be self-determining" obligates us in some way. It doesn't and you can't argue to the contrary and not inhibit the valid rights of the United States population to their own self-determination.
"Finally, I support people's self-determination to say, "If I move from Guatemala to Mexico, I may be slightly less likely to be killed or die young, but if I move to the US, I'm much less likely to be killed or die young... and so, I'll go where it makes most sense to me..." Because, of course, I do."
Nice plan, but again, it does not obligate us in any way to allow entry. And what with all the racists and white nationalists you rat bastard lying progressives insist is the greatest danger to our nation, there's no way Mexico is more dangerous than here!
"What is wrong with that reasoning of my actual positions, not the misunderstandings you have about my positions?"
I just answered but can go into greater detail. I've also "clarified" how spot on our understandings have always been to your convoluted and equivocating inanities.
"In short, I'm looking at the data that shows that most immigrants/refugees are not a threat to us and I'm a supporter of human rights and self-determination."
"Looking at it"??? Why not post it here, so I can more properly shred it? You must know it's suspect as most leftist "data" is. It's not a question, however, of how many are a threat to us, and you suppose the threat must only be physical violence in order to qualify as a threat. Even then, what matters is how do we know? We don't because there's no way to vet hordes of invaders flowing in non-stop because the dumbest of dumb mofoes have promoted this crisis in order to distort true and valid American sentiment in our elections, and it doing so, we have no idea the intentions of any of them and no way to verify they aren't just bullshitting in order to gain entry. You don't fucking care because you're so obsessed with posturing as a compassionate person rather than actually being one.
It's not a human rights issue. It's a welfare of this nation issue. There's no "human right" which justifies ignoring a nation's sovereignty and law in order to stroke one's "self-determination". I support people pursuing their happiness. I don't support assholes like you forcing me to help them catch it.
"If some people say, "Ah, but if we let immigrants and refugees in, they'll rape us and kill us and take our jobs...""
Don't be your usual dickhead self. No one talks like this and it's a willful distortion of honest, intelligent and moral opposition to the unfettered flow of invaders illegally breaching our borders. The concern is that illegals ARE raping and killing Americans and it's because of the policies you favor. You have no rational, intelligent means by which we can control this situation, and you don't give a flying fuck how many people...actual citizen or not...are harmed by your abject stupidity.
"I don't believe in fear-mongering or "replacement" conspiracy theories. I believe in the data."
It's not "fear-mongering" to recognize the harm so much more common due to Dem policies regarding the border, and one of those policies is what's known as the Great Replacement, and by the words of your own asshole politicians, we know that it's not at all a theory, but exactly what they're trying to do. What's more, you have no data. You only have lies, false accusations and stupidity.
"I support people's self-determination to say"
This notion of unfettered, unlimited, "self-determination" is frankly bizarre. Does that mean that they have the "self-determination" to kill whoever stand in their way of going wherever they want? That they are immune from following the laws of the places they move through? That countries have not rights to control their own borders? Why would this "self-determination" stop at national borders? Why wouldn't it extend to individual private property? Hell, with the squatting crisis we're seeing in the US, the notion that anyone can move into any "empty" property and automatically gain legal protection for their theft is little different from what Dan champions.
Art,
I'm not sure I'd go as far as limiting refugees to only Mexico and Canada, but I see your point.
1. Dan's complete refusal to acknowledge that Europe is an example of what his policies lead to is a freaking joke.
2. The very fact that thousands of immigrants with terrorist ties are allowed in France, let alone apply for jobs at the Olympics should be concerning to everyone.
3. Springfield OH.
A cultural replacement isn't a "conspiracy theory" it's simple math. If the birth rate of people of the national culture is near, at, or below, replacement level and if the numbers of immigrants (who do not assimilate) is large enough than it's mathematically inevitable that the national culture will be replaced.
Craig,
I don't understand what your #3 is referring to with "Springfield, OH." Can you help me? That is my home town.
Exactly, Craig. This new "self-determination" angle Dan promotes is an all-encompassing "Get out of Jail Free" card, except in reverse...get into the United States for any reason no American is allowed to dispute in any way. In reality, it's best an alternative expression mirroring the "right to pursue happiness" which despite its inclusion in our founding documents, does not imply any obligation to ensure one must be enabled in that pursuit to it's hoped for conclusion without which wrongdoing has occurred. By Dan's reasoning...and I use the word "reasoning" very, very loosely when applied to Dan...most every American has cause for litigation. Few people realize their "self-determined" plans perfectly, satisfactorily or at all. Only the "progressive" demands that their favored groups must be provided the goals of their self-determination by removing any and all obstacles to them.
Yes, I don't intend that ONLY refugees from the two bordering nations must be considered for aid, but as you rightly surmise, the notion that no refugee offering nation between us and the refugee's place of origin is "good enough" so long as we exist is bullshit and it suggests rather clearly that one's claim of fleeing danger isn't as true as their desire to avail themselves of all dumbasses are offering to any who wants them, no questions asked.
1. Dan's a freaking joke. What secretes from his pie hole can't help but be as well. Same for his troll.
2. How it isn't concerning for the progs confirms my claim they are unfit to be included in any discussion of immigration/border legislation.
3. Can't seem to reckon the reference of Springfield OH. Please help.
I remind how videos of Dem politicians affirming the reason for lax border policy and immigration law is to overwhelm us with more Dem voters. The left hates American culture, despite their blathering to the contrary. When places like Dearborn Michigan can be so overwhelmed with muslims to the point they are becoming radical enclaves more Middle East than America, this more than legitimizes the concern. Where's the assimilation there? It's marginal at best.
I can handle foreigners gathering to support themselves. Chicago was once a place whose Polish population was second to Poland itself...or nearly so...and my family came out of that. But while they spoke their native language where that served them best, cooked their Polish meals because that's their custom, no Chicago neighborhood became what Dearborn has become and those people wanted to be American. Thus, if the hordes were people such as this, the Great Replacement concern would not be justified.
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/thousands-of-haitian-immigrants-now-in-springfield-5-takeaways-from-our-reporting/QQFDZR6JAVCBNC6TGZGAEKE2JU/
The Biden administration decided that a town of @60,000 would not be affected by adding another 20,000 Haitian immigrants. Shockingly it's not going well.
According to Dan's doctrine of unfettered "self-determination", he would have to be supportive of the hundreds/thousands of people who broke into the stadium where the Copa final game was played even though people who'd paid thousands for tickets were unable to access their seats/the games.
Again, according to Dan's theory of unfettered "self-determination" it is perfectly acceptable for squatters to take over a house while the house is vacant and then be immune from being summarily evicted when the owners want to access their home.
Given that Dan's only curb on his unfettered "self-determination" is the willingness of those exercising said "self-determination" to place others before themselves. Of course, anyone who would impose their "self-determination" on others without the consent of the place they "determine" that they want to live has already demonstrated a lack of regard for others.
But why deal with reality, when it's easier to lie.
Suffice to say that anytime in this thread (and as a norm) that you all say, "Dan said..." or "Dan believes..." or "Dan's philosophy is..." etc, you are just factually mistaken.
I've tried to help clarify and you continue to misunderstand.
Just by way of yet another good faith correction/assist in helping understanding what I'm actually saying:
1. I'm not calling for unfettered immigration with no limits or no conditions.
2. I'm not. Just period. I'm not doing that.
3. For an example, if there is a desert town with finite amounts of water, then it is only reasonable to have limits of one sort or the other on the size of the population and/or the amount of water consumed. That's just reasonable. We don't do that in our arid regions... not much, but it's a reasonable position to take.
4. Likewise, to "send" 100,000 people to a town of 1,000 with housing sufficient for 1,000... that's not a good idea. I'm not advocating that.
5. I'm just saying that given human rights and the basic right to self determination, people can and should be able to move from Here to There with only reasonable restrictions in place.
6. I'm saying that by and large, immigrants aren't eligible for and are not wanting hand-outs. They're wanting the opportunity to safely work and pay their own way. Given REASONABLE relocation policies and procedures, if 100 immigrants move to a small town and TEN of those immigrants are carpenters, houses could be built to accommodate the new settlers. THEY work for their job and get paid for their work AND they contribute to the housing crunch by building houses. Immigrants are not only paying their own way, they are improving - or at least COULD be improving - those places where they move, given reasonable policies and procedures.
7. Thus, I'm not saying it should be a free-for-all. I'm saying our Congress and states should pass regulations and rules that move immigration OUT of the shadows, to decrease the "sneaking in" problem and provide pathways to greater lives for us all.
THAT is what I believe, and none of what you all are saying IS what I believe. Further, this is not an irrational position to take. WHY NOT let immigrants improve our cities.
It's not a zero sum game, you know? Given a city of 1,000 people who collectively make 1000X amount of money, it's not like those 100 new immigrants are going to be taking out of that 1000X amount of money. They will get jobs, build houses, create restaurants, work in carpentry and farming and health care and grocery stores, they will pay taxes and contribute to that community so that the community is now making 1100X amount of money. Perhaps more, given some of the data.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
Controlled, organized immigration ruled by reasonable policies? Yes, win, win, win.
Immigration that seeks to keep people out who are merely escaping threats or seeking a better life? That's just not going to work. People WILL seek to improve their conditions, especially the "least of these" who are more at risk, more threatened.
Just as any of us would do if our nation were no longer safe.
"Suffice to say that anytime in this thread (and as a norm) that you all say, "Dan said..." or "Dan believes..." or "Dan's philosophy is..." etc, you are just factually mistaken."
Suffice to say that anytime in this or any other thread we say, "Dan said..." or "Dan believes..." or "Dan's philosophy is..." etc., we are simply stating conclusions drawn from what is evidently your inability to accurately or intelligently express yourself. More precisely, when we say such things, it's a recognition of your total lack of discernment and awareness as to the consequences of your opinions, beliefs and philosophy. For example, if one says one supports "a woman's right to choose" with regard to the subject of abortion, that person is saying they support the murder of innocent children by their mothers. Thus, when we say those things, they can only be rebutted by true clarification of intention or prevented by a better presentation of your beliefs, opinions and philosophies.
As to your "clarifications":
1. When you respond to every justified complaint about the current crisis at our border by referencing the sad unfortunate foreigners seeking entry, vetting is never a part of that rebuttal. Only "stop hating brown people" and crap like that.
2. Padding your list again, I see.
3. Huh? What about "self-determination"? We're speaking of limits in our position on the current crisis and you're using limits to oppose limits?
4. Clearly, this sort of thing is happening with this crisis, both in how Biden covertly flies invaders into small towns, or even in burdening major cities (see the whining mayors of New York and Chicago who favored sanctuary city policies), yet no plan by the likes of you to stem the tide.
5. Your position is not justifiable, as your constant reference to human rights and "self-determination" necessarily results in an inequality...subordinating the rights and privileges of American citizens to accommodating those of whom no true understanding of their status is known due to the massive influx beyond our capacity to process.
This idiocy is akin to the problem of federal spending. Progs demand higher taxes from the producers in order to pay the national debt, when the problem is constantly spending more. We must decrease spending and we must decrease the flow of invaders so as to efficiently, effectively and as thoroughly as human possible know who seeks entry and whether or not they should be allowed.
6. You have no data to support this belief. You only assert that it is true. You have no information on how this belief can be ascertained with any degree of certainty. You simply assert that it is so. And then, you expect that what you suggest wasn't already in place to one degree or another, but is now impossible to effectuate due to morons denying an intelligent president a justified second term to instead put a moron in the White House. These millions illegally crossing our border are NOT paying for themselves or increasing American wealth. They're a drain on our economy and that's been proven already to you, though you pretend it's untrue and unproven. The only immigrants who are enhancing our nation at all are the legal ones.
7. "Thus, I'm not saying it should be a free-for-all." Yes you are, every time you oppose our demand that the border be walled and secured, and that the flow goes only through official ports of entry and in accordance with our already just immigration laws. Denying illegal access alters the perceptions of those who believe we have a "free-for-all" system due to the aforementioned moronic president we now suffer.
"THAT is what I believe, and none of what you all are saying IS what I believe. Further, this is not an irrational position to take. WHY NOT let immigrants improve our cities."
As I said, what you believe is moronic despite its superficial appeal to the moronic. The consequences of your uninformed and poorly supported positions is what you're supporting by that superficial happy talk. You presume positive outcomes, while we demand an assurance that positive outcomes are more than not likely.
"It's not a zero sum game, you know?"
Depends which game you're referencing. If you're talking about wealth creation, that's true. If you're talking about the amount of jobs, space, housing, funding, it is. We see it already in the displacement of Americans to accommodate the hordes being allowed in.
"What is wrong with this reasoning?"
The "reasoning" doesn't apply to the situation at hand, which is the tens of millions of invaders flowing unvetted and unregulated across our border and the harm it's caused to so many, including the invaders themselves.
"Controlled, organized immigration ruled by reasonable policies? Yes, win, win, win."
We had that until the various amnesty policies proved again and again to compound and perpetuate the problem rather than alleviate it, and then our current president proved his abject stupidity by his wide open border policy. There's nothing wrong with our immigration policies except that millions ignore them and asshats expect that we respect their disrespect.
"Immigration that seeks to keep people out who are merely escaping threats or seeking a better life? That's just not going to work. People WILL seek to improve their conditions, especially the "least of these" who are more at risk, more threatened."
You're doing it again. We get to determine the validity of all refugee claims. The percentage of invaders who are actually people fleeing danger is small compared to the total amount of them. What people seek to do has no relevance to the problem of the border crisis YOU created.
And I'm not swayed by your constant use of the expression "the least of these" while you continue to murder millions of innocents.
You presume that those in this nation would do nothing in the face of threats. Not all of us are cowards like you.
Data:
https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/15-myths-about-immigration-debunked/
https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-how-many-immigrants-are-living-in-the-u-s-illegally/21509967/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-immigrants-parole-biden-trump-musk-dbd634820b3f8d07b859b8a05b2b20a7
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/fact-check-trump-immigrants-19545983.php
I could go on all day. Don't believe stupidly false misinformation shared from people willing to make false inflammatory claims that scare people into voting their way. Such people are just using you. Don't be an easy mark.
We get to determine the validity of all refugee claims. The percentage of invaders who are actually people fleeing danger is small compared to the total amount of them.
1. I'm SAYING that we should fund border efforts to quickly, respectfully process refugee claims. I'm SAYING that we need to address this with actual dollars, not violent rhetoric (they're sending us their rapists... those invaders...)
2. You are making a claim with NO support that the number fleeing danger is small. You have no data to support it, only false information from conmen wanting to scare their marks and useful idiots into going along with them.
3. YOUR use of "invaders" is a violent term, one that can encourage violent actions and violent policies and a lack of basic decency.
Let's turn down the flames of violent rhetoric and act with basic decency towards the least of these, towards the immigrants that Bible-believers are told to welcome.
Here are some reasonable questions for the "Let's keep them out" side of anti-immigration folks in the GOP:
1. Some large number - it's hard to say how many, but many - of immigrants are refugees because they face an imminent threat at home. Some of my immigrant friends (indeed, my own family, once upon a time) would be very likely to be killed or arrested (raped, tortured, assaulted, etc) if they returned home.
DO you support providing resources to promptly process refugees who are entering the US seeking safety? Because as you may know, part of the problem is we have not provided sufficient lawyers and staff to process refugees, so they end up waiting for a long time to be considered.
2. Some other large number of immigrants are refugees because there is a great likelihood that they would be killed or arrested if they stayed. It is difficult for them to "prove" these threats, but they are real threats.
DO you have room to acknowledge that not every refugee can prove (or "adequately" prove) the immediate threat to them? What do we do with such people when we KNOW the threat is real for some of them, even if it can't be proven by, for instance, a letter from their would be assassin saying, "If they return home, I WILL kill them..."? Is it your position that if they can't prove it, then send them back to the threat of death (rape, imprisonment, assault, etc)?
If so, how do you square that with a basic Golden Rule requirement/expectation of fellow humans? Screw the Golden Rule! I'm going to do what I think because they MIGHT be lying? Or do you say, "Let's look into this further... what are our options? Is there another safe place you might go...?"
3. Some other large number do not face an imminent threat of violence, but they and their family ARE statistically going to die younger - maybe losing 10-20 years or more of their lives, as compared to we who are privileged. That, too, is a real threat, borne out by data. Poorer people in poorer nation WILL die younger, it's a reality.
Reasonable people who find themselves in that situation WILL try to move somewhere else so that they and their children don't die twenty years early.
Do you fault them for that?
Are you opposed to refugees fleeing poverty?
4. If your answer to some of these questions is, Let them go through the process as it exists, then do you recognize that this means years, maybe decades of waiting... only to be not likely to be admitted in?
If so, do you see the Golden Rule/humanitarian/human rights problem with this approach?
Do you see that these are reasonable, moral questions to ask about our system and the system you appear to be defending, which appears to be, WE are not our brothers/sisters' keepers. If they die young, well, too bad for them..."
"I'm not calling for unfettered immigration with no limits or no conditions."
By all means, elaborate on the "limits and conditions" on immigration that you would endorse. You've made this claim repeatedly, yet all you ever talk about involves unfettered "self-determination" with absolutely nothing about the ability of countries to have limits on immigration/asylum (which are really two different things). You offer a couple of extreme examples of "restrictions", that really aren't restrictions for entrance. FYI, would you consider dumping 20,000 immigrants in a town of @60,000 to be a good idea?
"I'm saying that by and large, immigrants aren't eligible for and are not wanting hand-out."
You keep saying this, yet haven't offered any evidence that I can remember seeing, certainly not recently. Yet strangely enough we see thousands of immigrants with free food, free housing, free health care, monthly stipends, who complain about not having enough. By all means, prove this claim or stop making it.
"It's not a zero sum game, you know?"
The explain why we keep seeing municipality after municipality complaining and cutting services to citizens because they have so many immigrants to take care of?
If the job situation in the US is so incredibly awesome, where will these millions of immigrants work to earn all of this money?
How much of the money they do earn will immediately be sent out of the country?
" They will get jobs, build houses, create restaurants, work in carpentry and farming and health care and grocery stores, they will pay taxes and contribute to that community so that the community is now making 1100X amount of money."
Really, you are claiming that unlimited amounts of immigrants moving into the US will automatically guarantee that they all get jobs, create small businesses, etc?
Back in 2020 we saw what happens to immigrant owned small businesses when the riots start.
"What is wrong with this reasoning?"
It's based on fantasy, utopian, made up economics with no data to suggest that an endless supply of immigrants are guaranteed jobs, and that money somehow magically appears.
"Controlled,"
Specifically how, where, and in what way.
"organized immigration"
By what principles? By who?
"ruled by reasonable policies?"
I'm not sure you understand that the notion of politicians "ruling" anything is unappealing/unconstitutional. But the fact that you are looking for someone to "rule" explains so much. Who decides what's "reasonable", clearly your definition and mine are significantly different. Although to be fair, your lack of specifics makes it hard to know for sure.
"Immigration that seeks to keep people out who are merely escaping threats or seeking a better life?"
And here we reach the crux of the problem.
Nowhere, ever, have Art or I suggested in any way that we would "keep out" people who are "escaping" legitimate "threats". As far as a "better life", wouldn't public assistance in the US be a "better life" than abject poverty in another country? Wouldn't making thousands of dollars selling or processing drugs be a "better life"? How about being an MS 13 enforcer where they can pay more? How about being a prostitute, wouldn't a well paid prostitute be a "better life" elsewhere?
How does someone's desire for a "better life" (however they define it) obligate another country to allow then in with no restrictions? How does someone's desire for a "better life" obligate another country to prioritize those immigrants over citizens? Are the citizens of the country where these folks end up obligated to provide monetary and other support for these millions of immigrants?
Of course the very fact that your entire rant is based on an incorrect assumption makes the whole thing kind of stupid. Your lack of specifics and data takes it all the way to stupid.
Does ANY country have 100% employment with a surplus of jobs waiting to be filled (low/unskilled/low wage jobs primarily) that would allow for your utopian fantasy to be realized?
Or we could look at Europe and see how the policies you champion have worked elsewhere.
Why does "self determination" stop? What are it's limits? When can an individual be prevented from determining, by himself, what the best course of action to achieve a "better life" is? What prevents me from "self-determining" that for me to have a "better life" that I can move into any house I choose? What's to prevent me from determining that I would have a "better life" by taking someone else's job? Won't they just find another?
"We get to determine the validity of all refugee claims. The percentage of invaders who are actually people fleeing danger is small compared to the total amount of them."
This is key, why should the whims of some individual from country X take precedence over the best interests of country Y?
Remember when the left was demanding that everyone get endless COVID shots, wear masks, and be tested? Strangely enough they couldn't even exert enough control over the border to take these common sense steps to preserve public health. ID to get on planes, not for illegal immigrants being flown by uncle sugar (actually uncle sugar's over the limit credit card).
As with so much on the left, the double standard is painful.
I just realized that Dan's focus is on the individual, it's why everything revolves around "self". It's not about what's best for others, it's not about what's best for the country, state, county, or city, it's what some individual has decided is best for themselves.
Until, it all goes down the toilet...
Why does "self determination" stop? What are it's limits?
When it causes harm/interferes with someone else's self-determination.
You know, just basic human rights philosophies. Are you opposed to self-determination on matters where it's not causing harm to others?
For instance, a baker refusing to sell cakes to a gay couple, that causes harm to the gay couple. But the gay couple being a gay couple, that harms no one.
Or, a woman and her children leaving Mexico and entering the US seeking employment and a safe place to live is harming no one, but a legislator or armed vigilante telling that woman she can't choose to move here and arresting her causes harm to that woman and her family. And if the woman explains that there are rapists and murderers in her nation that will try to kill her if she goes back, IF she is forced to go back because she didn't convince a legislator or border agent, SHE and her family may be the ones to be harmed, but her moving here harms no one.
What is wrong with "harm" being the measure? What do you propose instead, the whim of conservative legislators?
When can an individual be prevented from determining, by himself, what the best course of action to achieve a "better life" is?
When it causes harm to others. Again, very basic human rights reasoning. What's wrong with that?
What prevents me from "self-determining" that for me to have a "better life" that I can move into any house I choose?
IF you can afford it and buy it and it's your house, you CAN choose to do so.
But if you just break in and kick out the residents of their own house, it's causing harm to those residents.
What's wrong with Harm as a measure?
What's to prevent me from determining that I would have a "better life" by taking someone else's job? Won't they just find another?
IF you are more qualified and you apply for that job and the person loses their job, you absolutely can. But you can't force the employer to hire you, because that would be an interference on their own self-determination.
Again, what is wrong with Harm being the measure?
I know I'm repeating my answers/questions, but you're asking the same basic question over and over and that basic question has a time-tested, commonly accepted answer - You are free to self-determine to swing your fist all day long... UNTIL your fist causes harm to someone else. THAT is the measure.
What is wrong with that?
What do you prefer instead? That we should let some high priest or legislator tell everyone what they can and can't do to be self-determining (which would be missing the point entirely)?
Does ANY country have 100% employment with a surplus of jobs waiting to be filled (low/unskilled/low wage jobs primarily) that would allow for your utopian fantasy to be realized?
You're making presumptions that aren't supported by data. IF more people come to a nation, THEN those people will be buying homes, buying food, buying bicycles or other transportation. More people coming mean more consumers and more workers. AS LONG AS we manage it in a ration, policy-driven way, there's not a problem with more people coming, is there.
Now, IF a carpenter wanted to move to a city/county that had more than enough carpenters, then that carpenter wouldn't be able to find a job and they could either change careers or move on. In other words, the free market and self-determination allow for that kind of scenario.
What's wrong with that solution?
You DO understand that more people coming to a place means that there are more consumers, right? Which means that there will be demand for more products and services, and more workers to help provide those products and services, right?
What is it you imagine these immigrants to a new city will be doing, just sitting around for a government check? Nope, because they aren't entitled to welfare checks. The data shows that by and large, far and away, they just want to be free to work, have a safe place to live and just simply live.
What is the problem with that?
Most immigrants – regardless of where they came from or how long they’ve been in the U.S. – say they came to the U.S. for more opportunities for themselves and their children. The predominant reasons immigrants say they came to the U.S. are for better work and educational opportunities, a better future for their children, and more rights and freedoms. Smaller but still sizeable shares cite other factors such as joining family members or escaping unsafe or violent conditions.
Overall, a majority of immigrants say their financial situation (78%), educational opportunities (79%), employment situation (75%), and safety (65%) are better as a result of moving to the U.S. A large majority (77%) say their own standard of living is better than that of their parents, higher than the share of U.S.-born adults who say the same (51%)1,and most (60%) believe their children’s standard of living will be better than theirs is now.
https://www.kff.org/report-section/understanding-the-u-s-immigrant-experience-the-2023-kff-la-times-survey-of-immigrants-findings/
What is the problem?
And look, I understand TIMING and circumstances are important. As you note somewhere, if 10,000 settlers moved to a city of 1,000, then there simply wouldn't be housing and other resources available immediately. This is why it's important for Congress and other leaders to have policies in place to do these sorts of things in a measured, responsible way.
Do you support immigration reform to be implemented by Congress?
"What is wrong with this reasoning?"
It's based on fantasy, utopian, made up economics with no data to suggest that an endless supply of immigrants are guaranteed jobs, and that money somehow magically appears.
I think you're probably not understanding reality or economics.
When MORE people are in an area, THEN more "stuff" will be bought. More food, more products, more services.
AND, when MORE stuff is bought/needed, THEN demand for workers/suppliers increases.
And if MORE people are in an area where MORE workers/suppliers are needed, THEN more workers will be hired, more suppliers will step up.
This is economics 101. While I'm not an expert in economics, this is basic. I'm surprised you weren't aware of these basic drivers. One need not be a Christian or a moral person, even to understand the basics of supply and demand.
By what principles? By who?
Reasonable principles implemented by reasonable legislators. Maybe the GOP legislators could step out of the room to get out of the way.
But seriously, we don't want to have 100,000 immigrants moving into a town with 1,000, but we are not in that situation, are we? We're a nation of 300 million people with a huge need for more employees at all levels. EVEN IF we're talking about 10 million new people, that's a drop in the bucket, as long as it's responsibly dealt with. That is, NO, let's not encourage 10,000 people to move to a town of 1,000. But then, no one is doing that, are they?
Why not come together in helping create responsible, reasonable immigration policies that are win/win?
https://www.fwd.us/news/americans-and-immigration/
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/do-immigrants-and-immigration-help-the-economy/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/03/20/how-immigrants-are-boosting-us-economic-and-job-growth/
I could cite economic experts all day. Are you not aware of any of this? MORE consumers = MORE demand = MORE jobs = Net BETTER, growing economy. While I'm not an economist, I do read some of their work and research.
I'm not sure you understand that the notion of politicians "ruling" anything is unappealing/unconstitutional. But the fact that you are looking for someone to "rule" explains so much. Who decides what's "reasonable"
Making rules, making policies. There's nothing sinister in that, agreed?
Look, what we've been "doing" for immigration for a long time is nothing... or at least not dealing with the reality that we're faced with now.
The reality is that people are not/do not feel safe in many nations. The reality is that people are suffering greatly from poverty in other nations. You know this, at least insofar as your experience in Haiti.
Given that reality, it is only reasonable that people will seek geographic solutions. IF my life is horrible now, here, then it's reasonable to think that I'll move to someplace that I think may be better.
That's not unreasonable thinking, is it? EVEN IF you disagree with the thinking, the reality is that many reasonable adults WILL find that reasonable and IF the US seems a physically/financially "safer" place to move, then many people will try to move here.
Why wouldn't they? Because you disapprove of them doing so? Why would they care what you think?
So, given the reality that many people are trying to move here, then it makes sense that we, the US citizenry, would try to implement through our legislation and other means methods of dealing with this immigrant/refugee influx... Merely "building a wall" is a rather grade school solution, in a world with ladder and boat and plane technology.
So, it makes sense that we the people would do the hard work of finding reasonable solutions to deal with this reality.
What's wrong with that?
And given that we are a nation of immigrants, made great by immigrants... many of us here BECAUSE of the privilege of immigration, then it makes rational sense to not create policies that attempt to penalize or demonize immigrants, does it not?
What am I missing?
As far as a "better life", wouldn't public assistance in the US be a "better life" than abject poverty in another country?
Are you suggesting that immigrants are merely seeking "public assistance..."? You know, don't you, that immigrants are not eligible for public assistance. What they want, when you talk with them, when you look at the data, is just the opportunity to work at a relatively safe job. Are you not aware of this?
Wouldn't making thousands of dollars selling or processing drugs be a "better life"?
No. Period.
How about being an MS 13 enforcer where they can pay more? How about being a prostitute, wouldn't a well paid prostitute be a "better life" elsewhere?
No. Period. What would make you think such horrible things? No, those are awful, harmful life choices that only very desperate people would make. Given the chance to do good work at a good job, wouldn't most people want that option rather than harming others or risking themselves?
What view do you have of immigrants? Or is this your view of humanity, in general?
Lord!
By all means, elaborate on the "limits and conditions" on immigration that you would endorse. You've made this claim repeatedly, yet all you ever talk about involves unfettered "self-determination" with absolutely nothing about the ability of countries to have limits on immigration/asylum
I've said repeatedly that we can implement reasonable requirements. I know for a fact that I've used the example of desert towns with limited/finite access to water. For such places, it is imperative to limit how much water is consumed and thus, how many people live there AS WELL as how they consume/use water.
OF COURSE, if we're talking about a small town with homes for 1,000 people, then having 100,000 people move there is not even possible. I'm just talking about obvious limitations.
A small town in Arizona absolutely can not absorb 10 million people. No one is suggesting that. But as a nation of nearly 4 million square miles and 300 million people, of course, we can absorb that number. It just needs to be spread out. Some of that can be by choice and supply and demand. Some of it can be by policy.
This is what Congress should be doing, not talking about something as entirely useless and price-prohibitive of a pointless wall.
FYI, would you consider dumping 20,000 immigrants in a town of @60,000 to be a good idea?
No. But then, no one in the real world is doing this, are they? The ONLY ones I know of "sending" immigrants to other cities are the GOP governors lying to immigrants to ship them off, using and abusing them as literal pawns.
Do you condemn that sort of playing with human lives that these GOP governors are doing? (as opposed to this mythical "dumping" you keep mentioning?)
Craig keeps asking ridiculous questions. I keep answering. Something there for you fellas to learn from.
This is key, why should the whims of some individual from country X take precedence over the best interests of country Y?
No one says the "whims" of an individual should take precedence over the best interests of a nation.
IF, for instance, an individual from Russia wants to go to the US and detonate bombs in the heart of NYC, his whims do not overwhelm the best interests of a nation.
Again. NO ONE. THAT is the answer.
Now, on the other hand, who says that a person from Russia (or Mexico or wherever) moving to Atlanta, GA, for instance, to get a job and be safe and better off than where he is, WHY SHOULD THE WHIMS of Craig and people like him overrule the self-determination of an individual?
It's a reasonable question.
The problem is that your premise assumes that some harm or something harmful to the "best interests" of a nation happen when an individual merely seeking a job and safe life moves to a city/town. It's a ridiculous premise.
Can we have rules that prevent harm? Sure.
Should we harm people and deprive human rights and self-determination just on a whim? No.
Not reasonably. Not morally. Not Biblically. Not from a Christ-ian point of view.
Christ, you remember him, right? The guy who said, "What you failed to do for the least of these, you failed to do for me."
Seriously, fellas, just give me a number. How many immigrants do you personally know? How many refugees? Why do you have this very inflammatory, negative, harmful view of people immigrating to other nations?
I have lots to say about Dan's stupidity above, but no time at present. Feel free to carry on, but I likely won't post any comments for this thread until I have a chance to post my responses.
1. You claim that you are "saying" these things, yet I've see no evidence of you actually "saying" them.
2.Likewise, your claim that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are innocent, pure as the driven snow, refugees also has no support.
3. According to the definition, it's not an inaccurate term.
"Let's turn down the flames of violent rhetoric and act with basic decency towards the least of these, towards the immigrants that Bible-believers are told to welcome."
Coming from someone who regularly uses and condones "violent" rhetoric, this is rich.
"Here are some reasonable questions for the "Let's keep them out" side of anti-immigration folks in the GOP:"
Name one person in an official position with the GOP who is completely 100% "anti-immigration"? You keep telling this lie, but can't prove it.
1. "DO you support providing resources to promptly process refugees who are entering the US seeking safety?"
NO, I support processing these immigrants before they show up on the borders of the US. I do not support allowing or encouraging these immigrants to cross US borders illegally. "Because as you may know, part of the problem is we have not provided sufficient lawyers and staff to process refugees, so they end up waiting for a long time to be considered."
When was the last time a clean bill focused on this one part of the immigration issue was proposed to congress?
2. "DO you have room to acknowledge that not every refugee can prove (or "adequately" prove) the immediate threat to them?"
In theory, yes. However, to allow these people unfettered access to the US before their stories can be verified seems problematic.
"What do we do with such people when we KNOW the threat is real for some of them, even if it can't be proven by, for instance, a letter from their would be assassin saying, "If they return home, I WILL kill them..."? Is it your position that if they can't prove it, then send them back to the threat of death (rape, imprisonment, assault, etc)?"
Consider them on a case by case basis as they go through the legal processes established for consideration of these claims, before they are given unfettered access to the US.
"If so, how do you square that with a basic Golden Rule requirement/expectation of fellow humans?"
The "Golden Rule" doesn't seem to be aimed at a secular, government entity but at individuals. Further I see no conflict with the "Golden Rule" and keeping these immigrants safe while verifying their stories or processing their claims without giving them unfettered access to the US. I also fail to see why you only apply this "Golden Rule" test to the US.
"Screw the Golden Rule! I'm going to do what I think because they MIGHT be lying?"
The "Golden Rule" is NOT US immigration law. But that aside, I'm unaware of anyone who's actually said the quote above.
"Or do you say, "Let's look into this further... what are our options? Is there another safe place you might go...?""
Since both Art and I have actually said this, I fail to see why you need to ask it again.
3. "Do you fault them for that?" Not specifically. "Are you opposed to refugees fleeing poverty?" No, I'm opposed to immigrants (this category are not refugees) failing to go through the established legal process to flee poverty by coming to the US. I further oppose some unlimited, unsustainable amount of immigrants being welcomed into the US only.
4. "If your answer to some of these questions is, Let them go through the process as it exists, then do you recognize that this means years, maybe decades of waiting... only to be not likely to be admitted in?"
Yes. Are they not safe, and have their material needs met during this process?
"If so, do you see the Golden Rule/humanitarian/human rights problem with this approach?"
No.
"Do you see that these are reasonable, moral questions to ask about our system and the system you appear to be defending, which appears to be, WE are not our brothers/sisters' keepers. If they die young, well, too bad for them...""
Well as we are not a theocracy, and cherry picked OT phrases interpreted in a woodenly literal manner are not part of US immigration law, I don't see a problem with it at all.
Wouldn't you and your church going to Mexico, building a refuge, providing for basic needs, providing access to immigration experts, and facilitating their legal immigration be a solution to this problem as well? Wouldn't the entire progressive christian movement actually helping immigrants navigate the legal immigration process, working with the US government, achieve a balance that would ally concerns on both sides?
I'm curious. Dan seems to have a notion that there is some kind of fundamental, inviolate human right to be able to live beyond poverty. I'm unaware of where this right is graven in stone.
"When it causes harm/interferes with someone else's self-determination."
So the notion that millions of illegal aliens can simply decide to move wherever they want results in ZERO harm or interference with the citizens of those countries? How's that working in Europe?
"Are you opposed to self-determination on matters where it's not causing harm to others?"
I'm opposed to your unproven hunches about your made up human right of "self-determination". I'm opposed to your insistence that the influx of millions of illegal aliens into a country involves ZERO "harm/interference" to the citizens of that country.
"For instance, a baker refusing to sell cakes to a gay couple, that causes harm to the gay couple. But the gay couple being a gay couple, that harms no one."
No it doesn't cause "harm" to anyone.
"Or, a woman and her children leaving Mexico and entering the US seeking employment and a safe place to live is harming no one, but a legislator or armed vigilante telling that woman she can't choose to move here and arresting her causes harm to that woman and her family. And if the woman explains that there are rapists and murderers in her nation that will try to kill her if she goes back, IF she is forced to go back because she didn't convince a legislator or border agent, SHE and her family may be the ones to be harmed, but her moving here harms no one."
Interesting notion. So what other laws can be violated without causing "harm" to anyone else? If that family causes limited resources to be taken away from citizens, does that not harm those who lose the resources? Does not the extended housing, feeding, and compensating illegal aliens take resources away from others in need? Especially given the fact that any additional resources engaged will expand the debt and interest payments further which also harms everyone in the US, does it not? This claim that every single illegal alien who crosses the border "harms no one" is simply absurd. Hell, how about acknowledgement that criminals who've been arrested, deported, come back, committed more crimes, arrested, and deported, yet come back again and take advantage of sanctuary cities to avoid prosecution are a problem?
"What is wrong with "harm" being the measure? What do you propose instead, the whim of conservative legislators?"
Because it's subjective, imprecise, and relative. Maybe you have trouble with the concept of what a "measure" actually is. The US government has a section devoted to establishing and verifying the the standards we measure things by. It's literally a collection of objective facts. "Harm" is not one of them. Where is it written that all human beings everywhere must be free from "harm" or the risk of "harm"? Hell, something like 90 people got shot in Chicago in one weekend this month, Chicago hasn't prevented their citizens from harm for years.
"When can an individual be prevented from determining, by himself, what the best course of action to achieve a "better life" is?"
When they do so via illegal means as a starting point.
"Again, very basic human rights reasoning. What's wrong with that?"
As noted, it's a subjective, relative, and imprecise measure.
"IF you can afford it and buy it and it's your house, you CAN choose to do so."
Now answer the question I asked, or apply your answer to immigration.
"But if you just break in and kick out the residents of their own house, it's causing harm to those residents."
Is it really? Can't they just go stay in a hotel? Buy another house? Share the house?
"What's wrong with Harm as a measure?"
As noted, it's a subjective, relative, and imprecise measure.
"IF you are more qualified and you apply for that job and the person loses their job, you absolutely can. But you can't force the employer to hire you, because that would be an interference on their own self-determination."
But you can force a country to accept you with no restrictions and that's not interfering with the national "self-determination" expressed as immigration laws?
"Again, what is wrong with Harm being the measure?"
As noted, it's a subjective, relative, and imprecise measure.
"What is wrong with that?"
As noted, it's a subjective, relative, and imprecise measure. In your fist/nose example, the fist owner faces legal ramifications for their violation of the law (unless it's justified, which is another problem with your example), in your world those who break the law in immigrating not only do not face the legal consequences to which they are entitled, but are also rewarded for breaking the law.
"What do you prefer instead?"
I've answered this multiple times.
"That we should let some high priest or legislator tell everyone what they can and can't do to be self-determining (which would be missing the point entirely)?"
You trot out this idiocy when you run out of anything else to say. When your starting place is that those who violate immigration law should not be held to account for their actions, we have no common ground.
"Do you support immigration reform to be implemented by Congress?"
That would depend on the specifics, wouldn't it?
"I think you're probably not understanding reality or economics."
As a business owner for most of my life, I feel like I have a handle on most of these issues in a way you'll never understand.
"When MORE people are in an area, THEN more "stuff" will be bought. More food, more products, more services."
It's not magic. If there are not enough jobs to allow people to afford all this stuff, that's a problem. If there's not enough stuff to be bought, that's another problem. But if you think that you can magically create jobs and inventory, why haven't you done it already?
"AND, when MORE stuff is bought/needed, THEN demand for workers/suppliers increases."
It's not magic. Maybe you don't realize that significant numbers of manufactured products are either manufactured through a highly automated process or imported from places with lower labor costs. The notion of a city or region being 100% self sufficient is absurd in the modern world.
"And if MORE people are in an area where MORE workers/suppliers are needed, THEN more workers will be hired, more suppliers will step up."
Or more machines will be purchased, or more stuff will be imported, or they'll buy stuff from a neighboring city. It's not magic.
"This is economics 101. While I'm not an expert in economics, this is basic. I'm surprised you weren't aware of these basic drivers. One need not be a Christian or a moral person, even to understand the basics of supply and demand."
I'm sorry you don't understand how these things work. Maybe not acting like you do would be a good idea. Hell, even fast food and retail are increasing automation and self service to meet demand without hiring more people than necessary.
"Reasonable principles implemented by reasonable legislators. Maybe the GOP legislators could step out of the way."
So, you have no actual answer.
"But seriously, we don't want to have 100,000 immigrants moving into a town with 1,000, but we are not in that situation, are we?"
Well Biden just dumped 20k immigrants in a town of 60k and it's a shit show, so there's real life. Oh, and there's Europe which you keep ignoring. So yeah, we pretty much are.
"We're a nation of 300 million people with a huge need for more employees at all levels."
I'm sorry, I though y'all were bragging about how great employment was. Are you really suggesting that employment is awesome, but that we simultaneously desperately NEED millions of people who are unqualified for a significant % of jobs in the US?
"EVEN IF we're talking about 10 million new people, that's a drop in the bucket, as long as it's responsibly dealt with."
Well, that's quite the assumption with no proof that the assumption is real. It also ignores the fact that the jobs don't exist for tens of millions of illegal aliens.
"That is, NO, let's not encourage 10,000 people to move to a town of 1,000. But then, no one is doing that, are they?"
But this is just obfuscation through bullshit, isn't it. It's ignoring the evidence in OH, Europe, large cities on the east coast, and the news report about illegals being forced to live in free housing, get free food, and a monthly check in Buffalo NY. Oh the horror.
"Why not come together in helping create responsible, reasonable immigration policies that are win/win?"
That's what I've been suggesting. But as long as you determine "reasonable", and ignore the basic issue, and show no inclination to compromise, there'll be a problem.
"I could cite economic experts all day. Are you not aware of any of this? MORE consumers = MORE demand = MORE jobs = Net BETTER, growing economy. While I'm not an economist, I do read some of their work and research."
Sounds like trickle down, with no explanation of where these jobs will magically appear from.
"Making rules, making policies. There's nothing sinister in that, agreed?"
Well, you chose to use the term "ruling" (apparently twisted into some nonstandard meaning). I was responding precisely to what you wrote, not what you secretly meant.
"The reality is that people are not/do not feel safe in many nations. The reality is that people are suffering greatly from poverty in other nations. You know this, at least insofar as your experience in Haiti."
The reality is that people "don't feel safe" in parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, San Francisco, and many other US cities. The reality is that complete and total safety is not a rational expectation for anyone, anywhere. The reality is that I support my Haitian friends who are determined to make Haiti a better place, not run away to somewhere else.
"Given that reality, it is only reasonable that people will seek geographic solutions. IF my life is horrible now, here, then it's reasonable to think that I'll move to someplace that I think may be better."
Not any more reasonable than thinking about doing what's necessary to fix where they are. The problem is that you assume they prioritize "safety" over all else, and fighting injustice or for a better country is anything but safe. As our founders knew when they pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor".
"That's not unreasonable thinking, is it?"
Not if you value easy "safety" in another country over making your homeland safer.
"EVEN IF you disagree with the thinking, the reality is that many reasonable adults WILL find that reasonable and IF the US seems a physically/financially "safer" place to move, then many people will try to move here."
That doesn't obligate the US or any other country to meekly allow them to run roughshod over national sovereignty. Or exempt them from following the laws of the countries they want to immigrate to.
"Why wouldn't they?"
Why wouldn't they follow the established legal means to try to accommodate their desires?
"Because you disapprove of them doing so?"
No. Because they refuse to follow the law.
"Why would they care what you think?"
Don't know, don't care. Although caring what the legal authorities of the country you've unilaterally decided to settle in might be valuable.
"Merely "building a wall" is a rather grade school solution, in a world with ladder and boat and plane technology."
You see, when you so egregiously misrepresent what I've clearly said IN THIS VERY THREAD in order to promulgate a lie, you look like an idiot who's losing.
"What's wrong with that?"
Nothing as long as those solutions don't involve you being the sole arbiter of "reasonable" and your side being willing to actually compromise, that's great in theory. When you demonize and lie about those who disagree, though...
"then it makes rational sense to not create policies that attempt to penalize or demonize immigrants, does it not?"
Only those immigrants who choose to violate US immigration law, and/or commit crimes.
"What am I missing?"
The reality that you've simply chosen to lie about what I've said.
"Are you suggesting that immigrants are merely seeking "public assistance..."?"
No, perhaps the fact that you clearly didn't understand that I was asking a question, not making a suggestion might be a problem.
What I am suggesting is that, in Haiti for example, the average wage is something like $2.00/day. If you have a choice between that $2.00/day and US public assistance at (say) $100/day (or whatever all the possible options math out on a daily basis) wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that public assistance is "better" than $2.00/day? Of course, some immigrants come precisely because they believe that they can get "free" stuff. It's absurd to think otherwise. What that % is, who knows, but that's beside the point.
"You know, don't you, that immigrants are not eligible for public assistance. What they want, when you talk with them, when you look at the data, is just the opportunity to work at a relatively safe job. Are you not aware of this?"
F it. Since this is just a complete straw man and excuse to not answer the question, I'm not wasting my time encouraging your idiocy.
"No. Period."
Really, making thousands of dollars a day selling drugs in the US wouldn't be a "better life" than $2.00/day in Haiti? How ridiculous. Seriously, if we're all about "self-determination" and if the drug sales aren't harming anyone, what's the problem?
"No. Period. What would make you think such horrible things?"
Do you not understand the concept of questions? Are you not coherent enough to clue in that the questions are intended to get you to define your undefined, vague, and meaningless term "better life"? Again, why would you stop these people from exercising "self-determination" in their profession as long as no harm was being done?
" No, those are awful, harmful life choices that only very desperate people would make. Given the chance to do good work at a good job, wouldn't most people want that option rather than harming others or risking themselves?"
Irrelevant to the original question I asked, which is what meaning you (personally, subjectively) pour into the term "better life". Clearly we have thousands of young people in the US who ARE making the decision that selling drugs, prostitution, Only Fans, and the like are their only path to a "better life".
"What view do you have of immigrants?"
I don't view "immigrants" as a single monolithic bloc. The question, still unanswered, remains what limits you would put on people seeking a "better life". Of course you could just answer the questions, as asked, as well.
"Or is this your view of humanity, in general?"
My view of humanity in general is that people do all sorts of things I consider to be stupid for all sorts of different reasons. I acknowledge the reality that some people make genuinely bad choices, and a wonder at people like you who come up with this "self-determination" bullshit than put arbitrary limits on that same "self-determination". I acknowledge that it's possible that some immigrants come seeking that mythical "better life", and choose to achieve that dream through unsavory means.
I've said for years that the standard of living of those in poverty in the US would be aspirational for those in much of the world. The fact that some are willing to cheat to fulfill that aspiration is part and parcel of humanity.
Lord!
"I've said repeatedly that we can implement reasonable requirements. I know for a fact that I've used the example of desert towns with limited/finite access to water. For such places, it is imperative to limit how much water is consumed and thus, how many people live there AS WELL as how they consume/use water."
Blah, blah, blah, same old vague, general, meaningless bullshit. Seriously, let's see soem specific recommendations on how you think the immigration process should work in real life. Tell us specifically what's wrong and specifically how you'd fix it. No more vague, general, meaningless bullshit.
"OF COURSE, if we're talking about a small town with homes for 1,000 people, then having 100,000 people move there is not even possible. I'm just talking about obvious limitations."
1. OF COURSE we're not, we're talking about how a sovereign nation controls access through their borders.
2. This idiotic, made up, hypothetical, stupidity is just a diversion.
3. Of course, in your magical economic system, those 100k immigrants would magically get jobs, start to drive consumption, and build houses magically creating a city of 110,000 with a fully functioning magical infrastructure (which they'd build) and everything to be self sufficient.
"But as a nation of nearly 4 million square miles and 300 million people, of course, we can absorb that number."
You do realize that a big chuck of that 4 million square miles literally cannot support people at all. That another significant chuck of that can only support a very few people, and that another significant chuck of this is used for things like farming, don't you? What ever happened to the threat of overpopulation, and running out of natural resources? Can our current food supply system support tens of millions of people magically showing up? Can we literally grow enough crops, livestock on the available land to feed them? "
It just needs to be spread out. Some of that can be by choice and supply and demand. Some of it can be by policy."
1. The entire "environmental" agenda is against spreading out population, adding roads, cars, trucks, and the like.
2. You've literally just under cut your "self-determination" argument by telling me that the government is going to limit "self-determination" and force people to live in certain places.
This officially got stupider.
"This is what Congress should be doing, not talking about something as entirely useless and price-prohibitive of a pointless wall."
Given that you had literally zero actual policies in your little ramble, how could congress possibly consider the nothing that you've offered. Not to mention you retreating back to misrepresentation and straw men.
Now that I have some time, I'm going to focus on responding to what is already posted. All of that which awaits in the queue, comments from both Craig and Dan, with Craig's being the intelligent comments, will no doubt find it's way above as that's how blogs often work. Anyway, regardless, I begin with the following link. It's twenty pages of easy reading for even mildly intelligent people, so Dan might have to ask an adult to help him out, but he'd damn well better read it intently with a sincere and honest desire to understand that for which is has no understanding beyond his own fantasy:
https://www.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FMF-2012-Immigration-and-the-American-Founding.pdf
An important point which shows up soon in the piece is that of mutual consent between immigrant and the nation to which an immigrant hopes to settle. Those of that nation already live under a mutual consent arrangement...between each other (assuming normal, law-abiding people) and the government established, which in our case is We The People.
The following is a National Review article written by the wonderful, always brilliant Michelle Malkin:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/immigration-founding-fathers-view-michelle-malkin/
The above speaks to the foolishness of indiscriminate immigration. She cites the founders (and this is done by both sides, as we'll see) to argue against such a concept in favor of government's duty to ensure the welfare of the citizenry of the nation it governs. When reading their words, those aware cannot help but think of those enclaves where muslims have all but created their own nations which put their fake religion above American law and culture. In short, they have not become American. They have not assimilated. We see this type of putting other nations above ours by those Dem morons like Tlaib and Omar. Very prescient of the founders, or just clear common sense? I say the latter.
What follows is another from from a guy who also cites the founders, but does so in a way which conflates immigration with refugee status or asylum seekers. First, he suggests the founders were speaking distinctly on naturalization. But clearly, if one is to come to this country to live among us as if one of us, without actually becoming one of us, there are other ways for such a person to avail himself of some limited or temporary arrangement, such as a work visa, and then return home if becoming one of us is not his intention.
Secondly, however, to conflate everyone who comes here to escape some discomfort inflicted by living in one's place of origin, does not entitle anyone to be accommodated merely for that reason. If the discomfort is severe enough, now we're getting into the realm of true danger and thus refugee/asylum status, which, while technically still migration, isn't exactly immigration, particularly as the stated intention isn't to move here, but to escape there.
http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/founders-on-immigration
All these points are important to keep in mind if pervert Dan continues to pervert both our obligations as a nation, a people, as Christians and the laws and procedures which regulate immigration and border protection.
It must be kept in mind that the topic of this post is the dangers suffered by illegals due to the policies of the current administration.
More to come...Hold your water...
From this point I'm going to address Dan's existing comments not yet addressed:
July 16, 2024 at 2:01 PM
In this post, Dan provides "data" which assumes results in checkmate...end of story. They do not, particularly...
Dan's first link, to which I offer the following responses:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/immigrant-welfare-study-cato-alex-nowrasteh-robert-orr/
This first response was written by Jason Richwine, who's been unjustly accused of having made racist remarks which upon reading them myself was no more than the typical ruse of lefties to play the racism card because his work left no legitimate room for criticism.
https://anncoulter.com/2024/03/06/the-myth-of-low-immigrant-crime/
As can be easily seen, the above is by Ann Coulter and answers another of the "myths" "busted" by Alex Nowrasteh, with whom, BTW, I'm not unfamiliar. I've seen his stuff in the past and note it has a number of methodological problems, as is pointed out in the links I'm now providing. What's more, given the leanings of Google, it's almost impossible to find anything on Nowrasteh which isn't from him and tons of repeat and repetitive links, including even more which are simply referring to the same "study" from him. The two links I've provided thus far are two separate examples of his weak studies to which open border people default and regard as gospel.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=791190697916206
This link refers to a vid posted on the Cato Institute FaceBook page. It was intended to show Nowrasteh taking on Tucker Carlson, but to me it clearly shows Nowrasteh tap-dancing around Carlson's questions. This guy Nowrasteh exemplifies the issues I have with Libertarians. In his particular case, I simply find his work shabby and criticism of it...when I can find them through all the Google crap lefties favor...far more compelling and believable. He reminds me of Dan's offerings proving lesbos are better parents than hetero couples, which were total jokes for their many flaws.
https://shimmeranalysis.medium.com/dear-libertarians-immigration-is-bad-1cdfeb3a2882
This link above relates to Nowrasteh's terrorist "myth bust", and does it quite well. It points out aspects that Nowrasteh intentionally or ignorantly fails to consider. What's more, this author refers to an aspect of one my links above, wherein the founders stated their concerns about a failure to assimilate and instead, remain devoted to their country of origin. This is a difficult thing to pin down in every migrant from a country whose government is America-hating. And as regards islam, they do have the plan to infiltrate and await the time to strike us from within. The Jeff Sessions quote is especially poignantly spot on and that of which he speaks is far worse now than it's ever been.
More about illegal alien crime in the next two:
https://nypost.com/2022/10/19/what-the-media-tell-you-about-illegal-immigrant-crime-is-plain-wrong/
https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality
The next two are from the same dude, with the first one linked from the second, so they're presented chronologically. They refer to whether or not immigration is good for the economy as those like Nowrasteh and Dan insist.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/is-immigration-good-for-the-economy
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/was-i-wrong-about-low-skilled-immigration
Finally, in response to the Nowrasteh piece, I offer this link to a site which I would find a more compelling and factual source than a Libertarian open-border article...or anything he writes about the subject.
I want to add that I refer to Cato and "The Federalist" often for info and Nowrasteh's connected to both. He's still wrong. This concludes my response to Dan's first link to "data" which doesn't serve his purpose as much as he needs to believe it does.
Moving on to Dan's other links...and I maintain that the possibility he actually read any of them is likely non-existent...I begin here with the second one. I'm going to be brief to get on with these responses, but can defend my responses if need be.
The second one doesn't account for got-aways and overstays as far as I can see. Indeed, it can't because how can one? The got-away. As to overstays, are they fessing up, or keeping quiet so they won't be deported? In checking out this link, I got to the part where they list a number of organizations upon which they rely for their number of illegals in our country. The last had the largest estimate. That link is to FAIRUS.org, a reliable group regarding illegal aliens. By examining their explanation of how they arrived at their number, they include at the bottom of page 3, "Challenges Estimating The Illegal Population" after which on page 4 is "How We Reached Our Estimate". These two brief explanations indicate the very strong likelihood that even their estimates are on the low side...to say the least. Given the prevalence of unknowns and outright deceptions, it seems more than reasonable that the number must be very much higher than "11 million" which, as Rubio says, is a number we've been hearing for probably twenty years at this point. With the Biden incited crisis, it's truly hard to believe we're still at that number, regardless of how these attempts to determine them came about. The main problem is obvious: to still remain around 11 million would require a number of illegals leaving or dying at a rate which is equal to the increased numbers of invaders which have come here in recent years, particularly since Jan 20, 2021. How can such a thing possibly have happened so coincidentally? That would mean that if by the end of this year, 30 million illegals invaded and stayed, 30 million who were already here would have had to have left or died for the total to remain 11-16 million.
I don't fault any of those groups who made the attempt to estimate the total of illegals here. It's a tough job. I just think it's beyond pretending that it means anything which mitigates the failure to control the flow. There shouldn't be a single illegal here. THAT is the issue and for the purposes of this post, that they are provided incentive to come and try to enter contrary to our laws, people are dying who shouldn't be.
I would also caution taking "fact-check" sites, especially those shown to have done sloppy work in the past (this one is a politifact site for NC), as gospel, though it was nice they referenced two groups which aren't lefty open border types.
Moving on...
For the 3rd link, it doesn't truly debunk the claim, specifically considering vetting such large numbers of people thoroughly in a greatly overburdened system is suspect. What's more, the larger point is true, that illegals are being flown in in a manner not publicized. And even if one wishes to lean on the fact such is normal under immigration parole policy, it's additional tens of thousands flooding in. We've seen videos of this wherein local officials insist they were not made aware flights of illegals would be sent to their municipality. That was the point Trump was making, that this is happening rather covertly in a time of crisis, compounding an already bad situation.
In addition, noting numbers given for various illegals based on place of origin, we see 81 thousand from Venezuela. This is notable for the fact that several recent violent crimes, including rape and murder, have been revealed to have been committed by illegals from this country. I wonder if any of them were on these flights, or are we to suppose that every illegal sneaked across the border in the dead of night, eluding detection. Shit. How can we ever know and why should we have to wonder? It shouldn't be happening but for Biden policies. Biden...the "decent" person supposedly more intelligent than Trump.
The 4th link was impossible to access without a subscription, so I know Dan didn't read that one for sure. This "data" was a fact check on a hyperbolic estimate given by Trump. That's what stupid people do. It's similar to lefty media morons fact-checking the Babylon Bee!
All in all, Dan's "data" is lacking bigly. It seems like so many other words, Dan doesn't understand what "supporting data" really is. It seems again that to him, it's any headline which appears to support his beliefs, regardless of whether or not what's below it actually does. I'll be getting to other links in subsequent comments of his, and we'll see if this established pattern persists with those as well.
At this point, much of what I respond to might also be that which Craig covers in his comments I've not yet posted. Knowing that he has, I may skim over some of Dan's blather to focus on that which is most moronic...if I can make such a distinction given we're talking about Dan.
July 16, 2024 at 2:07 PM
"1. I'm SAYING that we should fund border efforts to quickly, respectfully process refugee claims. I'm SAYING that we need to address this with actual dollars, not violent rhetoric (they're sending us their rapists... those invaders...)"
We have sufficient personnel for years to handle all those who sought entry. Delays were mostly due to standard processing times in years passed not being as efficient as our higher tech contemporary methods are. This shows just how bad it is if better tools can't keep up with the constant flow due to Biden stupidity. So now, rather than stemming the flow, we're supposed to spend even more than we already are on illegals in order to satisfy their demands and the demands of morons like Dan. Don't worry how many more are coming, just spend more money and labor on their behalf because clearly, to morons, it's why we freakin' exist. And clearly, Dan's not talking about actual dollars of his own, but of the rest of us because his share of tax revenues to the state and federal coffers is squat compared to the "need" we're somehow obliged to resolve.
What's more, it's not "violent rhetoric" to speak the truth about rapists being sent, either on their own volition, because they were booted out to empty their prisons or for whatever reason. The point is that bad actors are among the hordes and Dan doesn't care, believing another dead American girl is just fine so long as those poor unfortunate brown people waiting for Dan the White Savior to help them enter our nation (because they're all brown people, you know).
"2. You are making a claim with NO support that the number fleeing danger is small. You have no data to support it, only false information from conmen wanting to scare their marks and useful idiots into going along with them."
We're making no claim that isn't justifiable given all those we see on our TV screens, interviewed constantly by reporters taking the time to be there for the purpose. But the claim we're making is that the presence of those fleeing danger doesn't justify permitting this uncontrolled flow to continue beyond our ability to account for who the fuck they are and which ones are actually fleeing danger. Lefty liars presume the make up the bulk of them. THAT is the claim with NO support.
The rate of crime attributable to illegals is far more than we are obliged to tolerate (given that number is ZERO and we're far, far from that!). No one is "conning" us but the likes of assholes like Dan Trabue. In the meantime, people both citizen and illegal are being physically hurt and murdered while the assholes satisfy themselves that they're holier-than-thou for their stupidity in waving in more and more.
"3. YOUR use of "invaders" is a violent term, one that can encourage violent actions and violent policies and a lack of basic decency."
It's easy for a liar like Dan to refer to ANY rhetoric as "violent"...as if words can be "violent"...because he has no real argument in his favor with regard to anything immigration related. The things he says which come anywhere near notions of truth and reason are already those for which we on our side have accounted. No conservative opposes helping those in dire need. No conservative opposes immigration. But no conservative is so dishonest as a lefty who pees himself over the use of the term "invader" and pretends it somehow incites people to violence. Never mind the violent behavior we've seen from the invaders themselves. Never mind the dead Americans and illegals...the raped Americans and illegals...the robbed Americans and illegals...all victimized by illegals. Just because "invader" is usually referencing armies doesn't mean it's not accurately applied to all those forcing their way in where and when they can. That kind of crap is best left to your Blog of Lies.
"Let's turn down the flames of violent rhetoric and act with basic decency towards the least of these, towards the immigrants that Bible-believers are told to welcome."
Let's have you go pound sand up your ass and stop demonizing people better than you are, more knowledgeable and more sensible than you are about this issue and not exploitative of Scripture and your perversion of it to push your agenda.
More coming...
To be accurate the Bible records YHWH telling the Israeli during the theocracy period that they should "welcome immigrants". So to insist that this text justifies the secular US Government to US taxpayer dollars to allow unknown, unregulated amounts of immigrants in seems a stretch. Further, we know that Israel welcoming immigrants involved those immigrants actually becoming Hebrew, it seems like the Hebrews welcome was conditional on total assimilation. I'm not sure that expecting the secular US government to pass laws based on OT commands might not always be a good idea. It also seems like those who believe that YHWH DOES mandate that 21st century Christians and Jews adhere strictly to this OT command, have all sorts of opportunities to do so without involving the secular US federal government. I am unaware of anything that would permit, for example, Dan and his small community from setting up a facility or facilities either in Mexico or elsewhere that would offer all sorts of aid to immigrants. They could even offer help navigating the legal immigration process. Not only would I support them in doing so, but I would encourage others to do so as well.
Nowhere in scripture do I see any warrant for outsourcing the Christian charity and mission to the secular government and using tax dollars to do the work of the Church.
I think at this point I will simply open the flood gates to the significant number of comments waiting in the queue as if I'm the Biden administration opening the border without vetting. Much of what I've seen attempting to post is a mix of dumbass comments by Dan with already posted comments by him addressed well by Craig's comments still awaiting the light of day. So, without further ado, I'm publishing them all and will work to address what I feel compelled to address in my own good time. I'm sure they'll be somewhere above this comment.
Sounds good.
To be accurate the Bible records YHWH telling the Israeli during the theocracy period that they should "welcome immigrants". So to insist that this text justifies the secular US Government to US taxpayer dollars to allow unknown, unregulated amounts of immigrants in seems a stretch.
Factually incorrect, or at least, incomplete.
To be accurate, the Biblical record has calls to ally with and welcome immigrants throughout the bible. Including the brief time (less than a century, probably closer to 30 years) of Israel's theocracy, but not limited to that time. Israel was not a theocracy (they were a conquered people) when it was a monarchy, for instance, including the time of Saul and David, where the people requested a KING instead of God as a leader. The Psalms were largely written in this time, I believe, with its many calls to welcome the immigrant.
The prophets were post-monarchy, when the people of Israel were in exile or captivity. Those are loaded with calls for welcoming the immigrants.
Instead, what we see throughout the Biblical stories is God and God's people calling to ally with, support, welcome the marginalized, the poor and immigrants. It's a significant (THE MOST significant?) theme in the bible. It's not tied to a theocracy. Non-theocratic nations were criticized for their treatment of foreigners. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (if you take the stories as literal histories) for NOT being welcoming to strangers, the poor and needy.
Welcoming the immigrants, biblically, was not limited to ONLY nations under the rule of God directly. Indeed, FAILURE to welcome the poor and marginalized, including immigrants, brought destruction and condemnation to nations, not just Israel.
It's sort of a central point of the Bible. I'm surprised you all didn't know this.
Just to set the record factually straight.
Are you suggesting that only theocratic nations (and therefore, not the US) are obliged to have moral decency in how they treat the poor and marginalized, immigrants and needy?
That would be a strange position for even a conservative christian to take. You sound more like a moral anarchist than a conservative Christian or even just a follower of Jesus.
"Nowhere in scripture do I see any warrant for outsourcing the Christian charity and mission to the secular government and using tax dollars to do the work of the Church."
Nope, we do not see that in Scripture. The Democratic, human rights principles of a free Republic did not exist in those days, did it? Cars didn't exist either and we see no mention of cars in the Bible, either. There are lots of things - important matters! - not spoken of in the Bible.
And, as a point of fact, we have zero biblical injunctions telling us we CAN'T pool our resources via common taxes to pay for the common needs found with the impoverished or with immigrants.
As a point of fact, can you acknowledge that reality?
What we DO see in the Bible is an unequivocal condemnation of nations as a whole who oppress the poor and immigrants, and those nations which fail to step up to help these "least of these."
Can y'all acknowledge those twin simple realities...
1. That in the Bible, nations are condemned for failing to aid the poor and marginalized, including immigrants....
2. AND, that there are no injunctions AGAINST nations doing this via programs paid for with taxed income?
Dan
Dan's "argument", incomplete and lacking proof as it is, is merely his attempt to impose his hunches about biblical interpretation on a secular US government and to force his hunches about biblical interpretation into US law.
"Nope, we do not see that in Scripture."
Impressive job of pointing out that my point was correct.
"The Democratic, human rights principles of a free Republic did not exist in those days, did it?"
Interesting question. If human rights were, as our founders note, "endowed by our creator" then they obviously existed. If, as I think you suspect, human rights are bestowed by a benevolent, human, secular, government, then no they didn't.
"Cars didn't exist either and we see no mention of cars in the Bible, either. There are lots of things - important matters! - not spoken of in the Bible."
Great, more irrelevant bullshit, which works against your biblical justification for unfettered immigration at the whim of individuals.
"And, as a point of fact, we have zero biblical injunctions telling us we CAN'T pool our resources via common taxes to pay for the common needs found with the impoverished or with immigrants."
No, there is also zero Biblical injunction against cooking Meth or using atomic weapons either.
"As a point of fact, can you acknowledge that reality?"
I acknowledge the reality that the lack of an injunction does not equal a biblical mandate. I'll also note the reality that the fact that something CAN be done doesn't mean that it is biblical.
"What we DO see in the Bible is an unequivocal condemnation of nations as a whole who oppress the poor and immigrants, and those nations which fail to step up to help these "least of these.""
That is True, but that would mean that "oppress" equals expecting immigrants to follow the laws of the country they want to immigrate to. That "oppress" means allowing immigrants to wander freely across national borders with no regulation.
"Can y'all acknowledge those twin simple realities..."
Probably not, because they probably aren't "simple realities".
1. I can acknowledge that language to the effect is in scripture. Although expecting immigrants/people to follow the laws of the countries the immigrate to is also a biblical principle.
"2. AND, that there are no injunctions AGAINST nations doing this via programs paid for with taxed income?"
See my response to this above.
Dan
"No. But then, no one in the real world is doing this, are they? The ONLY ones I know of "sending" immigrants to other cities are the GOP governors lying to immigrants to ship them off, using and abusing them as literal pawns.
"Do you condemn that sort of playing with human lives that these GOP governors are doing? (as opposed to this mythical "dumping" you keep mentioning?)"
I find NOTHING WRONG with sending the illegals to Demokrat sanctuary cities. Demokrats let them in, Demokrats are supporting their invasion of this country. Republican, common sense, cities don't want the illegal invasion so when they get these people invading THEIR states and cities it is downright PROPER to ship them to the Demokrat cities.
Glenn...
I find NOTHING WRONG with sending the illegals to Demokrat sanctuary cities.
These GOP "conservative" governors lied and misled immigrants to send them to other cities. Are you saying you see nothing wrong with lying to desperate people merely seeking help?
Your "invasion" language is stupidly false and just wrong. There is no "invasion." There are simply people seeking a better life. It is no more an "invasion" for a Mexican or Nicaraguan to say, "I'm not safe here where I live, I'm going to move to Georgia" than it is for a person from Texas to say, "I'm not safe where I live, I'm going to move to New York." It's a move, not an invasion.
Words matter. Demonizing other people is wrong. Lying to them is wrong.
Why do I have to explain this to people identifying as moral people and as "christians..."?
Marshal:
I acknowledge the reality that the lack of an injunction does not equal a biblical mandate. I'll also note the reality that the fact that something CAN be done doesn't mean that it is biblical.
I was merely noting that
1. Craig's claim that the repeated, consistent commands to ally with immigrants and other poor and marginalized folk) was limited to ONLY Israel's brief theocracy... that this claim is objectively false.
2. That the bible neither condemns using taxes to help out with the poor and marginalized and immigrants NOR does it directly support it.
3. Thus, making the point clear that there is NO biblical injunction against helping immigrants using tax dollars, as Craig seemed to be hinting at.
4. The "Bible" says a lot of stuff and doesn't say a lot of stuff and doesn't clarify how to decide matters of societal morality in the 20th century, and certainly not on questions of immigration or assisting the poor and marginalized. It just doesn't.
5. But what the Bible DOES make clear that it is incumbent upon good people - upon God's people - to welcome the immigrants, the strangers, the least of these, the poor and marginalized. While the Bible has a wide range of ideas on a wide range of topics - sometimes apparently contradictory - the Biblical message about helping the least of these (including specifically the immigrants) is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. As an objective point of fact.
Further, the Bible shows repeatedly that people and NATIONS that fail to ally with and welcome the immigrants and least of these... that these individuals and nations are wrong and will be held accountable, they'll be judged for their failure to welcome the immigrants, the poor and marginalized.
Agreed? It's a rather overwhelmingly obvious biblical conclusion, isn't it, if one takes the Bible seriously.
6. Given that, and given that we're not given any limitations on HOW we help the poor and immigrants, then people of good faith can think "Well, it should be primarily through individuals outside of government" and other people of good faith can think, "perhaps... AND it could include efforts paid for by tax dollars..." and neither group would be biblically mistaken. Right?
At that point, it seems it would come down to which approaches are most effective and whether or not any of the approaches are not ultimately helpful. That is, IF one believes that the ONLY way we should aid the immigrant and poor is through personal donations and "charity" of individuals... AND, in the end, only $100 is raised that way, then the end result is those people and that nation ultimately FAILED to seriously try to help the immigrant, poor and marginalized and thus, will be held accountable.
Isn't that reasonable?
There's a lot above I've yet to try to address, and I like to take them in order, even despite being flooded with comments before I complete my attempt. When it gets as overloaded as it is, then it is what it is and I'll deal as best I can in my own way and at my own leisure.
But as regards the most recent comments of Dan...those of July 19, 2024 at 4:22 PM in response to Glenn, and July 19, 2024 at 4:42 PM, which is really comments of Craig's, I'll go ahead and respond.
First, for the response to Glenn, those governors (Abbott and DeSantis) who sent illegals to Dem sanctuary cities, they in no way lies to any of them and you're a liar to say they did. Each of them insists they fully informed the illegals and gave them the choice. The places to which they were sent were Dem sanctuaries and we saw what Dems really thought of accepting illegals into their own spaces. Assholes like you lie about the whole thing to denigrate GOP governors who made a most logical decision about the illegals who showed up in their states without their consent.
The idea these men were treating the illegals as political pawns is hypocritical given they were already allowed in, like pawns, to further the leftist goals of bringing in those believed most likely to vote Democrat. To suggest they'd be better off among those Americans who claim to so badly wish to see these people helped can in no way be considered illogical or immoral. Of course it does highlight how hypocritical the lefties are who inhabit these high class environments. You're a dick for pretending it's wrong to send these people to be accommodated by those who've evidently lied about wanting the best for them. What's better than sending them to the wealthiest communities, you lying asshole?
"Your "invasion" language is stupidly false and just wrong. There is no "invasion.""
Lefty liars like Dan are trying to pretend millions of people flooding across our border without official permission isn't an invasion because they pretend "invasion" only refers to an armed incursion. Unfortunately the word is used in other contexts which don't prohibit it's appropriate use in the one. Among four examples Merriam-Webster uses on its online dictionary we see:
The town is gearing up for the annual tourist invasion.
protecting the house from insect invasion
Clearly neither of these two uses of the word demands invaders must be armed. What's at play here is yet another DECEITFUL attempt to portray conservatives as disparaging of those who clearly don't give a flying rat's ass about our laws, or our sovereign borders...borders which progressive fake-Christian assholes regard as "arbitrary" and somehow "fictional"...not having any true obligation on those outside of them. This is bullshit by people with no true level of intelligence where the issue of immigration is discussed and more evidence such people are not worthy of involvement in any official discussion of immigration law or policy.
Those who cross our borders at any other point not an official port of entry are definitionally invading our country. They are intruders in the same way burglars are. They are no different than one who enters one's home without the consent of the homeowner.
The idea that "seeking a better life" absolves an intruder from legal repercussion is absurd and what one expects when such a notion is suggested by a fake Christian progressive asshole like Dan. "Why should I let you into my home?" "Because I'm seeking a better life." "But this is my home. I've not given you consent and you've not asked for it." "I don't care. All that matters is my right of self-determination. Your home is now mine to exploit to the satisfaction of my 'right' of self-determination." This is the stupidity of Dan's position. This is the abject stupidity of Dan.
"Words matter. Demonizing other people is wrong. Lying to them is wrong."
Fake Christian progressives like Dan like to lie that accurate use of appropriate words is somehow "demonizing" when applied to people breaking the law. In the meantime, Dan and those like him will lie to to foreigners and tell them there is no contingency of any kind attached to crossing our borders, and that all of American is just fine with hordes of people entering for any reason, at any time, at any place the hordes feel is best, without regard to the personal property rights of the people living there, without regard to our laws and without regard in any way for the citizens who are actually those who make up the nation they wish to enter.
Dan's a fucking moron and a liar. This has been proven over at least the last ten years of interaction on the blogosphere.
"Why do I have to explain this to people identifying as moral people and as "christians..."?"
You're not "clarifying". You're lying like a fake Christian trying to posture as an actual moral Christian. The only other possibility is that you're just so fucking stupid that you don't know how stupid you are in enabling detrimental behaviors. Either works for me, since you're both a liar and stupid.
"Words matter. Demonizing other people is wrong. Lying to them is wrong."
Fake Christian progressives like Dan like to lie that accurate use of appropriate words is somehow "demonizing" when applied to people breaking the law. In the meantime, Dan and those like him will lie to to foreigners and tell them there is no contingency of any kind attached to crossing our borders, and that all of American is just fine with hordes of people entering for any reason, at any time, at any place the hordes feel is best, without regard to the personal property rights of the people living there, without regard to our laws and without regard in any way for the citizens who are actually those who make up the nation they wish to enter.
Dan's a fucking moron and a liar. This has been proven over at least the last ten years of interaction on the blogosphere.
"Why do I have to explain this to people identifying as moral people and as "christians..."?"
You're not "clarifying". You're lying like a fake Christian trying to posture as an actual moral Christian. The only other possibility is that you're just so fucking stupid that you don't know how stupid you are in enabling detrimental behaviors. Either works for me, since you're both a liar and stupid.
"1. Craig's claim that the repeated, consistent commands to ally with immigrants and other poor and marginalized folk) was limited to ONLY Israel's brief theocracy... that this claim is objectively false."
Craig is quite free to explain his position as he sees fit. But I don't think he was making such a claim at all, but merely objecting to your notion that there's some Biblical mandate to welcome migrants with absolutely no contingencies attached whatsoever. Feel free to cite any verse or passage (CHAPTER and verse or passage) which suggests such a thing. Our nation has always welcomed those from other lands who wish to be one of us.
"2. That the bible neither condemns using taxes to help out with the poor and marginalized and immigrants NOR does it directly support it."
Since it does neither, then it's incumbent upon those who wish to use my money to convince me that it's a good idea. There's also no Constitutional allowance for the government expenditure of any tax dollar for any reason without the consent of the people. To suggest that our reps can simply decide without that consent to spend our money any way they see fit is not lawful.
"3. Thus, making the point clear that there is NO biblical injunction against helping immigrants using tax dollars, as Craig seemed to be hinting at."
Craig's suggestion is that if there is no such encouragement, then no asshole progressive from Jeff St. can make the argument that our government is in any way obligated to use tax dollars for such a purpose without the consent of the people.
More to the point...if one wishes to cite Scripture...is that aid for those in or from foreign lands is a matter of personal charity through the efforts of charitable organizations, not a purpose of or mandate on government.
"4. The "Bible" says a lot of stuff and doesn't say a lot of stuff and doesn't clarify how to decide matters of societal morality in the 20th century, and certainly not on questions of immigration or assisting the poor and marginalized. It just doesn't."
Sure it does. It insists that we must follow established laws imposed by our governments, the leaders of which exist because God allowed them to be in that position. But any way you want to pretend otherwise, our government's prime directive is to act on behalf of the people of this nation, not to subordinate the people of this nation to the needs of anyone else from outside its borders.
"5. But what the Bible DOES make clear that it is incumbent upon good people - upon God's people - to welcome the immigrants, the strangers, the least of these, the poor and marginalized."
First of all, as has been said many times, Christ's reference to "the least of these" was a reference to actual Christians, not just anyone in need, and frankly, I don't believe it was actually poor or "marginalize" people to which He was referring. Regardless, conservatives have never had a problem with being charitable to those in need. The very notion that we don't is demonically dishonest.
"Further, the Bible shows repeatedly that people and NATIONS that fail to ally with and welcome the immigrants and least of these... that these individuals and nations are wrong and will be held accountable, they'll be judged for their failure to welcome the immigrants, the poor and marginalized."
This is an abject perversion of Scripture to guilt better people toward your bullshit position. Those nations who were condemned were not rejecting immigrants in a manner suggesting any parallel to the crisis we face at our southern border today. To attempt to draw any comparison is straight up lying. It validates my low opinion of you as one who isn't concerned at all with pleasing God, but posturing as one who does to those with no true understanding of God. You do so for personal acclaim, while putting your own countrymen at risk. You're a total scumbag and you mock Christ by pretending to be an actual Christian.
More importantly, you sick piece of shit, is how heinous your use of this term "the least of these", exploited to guilt better people to see things your way, is especially sick and perverse of you given your defense of the murder of the truly "least of us"...the most innocent and defenseless in utero. Know that every time you use this expression, rather than guilt us, you expose yourself as a most vile and dishonest piece of shit. I cannot renounce you more emphatically as a true reprobate in every sense of the word.
"Agreed? It's a rather overwhelmingly obvious biblical conclusion, isn't it, if one takes the Bible seriously."
Again, you pervert Scripture to support your unChristian position, because that's what "embrace grace" is...perverting truth to posture as "Christian". What Scripture indicates does not presuppose a situation comparable to what we face at our southern border...to simply have no border and whoever comes in comes in and we're to pretend they are benevolent seekers of American citizenship looking to assimilate and become Americans and there's no possibility that any have malevolent intentions. You're a moron as well as a liar to suppose Scripture teaches such a thing. Hell no....no expectations on the immigrant at all, including respecting our laws and sovereignty. It's all on us to presume their all great people and if any of us dies or gets robbed or raped...well, it happens, right, your fucking moron?
"6...*gack!*
No, asshole. To suggest there are no limitations, no contingencies, no criteria simply because they aren't spelled out to a government required to act on behalf of it's people, even governments of/by/for the people, is absurd and a clear perversion of what Scripture suggests or mandates.
What dumbfucks like you ignore is that this isn't an issue of helping unfortunates. The issue is we have millions seeking entry and we are lacking the resources to process them properly and in a manner which doesn't leave a single American at risk. Worse, these millions don't believe they need to wait their turn at the fucking front door, but believe they can enter through any window. There's no reciprocity here in any way. We can't be benevolent when we don't know to whom that benevolence is properly extended. No. Assholes...really stupid fucking assholes like you...simply demand we let them all in and somehow scramble to fund enough resources to thoroughly process them all. What an absolutely stupid motherfucker you are!!! Yours is not the methods intelligent adults employ to get anything done.
YOUR CONTINUALLY VALIDATE THE TRUTH THAT SUCH AS YOUR ARE TOO INCOMPETENT TO INCLUDE IN ANY DISCUSSION ON HOW TO DEAL WITH IMMIGRATION/BORDER ISSUES. You're not jut incompetent...though you clearly are...you're a fucking moron.
You're final paragraph tells the tale. You put the intruders above the welfare of the nation. That shit just doesn't fly. They wouldn't be here if assholes like you didn't support a known incompetent to take the presidency over a proven commodity. YOU are an enemy of the people of this nation, Dan, you stupid fuck. Your attempt to posture as a legitimate Christian doesn't fly here. Go back to ladeling out soup and leave policy to intelligent people who care about their fellow citizens.
“These GOP "conservative" governors lied and misled immigrants to send them to other cities”
How did they lie? By telling them those cities wanted them? That’s not a lie—sanctuary cities are inviting them.
My “invasion” language is highly appropriate. It IS an invasion of people illegally crashing into our country. It’s also and invasion with thousands of military aged Chinese and Muslim men. You pander to those who violate our laws, but then again you pander to those who violate GOD’S laws.
I’m not lying about anyone—YOU ARE!
And you have certainly proved over and over and over that you are no Christian.
Glenn,
That's exactly right. And both Abbott and DeSantis insist they gave the invaders the choice of getting on that transport to the paradise of sanctuary cities and tony progressive neighborhoods. It sounded like a great idea to them. How disappointed they must have felt to find that progressives...especially the well heeled among them...had no desire to actually welcome the wretched refuse to live among them...unless they needed their lawns mowed or rugs vacuumed.
1. Yet, it was only during the theocracy that those injunctions had the effect of being civil law. Elsewhere the mandate is directed to individuals and the church, not the secular government.
2. Which makes using scripture to justify partisan policy of a secular government strange. It's also strange that you don't have a problem imposing this particular religious viewpoint on on others.
3. Except, Craig wasn't "hinting at" anything. You just made that bullshit up.
4. That may be True, yet you consistently embrace using one particular subjective reading of scripture to justify imposing policy on those who disagree.
5. Yet this hunch requires that the US federal government be seen as "God's people" which it manifestly is not. It further imposes a "scriptural demand" that the secular US government go above and beyond simply offering succor to those in need.
6. When Dan uses the phrase "Given that..." or any variation thereof, you can be sure that he's assuming that something is a "given" when he has not demonstrated that fact to be True. His "givens" virtually always align perfectly with his hyper partisan, progressive, political views rather than with the entire context of scripture. Yet, he strongly objects to using a "religious argument" when it comes to political issues he opposes, strange.
"Isn't that reasonable?"
While I think that Dan's specific conclusions on this topic aren't as aligned with scripture as he's convinced himself, I do think that he has a point. Those who fail to follow the commands of YHWH (any of them, not just the cherry picked one's Dan likes), will be held to account. The question then arises, is abdicating the work YHWH commanded the Church to do, and dumping that work off on the secular government, really obeying YHWH's command?
It also seems that YHWH's commands regarding this issue cannot be divorced from the role Israel and The Church play in YHWH's redemptive plan. YHWH chose Israel to be the nation through which He worked His redemptive plan. So it seems impossible to divorce the conclusion that YHWH welcoming people into Israel/The Church is linked to welcoming them into His plan for redemption. Despite what some might say, the secular US federal government is not part of YHWH's redemptive plan as Israel was.
"Demonizing other people is wrong."
When Dan's words don't align with Dan's actions.
The salient points about sanctuary cities are...
1. The sanctuary cities was more about political posturing than actually wanting to care for immigrants.
2. Sanctuary cities provide havens for illegal aliens who've committed violent crimes and refuse to prosecute them for those crimes.
3. The sanctuary cities are running out of resources for their largess, and are taking money from services for US citizens in order to provide for illegal aliens.
The leaders of those cities mouths wrote a check that the cities can't cash.
Dan's biggest deception is his constant pushing any discussion about resolving Biden's border disaster is to speak of the poor asylum seeker seeking refuge. It's not about that. It's about millions shitting on our national sovereignty and border laws, the vast majority of whom are claiming victim status. Most legal immigrants and lawful aslyum seekers are shit on as well for being chumps who abide the law instead of ignoring it as they do.
Dan defends this action by then shitting on Scripture by asserting that OT laws regarding treatment of the alien means letting them do whatever the hell they want...and liking it, one's own rights be damned. Nothing about those OT passages justified unencumbered violation of our sovereign borders and laws regulating entry. It suggests that all aliens who entered Israel's territory were benevolent travelers or were to be regarded as such whether they were or not. And when Dan suggests he's not approving of not vetting migrants, when that's the most blatant problem with the current crisis: Entry to those with only token scrutiny on the "promise" that they'll return for their hearing to fully determine their eligibility to remain.
Then Dan dares accuse DeSantis and Abbott of using illegals as pawns. That's incredible gall from one who is doing that very thing in order to posture as more compassionate...at the risk to all America. Biden and his party are cut from that same soiled diaper.
Absolutely Dan's conflation with of those who are truly seeking refuge from danger, with those who are seeking to advantage themselves is dishonest. His insistence that all must be treated the same is foolish.
Post a Comment