Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings….

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Would it not make more sense not to spend money on attempting to secure the borders first and then changing the laws, but make it easier and therefore cheaper and therefore likely quicker to secure by fixing the law first so as to allow quick and easy access for generally law abiding individuals (they will break the law when desperate, but prefer lawful means) rather than try and control the masses of crossers who don’t believe they can wait the years needed to legally apply before leaving home?  Once someone is at the border seems to me the option to wait is removed because they don’t usually have a support system in place, being able to apply from home with a decent probability of success means less pressure at the borders.

Also making it easier to go back and forth across the borders legally, with little wait times because those doing it for seasonal work don’t have the option to wait, means more families left at home and less pressure at borders (I think the idea that everyone wants to come to the US if they could even if they could survive at home is faulty; most people I know want their roots with their family even if they don’t see them most of the year…I have known several foreign professors who don’t have their family with them because the family prefers their home country for living even if Dad or Mom is making great money in the US or Canada).

I have met very few non Americans who think the US is the greatest country in the world even when they have chosen to work there.  The US with its buying power is simply able to offer the best salaries in many areas, so it’s worth the temporary sacrifice of living here, but they don’t want to live here forever or have their families live here for various reasons (US is too materialistic, want to be with their extended family, they feel they are treated as outsiders, find the culture boring…there are some other reasons given me that I can’t remember now).

I should also say I haven’t met a lot of refugees, just those who came for economic reasons. I assume the views are different for those who were in danger at home.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think securing the border against waves of millions of immigrations is a result of a "poorly crafted law."  Rather, it is the result of a calculated policy decision, one that has been in place to varying degrees for many years now (though the last four years have been at or near the apex of the feds being derelict in their responsibilities).

When did the policy decision to not enforce effectively in your view start and why?

Serious question.  It is hard to evaluate your claim without something specific to look at and compare before and after.

I would be interested in a timeline or just a time he sees as the point of no return for the laws too broken to enforce effectively as written was.

PS:  thank you to both Smac and Danzo for the conversation, seeing the different views is useful for me.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Breaking the law to get into the United States or to acquire land is an American tradition. Seriously, look at how the pioneers worked. Most couldn’t afford to buy the land they settled on so they just settled there. The government eventually tried to crack down on this but was unsuccessful. Finally they created the homesteading act and retroactively legalized it. Basically a mass amnesty. 

Same approach was regularly used with immigration. Breaking rules like this is as American as apple pie.

[Duncan]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Breaking the law to get into the United States or to acquire land is an American tradition. Seriously, look at how the pioneers worked. Most couldn’t afford to buy the land they settled on so they just settled there. The government eventually tried to crack down on this but was unsuccessful. Finally they created the homesteading act and retroactively legalized it. Basically a mass amnesty. 

Same approach was regularly used with immigration. Breaking rules like this is as American as apple pie.

Even the incoming PUSA broke the law and if he really a "law order" person will go from the White House to the Big House

Even members of the Church had to flee from Mexico in 1912 and lived in a tent city in El Paso. They even went to Mexico and Southern Alberta to evade US law and practice polygamy

[Danzo]

Just for fun

I looked up the size of the border patrol over the years

I looks like the force has increased fivefold over the last 30 years.

With the "Try harder until it works" Philosophy, I would expect their to be a five fold drop in border crossings.

Unfortunately, its typical "Big Government Can't Do Wrong" philosophy. 

Its always "the program doesn't work because we aren't trying hard enough",  its never "this doesn't seem to be  working, maybe we should try something different"

[rodheadlee]

On 12/17/2024 at 9:28 AM, Danzo said:

Could you explain?

What happened to your retirement when Jimmy Carter was president?

 

They flooded the labor market with cheap labor and it broke the union for residential framing in Orange County California. All the companies I worked for went non  Union to stay competitive. Everybody wants the cheapest bid right? The problem is they would bring in these 10-man framing crews in and only two of them knew how to frame. The general contractors liked it because look at how many bodies are on the job. At least I got a job going around behind them cleaning up the mess. Then a year later they had the audacity to complain about the cheap wages.

I guess I could have switched from residential framing to commercial or bridge building but I really don't like doing those things.

Edited December 19, 2024 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Breaking the law to get into the United States or to acquire land is an American tradition. Seriously, look at how the pioneers worked. Most couldn’t afford to buy the land they settled on so they just settled there. The government eventually tried to crack down on this but was unsuccessful. Finally they created the homesteading act and retroactively legalized it. Basically a mass amnesty. 

Same approach was regularly used with immigration. Breaking rules like this is as American as apple pie.

Don't forget the rule that says Thou shalt not find the bones of a white man older than the bones of the Red Man. Therefore we can never be indigenous.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Just for fun

I looked up the size of the border patrol over the years

I looks like the force has increased fivefold over the last 30 years.

With the "Try harder until it works" Philosophy, I would expect their to be a five fold drop in border crossings.

Unfortunately, its typical "Big Government Can't Do Wrong" philosophy. 

Its always "the program doesn't work because we aren't trying hard enough",  its never "this doesn't seem to be  working, maybe we should try something different"

They also had to massively lower hiring standards to get that many people hired. The rate of corruption unsurprisingly shout up. Virtually no one failed the screening process and that is a problem.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Don't forget the rule that says Thou shalt not find the bones of a white man older than the bones of the Red Man. Therefore we can never be indigenous.

?????

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Founding Fathers didn't pass any laws regarding e-commerce, either.  They did, however, leave us with a system of government and basic principles laid out in the Constitution.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Worth noting that immigration was happening when the founding fathers were alive and they did nothing. E-commerce didn’t exist. If the Founding Fathers were keen on strictly limiting immigration they could have done something about it. Some were opposed to making new immigrants the equals of those who are already here. Hence the Alien and the Sedition Acts. The people were not happy with those and tore them down quickly.

We have tried the approach of keeping immigrants in a lesser status. Didn’t work well. Why do we think it will work this time?

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Would it not make more sense not to spend money on attempting to secure the borders first and then changing the laws, but make it easier and therefore cheaper and therefore likely quicker to secure by fixing the law first so as to allow quick and easy access for generally law abiding individuals (they will break the law when desperate, but prefer lawful means) rather than try and control the masses of crossers who don’t believe they can wait the years needed to legally apply before leaving home?  Once someone is at the border seems to me the option to wait is removed because they don’t usually have a support system in place, being able to apply from home with a decent probability of success means less pressure at the borders.

It would make more sense but the people who are pushing for the deportations don’t want to fix the system. You can’t do the thing you have no intention of doing before doing the thing you actually intend to do.

[rodheadlee]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

?????

Derp. For some reason the word indigenous offends me.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Derp. For some reason the word indigenous offends me.

That is weird.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/20/2024 at 12:27 PM, The Nehor said:

That is weird.

No kidding. 

[Tacenda]

On 12/19/2024 at 1:00 PM, The Nehor said:

Worth noting that immigration was happening when the founding fathers were alive and they did nothing. E-commerce didn’t exist. If the Founding Fathers were keen on strictly limiting immigration they could have done something about it. Some were opposed to making new immigrants the equals of those who are already here. Hence the Alien and the Sedition Acts. The people were not happy with those and tore them down quickly.

We have tried the approach of keeping immigrants in a lesser status. Didn’t work well. Why do we think it will work this time?

Heck the US invaded Mexico and took it over, kind of like Russia is trying to do to Ukraine. So we need to think about that one too!

[Tacenda]

On 12/19/2024 at 1:02 PM, The Nehor said:

It would make more sense but the people who are pushing for the deportations don’t want to fix the system. You can’t do the thing you have no intention of doing before doing the thing you actually intend to do.

Nailed this one, why can't they get this figured out, the losers! 

 

[smac97]

On 12/19/2024 at 1:02 PM, The Nehor said:

It would make more sense but the people who are pushing for the deportations don’t want to fix the system. You can’t do the thing you have no intention of doing before doing the thing you actually intend to do.

I respectfully disagree with this characterization.  I think many (most?) people who want secured borders and enforcement of laws would be fine with legislatively modifying immigration laws to improve them.  Such improvements need not be an alternative to securing the borders and enforcing laws as written.

The Soros-style approach is to nullify legislated statutes through refusal to enforce them.  That is not how our system of laws is supposed to work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sunstoned]

On 12/19/2024 at 1:02 PM, The Nehor said:

It would make more sense but the people who are pushing for the deportations don’t want to fix the system. You can’t do the thing you have no intention of doing before doing the thing you actually intend to do.

Besides, it made for good campaign rhetoric.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree with this characterization.  I think many (most?) people who want secured borders and enforcement of laws would be fine with legislatively modifying immigration laws to improve them.  Such improvements need not be an alternative to securing the borders and enforcing laws as written.

The Soros-style approach is to nullify legislated statutes through refusal to enforce them.  That is not how our system of laws is supposed to work.

Thanks,

-Smac

@smac97, what is your response to Danzo’s fivefold increase in the border patrol as evidence that trying harder isn’t working?  Take your time to answer; holidays and all, you probably used up your leisure time with the lawsuit post.   

In addition, how much modification needs to occur before you see such as a different approach to what is currently in place?  I am wondering if adding a statute of limitations to current laws would be a modification for you as opposed to a different law.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

On 12/24/2024 at 10:29 AM, smac97 said:

Such improvements need not be an alternative to securing the borders and enforcing laws as written.

If you improve the law, than you are enforcing a different written law. By very definition, enforcing an improved law is an alternative to enforcing the current law.

[Danzo]

On 12/24/2024 at 10:29 AM, smac97 said:

The Soros-style approach is to nullify legislated statutes through refusal to enforce them. 

Now you are just name calling

Just finding someone you don't like and putting their name on an argument doesn't help your argument.

[The Nehor]

On 12/24/2024 at 12:29 PM, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree with this characterization.  I think many (most?) people who want secured borders and enforcement of laws would be fine with legislatively modifying immigration laws to improve them.  Such improvements need not be an alternative to securing the borders and enforcing laws as written.

Maybe some are but none of them are actually going to be running the deportation program or legislating new immigration law. Congress refuses to do obvious stuff like increasing funding for asylum processing so we don’t have a 3-7 year wait for your case to come up. It is clear many there like the current problem since they can convince credulous voters that it isn’t Congress’s fault.

On 12/24/2024 at 12:29 PM, smac97 said:

The Soros-style approach is to nullify legislated statutes through refusal to enforce them.  That is not how our system of laws is supposed to work.

Prosecutorial discretion is not a new concept nor does it nullify law. This applies even when the prosecutor gets campaign contributions from the AntiChrist baby eating Jews actually not sure what the John Birch Society is using as their code word for scary Jewish bankers these days actually. 

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Danzo said:

Now you are just name calling

Just finding someone you don't like and putting their name on an argument doesn't help your argument.

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/george-soross-prosecutors-wage-war-law-and-order

This is not name-calling.

Meanwhile a recent story from New York: 

What to know about the death of a woman who was set on fire in a New York City subway train

Quote

NEW YORK (AP) — The man accused of lighting a woman on fire on a New York City subway and fanning the flames as she burned to death made his first appearance in court on Tuesday, while authorities were yet to publicly identify the victim.

Sebastian Zapeta, 33, was arraigned on murder and arson charges on Tuesday afternoon in a Brooklyn court, where he was remanded back to custody. He did not enter a plea and his lawyer did not speak to reporters assembled inside the courthouse.

Authorities allege Zapeta — who federal immigration officials say is a Guatemalan citizen who entered the U.S. illegally — calmly approached the woman aboard a stationary F train at the Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue station in Brooklyn on Sunday morning and set her clothing ablaze.

...

Assistant District Attorney Ari Rottenberg, during Tuesday's court hearing, alleged Zapeta lit the woman’s clothing on fire and fanned the flames using a shirt.

...

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Jeff Carter said Zapeta is a Guatemalan citizen who entered the U.S. illegally after he had been previously deported to Guatemala in 2018. It is unclear when and where he reentered the U.S., Carter said.

This woman would have been alive to celebrate  Christmas today if we had secure borders.  She deserved more than what our current crop of nullification-through-non-enforcement malefactors are doing to this country.   

We need to secure our borders.

Thanks 

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile a recent story from New York: 

What to know about the death of a woman who was set on fire in a New York City subway train

This woman would have been alive to celebrate  Christmas today if we had secure borders.  She deserved more than what our current crop of nullification-through-non-enforcement malefactors are doing to this country.   

We need to secure our borders.

Or maybe that woman would have murdered millions!

Securing our borders may doom us all!

[Duncan]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/george-soross-prosecutors-wage-war-law-and-order

This is not name-calling.

Meanwhile a recent story from New York: 

What to know about the death of a woman who was set on fire in a New York City subway train

This woman would have been alive to celebrate  Christmas today if we had secure borders.  She deserved more than what our current crop of nullification-through-non-enforcement malefactors are doing to this country.   

We need to secure our borders.

Thanks 

-Smac

same thing happened in our family almost a 100 years ago, Some serial killer American trash came across the border and murdered a relative of ours. We need to secure our borders so more american garbage doesn't  blow across the boundary. Keep in mind Melania Trump modelled in the US without a work permit, she was illegal.  Do you really expect though your newly elected convicted felon of a "President" will enforce the law for thee but not for me?

Edited December 26, 2024 by Duncan