Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

On 1/2/2025 at 1:32 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Not to mention to keep undesirables out  who are not real people deserving human considerations, but "vermin" who poison the blood of the nation. 

Not sure what you are referencing here.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

Has Donald Trump or anyone working for/with him ever referred to illegal immigrants as "vermin"?

 

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Donald Trump has used dehumanizing language when discussing immigrants, though he has not explicitly referred to them as "vermin." In June 2018, he tweeted that Democrats "want illegal immigrants...to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13," using the term "infest" to describe the presence of illegal immigrants.

BuzzFeed News

In May 2018, during a discussion about immigration and criminal gangs, Trump referred to certain individuals as "animals." This comment was interpreted by some as a reference to all immigrants, though the White House later clarified that he was specifically referring to MS-13 gang members.

PolitiFact

More recently, in November 2023, Trump referred to his political opponents as "vermin," stating, "We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country." This language drew criticism for echoing authoritarian rhetoric.

OPB

While Trump has used terms like "infest" and "animals" in the context of illegal immigration, and "vermin" when referring to his political opponents, there is no record of him directly calling illegal immigrants "vermin."

Expand  

I oppose any racialist sentiments being a part of securing our borders.  But this accusation may be more partisan than substantive.

Well, I double checked ChatGPT and it appears that Trump hasn't called immigrants "vermin." That term was used for American citizens who he dislikes:

Quote

[Trump] pledged to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."

"The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within," Trump said in that speech. "Our threat is from within."

Here's some stuff he did say about immigrants:

Quote

In a December 2023 speech, also in New Hampshire, Trump said that undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country."

On immigration, Sunday's comments were also just the latest example of how Trump's rhetoric has grown increasingly pointed, as he makes the issue his closing pitch of the 2024 campaign. 

At a rally in Aurora, Colorado, on Friday, which has become a focal point of the former president's pitch on border security, Trump cited the criticism he received for calling immigrants "rapists" in the last election, among a number of derogatory comments he's made about people seeking to enter the U.S., while suggesting that the new landscape in the country requires a whole new vocabulary.

"Those statements are peanuts compared to what's happening to our country," Trump said. "These are the worst criminals in the world… These people are the most violent people on Earth."

The former president said he would "rescue Aurora and every town that has been invaded and conquered," pledging to put "vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or kick them out of our country."

"You can't live with these people," Trump said. "These are stone-cold killers. You could be walking down the street with your husband, you'll both be dead." 

So, maybe not the word "vermin" but definitely racist. How are immigrants "poisoning the blood of our country?" What is our blood? What is their blood? What's the poisoning?

And let's not forget the other stuff said about immigrants here.

It's a little strange that you'd latch on to the misuse of the word "vermin" when he instead applies it to US citizens and when he has said worse things about immigrants.

Ok, I'll stop with the blatant politics now.

But I am interested in your interpretation of Christ's views of how we treat the "least of these" in the context of immigration.

ETA: source

Edited January 4, 2025 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We will still have a supply-and-demand issue, namely, the demand (the number of people who want to enter into, stay and work in the United States) will pretty much always vastly exceed the supply (the number of people we can reasonably accommodate).

Maybe, maybe not if we allow frequent crossings.
 

And if the US engages in less strategies that look good at home but screws things up elsewhere.  Investing in aid to help improve circumstances in other countries rather than wasting money on an ineffective immigration policy would also help decrease illegal immigration.

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your proposal assumes that everyone who simply fills out a form will be be automatically granted access.

No, it does not.  You are making that assumption, not me.  
 

If people can understand a straight forward process so they know if it will be worth the effort or not to go to the border, then they are less likely to go to the border with false hope and therefore less likely to cross illegally when they find out when already at the border they aren’t going to be allowed in.

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also have a long enough track record of being plain in my commentary.  If I don't understand something, I say so.  

I get that and I'm not saying you are being insincere.  I just wonder why you so frequently get accused of misrepresenting someone's thoughts or not listening to them, even after they have clarified them for you or specifically told you that you aren't understanding them correctly.

I don't think it's because you are less capable than other posters of understanding people correctly, so it made me wonder what the cause actually was.  

Maybe you don't believe them when they tell you you are misunderstanding them so you continue to proceed as if they never pointed out your mistake?  Or, maybe there is something in the lawyer in you that is focused on not backing down from a previously made argument because in a court setting that would make you lose credibility?

Or maybe something else entirely.

Quote

 

I am advocating for the rule of law, and for the Church's position.  And for that, I am getting accused of endorsing racial hatred.  

 

Three things. 

1.  The church does not seem to be advocating for the rule of law the same way you are.  They are advocating from a position of mercy first while you seem to be advocating from a position of justice first.  

2.  People have repeatedly told you that they aren't accusing you of endorsing racial hatred.  Why do you continue to say that they are?  This is a good example of what I was saying above and it's puzzling.

Quote

I disagree with this characterization. 

First, to disagree is not to "dismiss."  

Second, I have been on the receiving end of some pretty ugly denigrations, including from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise generally hold in high regard and admiration.  

Third, these denigrations seem to be pretty "dismissive" of alternative viewpoints, such as mine.

Fourth, rather than clarifying anything as to what I may be misunderstanding, you are resorting to personal digs/commentary.

Fifth, I suspect there is some deliberateness in the obscuring of positions in this thread.  I think some people really are advocating for de facto (and/or de jure) open borders, and for large-scale nullification of immigration laws, but they do not want to "say the quiet part out loud."

First, I completely agree that to disagree is not to dismiss, but you aren't just disagreeing.  You are restating their position in the worst possible way (essentially creating a straw man).  Doing that on purpose is, to me, equal to dismissing someone's words.  It happens too frequently with your posts for it to be anything other than a decision.

Second, sometimes, yes. You also sometimes like to do the same back, only with less 'emotionally-charged' words, but that doesn't change the nature of what is happening.  I'm not sure what that has to do with my reply though.  It's not really relevant to the statement that you are responding to.

Third, ah, you've explained your reasoning for your second point.  Some of them probably are dismissive. Are you arguing that it was wrong of you to be dismissive because it's wrong when others do it to you? Or are you arguing that it's ok for you to be dismissive because others do it to you?  Or are you trying to say something else?  I'm not sure what you are exactly trying to justify.

Fourth, Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful because you have really been struggling here for the past few months to connect with both believing posters and non-believing ones.  I think it would be horrible for the board to lose your influence because you have been such an asset in the past.  Somehow you have become your worst enemy on here and I hate seeing it.  I'm probably not doing a great job of relaying tone (none of what I said was meant as a 'dig') but I thought that if you knew how you were coming across it might be helpful, or cause some introspection.  I gave a few of options of how it looks from the outside, but they would never trump your own personal assessment.

Fifth, ah.  So it it really is as I said above.  People tell you that you are misunderstanding them but you think they are lying.  That actually provides a lot of insight into your posting style, and is something good for people to remember before choosing to interact with you.   

Quote

What is it that you think I have misunderstood?

Some posters' positions on open borders and the nullification of immigration laws.

Quote

Should we secure our borders, or not?  I think we should.

I agree.  It sounds like everyone in the thread agrees.

Quote

Should we "vet" people who want to come and live and work in the United States, or not?  I think we should.

Agreed.

Quote

Are there any conditions that we should set for people entering into and remaining in the United States?  I think there should be.

I think so too.

Quote

Should we make some accommodations for those who have, in the past, come to and remained in the United States under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge systems?  I think we should.

Same.

Quote

Should we continue to disregard widespread violation of immigration laws?  I think we should not.

I think it should depend on the laws.  Enforcing bad laws isn't the answer to the immigration problem.  It's not the answer to any problem.

Quote

Should we continue to tacitly encourage/incentivize widespread violation of immigration laws?  I think we should not.

Agreed.

Quote

We're having a discussion in which we are exchanging arguments, evidence, points of view, opinions, etc.  All of us are doing this.  That my approach may give off whiffs of "legal" presentation should not be surprising, as I am a lawyer.  But that does not preclude discussion (unlike accusations of racial hatred, which tends toward stifling discussion).

But not all of us are assuming that some posters are lying in their posts and refusing to accept what they tell you they believe at face value.  If you were concerned about stifling discussion, I don't believe you would do that.  But you do do it, and now that you've acknowledged that you do, I think you must do it often (because it explains a lot of the devolving of previous threads).  Which brings up the lawyer point. 

Lawyers aren't generally concerned with discussion.  They are trying to win an argument, prove a point, etc.  They don't care what the person they are talking to thinks of them or their questions and the person's answers to their questions don't matter all that much either, except in the way that the lawyer can use the answer to prove their case.  In the end it's what the judge and jury think about the argument the lawyer is trying to make that matters and not the discussion. 

And that's how you are coming across here.  It's not the whiff of legal presentation (that's actually some of your biggest strengths on here I think) that I'm talking about.  It's the feeling that you are presenting an argument to an imaginary judge or jury and just using someone else's reply as a way to do so. 

It is incredibly difficult to be a part of a 'discussion' where that is happening.  This is why you are getting so much frustration from other posters.

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.

Sure seems like it.  You seem to be disregarding the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  I get that you qualify this disregarded distinction by referencing people who come here illegally "to escape poverty and violence," but as a practical matter, there is no way to sustain this differentiation as a matter of border security.  It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other, and nefarious, reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants. 

How would this be done as a matter of border security?  I am genuinely curious about the logistics of such a proposal.

I agree.  Hence my previously-stated position, which is not "willy-nilly."

That said, the Church has no civil authority or mandate to secure national borders.  The federal government, however, does have such authority and mandate.

In a civil context, the Church can't "forbid" anything.

So . . . open borders?  How do you differentiate between

(A) allowing illegal crossings for legitimate purposes ("to escape poverty and violence" and/or "for their lives") and

(B) preventing or reducing illegal crossings for illegitimate purposes (trafficking of women and children, drugs, weapons, gang activity, terrorists, spies, etc.)?

The folks crossing under the auspices of (B) aren't "fill{ing} out the requisite paperwork," either.

Would they empathize with category (B) types as well?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you know what I mean when I say the church discourages but doesn’t forbid. Many members, myself included sometimes, make every day decisions based on what the church recommends, otherwise, why would the church make any statement at all on immigration? So for the church to use the word “discourage” over a word like “forbid” gives members leeway to use their best judgment in 1. Deciding if they need to illegally immigrate to save their family or 2. Assist someone who has illegally immigrated to save their family. The word wasn’t  chosen randomly and has nothing to do with legality, imho. The church has no problem saying some things are absolutely not allowed per God such as sex before marriage, gay sex before or after marriage, illegal drug use, etc. So if the church wanted to say members were not allowed to participate in illegal immigration in any way, even for humanitarian reasons, it would be stated that way. 

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would be horrible for the board to lose your influence because you have been such an asset in the past.

@smac97 I think this, too.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the feeling that you are presenting an argument to an imaginary judge or jury and just using someone else's reply as a way to do so. 

This…it explains responses to my posts and others that have little to do with with actual comments at times and appear to be more a springboard to repeat his main theme of the thread, in this case attacking unsecured borders as far as I can tell.

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I want to be sure I am not misunderstanding anyone here.

Does anyone posting in this thread believe our borders should be unsecured?

Does anyone posting in this thread believe security should simply amount to showing up at the border and signing a name?  (Which is my guess at what could be the lowest level of a legal ‘secured’ crossing that really isn’t secure at all (no documentation required).

Perhaps Smac could list anything else he believes contributes to an unsecured (unintentional or intentional) border that anyone on the thread is advocating for and I can add it to the list?

If you are lurking and want to share your position briefly, please do.   

I have yet to respond t Smac when he accuses me of wanting open borders because there were other things he said the I wanted to address first. 
 

Let me go on the record as saying I am not for open borders or letting people in with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” if that is even a thing. I will say that I would prefer not to have an ugly wall built all along the border between Mexico and Texas. Not even sure how it would work on the Rio Grande since the border is down the middle of the river in some, if not all, places where it is the dividing line between Texas and Mexico. 
 

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

@smac97 I think this, too.

Me three.  I even like the way smac often dissects issues.  
 

My problem is the misrepresentation of other posters’ comments interfering with decent conversations of multiple viewpoints.  Too much time and effort wasted in repetition of the same points.  I don’t see anything malicious or unethical about the habit, just very counterproductive and frustrating.

[Peacefully]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

This…it explains responses to my posts and others that have little to do with with actual comments at times and appear to be more a springboard to repeat his main theme of the thread, in this case attacking unsecured borders as far as I can tell.

Yes. This. 

[Peacefully]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Me three.  I even like the way smac often dissects issues.  
 

My problem is the misrepresentation of other posters’ comments interfering with decent conversations of multiple viewpoints.  Too much time and effort wasted in repetition of the same points.  I don’t see anything malicious or unethical about the habit, just very counterproductive and frustrating.

I agree, except when the dissecting takes words and phrases out of context. 

[Danzo]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your proposal assumes that everyone who simply fills out a form will be be automatically granted access.  I don't think that works.  We only need so much unskilled labor, which means that the excess numbers will try to come across illegally.  

Just how do you think people should be vetted before they enter the US

You have repeatedly stated that you are not a fan of a Free Market System when in comes to Immigration.

A lottery system?

Waiting in line for 20 years like it is now for someone from Mexico (with random shortcuts to lucky people)?

What if I need employees how much do I have to wait? 

What if I want to invite a family member to a wedding?

 

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I agree, except when the dissecting takes words and phrases out of context. 

This is a huge problem for me when SMAC replies to my comments.  When you take things out of context, including slicing and dicing individual sentences, then it becomes obvious that the person responding is not interested in what you have to say or what you actually said, but rather is more interested in arguing about things you never even really implied let alone stated outright.  I get that this is a common practice in the courtroom to discredit what a witness has to say, but on a discussion board, I feel that is inappropriate.  We aren't here to be discredited, we are here to share ideas and different points of view.  

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a huge problem for me when SMAC replies to my comments.  When you take things out of context, including slicing and dicing individual sentences, then it becomes obvious that the person responding is not interested in what you have to say or what you actually said, but rather is more interested in arguing about things you never even really implied let alone stated outright.  I get that this is a common practice in the courtroom to discredit what a witness has to say, but on a discussion board, I feel that is inappropriate.  We aren't here to be discredited, we are here to share ideas and different points of view.  

I do believe some of us are simply here to argue and feel alive via that amazing dopamine.  It’s one of those addictive drugs not disallowed in the WoW

[Kevin Christensen]

On 1/3/2025 at 11:41 AM, smac97 said:

So . . . open borders.  That is your stance?  Anyone who wants to come here for any reason should be able to come to the U.S. and stay here forever?

I'd like to better understand this position.  Are there any limiting principles?  Is there any circumstance in which you would support securing our borders against anyone coming in?

Also, what is your response to this statement from the Church re: illegal immigration: "All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."  How do you reconcile this with "Church members {} should be fighting {} those who may make their way here illegally..."?

Are there any malefactors coming across the border illegally?  Gang members?  People with violent/criminal histories?  Terrorists?  Spies?  Do you think we should take any steps to exclude such persons?

Do you think all countries should abolish border security and immigration laws?  Or just the United States?

Sigh.

I think we need to secure our borders for all sorts of reasons, not a one of them involves racialist sentiments.

Imputations of racism, bigotry, etc. in lieu of reasoned, substantive, evidence-based argument are not the way to go here.  When folks like you resort to this stuff, it makes me think that you can't defend your position on its merits, so you instead go with demagoguery (which I infer from A) Kevin's imputations of racial hatred ("That is, not white people, not the right people..."), and B) your endorsement of those imputations ("Everything you said resonated with me...")).

I'm willing to listen to what folks like Kevin and you have to say, and perhaps even be persuaded by it.  Until we get to the baseless accusations of racial hatred, at which point I surmise that your argument is lacking in substance and is more based on emotion, on obeisance to partisan political doctrines, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, to be clear, I have not imputed accusations of racial hatred at you.  I have done so towards the incoming administration, based on long observation and many examples.  I don't see you as part of that. I did suggest that you using the example of the Guatemalan who killed a woman on a New York Subway platform was a dubious way of establishing a paradigm and generating urgency.  We ought not establish general principles from exceptional circumstances.  While I was wrong to say that Trump had called immigrants "vermin", I have been corrected that he applied that specific dehumanizing term to people like me, American citizens who have criticized him, "Radical left thugs" a term he uses with characteristic nuance and depth historical understanding.  However, he has consistently demonized immigrants and people of color, for instance, recently using the New Orleans attack as an example of the consequences of not closing the borders, despite clear reporting and evidence that the guilty party was born in Texas and had served in the US military. In a recent post he described both immigrants and US citizens who criticize him as SCUM.  But not yet both as vermin.  Imagine my relief.  

You asked me how I thought border policies should be applied.   I responded.  Here an another example of how I don't think they should be applied:

Quote

Last week, Mother Jones reported on a letter circulating through Lincoln County, Oregon, calling on locals not to wait for Trump officials to start the promised mass deportations, but to take action for themselves. "Sit in your church’s parking lot and write down the license plate of brown folks," the letter instructed. "Schools, as you wait in line to pick up the kiddos or the grandkiddos—if you see brown folks—record the plate. Your neighborhood—you know where the brown folks live in your neighborhood—again record the plate."

The goal, the letter explains, is to gather information to help Trump's incoming appointments for Homeland Security in their quest to deport millions of non-white people, which will necessitate rounding them up in concentration camps. The letter ends with a promise of material rewards for people who participate. "When the brown folks are rounded up, their properties will be confiscated," the letter promises. "So, within a short term, there will be a whole lot of homes on the market for us white folks to purchase and with the inventory so high—the prices will be very low and affordable."

https://www.salon.com/2024/12/30/this-is-trumps-america-now-maga-diehards-jumpstart-a-new-year-of-political-violence/

I recall being struck by the discovery by historians of the Missouri conflict and the expulsion of the LDS at that time that that Missourian ministers who fired up their communities against the Mormons just happened to be first in line to claim and benefit from the improved lands and properties that the departing LDS had to abandon against their will.  I still think that the underlying basis of any border policy ought to be grounded in loving our neighbors as ourselves.  Not in a "Me first!" and fear mongering way justified by emphasizing exceptional atrocity stories.

Quote

24 And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practice virtue and holiness before me.

25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. (D&C 38)

Making people other is not making them one.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Mother Jones reported on a letter circulating through Lincoln County, Oregon,

Was it verified as real and not someone trying to make Trump supporters look bad?

This seems like an easy way to bring attention to 4chan commentary without actually writing it.

Quote

The letter is reminiscent of the racist texts, now the subject of an FBI investigation, sent to Black people in the days after the election, demanding they “pick cotton,” as my colleague Anna Merlan reported at the time; other texts also targeted Hispanic and LBGTQ people. Anna also reported on a theory of where they originated:

Quote

Researchers at the Bridging Divides Initiative, a nonpartisan think tank at Princeton that studies and attempts to mitigate political violence, wrote in a rapid response analysis that the language of the texts appears to have been drawn from 4chan and from a now-deleted subreddit that was removed by Reddit’s moderators.

“An individual or individuals likely copy-pasted the text and used virtual phone numbers to send out the texts, selecting recipients based on their demographic profile,” the researchers wrote. “The recipient phone numbers could have been obtained via a data broker or a pre-existing data breach.” 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/12/oregon-lincoln-immigrant-letter-racist-mail/

Edited January 7, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Was it verified as real and not someone trying to make Trump supporters look bad?

That was my first thought but too lazy to follow up. The “brown folks” just seemed too extra. 

Edited January 7, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That was my first thought but too lazy to follow up. The “brown folks” just seemed too extra. 

Yeah, it is one thing to spout that drivel off in a go to site where one knows reception will likely be positive; sending it out to masses where plenty of reactions will be public condemnation and likely make the general public more oversensitive to anything that hints of such is stupid, imo.  Not that there aren’t stupid racists out there, but my guess is most have learned a little on when to choose to voice such opinions and when it can create problems for oneself.

Not saying there aren’t those who are hoping it happens especially if it’s been copied pasted from actual sites on 4chan (the copy paste was some other bigotry sent out, not sure if this was the same or just in that style), just seems counterproductive, more likely to create resistance, make it harder to get done the way it was done.

It could be someone gloating, wanting to create fear though.

Edited January 7, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

nvm….said enough above

Edited January 7, 2025 by Calm

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That was my first thought but too lazy to follow up. The “brown folks” just seemed too extra. 

The only thing that surprised me about it was that it came from Oregon. 

[Danzo]

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Last week, Mother Jones reported on a letter circulating through Lincoln County, Oregon, calling on locals not to wait for Trump officials to start the promised mass deportations, but to take action for themselves. "Sit in your church’s parking lot and write down the license plate of brown folks," the letter instructed. "Schools, as you wait in line to pick up the kiddos or the grandkiddos—if you see brown folks—record the plate. Your neighborhood—you know where the brown folks live in your neighborhood—again record the plate."

Although there are kooks everywhere, I am not worried about Lincoln county.

 

Quote

The only Republicans to win Lincoln County since the Great Depression transformed its politics have been Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who each carried the county twice. With the exception of 1968 (in which the county only backed Nixon by 22 votes), all of these post-Depression Republican wins in Lincoln County occurred during landslide victories for Republicans across the nation. Starting in 1988, Lincoln County has since remained reliably Democratic, backing Democratic candidates for president often by double digit margins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County,_Oregon

Oregon has had a sanctuary law in place since 1987,  I don't think that is going to change in the near future.

Just like I really don't like it when SMAC uses sensational stories to make his point. I don't think it is very useful to use sensation stories to make your point. (even though I agree with your general point)

I think the scriptures are sufficient. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Although there are kooks everywhere, I am not worried about Lincoln county.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County,_Oregon

Oregon has had a sanctuary law in place since 1987,  I don't think that is going to change in the near future.

Just like I really don't like it when SMAC uses sensational stories to make his point. I don't think it is very useful to use sensation stories to make your point. (even though I agree with your general point)

I think the scriptures are sufficient. 

Unfortunately since there is no active investigation in place apparently (protected by 1st Amendment), we are unlikely to learn who sent them and why.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-round-up-letter-oregon/

Edited January 7, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately since there is no active investigation in place apparently (protected by 1st Amendment), we are unlikely to learn who sent them and why.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-round-up-letter-oregon/

Also unfortunate that snopes gave this letter a check mark fact check when it really should have investigated further on whether it is a product of a false-flag operation. The purpose of which is to demonize broad swaths of regular American citizens.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, longview said:

Also unfortunate that snopes gave this letter a check mark fact check when it really should have investigated further on whether it is a product of a false-flag operation. The purpose of which is to demonize broad swaths of regular American citizens.

The letter does exist.  That is all they were factchecking.  They did not mention motivation behind the action.  I do think they could have been clearer on that rather than simply use “purportedly”, as in ‘the purpose of the message is unknown as the author, or authors, remains unknown.’

Quote

The author, or authors, of the message remains unknown and there is no active investigation into it because sending such a message is protected by the First Amendment

Not sure how Snopes would be able to investigate when there is no official investigation.  This letter was mailed through the post office apparently.  

Quote

Landers said via email that he received the letter in his "personal post office box" in mid-December 2024. The sheriff added that, as far as he knows, it has circulated only in Lincoln County. Cross also said via email that he received a copy in his mailbox in the early morning of Dec. 8, 2024

It could be fingerprinted if one of the letters were given to Snopes or others, but how are they to compare it to a database?  Can people besides LEOs access such?

One can’t track down the IP of a mailbox.  The postmark might give an area, but I happened to notice the postmark from the Christmas card my friends down the street sent us is Salt Lake City rather than Provo or Springville as I would expect, so that might not be useful.  No mention of a return address.

Quote

The sheriff's office has not received complaints from residents regarding the letter, and Cross said he has not heard of any residents receiving the message

I wonder if it was only sent to elected officials.  If so, looks more and more like a setup.

added:  I don’t fault Snopes the way they handled it except to say I wish they were explicit about not knowing why the letter was sent in addition to not knowing who sent it.

That Salon and Mother Jones published it as if the intent of the letter was proven is reprehensible, imo.  Sure, publish it and express concerns it might convey real intent or put up online content which matches it and show where that is from if needing to denounce those who say such things, but to treat the letters themselves as proof of racism is bad reporting and is more likely what will “terrorize” than the letters themselves itself (I get that many will hear familiar comments, but the officials in Lincoln County sound mystified, so my guess is most in that area would assume it might be a setup as likely as it was a true expression of racist hate).  My response was it was too cartoonish.  Do even racists speak that way?

Edited January 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

More detail here:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/toledo-mayor-city-council-racist-letter/283-02f8c9fc-1314-4231-bcab-fae1a4bc3fe4
 

Quote

Though the letter had a Portland post office stamp, the P.O. box on the return address is fake. 

It showed up in the mailbox of Lincoln City Mayor Susan Wahlke, who said it's been turned over to Lincoln City police. 

Not going to be able to track it.