Dan refutes Ben

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this a rhetorical appeal thrown out into the ether or do you want posters who hold this position to respond?

It's a strawman.

[Duncan]

Keep in mind that the God of Garbage wants to make Canada "the 51st State" so he's for open borders there, despite lying about fentanyl and whatnot so he doesn't seem to mind an open border there.

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It would be most interesting to know if these lax border security advocates have a maximum number of undocumented border crossers that they would consider to be too many to be reasonably and responsibly absorbed into the nation? If so would that number be 20 million, 50 million, 100 million, 200 million, 300 million or even more? And if they do believe there’s a threshold number of undocumented immigrants that they would consider to be too many to take in, would it be fair for those who are even more “compassionate” than they are to label them as jingoistic xenophobes?

So come on you open borders advocates, how many million undocumented immigrants would you consider to be too many? Or do you believe there should be no limit?

Keep in mind that the God of Garbage wants to make Canada the "51st State" so, despite his lies about fentanyl and other things he wants an open border there. Besides he floated the idea that he wants to deport Yankees with extensive criminal backgrounds, the question is what country would even want the FOTUS? (Felon of the United States)?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think immigration is an important matter.  How we address is likewise important.

Sure.

I have previously noted the distinction between applying for "refugee" status and applying for "asylum."  Those who have entered the U.S. illegally can apply for the latter.

The law in its present form allows for asylum seekers - including people who have entered illegally - to square themselves with the law.

From ChatGPT:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for answering my question.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think immigration is an important matter.  How we address is likewise important.

Sure.

I have previously noted the distinction between applying for "refugee" status and applying for "asylum."  Those who have entered the U.S. illegally can apply for the latter.

When I first quoted you it looked like you were against anyone entering if they crossed borders illegally. That's why I asked questions further.

I'm well aware of the different statuses.  I've been in refugee work for 9 years (and have done things with asylum seekers as well especially during 2019 when we had so many coming over the AZ border, applying for asylum and being dumped at the bus stations) and first learned about them and the different security processes etc. 10 years ago.  

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The law in its present form allows for asylum seekers - including people who have entered illegally - to square themselves with the law.

From ChatGPT:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 30, 2025 by Rain

[smac97]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

It would be most interesting to know if these lax border security advocates have a maximum number of undocumented border crossers that they would consider to be too many to be reasonably and responsibly absorbed into the nation?

For myself, I think the "open borders" crowd are mostly of a "Psst, don't say the quiet part out loud!" bent.  They don't want to actually come out and say it.

Alternatively, I am also opposed to overly-strident opposition to immigration.  Secured borders, plus strong oversight of visa overstays, plus vigorous deportation processes for violent/criminal folks, plus strong incentives for legal immigration, plus strong disincentives for illegal immigration, plus efficient-and-effective vetting procedures for generous and extensive above-board immigration efforts.  This is what I would like to see.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For myself, I think the "open borders" crowd are mostly of a "Psst, don't say the quiet part out loud!" bent.  They don't want to actually come out and say it.

 

Do you believe there are posters on the board like this?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

For myself, I think the "open borders" crowd are mostly of a "Psst, don't say the quiet part out loud!" bent.  They don't want to actually come out and say it.

Do you believe there are posters on the board like this?

I don't know.  That's sort of the problem.  This crowd seems to not want to admit their position openly, nor deny it either.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

A Democrat staffer who has worked on campaigns for two vulnerable Ohio candidates was captured on video calling for open borders and labeling those wanting to secure the border as "racist."

"Open the f---ing border, I don’t give a s--- who comes in here," the staffer, identified and first reported by Ohio.news as Kevin Oyakawa, said on a video during a conversation with a volunteer earlier this month.

"We don’t need border patrol but, [the] issue with even talking about immigration here in Ohio is that it’s a losing issue for Democrats here, for like no f---ing reason other than people’s pure racism," added Oyakawa, who posted on Facebook that he was hired by the Ohio Coordinated Campaign to "re-elect Sherrod Brown, Congresswoman Emilia Sykes, and other down ballot Democratic candidates."

"That’s why," Oyakawa explains, "It’s probably hard to find anything about like where she [Sykes] stands on it."

This staffer was caught on camera, saying the quiet part out loud.

"No human is illegal" is a roundabout, but still fairly clear, call for open borders.  

So too, I think, are "Cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" / "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!" proposals.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For myself, I think the "open borders" crowd are mostly of a "Psst, don't say the quiet part out loud!" bent.  They don't want to actually come out and say it.

Alternatively, I am also opposed to overly-strident opposition to immigration.  Secured borders, plus strong oversight of visa overstays, plus vigorous deportation processes for violent/criminal folks, plus strong incentives for legal immigration, plus strong disincentives for illegal immigration, plus efficient-and-effective vetting procedures for generous and extensive above-board immigration efforts.  This is what I would like to see.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then you are really upset that Republicans refuse to increase funding to speed up processing of those seeking asylum and urge Congress to pass a border bill that will work on the years-long backlog of applicants?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Keep in mind that the God of Garbage wants to make Canada the "51st State" so, despite his lies about fentanyl and other things he wants an open border there. Besides he floated the idea that he wants to deport Yankees with extensive criminal backgrounds, the question is what country would even want the FOTUS? (Felon of the United States)?

I hope you don't mind me asking your opinion but my very LDS sister and brother in law on my husband's side posted the below, and they never or rarely ever post on FB. I was quite bewildered and wondered how very factual it is. Do you think it's for real Duncan? (dumb question maybe). C/P'd the whole FB post. 

 

 

 

In the interest of pointing out misinformation. In Dec 2023 there was a decision by the World Court, that gave water above land shelves to those countries and ruled they were not international water. The renaming of the Gulf of America isn't renaming the whole gulf. It is renaming the area above our land shelves as our territory. You can't exactly put signs or border walls in the middle of the ocean. So for legal reasons, we need to identify these new changes on the map, so that new borders are made clear to maritime traffic. Those new maps will set the latitude and longitudes of where our border begins, or the Gulf of America. So all maritime traffic knows when they are leaving international waters. This is where knowing what is happening in the world, will help you filter out drama, and help you understand the legalities in your own country. This had nothing to do with Trump's ego, he is strengthening our borders and making sure all maritime traffic understands the changes that happened in 2023. Putting legal protections in place to help us enforce any military actions or incursion in the future. Betting most of you never realized the US grew by thousands of miles.

Likewise some of this radical idea of buying Greenland and possibly Canada. has nothing to do with his ego. That has to do with the race for minerals in the Arctic Ocean, protecting our borders, and getting us the legal right to help Europe protect their borders from the Russian and Chinese fleets that have been doing damage to infrastructure. If Greenland is the territory of the US, but still their own country like Puerto Rico, then we have the legal right to have a base there and the legal right to protect the waters around Greenland. The whole premise right now, if we were to go help Europe it would trigger an act of war. We would have to wait for Nato action to do anything. If we have the legal right, to be there. Legal right to protect Greenland, then any response to defend our territory is not considered an act of war. It makes it easier to help our Allies. Also, like as not, Russia and China have been making plans to invade Greenland. I have been hearing they are trying to buy up land around harbors in several countries or eyeing what they can take by force.

So Trump is not crazy. Not being an egotistical dictator. He is trying to strengthen the U.S. and working to provide some checks and balances that strengthen our ability to help Allies and prevent another world war. A lot of countries are getting we are the lesser of the two evils. Media not so much, they have grown allergic to fact-checking, and understanding any complex issue and just become about stirring drama rather than reporting facts, all of the facts.

And we want the Panama Canal back. It should never have been given away. I was very young when Carter did that, but I knew what he did was unmistakably wrong.

Edited January 30, 2025 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope you don't mind me asking your opinion but my very LDS sister and brother in law on my husband's side posted the below, and they never or rarely ever post on FB. I was quite bewildered and wondered how very factual it is. Do you think it's for real Duncan? (dumb question maybe). C/P'd the whole FB post. 

 

 

 

In the interest of pointing out misinformation. In Dec 2023 there was a decision by the World Court, that gave water above land shelves to those countries and ruled they were not international water. The renaming of the Gulf of America isn't renaming the whole gulf. It is renaming the area above our land shelves as our territory. You can't exactly put signs or border walls in the middle of the ocean. So for legal reasons, we need to identify these new changes on the map, so that new borders are made clear to maritime traffic. Those new maps will set the latitude and longitudes of where our border begins, or the Gulf of America. So all maritime traffic knows when they are leaving international waters. This is where knowing what is happening in the world, will help you filter out drama, and help you understand the legalities in your own country. This had nothing to do with Trump's ego, he is strengthening our borders and making sure all maritime traffic understands the changes that happened in 2023. Putting legal protections in place to help us enforce any military actions or incursion in the future. Betting most of you never realized the US grew by thousands of miles.

Likewise some of this radical idea of buying Greenland and possibly Canada. has nothing to do with his ego. That has to do with the race for minerals in the Arctic Ocean, protecting our borders, and getting us the legal right to help Europe protect their borders from the Russian and Chinese fleets that have been doing damage to infrastructure. If Greenland is the territory of the US, but still their own country like Puerto Rico, then we have the legal right to have a base there and the legal right to protect the waters around Greenland. The whole premise right now, if we were to go help Europe it would trigger an act of war. We would have to wait for Nato action to do anything. If we have the legal right, to be there. Legal right to protect Greenland, then any response to defend our territory is not considered an act of war. It makes it easier to help our Allies. Also, like as not, Russia and China have been making plans to invade Greenland. I have been hearing they are trying to buy up land around harbors in several countries or eyeing what they can take by force.

So Trump is not crazy. Not being an egotistical dictator. He is trying to strengthen the U.S. and working to provide some checks and balances that strengthen our ability to help Allies and prevent another world war. A lot of countries are getting we are the lesser of the two evils. Media not so much, they have grown allergic to fact-checking, and understanding any complex issue and just become about stirring drama rather than reporting facts, all of the facts.

And we want the Panama Canal back. It should never have been given away. I was very young when Carter did that, but I knew what he did was unmistakably wrong.

It is mostly garbage. It is an after-the-fact attempt at rationalization. The United States already has bases in Europe. The idea that the United States cannot defend Greenland (part of a NATO ally’s land) is silly. It would not be an act of war if Denmark asked us to intervene. Also Puerto Rico is not its own country. If this fever dream were true Denmark and Canada would be pro-annexation. They are not. This is baby’s first geopolitics someone made up in their head.

Seizing mineral rights? That used to be called imperialism. Stealing them from allies is treachery.

The bit about needing a new name to claim international waters is meaningless. There are no legal reasons to change the name.

Russia and China are not planning an invasion of Greenland. Nor is buying up land near harbors how you plan an invasion. That is not how anything works.

Wanting the Panama Canal back is pretty ridiculous at this point. It is not nearly as important as it used to be.

Trump may not be crazy but he is doing imperialism. Just in a very very dumb way.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope you don't mind me asking your opinion but my very LDS sister and brother in law on my husband's side posted the below, and they never or rarely ever post on FB. I was quite bewildered and wondered how very factual it is. Do you think it's for real Duncan? (dumb question maybe). C/P'd the whole FB post. 

 

 

 

In the interest of pointing out misinformation. In Dec 2023 there was a decision by the World Court, that gave water above land shelves to those countries and ruled they were not international water. The renaming of the Gulf of America isn't renaming the whole gulf. It is renaming the area above our land shelves as our territory. You can't exactly put signs or border walls in the middle of the ocean. So for legal reasons, we need to identify these new changes on the map, so that new borders are made clear to maritime traffic. Those new maps will set the latitude and longitudes of where our border begins, or the Gulf of America. So all maritime traffic knows when they are leaving international waters. This is where knowing what is happening in the world, will help you filter out drama, and help you understand the legalities in your own country. This had nothing to do with Trump's ego, he is strengthening our borders and making sure all maritime traffic understands the changes that happened in 2023. Putting legal protections in place to help us enforce any military actions or incursion in the future. Betting most of you never realized the US grew by thousands of miles.

Likewise some of this radical idea of buying Greenland and possibly Canada. has nothing to do with his ego. That has to do with the race for minerals in the Arctic Ocean, protecting our borders, and getting us the legal right to help Europe protect their borders from the Russian and Chinese fleets that have been doing damage to infrastructure. If Greenland is the territory of the US, but still their own country like Puerto Rico, then we have the legal right to have a base there and the legal right to protect the waters around Greenland. The whole premise right now, if we were to go help Europe it would trigger an act of war. We would have to wait for Nato action to do anything. If we have the legal right, to be there. Legal right to protect Greenland, then any response to defend our territory is not considered an act of war. It makes it easier to help our Allies. Also, like as not, Russia and China have been making plans to invade Greenland. I have been hearing they are trying to buy up land around harbors in several countries or eyeing what they can take by force.

So Trump is not crazy. Not being an egotistical dictator. He is trying to strengthen the U.S. and working to provide some checks and balances that strengthen our ability to help Allies and prevent another world war. A lot of countries are getting we are the lesser of the two evils. Media not so much, they have grown allergic to fact-checking, and understanding any complex issue and just become about stirring drama rather than reporting facts, all of the facts.

And we want the Panama Canal back. It should never have been given away. I was very young when Carter did that, but I knew what he did was unmistakably wrong.

I looked the part about the world court up earlier because one of my friends posted the same thing. That world court decision that he’s talking about was a decision on a conflict between Nicaragua and Columbia. If I am understanding it correctly, what the world court did was to declare that countries only get to claim the waters up to 200 miles from their land. Everything that’s beyond that remains international waters. Since the Gulf of Mexico is over 1000 miles across whatever Trump is doing it has nothing to do with that world court decision.

And given how wrong the guy was on that, I have no faith that he got anything else right either.

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I looked the part about the world court up earlier because one of my friends posted the same thing. That world court decision that he’s talking about was a decision on a conflict between Nicaragua and Columbia. If I am understanding it correctly, what the world court did was to declare that countries only get to claim the waters up to 200 miles from their land. Everything that’s beyond that remains international waters. Since the Gulf of Mexico is over 1000 miles across whatever Trump is doing it has nothing to do with that world court decision.

And given how wrong the guy was on that, I have no faith that he got anything else right either.

 

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is mostly garbage. It is an after-the-fact attempt at rationalization. The United States already has bases in Europe. The idea that the United States cannot defend Greenland (part of a NATO ally’s land) is silly. It would not be an act of war if Denmark asked us to intervene. Also Puerto Rico is not its own country. If this fever dream were true Denmark and Canada would be pro-annexation. They are not. This is baby’s first geopolitics someone made up in their head.

Seizing mineral rights? That used to be called imperialism. Stealing them from allies is treachery.

The bit about needing a new name to claim international waters is meaningless. There are no legal reasons to change the name.

Russia and China are not planning an invasion of Greenland. Nor is buying up land near harbors how you plan an invasion. That is not how anything works.

Wanting the Panama Canal back is pretty ridiculous at this point. It is not nearly as important as it used to be.

Trump may not be crazy but he is doing imperialism. Just in a very very dumb way.

Thank you both, sorry for my laziness. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good grief. You really went there.

Went where?

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

1 - How do you accurately quantify "10+ million" illegal border crossings, Spencer?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Illegal border crossings may be difficult to quantify with precision, but that doesn't mean they cannot be quantified at all.

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

If they are truly illegal, aren't they mostly unknown.

If you are suggesting that "We just don't know how many," I think that is in error.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

How Does U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Quantify Illegal Border Crossings?
 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), under U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), uses several key metrics to quantify illegal border crossings. These include apprehensions, encounters, gotaways, and turnbacks. Here’s how they measure and track these incidents:

---

1. Key Metrics Used by USBP

A. Encounters (Total Border Interactions)

• Definition: The total number of individuals who come into contact with U.S. border enforcement, including both those apprehended and those expelled.
• Includes:
  • Apprehensions (people taken into custody).
  • Expulsions (under Title 42, when applicable).
  • Parole Releases (for certain humanitarian cases).
  • Processed for Removal (under Title 8 immigration laws).

🔹 Why It Matters:
Encounters provide a broad measure of illegal crossing activity at the border.

---

B. Apprehensions (Arrests of Illegal Crossers)

• Definition: The number of individuals caught by Border Patrol after crossing the border illegally.
• Includes:
  • Those detained and placed in removal proceedings.
  • Those released into the U.S. with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court.

🔹 Why It Matters:
This metric is used to evaluate enforcement effectiveness and identify migration trends.

---

C. Gotaways (Uncaptured Illegal Crossers)

• Definition: The estimated number of individuals who successfully evade USBP detection and enter the U.S. without being caught.
• Tracked Through:
  • Surveillance technology (cameras, drones, sensors).
  • Footprints and physical evidence in remote areas.
  • Agent-reported sightings where pursuit was unsuccessful.

🔹 Why It Matters:
Gotaways indicate border security gaps and challenges in enforcement.

---

D. Turnbacks (Failed Entry Attempts)

• Definition: Individuals who attempt to cross but retreat back to Mexico after seeing Border Patrol agents or deterrent measures.
• Tracked Through:
  • Surveillance systems.
  • Field agent observations.
  • Sensor activations without an actual apprehension.

🔹 Why It Matters:
Turnbacks suggest that border enforcement measures (e.g., fencing, patrols) are working to deter illegal crossings.

---

2. Data Collection Methods

🔹 Surveillance Technology:

• Ground sensors, thermal imaging cameras, drones, and radar track movement.

🔹 Agent Reports:

• Border Patrol agents document direct apprehensions and pursuits.

🔹 AI & Predictive Analytics:

• CBP uses data models to estimate the number of gotaways based on surveillance gaps.

🔹 Physical Evidence:

• Footprints, tracks, and dropped belongings indicate crossings in remote areas.

---

3. Reporting & Public Data

🔹 Monthly Reports:

• CBP releases monthly and annual reports detailing border encounters, apprehensions, and other statistics.
• Available via CBP’s website or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports.

🔹 Congressional Testimony:

• Border security officials provide real-time estimates to policymakers.

🔹 FOIA Requests:

• Some data, such as gotaway estimates, may require a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for full details.

---

4. Challenges in Accuracy

🚨 Undercounting Gotaways:

• In remote areas with no surveillance coverage, some crossings go untracked.

🚨 Data Lag:

• Reports on gotaways and turnbacks often come with a delay due to verification issues.

🚨 Policy Impacts:

• Title 42 vs. Title 8 policies affect how encounters are classified (e.g., expulsions vs. detentions).

---

5. Conclusion

USBP quantifies illegal border crossings through encounters, apprehensions, gotaways, and turnbacks. They rely on technology, agent reports, and surveillance systems to track crossings and estimate undetected entries. While these numbers provide a general picture of border security, limitations in tracking and policy changes impact accuracy.

So what are you saying?  

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

The data to back that number is neither complete nor entirely reliable. You should know better.

I think the data, if anything, understates the number of illegal border crossings.  

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

2 - I'm well aware of the degree to which the general population of my state have been stirred up to hate and fear based on the immigration rhetoric from numerous politicians. When pressed on the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the actual data those same politicians engage in routine hand waving and pointing to low-volume anecdotal events to support their rhetoric.

Yes, yes.  Hate and racism, racism and hate.  The go-to indictments for daring to be concerned about national sovereignty, tens of millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants, the rule of law, and so on.

It is rhetoric like this that gave the Orange Man his victory last November.

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

4 - You continue to ignore the CBP's data on enforcement during 2021-2024. Enforcement, including interceptions and deportations, were very significant during 2021-2024. That certainly does not support your "wide-open borders" narrative you're parroting.

Not really.  It makes little sense to encourage illegal immigration, let it happen on a massive scale, deport some back, and then call this last bit "enforcement."

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

The number of times you have now linked to inaccurate reporting based on biased reviews of data is starting to make me really question your critical thinking skills.

Ad hominem in lieu of substance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

When I first quoted you it looked like you were against anyone entering if they crossed borders illegally.

As a general principle, I am opposed to violations of the law, particularly on a huge scale such as we've seen for many years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Then you are really upset that Republicans refuse to increase funding to speed up processing of those seeking asylum

Could you clarify what you are referencing here?  Is it H.R. 5717, the "No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act"?  Something else?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

and urge Congress to pass a border bill that will work on the years-long backlog of applicants?

Yes, I hope Congress acts on this.  Flaws like this in the legal process create incentives for illegal entries into the U.S.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't know.  That's sort of the problem.  This crowd seems to not want to admit their position openly, nor deny it either.

There is really no desire in me to discuss a topic with someone who thinks I could be lying about my own beliefs.

I am guessing most people feel that way.

How would you feel if I said you might belong to the crowd that wants to completely shut down immigration, close borders, but you won’t admit your position openly nor deny it?  Do you believe I am actually listening to what you are saying if I think that?

Quote

No human is illegal" is a roundabout, but still fairly clear, call for open borders

Or maybe it has multiple meanings for people, though primarily being about humane treatment of those who do not have a voice deserving at least the  basic human rights, not necessarily about giving them the privileges, such as long term residency, that documented immigrants have.  Imo, it is essentially one secular way of saying everyone is a child of God.  A person may be involved in illegal immigration, that does not diminish or invalidate them as a human being…label the behaviour wrong, bad, not the person.  It is the same reason, I believe, more people are using “undocumented” rather than “illegal” for describing the person as no person’s existence should ever be viewed as “illegal”.  Language matters.  You aren’t prevented from viewing some forms of immigration as illegal even if you accept the phrase “ no human is illegal” as true.

Your kid gets in a tough spot at school and lies to get out of it and is caught.  Do you think they should be labeled an “immoral individual” and called a liar by the teacher in front of others because they have acted immorally, lied?

Are there some using the phrase that also promote the idea of no official borders, that undocumented residents should be given legal status?  Sure, but that doesn’t mean you should assume everyone believes that way anymore than we should assume everyone who says “one nation under God” means that they believe the US should be a Christian nation with Christian laws and no separation of church (Christian) and state even though some do.  Or that those who say they are Christian Nationalists all mean they want Christianity playing a dominant and institutionalized role in the US government.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/views-of-the-u-s-as-a-christian-nation-and-opinions-about-christian-nationalism/

ChatGPT in answer to “what is the meaning of “no human is illegal”:

Quote

 

The phrase "no human is illegal" is often used as a slogan in the context of immigration and human rights discussions. It emphasizes the idea that all people, regardless of their legal status or where they were born, have inherent rights and dignity that should be respected. The term challenges the criminalization of migrants, especially those who might be undocumented or have entered a country without following all legal procedures.

In essence, it asserts that human beings, by virtue of being human, cannot be "illegal" — it's the laws and systems that are constructed by governments that define who is considered "legal" or "illegal." The phrase aims to promote compassion, fairness, and the recognition of basic human rights over rigid legal classifications.

It’s often used in advocacy for more inclusive immigration policies and to counter negative rhetoric that dehumanizes migrants

 

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify what you are referencing here?

Quote

Yes, Republicans have been involved in blocking or limiting funding for immigration courts on several occasions, particularly when it comes to expanding the system or making reforms that they view as potentially enabling illegal immigration. Immigration courts, which are part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice, have faced significant backlogs, and there have been debates over how to address these issues.

Key Points About Republican Opposition to Immigration Court Funding:

 

1. Focus on Enforcement: Many Republicans prioritize funding for border security and enforcement over funding for immigration courts, which they may view as less critical to addressing illegal immigration. Some Republicans argue that funding immigration courts could lead to more leniency in granting asylum or other forms of relief to undocumented immigrants, which they oppose.

2. Concerns About "Catch-and-Release": Some Republicans argue that an expansion of the immigration court system might unintentionally support what they call "catch-and-release," where individuals who enter the country illegally are allowed to remain in the U.S. while they await their hearings. They often contend that if the immigration system is more efficient in processing cases, it might encourage more illegal immigration, which is why they may be resistant to fully funding or expanding the court system.

3. Budget Disputes: In some instances, Republicans have pushed for reduced funding for the immigration courts as part of larger budget negotiations, particularly in the context of broader funding bills for the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security. These budget disputes can lead to standoffs that impact immigration court funding.

4. Political Leverage: Immigration has become a highly politicized issue. Republicans, particularly those who favor stricter immigration controls, have sometimes used their influence over government spending bills as a way to block funding for immigration courts if they believe such funding would encourage policies they oppose.

5. Trump Administration's Influence: During the Trump administration, there were efforts to reduce the size and scope of the immigration courts, which included limited hiring of immigration judges and staff. While the administration increased funding for border security and detention facilities, funding for immigration courts was seen as secondary, and many of the administration’s priorities were focused on enforcement rather than due process.

6. Current Status:

   As of recent years, the backlog in immigration courts has reached record highs, with cases taking years to resolve in some instances. This backlog has been exacerbated by a lack of sufficient judges, courtrooms, and support staff. Despite the backlog, Republicans generally have been more focused on limiting immigration, rather than investing heavily in court infrastructure to process asylum cases and deportation hearings.

   Would you like to know about any specific developments related to immigration court funding or the current state of immigration backlogs?

7. Bipartisan Efforts: Some moderate Republicans, especially those with a focus on immigration reform, have supported efforts to alleviate the backlog in immigration courts. However, these efforts have often clashed with the broader conservative push for tougher immigration policies.

ChatGPT

 Supporting the need for more funding of courts:  https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security#:~:text=Despite pouring hundreds of billions,spent on border walls alone.

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There is really no desire in me to discuss a topic with someone who thinks I could be lying about my own beliefs.

I am guessing most people feel that way.

I quite understand.  I feel the same way.  

And I haven't said anything about you.  I have, instead, asked direct questions of some others, have not received direct responses, and have drawn no firm conclusions.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

How would you feel if I said you might belong to the crowd that wants to completely shut down immigration, close borders, but you won’t admit your position openly nor deny it?  

Well, you could just ask me, and I will answer.  Or you could look at my posts and glean from there.  Or both.

I have been pretty candid about my position, which involves nothing like "completely shut{ting} down immigration," and instead involves a robust and generous, but lawful and sensibly-administered, immigration policy and system.

Same goes with "closed borders," for which I have never advocated.  The U.S.-Mexico border is the most heavily-crossed border in the world.  It is supposed to be neither open nor closed, but controlled.  I have never advocated for a closed border, but rather for a secured, controlled one.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe I am actually listening to what you are saying if I think that?

I have said nothing to you or about you to suggest that you are part of the "open borders" crowd.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Or maybe it has multiple meanings for people, though primarily being about humane treatment of those who do not have a voice deserving at least the  basic human rights, not necessarily about giving them the privileges, such as long term residency, that documented immigrants have.  

This sort of euphemistic approach is intended to obscure more than clarify.  Kind of like the label "pro-choice" in the abortion debate is intended to obscure the reality that its advocates are in favor of of electively killing in utero babies for any reason or no reason at all.  Calling this position "pro-choice" both obscures this horrible truth and acts as an accusation of its opponents (who can be characterized as "anti-choice," etc.).

I am very much in favor of "basic human rights," but there is no right to illegally enter the United States.

Fundamentally, "open borders" has a pretty clear meaning.  It means little or no effort to regulate illegal crossings.  It means looking the other way as millions upon millions of people enter and stay here, many of whom are wonderful people just looking for a better life, and many of whom come here for more nefarious purposes.  Calling it "primarily being about humane treatment of those who do not have a voice deserving at least the basic human rights" is, like "pro-choice," putting a ribbon on a mess.

And oh, what a mess it appears to be: How Many Illegals Are in the United States? The Real Number May Shock You

Quote

Democrats have repeatedly claimed over the last 20 years that the number of illegals in America is roughly 11 million people—which would be bad if it were true but the truth is far worse than that. At least 11 million illegals entered the country under Biden alone. As we will see, the number of illegals within this country is actually several multiples of this 11 million number.

I just came across this article this morning, so I am hoping to do some further digging as to its cited references.

Quote

We all know that illegal immigration has gotten exponentially worse, not better. Even before the disastrous Biden Administration we already had enormous problems. Weak enforcement, porous borders, and ongoing effects since the passage of NAFTA helped to fuel the flow of illegals, as did ongoing talk of future amnesty from Democrats in Congress.

Chain Immigration, which began in 1965—whereby former illegal immigrants were allowed to sponsor their family members—has caused tectonic demographic and cultural shifts. California shifted from a reliably red state to an entrenched blue stronghold.

Chuck Schumer, who has been among the more vocal Democrats pushing the fictitious 11 million number of illegals, has also been pushing varying types of Amnesty programs for illegals over the span of his entire 30-year career—and his efforts go all the way back to 1984, when President Reagan was in office.

At the time, Reagan stated during a presidential debate that “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally.” Reagan’s comments paved the way for the disastrous Immigration and Control Act of 1986 which made any illegal immigrant who entered the US before 1982 eligible for amnesty.

It was Reagan’s greatest failure as a president. To be clear, Reagan was well-intentioned—but he misjudged the treachery of the DNC. As Daniel Horowitz noted in 2018, “Every bad outcome on immigration has emanated either from the unelected branches of government or legislation that was sold to the American people as doing the opposite of its actual intent.”

The 1986 bill, which would become to be known as The Reagan Amnesty, was a sweeping immigration reform bill that was sold to the American public as a crackdown—a supposed solution to what even then was perceived as a border crisis.

The biggest flaw in Reagan’s Amnesty lay with those in Congress who had promoted the Act in the first place. While Reagan saw the 1986 deal as a compassionate solution to a pre-existing problem, members of Congress—particularly Democrats, along with some well-known RINO’s—saw an opportunity to gain voters.

Once amnesty was enacted, members of Congress simply refused to provide funding for the promised border restrictions, preventing any real action to combat illegal immigration. There were also no real penalties for the unauthorized hiring of illegal aliens by employers.

Political advocacy groups also worked to undermine the enforcement of immigration laws. Leading these efforts in Congress were Senators John McCain and Chuck Schumer. Reagan had been tricked and betrayed.

Indeed, illegal immigration quickly climbed to record levels after Reagan’s Amnesty—with the number of illegal immigrants more than doubling in the ten years following the passage of the 1986 Act. By 1996, illegal immigrants were estimated to be around 8-plus million—far exceeding the roughly 3 million illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty status in 1986.

"8-plus million" by 1996.

Quote

In early 2005, the Left-leaning Pew Research Center came out with a new study whose stated intention was to estimate the numbers of “foreign-born persons living in the United States without proper authorization.” Its real purpose was to validate the massive undercounting that was present in official government numbers.

Pew determined that as of March 2005, the undocumented population had reached approximately 11 million including more than 6 million people from Mexico. The study found that most of these people had come to the country after 1990. The study also determined that about 80 to 85 percent of the migration from Mexico had been undocumented.

It was this extrapolated figure of 11 million illegal immigrants from Pew’s 2005 study that was used by Democrats for the next two decades.

11 million in 2005.  And remarkably, that static number is still being used today, twenty years later.

Quote

However, there was another detailed study that was also done in 2005—by Bear Stearns Asset management. The study by Bear Stearns acknowledged upfront that the official immigration statistics were grossly undercounting the number of illegals.

Unlike federal estimates, the Bear Stearns study looked at things like school enrollments, demand for public services, foreign remittances, border crossings, and housing permits, noting that these other statistics “point to a far greater rate of change in the immigrant population than the census numbers.”

Bear Stearns found that in 2005, “the number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people”, more than double the official Census Bureau figure. The study rightly observed that “Illegal immigrants work very hard to conceal their identities and successfully avoid being counted” noting that “Census officials and academics underestimate the ingenuity and the efficiency of the communications network among immigrants.”

The Bear Stearns methodology, done for the benefit of its investors rather than political purposes, seems to be based on more trustworthy, quantifiable data.

Per Bear Stearns, the 2005 number "may be as high as 20 million people."

Quote

But we have another data point as well—a Yale Study from 2018. This study, which relied “on a range of demographic and immigration operations data,” found that there were as many as 29 million illegal immigrants, with an estimated mean of 22.1 million in the US in 2018. As the study itself noted, they used an “extremely conservative model” to do “a sanity check on the existing number.”

Like the Bear Stearns study, the Yale researchers acknowledged that “the survey method doesn’t effectively reach a group with incentives to stay undetected.” As one of the authors of the study noted, “What we’re saying is the number has been higher all along.”

Per the Yale study, by 2018 the figures were 22-29 million.

These are mind-boggling numbers.  I think we need to talk about them.  

Quote

Not to be outdone, the Pew Research Study decided to once again provide their own estimates of illegal immigrants—this time for the year 2017. Recall that Pew said there were roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in 2005—using a methodology that could politely be described as questionable.

For 2017, Pew claimed that the number of illegal immigrants in the US had FALLEN from 2005 by half a million—to 10.5 million illegal immigrants. The study purported that illegal immigrants had peaked at 12 million in 2007 and fallen steadily from there.

How did Pew arrive at such a shockingly low, counterintuitive number that contrasts dramatically with the other studies? That question is hard to answer as the methodology used by Pew is somewhat indecipherable—something which Pew referred to as “residual estimation methodology”. But the overall formula they used was laughable.

The number of illegal immigrants was derived by taking the number of foreign-born US residents and then subtracting the “estimated lawful Immigrant population.” In other words, they simply created the numbers. Read the methodology for yourself. It’s astonishing.

Not only can Pew’s 2017 estimate be completely disregarded, the flawed methodology and conclusion also calls into question their 2005 study’s estimate of 11 million illegal immigrants.

Extrapolating between the 2005 Bear Stearns Study and the 2018 Yale Study—which found that the illegal immigrant population was as high as 29 million in 2018 using a model which its authors admit was based on an “extremely conservative” model—it would seem reasonable to say that the illegal immigration population was at least 30 million by 2020—probably higher.

"{A}t least 30 million by 2020--probably higher."

Is this accurate?  I don't know.  But I think we should be talking about it.

Quote

Although the 30 million number is admittedly a rough guess, it’s a conservative guess based on these underlying studies from Bear Stearns and Yale that validate each other.

Joe Biden opened our nation’s borders with a series of Executive Orders that began on Day One of his administration. The flood of illegals into our country began—assisted by billions in NGO funding from Biden’s State Department and USAID.

According to most estimates, there was an influx of nearly 11 million illegals during the four years of the Biden Administration—a number equal to the total number of illegals so frequently quoted by Democrats.

"{A}n influx of nearly 11 million illegals during the four years of the Biden Administration."

Is this "most estimates" figure an accurate number?  I'd really like to know if there are grounds to dispute it.

Quote

The studies from Bear Stearns and Yale validate each other and conform to what we have been seeing transpire at our borders. We also know that the methodology used in Pew’s 2017 study is highly questionable—so much so that it should be discarded from serious consideration. Does anyone actually believe the number of illegal immigrants in our country declined from 2005 to 2017?

Pick whatever number you like—we think the number of total illegal immigrants is probably in the 40 million range—but we can all agree that the 11 million figure touted by Democrats is utter nonsense. The thing is, they know that it's nonsense. But then again, they also know that amnesty would provide them with a huge influx to their voting base.

I think we need to be discussing this stuff.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Imo, it is essentially one secular way of saying everyone is a child of God.  

Okay.  I don't.  I think it's putting a bow on a mess.

Borders are important.  They often differentiate good ideas from bad ones, decent governance from poor-to-malevolent governance.  They are a physical manifestation of national sovereignty and identity.

To disregard border security is to intentionally weaken national sovereignty, defense, self-determination, and so on.  The Church recognizes this (and it does so while also declaring that "everyone is a child of God").  See here:

Quote

We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

And here:

Quote

Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.

The Church goes on to address your point:

Quote

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate.  The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.  

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage. 

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. 

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. 

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

I like this.  A lot.  A lot.

I dislike deliberately-left-open borders, over which millions upon millions of unknown, unvetted who-knows-whoms have crossed.  Many have come over illegally just to work, which is understandable (if still not appropriate).  Others come over illegally to traffic human beings, drugs, and so on.  Some come with diseases.  Some come over illegally to commit crime and espionage.

Again, here is my generalized position:

Quote

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

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

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

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Again, during this process we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.  

Again:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

Again:

Quote

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.  But not as a wholesale thing.

Again:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

 

I think this is generally compatible with the Church's position.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

A person may be involved in illegal immigration, that does not diminish or invalidate them as a human being…label the behaviour wrong, bad, not the person.  It is the same reason, I believe, more people are using “undocumented” rather than “illegal” for describing the person as no person’s existence should ever be viewed as “illegal”.  Language matters.  You aren’t prevented from viewing some forms of immigration as illegal even if you accept the phrase “ no human is illegal” as true.

I think "no human is illegal" is a euphemism for open borders.  Like "pro-choice," it obscures more than it describes.  YMMV.

People are free to use it, and people are free to construe it as I do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

Sam Brunson: Religious Liberty and Sanctuary

Quote

The church takes an expansive view of both the need for and the scope of religious liberty. President Oaks is perhaps the most enthusiastic and articulate defender of the importance of religious liberty in the church. He explains that “Religious liberty is a precondition for that essential quality of mortal life, created by God, our Eternal Father. The whole purpose and the essential environment of the Church depends upon freedom of choice.”

Free exercise of religion, according to President Oaks, is, along with the other rights enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, “essential to safeguarding and perpetuating all constitutional freedoms.”

I agree with all of this.

Quote

And, not three days into the Trump administration, that religious liberty is under significant attack. Yesterday, the head of DHS revoked a Biden-era rule that prohibited ICE from going into sensitive areas, including churches, to arrest undocumented immigrants. As of yesterday, ICE agents can enter churches, against the wishes of clergy and congregants, and take people out of the pews, out of the kitchens, out of the classrooms.

From the above link:

Quote

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued two directives essential to ending the invasion of the US southern border and empower law enforcement to protect Americans. 

The first directive rescinds the Biden Administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement actions that thwart law enforcement in or near so-called “sensitive” areas.

Here is, I think, a link to this "first directive."  Some excerpts:

Quote

To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities.  Such a location is referred to as a “protected area.”

This principle is fundamental. We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants. 
...
The following are some examples of a protected area. The list is not complete. It includes only examples: 
...

• A place of worship or religious study, whether in a structure dedicated to activities of faith (such as a church or religious school) or a temporary facility or location where such activities are taking place.

I like this, in principle.  As a practical matter, though, I'm not sure ICE/CBP was going into churches anyway.  If so, this directive is more performative than functional.

Quote

The second directive ends the broad abuse of humanitarian parole and returns the program to a case-by-case basis. ICE and CBP will phase out any parole programs that are not in accordance with the law. The following statement is attributable to a DHS Spokesperson:

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.

“The Biden-Harris Administration abused the humanitarian parole program to indiscriminately allow 1.5 million migrants to enter our country. This was all stopped on day one of the Trump Administration. This action will return the humanitarian parole program to its original purpose of looking at migrants on a case-by-case basis.” 

This does not sound like ICE and CBP are gearing up to go into church buildings, which they were previously expressly prohibited from entering.  

Quote

Will it happen? In a normal world, I’d say no. While the church hasn’t been a participant in the Sanctuary Movement, the government has been hesitant in the past to cross sacred thresholds, recognizing a centuries-long tradition of churches and other religious buildings providing sanctuary to people who sought protection from prosecution and persecution.

I wonder how prevalent this issue is.  I suspect there are very few instances of this happening.

I wonder what would happen if claiming sanctuary in churches became a widespread thing.

Quote

But the statement from the head of DHS is pretty belligerent: he expressly says that “[c]riminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.” That sounds suspiciously like he intends for ICE agents to go into churches.

I think Sam's interpretation is mitigated somewhat by the next sentence: "The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense."

I hope "common sense" will prevail here.  I also hope we don't see "{c}riminals ... hid{ing} in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest."

Quote

(On top of that, there’s some indication that Trump has ordered the deprioritization of violent criminals, instead focusing on misdemeanor immigration violations.)

I think this may a reference to the Laken Riley Act:

Quote

Undocumented migrants accused of non-violent crimes will have to be detained, according to the first bill passed by Congress to be signed by President Trump.

The Laken Riley Act, named after a Georgia nursing student who was murdered in February last year by an illegal immigrant, is the first step in Trump’s plans for an overhaul of immigration legislation.

The House voted to pass the act by 263 votes to 156, with 46 Democrats, mostly in competitive districts, joining Republicans.
...
It passed the Senate this week with the backing of every Republican and 12 Democrats.
...

In November, Jose Ibarra, 26, was convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering Riley, 22, while she was jogging near the University of Georgia campus in Athens. The Venezuelan migrant was sentenced to life in prison without parole.  

Riley’s murder became a flashpoint during last year’s election campaign after it emerged that Ibarra had been cited for shoplifting by police, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) did not take him into custody.
...

The act will require Ice to detain undocumented immigrants who are charged, arrested or convicted of committing acts of “burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting”.

“This bill ensures all criminal illegals like Laken Riley’s murderer will be arrested, detained and eventually repatriated,” Byron Donalds, a Republican congressman from Florida, said after the bill was passed.

So not just "misdemeanor immigration violations."

Back to Sam Brunson:

Quote

What does that mean for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Potentially a lot. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of wards in the US, and every stake, has faithful members who are undocumented. This new policy indicates that they could be targeted for arrest as they worship at church.

We'll see, but I doubt it.  

Quote

And this is bad, for a couple reasons. The first is, if we truly believe that church attendance and taking the sacrament are important (and we do!), anything that forcibly discourages or impedes people from attending church and taking the sacrament potentially has salvific consequences.

Well, no.  The Sacrament is not a salvific ordinance.

Quote

But second, it stomps on their constitutionally-protected, foundational religious liberty. And it stomps on the church’s religious liberty in ministering to those who wish to attend.

I'm not sure about this.  If the police received information that an on-the-run kidnapper was, at that moment, attending a Sacrament Meeting, would it be a constitutional violation for police to immediately go there and arrest him?  No.  

If the Trump Administration wanted to turn public opinion against their immigration policy, I think they could hardly do better than start sending federal agents into churches.  That is why I don't think this will happen (or that it will only happen in rare and extraordinary circumstances).  We'll see, I suppose.

Quote

I wish I had a simple call to action for all of us.[fn] But the real call to action is for the church: because wards and stakes are run by lay members, we can’t expect them to know how to deal with the ICE agent who wants to come in. It’s incumbent that the church provide both the legal and pastoral tools to local leadership so that they know how to protect their congregants, themselves, and religious liberty more broadly.

Huh.  I wonder what Sam Brunson has in mind by talking about "legal and pastoral tools to local leadership so that they know how to protect their congregants."

Quote

And even if ICE agents choose not to enter LDS buildings, that doesn’t get us off the hook. Pres. Oaks made abundantly clear that even where we enjoy religious freedom, our job is not done:

“The only way to make progress on religious freedom worldwide is for people who enjoy religious freedom to think about the circumstances of people who are not religious, who are not believers, who haven’t yet seen the importance or can’t enjoy religious freedom in the country where they live. We have got to think about religious freedom for all the children of God. And if we don’t, we’re falling short of what our divine Father in Heaven expects us to do.”

This is a bit weird.  Sam first notes that "the church hasn’t been a participant in the Sanctuary Movement," but he seemingly concludes by saying that it should get involved now.  "{E}ven if ICE agents choose not to enter LDS buildings, that doesn’t get us off the hook."  "Doesn't get us off the hook" to do what, Sam?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sam Brunson: Religious Liberty and Sanctuary

I agree with all of this.

From the above link:

Here is, I think, a link to this "first directive."  Some excerpts:

I like this, in principle.  As a practical matter, though, I'm not sure ICE/CBP was going into churches anyway.  If so, this directive is more performative than functional.

This does not sound like ICE and CBP are gearing up to go into church buildings, which they were previously expressly prohibited from entering.  

I wonder how prevalent this issue is.  I suspect there are very few instances of this happening.

I wonder what would happen if claiming sanctuary in churches became a widespread thing.

I think Sam's interpretation is mitigated somewhat by the next sentence: "The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense."

I hope "common sense" will prevail here.  I also hope we don't see "{c}riminals ... hid{ing} in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest."

I think this may a reference to the Laken Riley Act:

So not just "misdemeanor immigration violations."

Back to Sam Brunson:

We'll see, but I doubt it.  

Well, no.  The Sacrament is not a salvific ordinance.

I'm not sure about this.  If the police received information that an on-the-run kidnapper was, at that moment, attending a Sacrament Meeting, would it be a constitutional violation for police to immediately go there and arrest him?  No.  

If the Trump Administration wanted to turn public opinion against their immigration policy, I think they could hardly do better than start sending federal agents into churches.  That is why I don't think this will happen (or that it will only happen in rare and extraordinary circumstances).  We'll see, I suppose.

Huh.  I wonder what Sam Brunson has in mind by talking about "legal and pastoral tools to local leadership so that they know how to protect their congregants."

This is a bit weird.  Sam first notes that "the church hasn’t been a participant in the Sanctuary Movement," but he seemingly concludes by saying that it should get involved now.  "{E}ven if ICE agents choose not to enter LDS buildings, that doesn’t get us off the hook."  "Doesn't get us off the hook" to do what, Sam?

Thanks,

-Smac

why don't you post your Sam Brunson stuff at By Common Consent? He might respond to you

Edited January 30, 2025 by Duncan

[Duncan]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope you don't mind me asking your opinion but my very LDS sister and brother in law on my husband's side posted the below, and they never or rarely ever post on FB. I was quite bewildered and wondered how very factual it is. Do you think it's for real Duncan? (dumb question maybe). C/P'd the whole FB post. 

 

 

 

In the interest of pointing out misinformation. In Dec 2023 there was a decision by the World Court, that gave water above land shelves to those countries and ruled they were not international water. The renaming of the Gulf of America isn't renaming the whole gulf. It is renaming the area above our land shelves as our territory. You can't exactly put signs or border walls in the middle of the ocean. So for legal reasons, we need to identify these new changes on the map, so that new borders are made clear to maritime traffic. Those new maps will set the latitude and longitudes of where our border begins, or the Gulf of America. So all maritime traffic knows when they are leaving international waters. This is where knowing what is happening in the world, will help you filter out drama, and help you understand the legalities in your own country. This had nothing to do with Trump's ego, he is strengthening our borders and making sure all maritime traffic understands the changes that happened in 2023. Putting legal protections in place to help us enforce any military actions or incursion in the future. Betting most of you never realized the US grew by thousands of miles.

Likewise some of this radical idea of buying Greenland and possibly Canada. has nothing to do with his ego. That has to do with the race for minerals in the Arctic Ocean, protecting our borders, and getting us the legal right to help Europe protect their borders from the Russian and Chinese fleets that have been doing damage to infrastructure. If Greenland is the territory of the US, but still their own country like Puerto Rico, then we have the legal right to have a base there and the legal right to protect the waters around Greenland. The whole premise right now, if we were to go help Europe it would trigger an act of war. We would have to wait for Nato action to do anything. If we have the legal right, to be there. Legal right to protect Greenland, then any response to defend our territory is not considered an act of war. It makes it easier to help our Allies. Also, like as not, Russia and China have been making plans to invade Greenland. I have been hearing they are trying to buy up land around harbors in several countries or eyeing what they can take by force.

So Trump is not crazy. Not being an egotistical dictator. He is trying to strengthen the U.S. and working to provide some checks and balances that strengthen our ability to help Allies and prevent another world war. A lot of countries are getting we are the lesser of the two evils. Media not so much, they have grown allergic to fact-checking, and understanding any complex issue and just become about stirring drama rather than reporting facts, all of the facts.

And we want the Panama Canal back. It should never have been given away. I was very young when Carter did that, but I knew what he did was unmistakably wrong.

People call the attempted renaming of "the Gulf of Mexico" to "the Gulf of fragile Masculinity" Obviously Trump is beyond delusional 

Edited January 30, 2025 by Duncan

[bluebell]

This is the sentiment that I'm seeing coming from Facebook right now.  Does it have any merit?

Already, the predominant white Christian response to mass deportations is “They shouldn’t have broken the law.” 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why don't you post your Sam Brunson stuff at By Common Consent? He might respond to you

I have tried.  Either he deletes my comments, or my login is not working.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is the sentiment that I'm seeing coming from Facebook right now.  Does it have any merit?

Already, the predominant white Christian response to mass deportations is “They shouldn’t have broken the law.” 

I think broad and implicit (alongside the various explicit) and evidence-free attributions of racialist sentiments/motivations onto "white" people for being concerned about millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants in the United States is one of the more potent reasons the Bad Orange Man is in the White House.  There are plenty of brown and black and asian people, Christian and otherwise, who are likewise concerned about this issue, but only Whitey gets the deprecatory public commentary.  Such commentary is only pushing these folks further away.

"Mass deportations" is an interesting phrase, as it carries connotations of unfairness, arbitrariness, indiscriminateness, etc.  I don't think that really works.  It's not like people who are here lawfully are at risk of being deported, or that only certain racial groups are being subjected to arrest and deportation.  If there is evidence of race-based enforcement of the law, then I would like to see it, as I would be strongly opposed to any such behavior by the State.  Conversely, if there is no such evidence, and if implications of racism are just run-of-the-mill, last-ditch rhetoric, then I'd like to know that, too.

I am also curious as to the prevalence of this “They shouldn’t have broken the law" response.  It's not inaccurate, but it does disregard the boots-on-the-ground reality of years and years of American politicians of various stripes being either grossly negligent or intentional in their dereliction of duties re: enforcement of border security and immigration law.  We have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States.  I think we need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship).  From the Church's statement:

Quote

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate.  The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.  

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage. 

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. 

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. 

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

I think this is very wise counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think broad and implicit (alongside the various explicit) and evidence-free attributions of racialist sentiments/motivations onto "white" people for being concerned about millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants in the United States is one of the more potent reasons the Bad Orange Man is in the White House.  There are plenty of brown and black and asian people, Christian and otherwise, who are likewise concerned about this issue, but only Whitey gets the deprecatory public commentary.  Such commentary is only pushing these folks further away.

"Mass deportations" is an interesting phrase, as it carries connotations of unfairness, arbitrariness, indiscriminateness, etc.  I don't think that really works.  It's not like people who are here lawfully are at risk of being deported, or that only certain racial groups are being subjected to arrest and deportation.  If there is evidence of race-based enforcement of the law, then I would like to see it, as I would be strongly opposed to any such behavior by the State.  Conversely, if there is no such evidence, and if implications of racism are just run-of-the-mill, last-ditch rhetoric, then I'd like to know that, too.

I am also curious as to the prevalence of this “They shouldn’t have broken the law" response.  It's not inaccurate, but it does disregard the boots-on-the-ground reality of years and years of American politicians of various stripes being either grossly negligent or intentionally so in their dereliction of duties re: enforcement of border security and immigration law.  We have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States.  I think we need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship).  From the Church's statement:

I think this is very wise counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the statement is accurate--it is something that a lot of white Christians are saying or believe--but that doesn't mean they aren't being Christlike and it doesn't mean other races of people don't agree as well.