Church news reiterates immigration stance

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is forbidden- but generally only enforced when Conservatives start to answer back.

Kind of like how we can have people come in here all day long and tear down the Church, disparage the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc... but then have a topic shut down once a testimony of the Restored Gospel is posted.

Yes, this board is clearly run by anti-Mormons as some kind of elaborate honey trap.

/s

[smac97]

On 2/1/2025 at 1:28 PM, smac97 said:

Sam Brunson weighs in: I Don’t Have Words

Sam weighs in again: Ye Took Me In

Quote

Perhaps the most puzzling and troubling part of the church’s recent directive to church leaders on undocumented immigrants is the instruction that if church leaders believe a member is “not authorized to work, they should avoid potential conflicts with federal law by avoiding or limiting housing assistance.”

From ChatGPT:

Quote

You said: I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Recently, my church put out a directive to local leaders, namely, that if local leaders believe a member is “not authorized to work, they should avoid potential conflicts with federal law by avoiding or limiting housing assistance.” What "federal law" is being referenced here?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The directive from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints advising local leaders to "avoid potential conflicts with federal law by avoiding or limiting housing assistance" to members not authorized to work pertains to U.S. federal laws that criminalize certain actions related to undocumented immigrants. Specifically, these laws prohibit:

• Harboring: Providing shelter or housing to undocumented individuals can be interpreted as "harboring," which is illegal under federal law.

• Encouraging Unlawful Presence: Assisting or encouraging undocumented individuals to remain in the United States unlawfully is prohibited.

By advising local leaders to limit housing assistance to individuals not authorized to work, the Church aims to ensure compliance with these federal statutes and avoid legal complications.

newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org

You said:

Which laws? Chapter and verse, please.  

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The federal laws likely referenced in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' directive to local leaders regarding limiting housing assistance to individuals "not authorized to work" fall under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Below are the specific statutes:

---

1. Harboring or Concealing Unauthorized Immigrants

📜 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) – Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens
🔹 What it says:

• It is a federal crime to knowingly harbor, shield from detection, or transport an unauthorized immigrant.
• “Harboring” includes providing shelter, financial assistance, or housing in a way that helps someone stay in the U.S. illegally.

🔹 Possible application to the Church directive:

• Providing housing assistance could potentially be construed as "harboring" if it facilitates an undocumented individual remaining in the U.S. unlawfully.

---

2. Encouraging or Inducing Unlawful Immigration

📜 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) – Encouraging or Inducing Unlawful Presence
🔹 What it says:

• It is a federal crime to encourage or induce an individual to come to, enter, or reside in the U.S. if they are doing so unlawfully.
• This applies even if there is no direct financial benefit to the person providing assistance.

🔹 Possible application to the Church directive:

• The Church may be preemptively advising local leaders to avoid violating this statute by ensuring that housing assistance is not seen as encouragement for someone to remain unlawfully in the U.S.

---

3. Unlawful Employment of Unauthorized Workers

📜 8 U.S.C. § 1324a – Unlawful Employment of Aliens
🔹 What it says:

• Employers are prohibited from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee any person who is not authorized to work in the U.S.
• Employers who violate this law can face civil and criminal penalties.

🔹 Possible application to the Church directive:

• The Church’s guidance may reflect a cautionary approach—encouraging bishops not to refer members who are unauthorized to work for employment opportunities, thus avoiding potential legal liability.

---

4. Federal Benefits Restrictions for Unauthorized Immigrants

📜 8 U.S.C. § 1611 – Aliens Who Are Not Qualified for Federal Public Benefits
🔹 What it says:

• Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for most federal public benefits, including housing assistance.
• Exceptions include emergency medical care and disaster relief.

🔹 Possible application to the Church directive:

• While the Church provides private (not federal) assistance, avoiding entanglement in housing support for those not legally present may be a precaution to ensure compliance with federal benefit restrictions.

---

Conclusion

🔹 The Church's directive is likely referencing:

1. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) – Harboring or concealing undocumented immigrants.
2. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) – Encouraging or inducing unlawful presence.
3. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a – Unlawful employment of unauthorized individuals.
4. 8 U.S.C. § 1611 – Restrictions on federal benefits for unauthorized immigrants.

🔹 While providing housing assistance in itself is not necessarily illegal, the concern is that it could be interpreted as harboring or facilitating unlawful presence under federal law.

For myself, I would prefer to see religious groups provide housing assistance without fear or running afoul of the law.  I think this will be sorted out in fairly short order.  I hope so, anyway.

Quote

It’s puzzling and troubling for a number of reasons. It flies in the face of long-standing church policy. Under the church’s Handbook, “Church assistance might include help with short-term needs such as food, clothing, housing, or other basics.” While it indicates that such assistance should be short-term, the handbook doesn’t differentiate based on a recipient’s immigration status.

Per the above, the Church's directive is likely referencing:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) – Harboring or concealing undocumented immigrants.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) – Encouraging or inducing unlawful presence.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1324a – Unlawful employment of unauthorized individuals.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1611 – Restrictions on federal benefits for unauthorized immigrants.

We've had many decades of these provisions not being enforced, at least as to religious groups helping with housing.  But with the new sheriff in town, immigration policy is, at the moment, massively in flux, so the Church's counsel makes a lot of sense for the time being.

I think Sam gets this, but the "puzzling and troubling" schtick sounds better.

Quote

And, in fact, the new policy encourages a type of pastoral profiling. After all, the limitation on providing housing aid is based on a church leader’s belief that an individual lacks legal status. I’ll come back to this in a minute, but it’s important to note that it is impossible, looking at somebody, to know whether they were born in the U.S., whether they came in legally, whether they overstayed a visa, or whether they crossed a border illegally. I have no idea what a church leader’s belief would be founded on.

"No idea," Sam?  At all?  What about an actual disclosure of immigration status from the individual?

Nevertheless, Sam raises a fair point here.

Quote

This denial of hospitality and aid for undocumented immigrants also flies directly in the face of our obligation to help the stranger and make them comfortable in our land. It’s not just the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, though there, Jesus makes very clear the stakes. Those who do not invite the stranger in are on His left hand, to be cast out from Him, while those who do invite the stranger in are welcomed into His kingdom.

Alas, there is always some tension between being "harmless as doves" and "wise as serpents."

Some (many? most?) men who have served as bishops will have had the unpleasant experience of limiting or ending financial or other assistance to members of the ward, particularly when the individuals have received extensive assistance, expect it to continue ad infinitum, and do little or nothing to improve themselves and their circumstances (such as by getting and keeping a job).  The Church even has guidance about it:

Quote

Bishops who have concerns about welfare abuse or fraud may call the bishops’ help line (1-801-240-7887) or the area office. When a bishop does not know a member, he should contact the member’s previous bishop before giving welfare assistance.

The Church is not doing some wholesale denial of "hospitality and aid for undocumented immigrants," and it's a bit unserious for Sum to suggest the contrary.  The Church is recognizing that the new administration is doing things very differently, including potential enforcement of previously-unenforced/ignored statutes like those listed above.

I suspect the Church's guidance will be modifies as things are clarified in the future.  Meanwhile, however, I think Sam is being more emotional than pragmatic/legal here.  The Church should, as a generalized matter, be concerned with "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (AoF 1:12.)  I seem to recall Sam having some things to say about the Church's compliance with the law as re: SEC regulations.  So is compliance with the law an important consideration, or not?

Sam goes on to examine of the above statutes:

Quote

The church’s reasoning for the policy change seems to be to protect local leaders from potential criminal charges. It doesn’t say what those criminal charges are, but as best as I can determine, it’s referring to 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).[fn1] The provision imposes criminal penalties on any person who

“knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”

Now, I’m not an expert in federal criminal law, but I know my way around a statute and around case law. And largely, the provision of housing turns on what it means to harbor an undocumented immigrant.

Congress did not define the term when it enacted the law, leaving it to courts to determine what it means. And among the courts, there is kind of a circuit split on the question. (Kind of.) In my mind, the better (and more common) reading is that definition of harboring includes concealment. That is, you only violate the harboring statute if, in providing the housing, you’re also hiding the immigrant from law enforcement. (2d Cir., 3d Cir., 5th Cir., 6th Cir., 7th Cir., 11th Cir.)

The 9th Circuit doesn’t require concealment; it does, however, require a specific intent to violate the law, which can be shown, according to the court, by, inter alia, concealing undocumented immigrants or publicizing the fact that one is harboring undocumented immigrants in violation of an unjust law. (I believe that several other Circuits share this specific intent requirement, but honestly, I’ve spent a ton of my free time researching this already.)

There’s also the knowledge requirement. You’ve only violated the law if you know that a person you’re harboring is present illegally or you recklessly disregard the possibility. And in nearly every case I’ve looked at, that reckless disregard is done by an employer, or someone else with a legal duty to ask for evidence that someone is authorized to work and who chooses not to ask. (Also, I didn’t see a single case where someone was charged for paying somebody’s rent—where the question was rent, it was always the landlord who was charged, and usually the landlord really had to be turning a blind eye to the fact that they were renting to undocumented individuals. I have yet to find a case where a charge was brought against a payor.)

Here’s the thing: bishops are under no obligation to learn congregants’ immigration status. If the church wants to avoid potential legal liability for bishops, even in the Circuits that don’t require concealment as an element of the crime, it could quite simply direct bishops not to inquire about immigration status. There’s nothing in the church that requires us to know the immigration status of people around us, and no reason that choosing not to know would represent reckless disregard.[fn2]

And that’s leaving aside the strong likelihood that criminalizing a bishop providing housing aid to a congregant would be a RFRA violation. A couple years ago, an Arizona district court held that laws criminalizing the provision of food and water along immigration routes violated the religious rights of members of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes. (The organization is affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Church.)

So is my legal analysis a sure thing? No, though I find it difficult to imagine a world where the government could successfully prosecute a bishop following his church’s direction to provide housing aid to whomever requested it. And the church has the resources (both financial and legal) to defend any bishop that the government tried to prosecute.

So the legal waters are, by even Sam's estimation, pretty muddy.

Perhaps the Church's cautious and circumspect approach makes sense, then.

Quote

But let’s say the church doesn’t want to do so for whatever reason. It can still provide two sets of instructions, one for congregations in the Circuits that include a concealment requirement and another for congregations in other Circuits. That’s not ideal, of course, but the church does operate in jurisdictions with different laws and complies with the jurisdiction-specific laws. (So, for instance, it discloses its finances in countries that require the public disclosure of nonprofit finances. And it requires background checks for certain callings in the UK, in accordance with UK law.) Again, not ideal, but not out of the realm of possibility.

There is another option, of course: the church could stop providing housing assistance for anybody. This would be a terrible choice, but at least it wouldn’t represent a differential policy toward undocumented immigrants and legal residence (although again, this would seem to fly in the face of literally everything in scripture).

So Sam is floating a proposal that even he (!) characterizes as "terrible" and which "would seem to fly in the face of literally everything in scripture."

Not really serious stuff, this.

Quote

Look, I’m just a blogger, blogging here on the internet. But the idea that bishops shouldn’t provide housing aid to people they believe aren’t authorized to work in the US, lest they violate federal law, is probably specious anywhere in the US, and definitely specious in more than half of the country. The church has a moral obligation to rethink this discriminatory and wholly-unnecessary policy.

I think Sam has some moral-obligation-to-rethink things on his own plate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 4, 2025 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 1/31/2025 at 10:39 AM, bluebell said:

This paragraph got my attention:

"But second, it stomps on their constitutionally-protected, foundational religious liberty."

From a strictly legal perspective, does this argument hold any water?  Do illegal immigrants have constitutionally protected rights?  Sincere question because I don't know how the constitution applies to people who are not citizens.  

This is a good short summary of their rights:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

[Teancum]

On 2/1/2025 at 9:53 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is forbidden- but generally only enforced when Conservatives start to answer back.

Kind of like how we can have people come in here all day long and tear down the Church, disparage the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc... but then have a topic shut down once a testimony of the Restored Gospel is posted.

Oh my. Feeling persecuted today?

[Teancum]

On 2/1/2025 at 10:13 AM, Dario_M said:

I don't like it when people use this website to tear down the LDS community and Joseph Smith the whole day long though. That can't be the intention of this platform i do believe. 

Actually this board was set up to allow apologists and critics to debate things related to Mormonism.  If you view all criticism as tearing down the LDS community and Joseph Smith then that is what the board was set up to do. There used to be many more critics here, and many were other Christians critical of Mormonism. And there were many defenders. A number of defenders, like myself, eventually became critics.

[Teancum]

On 2/1/2025 at 3:28 PM, smac97 said:

Sam Brunson weighs in: I Don’t Have Words

Hmm.  Sam is a law professor, so I expect him to assess this stuff through a fairly pragmatic lens, at least alongside what looks to be an emotional/political one.

See, I think Sam is being more emotional than pragmatic/legal here.  Even local leaders who are attorneys should not, while acting in their capacity as representatives of the Church, give legal advice on matters that are both massively in flux and fraught with legal peril if they get it wrong.  

I had hoped for a more substantive analysis than "bad," but oh well.

The Church has never had a doctrine or policy or practice regarding "sanctuary," and it's not legally recognized anyway.

Sam is being bringing his emotional game here, but not his legal/pragmatic one.

Perhaps the Church is aware that the Trump Administration has the legal authority to do this, but that there have - so far - not been any instances of ICE agents actually doing this, and that the Trump Administration is telling ICE agents to use "common sense" (which would, absent exigent or extraordinary circumstances, generally and strongly militate against going into "our chapels (and temples)").

Sam seems to be fearmongering here.

This is emotional/political vitriol dressed up in religious garb.  Not a good look for Sam.

Wow.  This is, um, some pretty serious invective against the Brethren.  

The Church also has a moral duty to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (AoF 1:12.)

Sam is safely ensconced in the Ivy Tower of Academia, so he can spout off this nonsense because he has no skin in the game, no stewardship, no responsibilities like unto what the Brethren have.

So the Church is abdicating its prophetic responsibilities and mandates because it is not waging a political/legal war against the Orange Man's immigration policies?

Such are, I think, the shortsighted fruits of being too cocooned in Academia.  

Sam dislikes Trump and his policies, ergo Sam is condemning the Church because it is  not actively opposing Trump's entirely lawful policies, because it is "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," while at the same time doing everything it can within those strictures to help illegal immigrants.

I have far too many instances of taking a shoot-ready-aim approach to posts on this board (such as a recent attack on @Analytics, which I regret and for which I have apologized), so I'm not really in a position to judge or condemn Sam.  But I think his published-to-the-world rhetoric against the Brethren is disappointing, particularly given that I think the Brethren are taking a clear-eyed and pragmatic and best-under-the-circumstances approach to the dilemmas inherent in immigration policy.

I hope Sam takes some time and reconsiders his commentary here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why is Sam being emotional and you are not?  My guess is you support Trump and like his policies so you are condemning Sam. How can we tell that you are not as biased as you claim Sam is?

Edited February 4, 2025 by Teancum

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why is Sam being emotional and you are not? 

I said: "Sam is a law professor, so I expect him to assess this stuff through a fairly pragmatic lens, at least alongside what looks to be an emotional/political one."

So I'm not excluding emotional responses to legal issues, just hoping to get a clinical assessment alongside them.

That said, i think Sam is being more emotional than i am because his comments are coming across that way.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My guess is you support Trump

Yes and no.  I am strongly in favor of secured borders and enforcement of immigration law, a position I held long before the Bad Orange Man came on the scene.  I think I vary from his position in some material respects (such as how to address otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens who came and remained in the United States by our de facto invitation (decades of non-enforcement)).  I also dislike some of his coarse rhetoric, though that is more about decorum than substance.

FWIW, I did not vote for Trump in 2016.  I voted for him this time because I felt his policies and willingness to carry them out were, in the main, substantially better than the other candidate's.  Also, his reaction to the assassination attempt impressed me deeply.  

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and like his policies

I like some of his policies, and dislike some others.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

so you are condemning Sam.

I am not condemning Sam.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How can we tell that you are not as biased as you claim Sam is?

You can ask me questions, and I can answer them.  Like above.

My assessment of legal principles, and preferred legal/political policies, is not based on political parties, platforms or individuals.  I have never read a political party's platform, nor have I sought to align myself with one.  Rather, my assessment is based on my own training and experience as an attorney, my own research and analysis, my own sense of ethics and morality, and guidance from the leaders of the Church.  My political preferences and decisions are downstream from this.

In the end, though, you are free to review my comments and mine them for whatever bias you may hope to find.  Objectivity can be ever near, but will never be fully in reach.  We all have our biases.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2025 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 2/1/2025 at 3:28 PM, smac97 said:

Perhaps the Church is aware that the Trump Administration has the legal authority to do this, but that there have - so far - not been any instances of ICE agents actually doing this, and that the Trump Administration is telling ICE agents to use "common sense" (which would, absent exigent or extraordinary circumstances, generally and strongly militate against going into "our chapels (and temples)").

Sam seems to be fearmongering here.

Based on what Trump says and the despicable Tom Homan says I would not be surprised to see them show up at a church.  If they do the ICE agent can be turned away unless they have a judicial warrent signed by a judge. If not you can tell them to go pound salt.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Perhaps the Church is aware that the Trump Administration has the legal authority to do this, but that there have - so far - not been any instances of ICE agents actually doing this, and that the Trump Administration is telling ICE agents to use "common sense" (which would, absent exigent or extraordinary circumstances, generally and strongly militate against going into "our chapels (and temples)").

Sam seems to be fearmongering here.

Based on what Trump says and the despicable Tom Homan says I would not be surprised to see them show up at a church. 

Tom Homan seems to have a pretty impressive record in law enforcement.  And absent exigent circumstances or a warrant, I doubt we'll see much - if any - of ICE going into churches.

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If they do the ICE agent can be turned away unless they have a judicial warrent signed by a judge. If not you can tell them to go pound salt.

Hence the low likelihood of ICE agents entering into churches.

Churches are not absolute safe zones, but ICE enforcement inside a religious facility remains rare and politically sensitive.  I think that's appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh my. Feeling persecuted today?

Check the date.

I was feeling persecuted 3 days ago.

😉

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Actually this board was set up to allow apologists and critics to debate things related to Mormonism.  If you view all criticism as tearing down the LDS community and Joseph Smith then that is what the board was set up to do. There used to be many more critics here, and many were other Christians critical of Mormonism. And there were many defenders. A number of defenders, like myself, eventually became critics.

Not agree. I was not talking about healthy criticism. Because there's nothing wrong with that. I was talking about tearing down the church. Attacking people on the board who are saints. That will not do. ⬇️

Edited February 5, 2025 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hence the low likelihood of ICE agents entering into churches.

Churches are not absolute safe zones, but ICE enforcement inside a religious facility remains rare and politically sensitive.  I think that's appropriate.

All someone has to do is tell Trump that there are lots of immigrants hiding out in churches laughing at how they are avoiding him and the raids will start. This entire program isn’t based on pragmatism. And political sensitivity holding them back? LOL

[halconero]

On 1/31/2025 at 1:17 PM, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I commented on this in the other thread:

From ChatGPT:

FWIW, I think everyone should be skeptical of using ChatGPT for argumentation purposes. It (along with other LLMs) does okay with summarizing, and extremely well working with code, but it has some fatal flaws when it comes to asserting a point.

The reason why is that it operates like a data vacuum without considering the validity and reliability of the data it's trained on. Validity, in epistemology, statistics, and (more narrowly) logic, refers to whether a concept, conclusion, or measurement accurately describe something in the real world. There are different types of validity — face validity, content, construct, and criterion:

1) Face — does a concept or measure make common sense or pass the "sniff" test? If, for example, we want to measure public confidence in the police, we might simply survey people with a question like "one a scale of 1-5, how much do you trust the police?" On the surface, this is a common sense question for capturing confidence in law enforcement.

2) Content — does the measure capture the full breadth of the concept? Using our previous example, we're trying to capture *confidence* in the police. Trust is just one way of capturing that. Others include public perceptions of job effectiveness (the police might be trustworthy, but not good at their jobs), fairness, or level of engagement with the community. If we just included one question, we might not have enough content validity. A more comprehensive survey that includes a bunch of ways of looking at trust would strengthen the content validity of the question at hand.

3) Construct — does the measure truly capture the abstract concept it intends to, or is it picking up noise from something else? Let's say that approval of local government is at an all-time low, or there's a massive crime wave in the city. Are our measures actually picking up confidence in the police, or do they reflect these other concepts more when we try to measure them? My favourite example where this went wrong is an index out of D.C. that measures the left-wing versus right-wing lean of each Representative or Senator in Congress. It suggested that Kamala Harris (as a Senator) and way to the left of A.O.C. (who was relatively centrist). Why? Well, turns out it measured left-vs-right wing leans by party line votes, abstentions, or nays. The more you voted with the Dems, the more left you were. Except, A.O.C. abstains or votes nay pretty frequently for ostensibly left reasons. Turns out, the measure was picking up party loyalty more than it was ideological lean. It did not have good construct validity.

4) Criterion — does the measure correlate well with other benchmarks or outcomes that we expect it should? Back to the police example, we might hypothesize that genuine trust in the police is correlated with higher rates of cooperation with police investigations. When I asked my students to assess the Alberta hate crimes database for criterion validity, they (reasonably) suggests that, if hate crimes are a valid measure, we should see it correlate with negative public opinion to certain minorities, for example. If there is no relationship, we might be getting something wrong with our measure.

On reliability, this is all about whether you as the observer can consistently produce the same result under the same conditions at different time periods (intra-coder observation). It also refers to the consistency with which different observers can collect consistent results using the same approach. Reliability is a continuous measure rather than a binary, as statistical noise always messes with our results. A reliable measure minimizes noise to the greatest extent possible. Using the police again, we basically want to ask whether our crime reporting template produces similar data for similar crimes when the same officer uses it multiple times, and whether different officers use it.

ChatGPT does a crappy job assessing data for validity and reliability. If the data fed into it asserts its valid, ChatGPT assumes it as such without interrogating whether such is the case. Likewise, it will compare data or outcomes collected in very distinct ways, essentially comparing apples and oranges routinely

Besides my own experience working with the platform, I also happen to have a pretty intimate view into how it operates in terms of argumentation specifically. A member of my PhD cohort, Toni Roldan, is a former MP in the Spanish parliament, interested in how politicians can augment their knowledge for purposes of debate, argumentation, advocacy, and policy development. He ran 150 or so experiments pitting debate teams against each other on several contentious areas, with periodic breaks between arguments to conduct quick research and form their next argument. The control group was a regular debate group, armed with typical research methods. The treatment group were able to use ChatGPT to assist the development of their arguments. The debates were scored by a panel of judges in the first state, with a focus on argumentative style, substance, rationale, etc. The judges did not know that one of the teams received ChatGPT support.

The ChatGPT-assisted teams consistently outscored the control teams. They were able to form a much more comprehensive set of arguments in a quicker amount of time, with rhetorical flourish.

At the second stage, the debates were then reviewed by the judges not for regular debating score points, but for the accuracy of the statistics, data, and other information cited by both teams. Here, the ChatGPT teams performed much worse than the regular teams. Why?

The control teams did their research with the regular level of skepticism you might suspect from humans, especially those involved in debate. They discounted arguments that were not well supported by the evidence, or arguments where sound evidence still resulted in conflicting interpretations. The ChatGPT-assisted teams, however, won with a smarter sound Gish gallop. This isn't a fault of the teams - the model simply has no way of knowing from the suite of Google Scholar articles, grey literature, or media how valid or reliable the information is therein.

On 1/31/2025 at 1:17 PM, smac97 said:

The commentary above about ICE policy is, it seems out of date by a few days.

Yes.  But avoiding arrest/deportation by claiming "sanctuary" in a church building is not a constitutional right.

Agreed.

On 1/31/2025 at 1:17 PM, smac97 said:

People in the U.S. illegally have some, but not all, rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.  Again, from ChatGPT:

Thanks,

-Smac

The points here are right for the wrong reasons. Let's go through them:

1) The right to a public defender — illegal immigrants, as you posted, do not have the right to a public defender in immigration hearings. This has nothing to do with their illegality, however, but the nature of the proceedings. Immigration hearings are administrative procedures, not criminal hearings. Nobody, American citizen or otherwise, is entitled to a public defender for administrative hearings. If you have a social security claim you need to dispute, some sort of unemployment benefit issue, or professional licensing concern, you either need to hire your own lawyer or get some pro bono help. If I moved to the U.S. with my wife (she's a dual citizen) and got a green card, and somehow messed up my immigration status, but was there legally, I wouldn't get a public defender either. An American of the oldest, bluest blood from pre-revolutionary Boston won't get a public defender for an administrative procedure.

By contrast, let's say an illegal immigrant is charged with a crime in relation to their entry to the U.S. People who overstay their visas aren't eligible here, since that's a civil offence, not a crime. People caught crossing for the first time *can* be charged with a criminal misdemeanour (under federal law), but the feds often forgo charging them and send them to immigration court (which, again, is an administrative process). People caught crossing subsequent times have committed a felony and must be tried in criminal court, where, guess what? They get public defenders.

So, again, it's not the person's immigration status that determines their right to a public defender, but the type of court they go through.

2) Voting rights — I'll just submit here that constitutional protections are distinct from constitutional rights, with the latter being more expansive. The right to vote as outlined has almost nothing to do with the identity of excluded persons (identity by negation isn't a thing in logic, legal or otherwise; it just tells me what you're NOT, not what you ARE), and everything to do with identifying who is included.

3) Firearms — This is a relatively easy one, and probably one where you can make the strongest case regarding illegal immigrants specifically being denied protections in the Constitution. That is, the U.S. Constitution differentiates "the people" from "persons." Persons in the U.S. constitution refers to individual legal status, personal rights, and obligations. The "people" refers to the body politic, or a particular class of persons or individuals who are part of the national community or have developed a sufficient connection to it. Put another "the people" in the U.S. constitution is made up of individual persons, but not all persons belong to "the people." In statute, this has been applied in such a way that both citizens and green card holders have 2nd amendment rights, inferring that the latter comprise part of the people, without all the rights of citizenship. Again, however, I would suggest that protections and rights in the U.S. constitution are related but distinct concepts.

4) Public benefits — I wasn't aware of public benefits or a right to them being outlined anywhere in the Constitution to any great degree, if at all. I believe this is purely a legislative thing, no?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

May I ask, as an outsider, it seems to me from what I have heard that many of the un documented people that are now under threat of expulsion, that these people do a very large part of the work, for very little pay, that Americans do not want to do. Apparently farm workers and menial jobs in hospitality have been mentioned. So if they are expelled, will American be willing to fill the gap that they leave, and for the same level of pay? Will they be willing to be exploited in the same way ? Has the new administration thought of the consequences ? 

 

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Has the new administration thought…

I’m gonna stop you right there with a “No.”

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

May I ask, as an outsider, it seems to me from what I have heard that many of the un documented people that are now under threat of expulsion, that these people do a very large part of the work, for very little pay, that Americans do not want to do. Apparently farm workers and menial jobs in hospitality have been mentioned.

A few thoughts:

1. My understanding is that while a large percentage of agricultural workers (around 40%) are illegal immigrants, illegal-immigrants-who-work-in-agriculture amount to a small percentage of the illegal immigrants in the United States, something like 4%.  In other words, 96% of illegal immigrants do not work in agriculture.

2. Of the very small percentage of illegal immigrants working in agriculture, about 88% are from Mexico.  We have in place a the "the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program, which brings immigrants from abroad for periods of up to eight months to meet agricultural workforce needs."

3. I think it is an unhealthy state of affairs to have large numbers of Americans on welfare, not really working when they have the capacity (but not the preference) to do so, while there are ample jobs for them.  Per this article: "Federal welfare programs were developed to help the truly needy, but now at least 35 million able-bodied adults are enrolled in these programs and not working.  Able-bodied adults are siphoning upwards of $400 billion away from the truly needy and taxpayers."  We have the means to mitigate this situation.

4. I would like a robust immigration and guest worker program in the United States.  It needs to be legally and lawfully administered, though, rather than facilitated via unchecked and unvetted unlawful immigration that enriches criminal cartels and involves massive human suffering in terms of trafficked human beings (most of them women and children), drugs, violent criminals and gangsters coming into our country, and so on.  Surely we have the funding and technology and military and law enforcement sufficient to curb these depredations while at the same time facilitating lawful commerce and employment.

4 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

So if they are expelled, will American be willing to fill the gap that they leave, and for the same level of pay?

Between able-bodied welfare recipients and the H-2A visa program, I think we have plenty of opportunity to keep things going.  

4 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Will they be willing to be exploited in the same way?

This is an interesting question.  Wouldn't you think that a system that "exploits" illegal immigrants should not be maintained?

4 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Has the new administration thought of the consequences ? 

The consequences of ending the exploitation of illegal immigrants?  Of pushing able-bodied Americans off the public dole?  Of using H-2A visas for their intended purposes?  Yes, I suspect they have.

I think we have technological and other means to mitigate these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2025 by smac97

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

5 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Has the new administration thought....

I’m gonna stop you right there with a “No.”

How many people really stop and think?

At a Super Bowl party last night, one of my true-blue, flag-waving, Kenny-Chesney-listening, Trump-supporting Republican friends started venting about work. He’s a top-level sales executive for an international firm that sells packaging systems and materials used in the food industry. Because of Trump’s trade war, some of his biggest and best clients are canceling their contracts. In an industry with razor-thin margins, tariffs aren’t just a talking point—they can be the difference between keeping or losing a business.

With a tear in his eye, he looked at me and said, "America First all sounds great until it happens to you."

I wanted to scream, "I tried to warn you! What did you expect? You work for a Canadian company!" But instead, not wanting to start a political debate during the game, I just said, "Yeah, that's rough."

It all makes me wonder—do people, in general, actually think?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How many people really stop and think?

At a Super Bowl party last night, one of my true-blue, flag-waving, Kenny-Chesney-listening, Trump-supporting Republican friends started venting about work. He’s a top-level sales executive for an international firm that sells packaging systems and materials used in the food industry. Because of Trump’s trade war, some of his biggest and best clients are canceling their contracts. In an industry with razor-thin margins, tariffs aren’t just a talking point—they can be the difference between keeping or losing a business.

With a tear in his eye, he looked at me and said, "America First all sounds great until it happens to you."

I wanted to scream, "I tried to warn you! What did you expect? You work for a Canadian company!" But instead, not wanting to start a political debate during the game, I just said, "Yeah, that's rough."

It all makes me wonder—do people, in general, actually think?

Most people don't understand cause and effect very well, or at the very least they don't see things well that are beyond their immediate perspective.  It's like that time all those people in kayaks and north face gear holding iphones were photographed protesting oil.

I think it would help a lot if required college classes included teaching people how to see the bigger picture, no matter what their ideals are.  If something is the right choice, then it's the right choice even if it negatively impacts you; it's not just right if it only negatively impacts other people.

That's too bad that your friend is suffering so much, even when the tariffs never went into effect.  Hopefully it won't last long and the contracts will be back.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

How many people really stop and think?

At a Super Bowl party last night, one of my true-blue, flag-waving, Kenny-Chesney-listening, Trump-supporting Republican friends started venting about work. He’s a top-level sales executive for an international firm that sells packaging systems and materials used in the food industry. Because of Trump’s trade war, some of his biggest and best clients are canceling their contracts. In an industry with razor-thin margins, tariffs aren’t just a talking point—they can be the difference between keeping or losing a business.

With a tear in his eye, he looked at me and said, "America First all sounds great until it happens to you."

I wanted to scream, "I tried to warn you! What did you expect? You work for a Canadian company!" But instead, not wanting to start a political debate during the game, I just said, "Yeah, that's rough."

It all makes me wonder—do people, in general, actually think?

I think it's just starting so we'll hear a lot more soon. Lots of federal jobs are gone, among all political colors. I hope there's a good outcome, one big one should be that we all learn our lesson on never taking our country's wonderful qualities for granted, because they go fast if we're not careful.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

May I ask, as an outsider, it seems to me from what I have heard that many of the un documented people that are now under threat of expulsion, that these people do a very large part of the work, for very little pay, that Americans do not want to do. Apparently farm workers and menial jobs in hospitality have been mentioned. So if they are expelled, will American be willing to fill the gap that they leave, and for the same level of pay? Will they be willing to be exploited in the same way ? Has the new administration thought of the consequences ? 

 

Nope, not much. And the other night I went to dinner with friends and they were adamant that only the criminal illegal immigrants will be deported. Not true, right here in my state I personally know of two families that had a family member pulled over and taken. No criminal background. One is their dad and he is currently being held somewhere in Las Vegas. 

One farmer I heard in an interview said without the immigrants working the dairy farm, our food supply could end in just a few days.

Edited February 10, 2025 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

How many people really stop and think?

At a Super Bowl party last night, one of my true-blue, flag-waving, Kenny-Chesney-listening, Trump-supporting Republican friends started venting about work. He’s a top-level sales executive for an international firm that sells packaging systems and materials used in the food industry. Because of Trump’s trade war, some of his biggest and best clients are canceling their contracts. In an industry with razor-thin margins, tariffs aren’t just a talking point—they can be the difference between keeping or losing a business.

With a tear in his eye, he looked at me and said, "America First all sounds great until it happens to you."

I wanted to scream, "I tried to warn you! What did you expect? You work for a Canadian company!" But instead, not wanting to start a political debate during the game, I just said, "Yeah, that's rough."

It all makes me wonder—do people, in general, actually think?

I think the self-flagellation routine that individual Americans put themselves through, for their country having the temerity to look to its own interests and that of its citizens, is misguided.  Every country looks to its own interests and that of its citizenry, or ought to.

There is, of course, a strong incentive to cooperate with other nations.  The Quakers' proverb, “Thee lift me and I’ll lift thee, and we’ll ascend together” is a beautiful thing, and can work in an international trade context. That said, I think it's entirely appropriate to push back against endless trade deficits which disfavor the United States:

Quote

The United States has the largest trade deficit in the world. In 2023, the trade deficit of this nation was $773.4 billion. While the country brought in $3,826.9 billion in imports, the amount of exports was just $3,053.5 billion, (BEA, 2024). The largest exports of the United States were cars, food, and commercial aircraft. The largest imports were cell phones, oil, and cars.

The largest deficit in goods in the United States is with China. In fact, over one third of the trade deficit – or $279 billion – is because of imports from China. The main imports that the US purchased from China include clothing, machinery, and electronics.

The United States also has a significant trade deficit with Mexico. This deficit is smaller than that of China’s at $152 billion. The U.S. has imported $475 billion worth of goods from Mexico in 2023, including vehicles and auto parts.

The US has the third largest trade deficit with Vietnam at $104 billion. The primary categories of imported goods include machinery, mechanical appliances, textiles, and footwear.

A trade deficit of $83 billion with Germany is the fourth largest trade deficit of the U.S. In 2023, the U.S. imported almost $160 billion in auto parts and vehicles, medicine, and machinery.

The United States has a trade deficit of $71.2 billion with Japan. Vehicles and industrial supplies are among the primary imports that the U.S. acquires from Japan.

The U.S. also has a $68 billion trade deficit with Canada. While the U.S. exports vehicles, petroleum, and auto parts, it imports more crude oil and gas from Canada.

I would prefer to address the larger trade deficits, particularly with China.  I love Chinese people to distraction (I served my mission in Taiwan, and so came to admire and respect the Chinese culture, language, etc.), but I really dislike Communism, and the government of China is no friend to the United States.  I would like to see far more economic aggressiveness against China than our wonderful neighbors to the north (though I have in recent years come to dislike Mr. Trudeau's policies, mostly because of the difficulties he has created for his own people).

As for the deficit with Canada, it looks like Mr. Trump is overstating things:

Quote

The president then went on to say his country pays “hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada” and that Americans “don’t need anything they have.”

 

If there is pain, he argued, it would first and foremost affect Canada.

“Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true,” he wrote.

This is not true. United States does not subsidize Canada, and it doesn’t give anything away for free by trading with Canada.

In 2023, the deficit was $64 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau — far less than the “$200 billion or $250 billion” that Trump claims and less than its trade deficits with China, Germany, Mexico and Japan.

Economists say the deficit is driven by Canadian energy exports, including crude oil, which the United States buys at a discount. If energy is removed from the equation, the deficit becomes a surplus.

Meanwhile nearly 80 per cent of Canadian exports go to the United States.

Looks like Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada.  I suspect that there is some method to Mr. Trump's madness as to this issue.  We'll see, I suppose.  Meanwhile, however, I like most of what he has done, and hope that he can keep going, and that he can get a lot of stuff legislated to advance his agenda.  He is, in the main, doing what he said he would do, and that seems to be what the electorate wanted, since we voted him into office.

I really like a lot of things that are being done, and dislike some others.

I am glad to see the unleashing of a robust domestic energy policy.  Killing the middle class and fueling inflation by undermining American's energy sector was a terrible idea.

I am glad to see the border become substantially more secured.  Astonishing that Mr. Trump did in days what the previous administration failed to do for years.  

I am concerned about mass deportations, and would like to see some mechanism for accommodating peaceful and otherwise law-abiding folks who came here illegally, as we have in the past tacitly invited them to come via intentionally lax/incompetent enforcement of our borders and laws.  I like the Church's broad proposal here: "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."

I am very happy with the EO regarding biological sex and biological men in women's sports.  I am hoping we can get past this collectively coerced and irrational absurdity about trans ideology and return to biological reality.

Same goes for Mr. Trump stopping the mutilation of children under the euphemism of "gender-affirming care."  I have a hard time conceptualizing a person reading The Cass Report and still being in favor of this stuff.

I am happy to see government-endorsed discrimination programs coming to an end, and to see merit-based approaches returning.

I am happy to see aggressive efforts to reduce government waste, corruption, etc.  I think this can happen without interrupting genuine humanitarian efforts abroad.  We need to really address inefficiencies and corruption at the DOD and in Social Security and entitlement programs.

Lifting governmental efforts to censor Americans?  Great!

Reducing regulatory constraints, particularly by The Administrative State?  Great!

A "United States Sovereign Wealth Fund"?  I'm pretty leery about that.  It would probably become just another slush fund.

Tariffs?  A mixed bag.  

In the last administration, it was quite the reverse.  And so it goes.  I love being an American.  I also enjoy not tying my identity or fealty to any particular party or individual.  I prefer to focus on policies more than personalities.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[smac97]

On 2/5/2025 at 5:19 PM, halconero said:

FWIW, I think everyone should be skeptical of using ChatGPT for argumentation purposes.

I think that's a fair point.  I use it when it corroborates and distills what I already believe and have formulated as far as broad moral/social issues.

For example, earlier this morning I asked ChatGPT three questions:

Quote

In terms of sexual ethics, what are some of the drawbacks to a consent-based moral framework (that is, that the notion that any behaviors between consenting adults is morally acceptable)?

Same question, but with "consent + love." What are the drawbacks to that approach?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that sex must be limited to the confines of marriage between a husband and wife, and that the purposes of sexual behavior are A) to procreate, and B) to strengthen the union between husband and wife. What are the drawbacks of this moral framework?

I was not impressed with the responses.

On 2/5/2025 at 5:19 PM, halconero said:

Quote

What Constitutional Rights Do Illegal Aliens Have in the U.S.?

Despite lacking lawful immigration status, illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) in the United States do have constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution applies to all persons within the country’s jurisdiction, not just U.S. citizens.

---

1. Due Process & Equal Protection (5th & 14th Amendments)

✅ The Fifth Amendment – Protects against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
✅ The Fourteenth Amendment – Guarantees equal protection under the law to all persons, not just U.S. citizens.

• Key Supreme Court Case: Plyler v. Doe (1982)
  • The Court ruled that undocumented children cannot be denied public education based on their immigration status.
  • The ruling reaffirmed that "all persons" in the U.S. have equal protection under the law.

---

2. Protection Against Unreasonable Searches & Seizures (4th Amendment)

✅ Illegal aliens are protected from unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement, just like U.S. citizens.

• Law enforcement must have a warrant or probable cause to search a person or their property.
• Immigration enforcement exceptions:
  • Border agents have broader authority to conduct searches near the border.
  • Immigration officers can ask for documents but cannot conduct warrantless home raids without consent or legal authorization.

---

3. Right to Legal Counsel in Criminal Cases (6th Amendment)

✅ Undocumented immigrants have the right to a lawyer in criminal cases.

• If charged with a crime, they must be given access to legal representation.
• However, in immigration proceedings (which are civil, not criminal), there is no right to a court-appointed attorney.

🚨 Key Distinction:

• Criminal cases → Right to a public defender.
• Immigration proceedings → No public defender; must hire their own lawyer or find pro bono assistance.

---

4. Right to Remain Silent (5th Amendment)

✅ Undocumented immigrants have the right to remain silent when questioned by law enforcement.

• They do not have to answer questions about their immigration status.
• They can refuse to sign documents without legal advice.

---

5. Protection Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment (8th Amendment)

✅ Illegal aliens are protected from inhumane treatment and excessive bail or fines.

• They cannot be subjected to abuse, torture, or inhumane detention conditions.
• Supreme Court precedent: Even those facing deportation cannot be subjected to cruel treatment by the government.

---

6. Right to Access the Courts

✅ Undocumented immigrants can sue in U.S. courts.

• They can file lawsuits (e.g., for workplace violations, discrimination, or injury claims).
• They can testify in court as witnesses.
• They cannot be denied access to legal proceedings simply due to immigration status.

---

7. Right to Work Protections

✅ Labor laws apply to all workers, regardless of immigration status.

• Employers cannot:
  • Refuse to pay wages owed to undocumented workers.
  • Violate workplace safety laws.
  • Engage in discrimination or abuse.
• Supreme Court Limitation:
  • In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002), the Court ruled that undocumented workers cannot receive back pay if fired due to union activity, limiting some labor protections.

---

8. Rights That Do NOT Apply to Illegal Aliens

🚫 Voting Rights – Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal and most state elections.
🚫 Firearms Rights (2nd Amendment) – Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms.
🚫 Public Benefits – Most federal benefits (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, welfare) are not available to illegal aliens, though some states provide benefits like healthcare for children.

---

Conclusion

🔹 Illegal aliens in the U.S. have many constitutional protections, including due process, protection from unlawful searches, and access to the courts.
🔹 However, they do not have certain rights like voting, gun ownership, or guaranteed government benefits.
🔹 Key Supreme Court rulings (such as Plyler v. Doe) affirm that constitutional rights apply to all persons, not just citizens.

The points here are right for the wrong reasons. Let's go through them:

1) The right to a public defender — illegal immigrants, as you posted, do not have the right to a public defender in immigration hearings. This has nothing to do with their illegality, however, but the nature of the proceedings.  Immigration hearings are administrative procedures, not criminal hearings. Nobody, American citizen or otherwise, is entitled to a public defender for administrative hearings.

ChatGPT got this right, though:

Quote

3. Right to Legal Counsel in Criminal Cases (6th Amendment)

✅ Undocumented immigrants have the right to a lawyer in criminal cases.

• If charged with a crime, they must be given access to legal representation.
• However, in immigration proceedings (which are civil, not criminal), there is no right to a court-appointed attorney.

🚨 Key Distinction:

• Criminal cases → Right to a public defender.
• Immigration proceedings → No public defender; must hire their own lawyer or find pro bono assistance.

 

On 2/5/2025 at 5:19 PM, halconero said:

2) Voting rights — I'll just submit here that constitutional protections are distinct from constitutional rights, with the latter being more expansive. The right to vote as outlined has almost nothing to do with the identity of excluded persons (identity by negation isn't a thing in logic, legal or otherwise; it just tells me what you're NOT, not what you ARE), and everything to do with identifying who is included.

I see this as mostly a distinction without a difference.  An illegal alien does not have the constitutional right to vote.  

On 2/5/2025 at 5:19 PM, halconero said:

4) Public benefits — I wasn't aware of public benefits or a right to them being outlined anywhere in the Constitution to any great degree, if at all. I believe this is purely a legislative thing, no?

 Yes, that's not really a constitutional issue (except perhaps in an "Equal Protection" context, but I've never examined it that way).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

This video has a great explanation on how the current US immigration law actually encourages illegal immigration.  The presence of the 3 year bar and the 10 year bar make it extremely difficult for people to come  and go, thus forcing them to come and stay. What it says tracks with my experience talking to immigrants.  Prior to 1996, my wife was able to cross the border several times without documentation.  She stopped crossing in 1996 because she decided to go on a mission and was called to serve in the states.   When we got married the fact that she hadn't crossed since before 1996 allowed her to get an adjustment in status without having to return to Mexico.  Many other people I know decided to stay because of these weird laws.  

Bad laws create perverse incentives and often make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This video has a great explanation on how the current US immigration law actually encourages illegal immigration.  The presence of the 3 year bar and the 10 year bar make it extremely difficult for people to come  and go, thus forcing them to come and stay. What it says tracks with my experience talking to immigrants.  Prior to 1996, my wife was able to cross the border several times without documentation.  She stopped crossing in 1996 because she decided to go on a mission and was called to serve in the states.   When we got married the fact that she hadn't crossed since before 1996 allowed her to get an adjustment in status without having to return to Mexico.  Many other people I know decided to stay because of these weird laws.  

Bad laws create perverse incentives and often make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

 

A pretty decent video, though I wonder if overstate IIRAIRA’s role in shaping modern immigration problems, and/or understates other factors and incentives affecting mass migration into the U.S. (post-9/11 policies, economic conditions, labor demands, remittances, under-the-table employment, "sanctuary" jurisdictions, "catch-and-release" policies, EMTALA, state-funded welfare programs, housing assistance, birthright citizenship, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

As for the deficit with Canada, it looks like Mr. Trump is overstating things:

Looks like Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada.  I suspect that there is some method to Mr. Trump's madness as to this issue.  We'll see, I suppose.  Meanwhile, however, I like most of what he has done, and hope that he can keep going, and that he can get a lot of stuff legislated to advance his agenda.  He is, in the main, doing what he said he would do, and that seems to be what the electorate wanted, since we voted him into office.

He is not overstating. He is lying. He screams about how unfair our current trade deal is with Canada. One would ask who negotiated our current trade deal with Canada. To do this one must go back through the mists of time to the days of yore. By that I mean 2018 when NAFTA was trashed and President Trump signed a major trade deal with Canada which, he assured us, many were saying was the greatest trade deal of all time.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am glad to see the border become substantially more secured.  Astonishing that Mr. Trump did in days what the previous administration failed to do for years.  

What has actually changed at the border? Or do you just believe the rhetoric that it is now suddenly secured?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am very happy with the EO regarding biological sex and biological men in women's sports.  I am hoping we can get past this collectively coerced and irrational absurdity about trans ideology and return to biological reality.

Same goes for Mr. Trump stopping the mutilation of children under the euphemism of "gender-affirming care."  I have a hard time conceptualizing a person reading The Cass Report and still being in favor of this stuff.

This has been refuted again and again but you continue to use the rhetoric about mutilating children. You like this rhetoric. Its accuracy doesn’t matter.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am happy to see government-endorsed discrimination programs coming to an end, and to see merit-based approaches returning.

Yes, the straight white man shall be seen as the default of competence again. Everyone else allowed a position does so only by their sufferance. When a white guy screws up it happens. When someone else screws up it was obviously a DEI hire and a huge mistake. Yes, even when the standards for the job haven’t changed at all.

Make racism and sexism Great AGAIN!

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am happy to see aggressive efforts to reduce government waste, corruption, etc.  I think this can happen without interrupting genuine humanitarian efforts abroad.  We need to really address inefficiencies and corruption at the DOD and in Social Security and entitlement programs.

So we should beef up the FBI that investigates cases of corruption then?

Oh wait, I have just been told that we are instead giving tests of personal loyalty to the President to FBI agents and driving hordes of competent agents to quit or be forced out.

Sounds like it is a good day to be a criminal. Oh, and loyalty tests are the kinds of things you do to set up authoritarian regimes. At least that is what we would be saying if it were happening overseas or if a Democrat was demanding that kind of loyalty testing. Fortunately it is fine in this case for reasons we can’t explain but trust us.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Lifting governmental efforts to censor Americans?  Great!

Putting billionaires who control most of the methods we use to communicate in positions of power? Great!

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A "United States Sovereign Wealth Fund"?  I'm pretty leery about that.  It would probably become just another slush fund.

It already has. Someone should look into that. Maybe the FBI…..oh wait….oh…..

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Tariffs?  A mixed bag. 

LOL

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In the last administration, it was quite the reverse.  And so it goes.  I love being an American.  I also enjoy not tying my identity or fealty to any particular party or individual.  I prefer to focus on policies more than personalities.

Gotta love these authoritarian policies that have experts on the rise of authoritarianism overseas warning Americans that this is how it starts. Still, I suppose there is something to having nuanced views on Mussolini’s trade policy. Not much but something.