Church news reiterates immigration stance

[ZealouslyStriving]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And they have the option to think you’re an absolute jerk for doing it and threatening to annex them by coercive economic means.

Having an option doesn’t make it moral or wise or not a really stupid idea that no one should have done.

Alright.

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  But I think people will be substantially less incentivized to break U.S. immigration laws.

I have read many articles describing the horrific things involved in illegal border crossings (which crossings some folks apparently want to keep happening).  See, e.g., here: 

Your problem is that you read too many articles and don't go out in the real world and talk to real people, reading too many online articles has distorted and twisted, and warped your perceptions to the point they don't resemble reality in any meaningful way. 

People who are here illegally have babies the same way people who are here legally. They are just people.

People fall in love, get married (sometimes in the temple), then they decide to start a family. The vast majority of them are here in the states for years, if not decades before they have children.  

It would seem, in your warped, twisted reality, that there is some sort of baby boom in the US from people getting pregnant in foreign countries and giving birth here.  Its just not happening.  Not in any significant numbers.

That seems to be your problem.  These aren't people coming here.  To you they are some sort of vermin, who's sole purpose in daring to dirty the clean, American soil, is to take advantage of you.  

Its just not true.

If you start with the premise that these are Children of our Heavenly Father, and our brothers and sisters, it changes ones perspective.

Take some time off of the Internet. 

Talk to real people.

You might be Surprised.

[smac97]

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

Your problem is that you read too many articles and don't go out in the real world and talk to real people, reading too many online articles has distorted and twisted, and warped your perceptions to the point they don't resemble reality in any meaningful way. 

Uh-huh.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

People who are here illegally have babies the same way people who are here legally. They are just people.

Sure.  But some of them come here to have babies, and many of those who do so come illegally.  Because of the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  That interpretation therefore creates a perverse incentive to break the law.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

People fall in love, get married (sometimes in the temple), then they decide to start a family. The vast majority of them are here in the states for years, if not decades before they have children.

It would seem, in your warped, twisted reality, that there is some sort of baby boom in the US from people getting pregnant in foreign countries and giving birth here.  Its just not happening.  Not in any significant numbers.

I have said nothing about any "baby boom."  The numbers appear difficult to accurately assess.

Regardless of the numbers, the perverse incentive remains.  The breaking of U.S. laws remains.  The seemingly problematic interpretation of the 14th Amendment remains.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

That seems to be your problem. 

And torturing puppies for fun and profit seems to be your problem.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

These aren't people coming here.  To you they are some sort of vermin, who's sole purpose in daring to dirty the clean, American soil, is to take advantage of you.  

And yet another accusation of racial hatred.  How tiresome.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

Its just not true.

That's the defining feature of a strawman, which is what you are presenting here.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

If you start with the premise that these are Children of our Heavenly Father, and our brothers and sisters, it changes ones perspective.

I do start with that premise.  It doesn't change my perspective on the lack of on-point precedent regarding "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment as pertaining to children born to illegal aliens.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

Take some time off of the Internet. 

Quit torturing puppies.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Danzo said:

Talk to real people.

You might be Surprised.

I think you are bereft of logical or reasoned analysis for your position, so you are left with resorting to ugly attempts at character assassination and emotional manipulation.

Whether or not the current reading of the 14th Amendment is correct does not have a racial dimension.  That you want to import one only indicates how bereft of substance your position is.  When the law is not on your side, pound the facts.  When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law.  When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, yell "Racist!" over and over.  That's all you're doing.  At this point I'm honestly questioning if you are really an attorney.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 24, 2025 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2025 at 2:54 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'll wait for results before declaring it misguided, dumb, self-destructive, etc...

I guess you are just brigher than like almost every economist ever.  Go look at the economy from 1880 to 1913.  You know the one Trump think is America's golden age. Well maybe for the robber barons but not for many else and there were a number of severe economic downturns during that period.  Trump fixates on something that is just plane dumb then thinks he knows more than the experts. 

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2025 at 7:44 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Anything that stops the exploitation of immigrants and the violation of our sovereignty is a win in my view. 

Mexico and Canada gave him what they already committed to last year. In other words they played Trump.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  But some of them come here to have babies, and many of those who do so come illegally.  Because of the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  That interpretation therefore creates a perverse incentive to break the law.

This is not why people have children.

It is an “othering” myth that they supposedly do. Anchor babies also do not protect parents from deportation. It is not a thing. It is a made up scare tactic to make immigrants into mercenary weirdos who do terrible things.

It is a myth. Made up. Not a motivation people have. Not a reason to spend 18 years raising a child for.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mexico and Canada gave him what they already committed to last year. In other words they played Trump.

It is incredibly easy to do most of the time. You give him some symbolic thing that is mostly meaningless that he and his credulous followers can think will sound good when the people in the TV talk about it and they win. It is how real estate developers handled Trump’s negotiation tactics. Jack up the prices way above market and let Trump “negotiate” them down to something lower and he walks away thinking he played them.

Doesn’t work so well when you have no leverage though. The Trump Campaign still has unpaid bills. Trump is a big fan of stiffing contractors. Now he stiffs venues for campaign stops and bills from cities and counties for providing protection. Con man gotta con. Check out his latest crypto currency if you think he has changed.

Ukraine and the EU are trying to handle him now. We’ll see if they or Putin do a better job of it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I mean that any country that has imports coming in has the option to impose tariffs for the opportunity to profit from their citizenry.

Right, it’s their own citizens that end up paying the tariffs by additional costs paid for foreign products being shifted to the consumer.   The government is not profiting off of other countries or foreign businesses, but off of their own citizens and incountry businesses.   And prices go up.

It may hurt other countries because they lose income if less of their resources/products are bought, but that is an effect on that country, not a profit for the country charging tariffs.  So a pressure tactic, not a let’s help our citizens save/make money tactic.

The idea may sometimes be to make homegrown products more competitive in the local market with protective, targeted tariffs as opposed to general ones, but it’s not forcing foreign countries to pay for the privilege of selling products to the country charging tariffs.  And the most likely result of general tariffs is the foreign countries will look to other customers to sell to and American companies will not look to use American resources/products because they will still be likely to be more expensive than other foreign countries because we protect our workers unlike many other countries.

It may create incentives for American countries to develop local products more since it drives up the price of these products, but that takes time and works much better with targeted tariffs.  There is not much incentive to do so the way Trump is applying tariffs because he has tied them to something border issues so they could be lifted at anytime…and any money invested in development would be likely down the drain because prices drop at that point.

[The Nehor]

Even thought the tariffs were paused they still did a lot of damage.

Businesses most like making money most but their second favorite thing is almost always stability. If you are an unstable trading partner they are going to look for a more stable one even if costs are marginally higher. So threatening to upset the economic order (that is very much structured already to US advantage) in order to win some symbolic points will cause people to seek out more stable trade partners. If someone is threatening to flip the table they will find someone else to play a game with where profits are less likely to be destroyed by the latest whim of an unstable leader.

In diplomacy sometimes you do have to play hardball but you do it behind closed doors since everyone has to go back to their own nation and sell it as a win even if sometimes it is a loss. When you are bragging about smashing the other side you are doing it wrong. Diplomats tend to be tough people. If you have an insecure need for everyone else to think you are tough and performatively pretend you are tough you come across as pathetic and needy and are usually easy to manipulate.

[Peacefully]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is not why people have children.

It is an “othering” myth that they supposedly do. Anchor babies also do not protect parents from deportation. It is not a thing. It is a made up scare tactic to make immigrants into mercenary weirdos who do terrible things.

It is a myth. Made up. Not a motivation people have. Not a reason to spend 18 years raising a child for.

Having an “anchor” baby isn’t all it is cracked up to be:

The “anchor baby” myth: What everyone should know

On Behalf of Law Offices of Gita B. Kapur and Associates | Mar 16, 2022 | Immigration

If a child is born on U.S. soil, that child is automatically a United States citizen. That fact has created a widespread myth that undocumented immigrant mothers (and fathers) will do anything to make sure that their child is born inside U.S. borders so that they have an “anchor baby.”

The idea is that having a child who is a U.S. citizen automatically protects the child’s parents from deportation, regardless of their immigration status. That’s far from the truth.

Anchor babies may be citizens, but their parents can still be deported

It’s actually very difficult for undocumented immigrant parents of a U.S.-born child to obtain legal safeguards against deportation or improve their immigration status. Consider these facts:

• The U.S.-born children of immigrants cannot sponsor their parents for a green card until they are at least 21 years of age or older.
• The U.S.-born children must be able to prove that they can financially support their parents once they are granted admission to the U.S. so that they don’t become a burden on the public.
• The parents may have to leave the U.S. for up to 10 years before they will be allowed to return through a legal process.
• If eventually granted a green card, the parents must wait for five years before they can apply for naturalization.

What this means is that neither the parents of these so-called “anchor babies” nor the children – who are U.S. citizens by birthright – have any security. They all must live in fear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will sweep in someday and tear apart their families.

Don’t let misunderstanding about immigration law guide your actions. Speak to someone with experience and learn what you can do to overcome your immigration hurdles.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

That seems to be your problem.  These aren't people coming here.  To you they are some sort of vermin, who's sole purpose in daring to dirty the clean, American soil, is to take advantage of you.  

I am not sure what your purpose is in framing the conversation on this basis, but this is mind reading as there could be other reasons why Smac is not happy about illegal immigration to the point of ignoring data about the overall benefit, low crime rate, etc.

I think your argument would be much stronger if you didn’t attribute motivation when it’s not stated.

Outside of when you do this, I am greatly appreciating your posts and I don’t want the thread closed or you banned as might happen when a poster engages in mind reading.

And you aren’t the only one doing this, so maybe everyone should think of this as a reminder that even if mods have been generally hands off lately except in extreme cases, that could change and we lose the opportunity to discuss politics again.

[Danzo]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  But some of them come here to have babies, and many of those who do so come illegally.  Because of the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  That interpretation therefore creates a perverse incentive to break the law.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

People fall in love, get married (sometimes in the temple), then they decide to start a family. The vast majority of them are here in the states for years, if not decades before they have children.

It would seem, in your warped, twisted reality, that there is some sort of baby boom in the US from people getting pregnant in foreign countries and giving birth here.  Its just not happening.  Not in any significant numbers.

I have said nothing about any "baby boom."  The numbers appear difficult to accurately assess.

Regardless of the numbers, the perverse incentive remains.  The breaking of U.S. laws remains.  The seemingly problematic interpretation of the 14th Amendment remains.

You aren't really sure there is a problem, but it doesn't matter.  I just one baby was born in an unauthorized manner . . . Getting rid of birthright citizenship will be worth it. The ends always justify the means. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet another accusation of racial hatred.  How tiresome.

You really seem sensitive to that accusation, because you keep bringing it up. Must be a reason. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's the defining feature of a strawman, which is what you are presenting here.

I am talking about babies

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think you are bereft of logical or reasoned analysis for your position, so you are left with resorting to ugly attempts and character assassination and emotional manipulation.

You dodge my suggestion to get to know these people and talk to them and hear their stories.  

You are without facts and knowledge.  Just fear and speculation.

You admit there is not a baby boom, The numbers appear difficult to accurately assess,  yet it doesn't matter, somebody might take advantage. That is enough for you

You have shown, you have no clue how immigration law works.

You don't want to know how the law works

You don't talk to immigrants.

You don't want to talk to Immigrants.

You have no personal experience with the subject.

You don't want to have any personal experience with the subject.

For you, its a problem that you see on TV, or the Internet. 

 

Its difficult to engage with someone who wants to both be right about a subject, and who wants to stay ignorant on the subject at the same time.

Probably best to put you on Ignore for a while, Just to keep my sanity.  

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

 😂 are you a moderator on Reddit?  I always picture you wearing a fedora.

Ugh, why would I want to try to control and police people like me. That sounds awful.

I prefer those British flat caps.

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Starting next week, those whose job loss you’ll really have to mourn are the professionally useless ones from Washington.

Trump is firing his whole cabinet already? That was fast.

[SteveO]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mexico and Canada gave him what they already committed to last year. In other words they played Trump.

Yeah, Mexico sent 5,000 troops to the border the following week.  Don’t get me wrong, that was probably always Mexico’s plan.  I just don’t get why they didn’t push the timetable to…I dunno, next month or something to really make it look like they played the player.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

American citizenship is a blessing, and any other citizenship is "punishment"?

American citizenship does not prevent babies from having citizenship elsewhere. Not understanding this conclusion (ignore if already addressed).

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Trump is firing his whole cabinet already? That was fast.

Dang it, that was good.

I was gonna say the newly unemployed, replacement labor force for the illegals we’re deporting.

Edited February 15, 2025 by SteveO

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure what your purpose is in framing the conversation on this basis, but this is mind reading as there could be other reasons why Smac is not happy about illegal immigration to the point of ignoring data about the overall benefit, low crime rate, etc.

I think your argument would be much stronger if you didn’t attribute motivation when it’s not stated.

Outside of when you do this, I am greatly appreciating your posts and I don’t want the thread closed or you banned as might happen when a poster engages in mind reading.

And you aren’t the only one doing this, so maybe everyone should think of this as a reminder that even if mods have been generally hands off lately except in extreme cases, that could change and we lose the opportunity to discuss politics again.

Sorry, I'll just have to start ignoring Smac.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

Yeah, Mexico sent 5,000 troops to the border the following week.  Don’t get me wrong, that was probably always Mexico’s plan.  I just don’t get why they didn’t push the timetable to…I dunno, next month or something to really make it look like they played the player.

Yeah, that is most likely a meaningless symbolic move done to defuse our President’s blustering ego. The question is whether those troops are actually doing anything regarding the border while they are there. I doubt it. I guess if all he wants is the nice man in the TV to say he won maybe he did. If you want substantive change on the border and think the President is delivering it this way then you are being played.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some specifically acknowledge and facilitate specific and calculated efforts with "birth tourism."  See, e.g., here:

Just to be clear, are you connecting “birth tourism” with undocumented or documented aliens and with visitors or immigrants?

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

that is very much structured already to US advantage

The US does not use its weight to ensure Canadians or any other country will get a better deal at that trade table than the US, that is for sure.

Edited February 15, 2025 by Calm

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you want substantive change on the border and think the President is delivering it this way then you are being played.

Bro…you know there’s a bar graph out there.  Don’t make me post the bar graph.  Nobody likes to post it.  Nobody likes to read it.  
 

I don’t want to be the guy who is posting bar graphs

[The Nehor]

Just now, SteveO said:

Bro…you know there’s a bar graph out there.  Don’t make me post the bar graph.  Nobody likes to post it.  Nobody likes to read it.  
 

I don’t want to be the guy who is posting bar graphs

I like pie graphs. They look more delicious.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Bro…you know there’s a bar graph out there.  Don’t make me post the bar graph.  Nobody likes to post it.  Nobody likes to read it.  
 

I don’t want to be the guy who is posting bar graphs

I love graphs of any kind.

As long as they don’t use made up data or distort the info.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I love graphs of any kind.

As long as they don’t use made up data or distort the info.

 

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I love graphs of any kind.

As long as they don’t use made up data or distort the info.

Hate that made up info…I’d like to see the info that would allow someone to say that substantive change has not occurred at the border in the past 3 weeks.

The question is whether those troops are actually doing anything regarding the border while they are there. I doubt it.

Source: Trust me bro

I’m not convinced.  But I have a feeling if we’re patient and wait, Nehor will give us some super quality data

Edited February 15, 2025 by SteveO