Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church news reiterates immigration stance

Nofear

By Nofear
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

Giving Canadians more reasons to dislike Americans and to assume Americans are clueless and careless about them is not a good way to protect the Northern border or the relationship between the countries, imo.

And given what I saw when I lived there, the disdain and resentment for being treated as a sidekick/lapdog rather than respected does not go away just by changing one’s mind about tariffs or even improving policies.

Edited by Calm
3
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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 video illustrates what I have seen personally.

People who used to come here temporarily, chose to immigrate instead.  It used be that people would come here and work for a summer then go back to their families for a couple of years to live off of the earnings.

Now, people cannot use that strategy, It just isn't available to vast majority of people who want to come here to work.  Since they cannot come here temporarily the feel like they are forced to come here permanently, with their families. 

This, of course does not explain all illegal immigration, there are other factors, but, it does explain a significant portion of it, why the passage of this law had the effect of increasing illegal immigration rather than decreasing it. 

 

2
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/10/2025 at 2:40 PM, Danzo said:

The video illustrates what I have seen personally.

People who used to come here temporarily, chose to immigrate instead. 

"People who used to come here temporarily {in violation of the laws of the United States}"

and 

"People who ... immigrate{d} {in violation of the laws of the United States}"

Have all done the same thing: broken the laws of the United States.

As I have noted a few times, our political class has allowed - and/or encouraged/incentivized - this violation of our laws.  Directly and indirectly.  Tacitly and expressly.  Intentionally and through incompetence/nonfeasance.

It needs to stop.  I think that can - and should - include the considerations the Church has articulated.

On 2/10/2025 at 2:40 PM, Danzo said:

It used be that people would come here and work for a summer

"Come here and work for a summer {in violation of the laws of the United States}," correct?

On 2/10/2025 at 2:40 PM, Danzo said:

then go back to their families for a couple of years to live off of the earnings.

Now, people cannot use that strategy,

"That strategy" being . . . intentionally breaking the laws of the United States?

On 2/10/2025 at 2:40 PM, Danzo said:

It just isn't available to vast majority of people who want to come here to work. Since they cannot come here temporarily the feel like they are forced to come here permanently, with their families. 

You are eliding past the illegality of all of this.  I don't think we can do that anymore.  The deleterious effects of widespread illegal immigration cannot be ignored.  

On 2/10/2025 at 2:40 PM, Danzo said:

This, of course does not explain all illegal immigration, there are other factors, but, it does explain a significant portion of it, why the passage of this law had the effect of increasing illegal immigration rather than decreasing it. 

A number of factors and motives are in play as to why people break the laws of the United States.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Giving Canadians more reasons to dislike Americans and to assume Americans are clueless and careless about them is not a good way to protect the Northern border or the relationship between the countries, imo.

I don't think run-of-the-mill Canadians are going to resent Americans who have no particularized say about tariffs.

I don't dislike Canada when and if it acts in its best interests.  I would expect them to reciprocate when America does the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.).

 

labor demands, economic conditions are controlled by the free market.  

Remittances - Sending money to relatives actually decreases pressure for those relatives to immigrate. 

Under the table employment is, in my experience a much bigger problem with US Citizens than with immigrants.  US Citizens have become quite good at tax evasion.  

State funded welfare programs have been around a long time and are used by US Citizens far more than immigrants.  For practical reasons, recent immigrants don't take advantage of much of the state provided welfare because they don't know about it.  State welfare programs can be quite complex and take time to learn. That is why the US Citizens who have had the most time to learn about the system, tend to be the best at using them. 

EMTALA - I don't think anyone immigrates here so they can call an ambulance. I would assume the vast majority of people who benefit from the EMTALA are US Citizens.

sanctuary" jurisdictions- my state has been a sanctuary state since the 1980's well be before this law was passed.  Plus there are a lot of practical reasons local law enforcement doesn't enforce federal laws (try calling the local police to report Tax Evasion and tell me what happens)

Birthright Citizenship - has been around since just after the Civil War.  Well before the current "crisis"

 

2
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

It appears that illegal border crossings have been substantially reduced.

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

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

Nothing of the sort has happened.  The Cass Report is clearly very influential, but it's not the only resource out there.  From this thread:

Quote
  • I cited the National Library of Medicine, Frontiers in Psychology, the American Psychological Association here.
  • I cited the British Medical Journal multiple times, including here and here.
  • I cited Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief (which extensively cited various "scholarly" sources) here.
  • I cited an article by Ryan T. Anderson (a PhD) (which extensively cited various "scholarly" sources) here.
  • I cited Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review here.
  • I cited The Cass Report here.
  • I cited an article published in The Hill (which extensively cited various "scholarly" sources) here.
  • I cited an article published on DoNoHarmMedicine.org, centering on an interview with a medical doctor, here.

And here:

Quote

As I have extensively addressed in this other thread, I think there is extensive and substantial evidence indicating that these professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues.  A sampling:

So contrary to Bro. Hardy's implication, there is plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement about trans issues.

You virtually never offer anything of substance, just invective and snark and one-liners.  Nevertheless, feel free to post links or otherwise lay out your reasoning.  I'm happy to consider any substantive information you can provide.

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

but you continue to use the rhetoric about mutilating children. You like this rhetoric. Its accuracy doesn’t matter.

Cutting off healthy body parts of children under the auspices of "gender-affirming care" is profoundly disturbing.  The moral and ethical and legal defects are legion:

  • Comorbidities. 
  • Informed consent. 
  • Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
  • Irreversibility. 
  • Sterilization. 
  • Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. 
  • Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
  • Lifelong medical regimens. 
  • Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
  • Social contagion risks. 
  • Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I think we will look back on this era and be ashamed of what we allowed to happen to thousands of minor children.

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

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.

I think merit-based approaches are superior to patent discrimination.  I get that Mr. Kendi wanted then, but he was wrong.  Very wrong, in fact.  He has made things worse for America.

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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!

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.

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

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

LOL

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.

You virtually never offer anything of substance, just invective and snark and one-liners. 

Thanks,

-Smac

1
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Come here and work for a summary {in violation of the laws of the United States}," correct?

I have a very strong suspicion that your concern for "people who are in violation of the laws of the United States" is limited to people who are in violations of a certain limited number of "laws of the United States". And not for the entire Corpus of the "Laws of the United States"

I highly suspect that your respect for these particular "Laws of the united States" is highly influenced by the fact that these "laws of the United States" aren't ones that you have to worry much about violating.   

Other "Laws of the United States" That might effect you on a more personal level (Tax laws, Dealing with federal  Bureaucracy, Endangered Species Act, Environmental Protection laws, Welfare laws, CTA, Anti riot laws, Election Interference laws, Civil Service Laws, Finra, etc) don't seem to get the same respect.

At least, you haven't spent a lot of time here condemning violators of those laws. 

 

3
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/10/2025 at 2:59 PM, Danzo said:

labor demands, economic conditions are controlled by the free market.  

And the free market can be heavily skewed by the entry of millions of low-skill workers willing to work for far less than Americans.

On 2/10/2025 at 2:59 PM, Danzo said:

Remittances - Sending money to relatives actually decreases pressure for those relatives to immigrate. 

Sending money they earned in the United States, after having entered and/or stayed here illegally, and worked here illegally, and often worked for depressed wages at the expense of American workers.

On 2/10/2025 at 2:59 PM, Danzo said:

Under the table employment is, in my experience a much bigger problem with US Citizens than with immigrants.  US Citizens have become quite good at tax evasion.  

Tu quoque does not really work in this context.

On 2/10/2025 at 2:59 PM, Danzo said:

State funded welfare programs have been around a long time and are used by US Citizens far more than immigrants.  For practical reasons, recent immigrants don't take advantage of much of the state provided welfare because they don't know about it.  State welfare programs can be quite complex and take time to learn. That is why the US Citizens who have had the most time to learn about the system, tend to be the best at using them. 

EMTALA - I don't think anyone immigrates here so they can call an ambulance. I would assume the vast majority of people who benefit from the EMTALA are US Citizens.

Again, tu quoque doesn't work.

On 2/10/2025 at 2:59 PM, Danzo said:

"sanctuary" jurisdictions- my state has been a sanctuary state since the 1980's well be before this law was passed.  Plus there are a lot of practical reasons local law enforcement doesn't enforce federal laws (try calling the local police to report Tax Evasion and tell me what happens)

I think it's less a matter of "doesn't enforce federal laws" and more about making calculated and intentional efforts to frustrate federal law enforcement in their efforts to enforce federal laws

On 2/10/2025 at 2:59 PM, Danzo said:

Birthright Citizenship - has been around since just after the Civil War.  Well before the current "crisis"

And yet, there seems to be a pretty solid argument that it contravenes the U.S. Constitution.  We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think run-of-the-mill Canadians are going to resent Americans who have no particularized say about tariffs.

And yet I lived there and saw “run-of-the-mill Canadians” express significant and lasting resentment of the American government and the country and Americans who voted in the idiot (in their view) politicians.  They viewed the typical American as ignorant of other countries….for very good reasons.

We had an American in our ward, the chorister.  Had lived in Canada for decades and yet every July 4th week before and after that date  it would be all God bless America hymns except for one “O Canada”…even when the Sunday was July 1st.  He had people getting up and walking out for the American hymns, but still clueless. Most of the Canadians just passed it off as him just demonstrating typical American behaviour, the lack of awareness and care for Canada in our American culture.  Can’t say I blamed them, I learned tons more about Japan than I did Canada in Social Studies and History classes in school.  Not been impressed since I returned to the US.

This was from last year, so I am guessing based on studies I saw while living there when America played neighbourhood bully yet again, the positives have dropped even lower.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/americans-like-canada-more-than-canadians-like-the-u-s-new-opinion-poll-finds/article_911db2d2-4900-11ef-a441-0f81a1e4acba.html

Duncan shows significant restraint in comparison to many Canadians I have seen….and this was in Alberta with closer ties to the US than other places in Canada.

What Canadians see as in the best interest of Americans (improving relationships with Canada and the rest of the world, working with rather than against for one thing) is often different than what Americans think.

Edited by Calm
4
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Danzo said:
Quote

"Come here and work for a summary {in violation of the laws of the United States}," correct?

I have a very strong suspicion that your concern for "people who are in violation of the laws of the United States" is limited to people who are in violations of a certain limited number of "laws of the United States". And not for the entire Corpus of the "Laws of the United States"

I did not say "people who are in violation of the laws of the United States."  You did.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I highly suspect that your respect for these particular "Laws of the united States" is highly influenced by the fact that these "laws of the United States" aren't ones that you have to worry much about violating.

Laws regarding lawful entry into the U.S.?  Working in the U.S.?  I am a U.S. citizen, so I have those privileges.

A few months ago I went on a cruise (my first!) to The Bahamas.  I had to bring my passport.  I fully complied with the laws of that country when I entered it.

A few years ago I and my wife visited Scotland.  I had to bring my passport.  I fully complied with the laws of that country when I entered it.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Other "Laws of the United States" That might effect you on a more personal level (Tax laws, Dealing with federal  Bureaucracy, Endangered Species Act, Environmental Protection laws, Welfare laws, CTA, Anti riot laws, Election Interference laws, Civil Service Laws, Finra, etc) don't seem to get the same respect.

Where have I ever encouraged or endorsed the violation of any of these laws?

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

At least, you haven't spent a lot of time here condemning violators of those laws. 

Perhaps because there is no widespread effort in society to excuse and justify the violations of those laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the free market can be heavily skewed by the entry of millions of low-skill workers willing to work for far less than Americans.

I know you don't like the free market system, I like it, so we will just have to agree to disagree. 

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sending money they earned in the United States, after having entered and/or stayed here illegally, and worked here illegally.

I am not really sure what your point is.  Are you claiming remittances increase illegal immigration? or are you just complaining that they do it?

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Tu quoque does not really work in this context.

I guess non sequitur would be the argument.  People are paid under the table.  It is the American way since the income tax was created.  But I don't see how immigration figures in to this. Are you saying Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? then you really don't know what you are talking about.  Because they do.  They pay me to figure how much tax they owe.  And some of them probably pay more in taxes than you earn in a year. 

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:
31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Birthright Citizenship - has been around since just after the Civil War.  Well before the current "crisis"

And yet, there seems to be a pretty solid argument that it contravenes the U.S. Constitution.  We'll see.

For all of your rhetoric, you really do not respect the Laws of the United States.   You only respect laws that discriminate against people you don't like.

well settled  Constitutional law since the 1890's? just a suggestion. Pperhaps everyone over the last century and a half got it wrong

Laws that keep undesirables that you don't like? WE MUST RESPECT THE LAW

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Looks like Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada. 

PS:  You want to piss off a Canadian, this is a great way to start.

Pure arrogance.  We need Canada.  

Edited by Calm
2
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Laws regarding lawful entry into the U.S.?  Working in the U.S.?  I am a U.S. citizen, so I have those privileges.

Which is why you like the law. YOU DON"T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps because there is no widespread effort in society to excuse and justify the violations of those laws.

No, you are just not concerned with those laws.  There are plenty of widespread efforts to violate those laws.  

 

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Where have I ever encouraged or endorsed the violation of any of these laws?

You just posted that you are apposed to the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States.

Clearly, you are only in favor of some laws and not others.  

1
  • Popular Post
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think run-of-the-mill Canadians are going to resent Americans who have no particularized say about tariffs.

I don't dislike Canada when and if it acts in its best interests.  I would expect them to reciprocate when America does the same.

Some Canadian grocery stores are putting labels on food saying that nothing in it is sourced from the United States.

The US Travel Association is warning that a lot of Canadian tourists to the United States are cancelling their trips. Numbers are vague but most are suggesting it is about 25% of bookings have cancelled for recreational visits and business trips are at about a 10% cancellation rate.

Turns out threatening to annex your neighbor, close ally, and trade partner has consequences. Who knew?

5
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
Just now, Danzo said:

Which is why you like the law. YOU DON"T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I think every country has the right to enforce its borders and regulate who enters and why.  This is the position of the Church, and I agree with it:

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.

When I entered The Bahamas, I did so in accordance with its laws.  I did not sneak in.  I did not stay or work there illegally. 

Same goes for when I went to Scotland.  My wife and I loved it, so much so that we have considered moving there.  As part of that, I did some research on the legal requirements we would need to meet to move and live and work there for an extended time.  At no point did I consider going to Scotland illegally.  So yes, I do have to "deal with" immigration laws.  I "deal with them" by obeying them. "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.) 

Just now, Danzo said:
Quote

Perhaps because there is no widespread effort in society to excuse and justify the violations of those laws.

No, you are just not concerned with those laws. 

In this thread?  Where "those laws" are not under discussion?  Yeah, I guess not.

Broadly speaking, though, I am "concerned with those laws" relative to the Twelfth Article of Faith.

Just now, Danzo said:
Quote

Where have I ever encouraged or endorsed the violation of any of these laws?

You just posted that you are apposed to the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States.

Poppycock.  I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It appears that illegal border crossings have been substantially reduced.

Just like it appears violent crime is on a huge upswing. Turns out appearances are created by vibes more than facts.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing of the sort has happened.  The Cass Report is clearly very influential, but it's not the only resource out there.  From this thread:

And here:

It is also incredibly misunderstood.

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You virtually never offer anything of substance, just invective and snark and one-liners.  Nevertheless, feel free to post links or otherwise lay out your reasoning.  I'm happy to consider any substantive information you can provide.

Untrue.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Cutting off healthy body parts of children under the auspices of "gender-affirming care" is profoundly disturbing. 

And it is incredibly rare as has been pointed out to you again and again and again and again but you keep acting like kids can walk down to the nearest clinic and get top surgery over the weekend.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The moral and ethical and legal defects are legion:

  • Comorbidities. 
  • Informed consent. 
  • Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
  • Irreversibility. 
  • Sterilization. 
  • Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. 
  • Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
  • Lifelong medical regimens. 
  • Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
  • Social contagion risks. 
  • Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

Still going with social contagion. The GAY is infectious!!!!!!! Now the TRANS is infectious!!!!

Radical intervention is rare in the case of minors and yet you continue to act as if it is the norm. I have transgender friends. Many of them. I don’t know of any who pursued or got surgery as minors. I only know of one who got hormones as a minor and that was due to some other medical issues.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we will look back on this era and be ashamed of what we allowed to happen to thousands of minor children.

I am more worried about the kids who don’t know if they are going to get to eat today in the United States. That is a much more pervasive and widespread issue and has even more long-term ramifications.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think merit-based approaches are superior to patent discrimination.  I get that Mr. Kendi wanted then, but he was wrong.  Very wrong, in fact.  He has made things worse for America.

It is not patent discrimination. It is an attempt to counter patent discrimination. It takes a special kind of mind to think that the group with most of the power and top jobs in virtually every field is somehow being discriminated against but hey, they found a propaganda machine that could pull it off. It is kind of impressive.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You virtually never offer anything of substance, just invective and snark and one-liners. 

Repeating this endlessly doesn’t exactly convey much in the way of substance.

3
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Looks like Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada. 

PS:  You want to piss off a Canadian, this is a great way to start.

One of our resident Canadians recently described the United States as "your absolute S&**hole of a country," and did so again here.

And yet you will note that I did not respond in kind.  Instead, I said: 

Quote
Quote

Like I say your country is total S&*(

I'm sorry to hear you say that.  I think the United States is a wonderful country, despite its flaws and the flaws of its leaders.  Same goes for Canada (though lately, the Canadian government seems to have done a lot to make life more difficult for Canadians, which I find unfortunate).

In the economic context in which I was speaking, I think it's hard to dispute that "Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada."  We are, what, 80% of their exports?  Meanwhile, in 2021, "17.5% of US exports went to Canada, and 12.6% of US imports came from Canada."

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pure arrogance.

Oh, brother.

The Deseret News described yesterday's game as a "blowout Super Bowl LIX loss" for Kansas City.  Is that likely to - as you put it - "piss off" some Chiefs' fans?  Sure.  But is it inaccurate?  No.  Is it "pure arrogance" to note the loss?  Also no.

Canada has far more economic reliance on the United States than vice versa.  That is not a dig or a slur.  It's simple fact.  

Thanks,

-Smac

2
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What if ICE is showing up to detain a convicted criminal? 
 

Are you referring to a convicted criminal who escaped from jail?

Then he or she would be a fugitive and it probably would be a good Idea to take the person into custody.

If you are referring to someone who had been through the justice system and had paid the fine/served the time. They why would you be in favor of having the police disrupt a sacrament meeting to haul someone away while they are making their covenants.

What purpose does that serve? 

Do you want ICE to just show up at the temple looking for anyone with a criminal record? 

Bernard Gui Grand Master

Bernard Gui

Posted
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 7:20 AM, Duncan said:

Dr. Phil making bucks off of deportees

 

But not nearly as much as the coyotes smuggling them into the US, I imagine. Talk about disgusting.

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

For all of your rhetoric, you really do not respect the Laws of the United States.   You only respect laws that discriminate against people you don't like.

Ah, yes.  The racism canard.  I was wondering when you would trot it out again.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:
18 minutes ago, Danzo said:
Quote

Where have I ever encouraged or endorsed the violation of any of these laws?

You just posted that you are apposed to the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States.

Poppycock.  I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:
58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Birthright Citizenship - has been around since just after the Civil War.  Well before the current "crisis"

And yet, there seems to be a pretty solid argument that it contravenes the U.S. Constitution.  We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

What Canadians see as in the best interest of Americans (improving relationships with Canada and the rest of the world, working with rather than against for one thing) is often different than what Americans think.

What pretty much every country sees as their own "best interests" will pretty much always involve a pretty strong "zero sum" consideration, where Country A advances its interests to the detriment of Country B. There will also be a "rising tide raises all boats" component, but not to the exclusion of the Zero Sum aspects.

Canada does this, and nobody seems to disparage Canada for it.  Same with Mexico.  And Colombia.  And China.  And Brasil.  And so on.

But when America does it, then that is some great moral transgression.

Respectfully, I'll decline to join you in the guilt-tripping and self-flagellation.  America is a wonderful country, and she needs to look after her best interests in the same ways every other country does.  

Canadians who despise America are, of course, free to not buy American products or otherwise engage in commerce with American companies.  They are even free to dislike the Bad Orange Man (as are Americans free to dislike Mr. Trudeau's policies)

Thanks,

-Smac

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Danzo said:
Quote
Quote

And yet, there seems to be a pretty solid argument that it {birthright citizenship} contravenes the U.S. Constitution.  We'll see.

You just posted that you are apposed to the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States.

 

Poppycock.  I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Yes.  I noted that there are legal arguments for the proposition that jurisprudence regarding birthright citizenship in relation to the 14th Amendment has been in error. 

Nothing there suggests I am "apposed" (or even "opposed") to "14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States."

I get that you like to calumnate against me.  You're into repeating baseless slurs of racism now.  But I have never argued against the 14th Amendment.

Thanks,

-Smac

1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...