Church news reiterates immigration stance

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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

You think THAT is a "pretty solid argument that it contravenes the U.S. Constitution"? Wow.

I have read a number of articles on the subject.  The Wiki article happened to itemize a few. 

I suspect you have not read what I have.  Drive-by potshots are easier than analyzing the substantive law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

There was no mention of racism in his statement.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have read a number of articles on the subject.  The Wiki article happened to itemize a few. 

I suspect you have not read what I have.  Drive-by potshots are easier than analyzing the substantive law.

Thanks,

-Smac

The irony meter just broke.

You linked to the wikipedia article. If there is something more substantive than that, then link to it. In the meantime, the plain rejection of your "good argument" is right there in the article you actually linked.

Edited February 10, 2025 by ttribe

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

The irony meter just broke.

You linked to the wikipedia article. If there is something more substantive than link to it. In the meantime, the plain rejection of your "good argument" is right there in the article you actually linked.

Again, I think you have not read the articles I have.  If you want to talk about the merits of Birthright Citizenship, I guess we could have that discussion.  I felt it was a peripheral issue, so I treated it as such. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

13 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 ? 

 

Who will pick the cotton?

[ttribe]

Just now, smac97 said:

Again, I think you have not read the articles I have.  If you want to talk about the merits of Birthright Citizenship, I guess we could have that discussion.  I felt it was a peripheral issue, so I treated it as such. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Why won't you just link to those articles you have read?

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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,

I showed you argue against the 14th amendment, yet you pretend you didn't.

Weird.

 

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

In what way is starting a trade war with Canada an example of America “having the temerity to look to its own interests and that of its citizens”?

My friend voted for Trump because he wanted to put America first. But when it comes to trade, what that actually looks like for his industry is this:

• His income has taken a major hit.
• Under the free market, the products he represented were the best choices for food packaging. Now:
  • American food companies will pay more for packaging, or the quality will be worse, or both.
  • Those costs—whether from higher prices or increased spoilage due to inferior packaging—will be passed on to American consumers.
  • Meanwhile, American packaging companies, now shielded from competition, may make more money despite offering worse products. A few more manufacturing jobs might appear, but most of the financial benefit will go to executives and owners—not workers.

How, exactly, does this serve America’s best interests? Raising prices on American consumers while propping up domestic companies that can’t compete on a level playing field isn’t a win for the country—it’s a handout to politically favored industries.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, I think it's entirely appropriate to push back against endless trade deficits which disfavor the United States:

The bigger issue here is the misunderstanding of trade deficits. Trade deficits aren’t inherently bad. They are largely driven by factors like:

• Low national savings
• Government budget deficits (which ballooned because of tax cuts like Reagan’s and Trump's)
• A strong dollar
• The dollar’s safe-haven and reserve currency status
• Robust consumer demand

Blaming trade deficits on other countries’ unfair policies is a populist oversimplification. In reality, strong economies often run trade deficits because their consumers and businesses are thriving. Reducing trade deficits through tariffs doesn’t “fix” the problem—it just raises costs, limits choices, and weakens competition.

It’s troubling when people who should understand basic economics buy into these simplistic narratives. Populist politicians love to frame America as a victim, but the truth is, protectionist policies often do more harm than good—especially to the very people they claim to protect.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have read a number of articles on the subject.  The Wiki article happened to itemize a few. 

I suspect you have not read what I have.  Drive-by potshots are easier than analyzing the substantive law.

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to be doing a lot of drive by posting on this subject.

 

 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

In what way is starting a trade war with Canada an example of America “having the temerity to look to its own interests and that of its citizens”?

My friend voted for Trump because he wanted to put America first. But when it comes to trade, what that actually looks like for his industry is this:

• His income has taken a major hit.
• Under the free market, the products he represented were the best choices for food packaging. Now:
  • American food companies will pay more for packaging, or the quality will be worse, or both.
  • Those costs—whether from higher prices or increased spoilage due to inferior packaging—will be passed on to American consumers.
  • Meanwhile, American packaging companies, now shielded from competition, may make more money despite offering worse products. A few more manufacturing jobs might appear, but most of the financial benefit will go to executives and owners—not workers.

How, exactly, does this serve America’s best interests? Raising prices on American consumers while propping up domestic companies that can’t compete on a level playing field isn’t a win for the country—it’s a handout to politically favored industries.

The bigger issue here is the misunderstanding of trade deficits. Trade deficits aren’t inherently bad. They are largely driven by factors like:

• Low national savings
• Government budget deficits (which ballooned because of tax cuts like Reagan’s and Trump's)
• A strong dollar
• The dollar’s safe-haven and reserve currency status
• Robust consumer demand

Blaming trade deficits on other countries’ unfair policies is a populist oversimplification. In reality, strong economies often run trade deficits because their consumers and businesses are thriving. Reducing trade deficits through tariffs doesn’t “fix” the problem—it just raises costs, limits choices, and weakens competition.

It’s troubling when people who should understand basic economics buy into these simplistic narratives. Populist politicians love to frame America as a victim, but the truth is, protectionist policies often do more harm than good—especially to the very people they claim to protect.

I think that you make the mistake of assuming SMAC is in favor of the free market system when he clearly favors a command economy.

 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Canada does this, and nobody seems to disparage Canada for it

Canadians in my experience are only too aware of the dependency of Canada on the US and that a healthy US means an healthier Canada.  It’s why many Canadians pay a lot of attention to US politics.

The reverse is much less common sad to say.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I showed you argue against the 14th amendment, yet you pretend you didn't.

Weird.

You, a lawyer, are not differentiating between the text of the Constitution and possibly erroneous SCOTUS interpretations of it, even though we have ample instances of that happening.

And you are instead pretending that merely noting a legal argument challenging "Birthright Citizenship" jurisprudence under the 14th Amendment is an attack on the 14th Amendment.

Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why won't you just link to those articles you have read?

Nobody has asked.  And it seemed, and still seems, like a peripheral, tangential issue.

Start a thread if you are interested.

Thanks,

-Smac

-

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

And using it to bully Canadians is very successful in improving relationships, isn’t it?

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You, a lawyer, are not differentiating between the text of the Constitution and possibly erroneous SCOTUS interpretations of it, even though we have ample instances of that happening.

And you are instead pretending that merely noting a legal argument challenging "Birthright Citizenship" jurisprudence under the 14th Amendment is an attack on the 14th Amendment.

Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just think that its wierd that you are so rabidly in favor of strict enforcement one law and yet so opposed to a different law.  

you can't seem to see your own contradictions. 

Its ok

Laws aren't sacred.  Sometimes the government gets it wrong.  I think the government got their immigration laws wrong, you think the government gets it wrong letting people born here be citizens.

 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody has asked.  And it seemed, and still seems, like a peripheral, tangential issue.

Start a thread if you are interested.

Thanks,

-Smac

-

yet you brought it up.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Canada does this, and nobody seems to disparage Canada for it

Canadians in my experience are only too aware of the dependency of Canada on the US

Um, what?  You ripped me a new one for observing that "Canada needs us a lot more than we need Canada."  How is that any different from you making an observation about "the dependency of Canada on the US"?

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

and that a healthy US means an healthier Canada.  It’s why many Canadians pay a lot of attention to US politics.

The reverse is much less common sad to say.

America is the Big Dog.  It's hard to keep abreast of our own goings-on, let alone what is happening in Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, and the rest of the world.

That said, I have read quite a bit about Justin Trudeau and his policies.  I'd elucidate, but I'd probably just get another disparaging "pure arrogance" comment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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. 

And using it to bully Canadians is very successful in improving relationships, isn’t it?

I'm curious when the "pure arrogance" of acknowledging economic reality comes from.  When I do it, it's bad.  When you do it...

Anyhoo, I don't think I have said much in favor of the tariffs on Canada.  To the contrary, I said:

Quote

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.

And this:

Quote

I would prefer to address the larger trade deficits, particularly with China...

And this:

Quote

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

I even characterized Mr. Trump's tariff on Canada as "madness" that may have some "method" to it (see, e.g., this CNN article).

And out of all of that post, you came back with a personal slam ("pure arrogance").

Bummer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.

Yes, if that is what they did, but if the person is violent innocent people could get hurt. Or if they are suspected of committing criminal acts and should be detained, prosecuted, and deported, yes. If they entered the country illegally they have no right to be here, just as in any other country in the world.

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.

Police and ICE would have no reason to be seeking that person unless they were suspected to have committed further crimes. However, there are illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes in other countries who have come into our country illegally. They have no right to be here. There are others who committed crimes here and were deported, but have reentered, some multiple times. They have no right to be here.

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What purpose does that serve? 

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

That’s absurd.  

Edited February 10, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you know this, but what you say here made me want to say it. The US invaded Mexico, we took their land.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

Pure arrogance.  We need Canada.  

I'm thinking I need some Canada at this very moment. 

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If they entered the country illegally they have no right to be here, just as in any other country in the world.

You want the government to interrupt sacrament meeting or a Temple endowment session to remove people whom you say "have no right to be here"?

"Here", meaning sacrament meeting or a Temple session?

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Of course you know this, but what you say here made me want to say it. The US invaded Mexico, we took their land.

When?

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When?

1846

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-mexican-american-war-in-a-nutshell#:~:text=On May 13%2C 1846%2C the,treaty that ended the conflict.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

What mechanism do you believe was used to do such a thing? Are you aware that the U.S. exported more oil under the Biden Administration than under any other President? Are you aware that we became a net exporter of crude oil under the Biden Administration? Have you spent even a moment working with the data available at eia.gov?

3 hours 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. 

If by the bold portion above, you mean wholesale threats of mass deportations, raids on schools, warrantless raids on homes, deportations to countries other than their ones of origin, and incarceration in a camp at Guantanamo Bay, then sure.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

Your arguments on this issue in a now closed thread were not exactly convincing.

3 hours 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.

Less than 10 in NCAA athletics. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/02/06/ncaa-bars-transgender-athletes-from-womens-competitions-after-trumps-order-against-trans-participation-in-womens-sports/

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Are you blissfully unaware of the systemic discrimination of minorities that made these programs necessary?

3 hours 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.

You are not thinking critically about actions versus words. If you are serious about getting rid of waste and corruption, you do not fire your lead internal fraud fighters (the Inspector Generals), you do not instruct the FBI to do less white collar crime investigations, and you do not take out your petty revenge on experienced FBI agents by firing them. You also don't let a billionaire run amok with a bunch of teenage programmers instead of experienced investigators and forensic accountants.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Looking forward to the next Enron and Solomon Brothers, are you?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Tariffs?  A mixed bag. 

Nothing "mixed bag" about it. His hamfisted approach to economics is disastrous.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/economist-survey-inflation-2025-1fd00467?st=UDtJEm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-trump-tariff-fallout-begins-canada-mexico-vow-retaliation-economic-uncertainty-da522b44?st=bcxwCb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink