Church news reiterates immigration stance

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Quote

As far as the notion of a constitutional right to Birthright Citizenship, again: "I'm fairly ambivalent about it."

yet you can't stop posting arguments against that right.

I got pestered about the articles I referenced, so I posted them, and get pestered some more.

Sheesh.  There's no pleasing you guys.

I have both acknowledged Birthright Citizenship as the constitutional status quo, while also noting legal challenges and theories to it.  This is pretty standard lawyer stuff.

Again, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.  I dislike its perverse incentives to break the law, but it's the law of the land.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I got pestered about the articles I referenced, so I posted them, and get pestered some more.

Sheesh.  There's no pleasing you guys.

I have both acknowledged Birthright Citizenship as the constitutional status quo, while also noting legal challenges and theories to it.  This is pretty standard lawyer stuff.

Again, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.  I dislike its perverse incentives to break the law, but it's the law of the land.

Thanks,

-Smac

The 14th amendment was ratified long before the US decided it wanted to keep people out. So wouldn't it be more correct to say that the current law creates perverse incentives to violate constitutional rights?

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And where did Mexico get "their land"?  Through war and conquest, correct?

And where did the Spanish Empire get "their land"?

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFjABa2S9_K/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Let them have fun summering on a nice beach in Nova Scotia and keeping Canadian money in Canada.

Wouldn't that be helping their fellow Canadians, and thus a good things?

I doubt the tourist industry here will be loving this plan. This adversarial approach is also silly.

If we didn’t have a deranged demagogue in charge talking about annexing Canada there wouldn’t be a problem. I suspect that if the President of Mexico started talking about annexing Arizona and New Mexico we would also see a nationalistic outcry rejecting their demands and seeing them as insane and dangerous. We might even move troops to the border. Sanctions might be considered as well. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt the tourist industry here will be loving this plan. This adversarial approach is also silly.

If we didn’t have a deranged demagogue in charge talking about annexing Canada there wouldn’t be a problem. I suspect that if the President of Mexico started talking about annexing Arizona and New Mexico we would also see a nationalistic outcry rejecting their demands and seeing them as insane and dangerous. We might even move troops to the border. Sanctions might be considered as well. 

🤣🤣🤣

You talk as though the President has decided to send in troops to forcefully take over Canada- when he is simply putting forward the idea of offering statehood if Canadian citizens so choose.

This Trump = Hitler garbage has got to stop.

[gopher]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

This Trump = Hitler garbage has got to stop.

I'm not sure I agree - that can be a very effective argument in online discussions.  In fact, I wrote a book about it:

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, the Church's statement:

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.

I think this applies to all nations, not just the U.S. 

Thanks,

Saying that nations have “the right” to do something is not the same thing as calling something moral. I have the right to call you a hateful bigot. Observing such a banal fact does not make it moral for me to do so. 

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. 

Unless, of course, "the required congressional approval" is itself an unconstitutional usurpation of executive authority.  Can Congress fund an executive agency, and then immunize that agency from the decisions of the chief executive?  That's a question that deserves some real discussion.

I want Mr. Trump to follow the law.  I also wanted Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama to follow the law.

Let me make sure I understand your position correctly. You seem to be arguing that when Congress creates an agency, defines its function, sets its funding, and establishes its operational structure, the president still has broad discretion to ignore those laws—including dismantling the agency, firing its employees, and refusing to spend allocated funds. Is that your stance?

And if that is the case, then by your reasoning, Trump is “restoring” constitutional balance by overriding Congress, which would mean your criticism of Biden and Obama is that they deferred too much to congressional authority instead of exercising unilateral executive control. Is that what you mean?

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mike Lee:

Quote

This has the feel of a coup—not a military coup, but a judicial one.

Yes, I'm getting that vibe.

Really? When Trump ignores the laws that establish government agencies, disregards congressional funding decisions, and effectively dismantles agencies, that’s just the lawful discretion granted to the Chief Executive—or at least, a constitutional question worth serious debate. But when a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order for six days to allow a hearing—the very kind of legal process that should facilitate that debate—that’s a judicial coup?

So, in your view, Congress has too much power if it expects to have any role in how the executive branch implements the laws it passes, and the judiciary has too much power if it tries to review whether the executive branch is following the law. If neither Congress nor the courts can place any checks on the president’s authority, then what would constitute an abuse of executive power in your view?

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the "core question" is: Can the various bureaucrats, functionaries and hardcore leftists who have been entrenched in the various and endless halls of the Federal Government for decade[s], having their pet projects and buddies (and worse) financed by the American Taxpayer, using tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to do so, with essentially no oversight or accountability, are these folks ready to give up their grifts, their positions of power and influence and control, etc., without putting up one heck of a fight?

I disagree. If USAID was as corrupt as Marco Rubio now claims, why didn’t he raise concerns when he was overseeing it as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations? Was he complicit, oblivious, or is this newfound outrage just convenient? What specific evidence do you have that USAID was corrupt in the first place—besides taking Rubio’s word for it?

You claim there’s “no oversight or accountability,” but the government has extensive oversight mechanisms, including Inspectors General—who Trump has also been eliminating. If you’re genuinely concerned about corruption, why support the removal of those tasked with investigating it? Who’s really against oversight here?

Personally, I have no strong opinion on USAID. If Congress decides to cut foreign aid, that’s their prerogative. But that’s Congress’s decision to make—not the president’s. That’s how constitutional separation of powers works.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, I want Mr. Trump to act in America's best interests, and in those of its citizens.  And I think he's doing that in ways that none of the prior Rs and Ds have been willing to do,  As I see it, Mr. Trump is in his second term, so he doesn't need to worry about re-election.  And he's a billionaire, so he doesn't really need to worry about money for his retirement.  And he's old, so he knows he won't have long after  2028 anyway.  And he spent the last four years fighting against efforts that beggar belief.  And he took an assassin's bullet at a campaign rally, and his immediate and unscripted reaction was to stand up, bloodied, turn to the audience, pump his fist, and shout "Fight, fight, fight!"

I think Mr. Trump is a pretty flawed human being, but he loves America and is willing to advocate for it in ways that his predecessors have not...

I think one major reason Trump ran for a third time is that it offers him the best path to avoid accountability for the felonies he’s been charged with. I don’t believe he has any guiding principles—his only true commitment is to his own vanity and power. His worldview isn’t about policy or ideology; it’s about control.

To gain support from a wide range of people with different priorities, he’s promised everything to everyone. If you support him, he’ll reward you. If you oppose him, he’ll retaliate. That’s not love for America—that’s self-interest. If you like what he’s doing, it’s not because he’s serving the country; it’s because, for now, you happen to be on the side he’s choosing to reward.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Analytics

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm not sure I agree - that can be a very effective argument in online discussions.  In fact, I wrote a book about it:

Reference to Hitler can't stop. It's the Law.

[Doctor Steuss]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s absurd.  

Is it really all that much more absurd than ICE agents routinely harassing Native Americans?  That absurdity is already happening on a daily basis.

While Christianity is definitely privileged, I don't know that the Spanish language branches of the LDS Church are 100% immune from being drawn outside of the circle of protections that Christian Nationalism currently grants.

[halconero]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

🤣🤣🤣

You talk as though the President has decided to send in troops to forcefully take over Canada- when he is simply putting forward the idea of offering statehood if Canadian citizens so choose.

As one of the resident Canadians, I think you somewhat understate what POTUS said. It wasn't simply an offer that Canadians are free to accept or reject. When asked if he was considering military force to annex Canada, he said, "No, economic force." That's not exactly a goodwill offer.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, halconero said:

As one of the resident Canadians, I think you somewhat understate what POTUS said. It wasn't simply an offer that Canadians are free to accept or reject. When asked if he was considering military force to annex Canada, he said, "No, economic force." That's not exactly a goodwill offer.

With the goodwill Canada has throughout the world, you should quickly be able to add additional trading partners to keep your economy afloat.

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, halconero said:

As one of the resident Canadians, I think you somewhat understate what POTUS said. It wasn't simply an offer that Canadians are free to accept or reject. When asked if he was considering military force to annex Canada, he said, "No, economic force." That's not exactly a goodwill offer.

I'm sure you'll provide a link showing Trump making the above statement.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

With the goodwill Canada has throughout the world, you should quickly be able to add additional trading partners to keep your economy afloat.

Do you have any feel for the impact of increased transportation and administrative costs that come with such a drastic change? Your comment reflects a very simple worldview.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm sure you'll provide a link showing Trump making the above statement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5071665-trump-economic-force-canada/

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, ttribe said:

Do you have any feel for the impact of increased transportation and administrative costs that come with such a drastic change? Your comment reflects a very simple worldview.

Maybe countries shouldn't have put all their eggs in the American basket?

The President of Rwanda seems to get it.

[ttribe]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe countries shouldn't have put all their eggs in the American basket?

The President of Rwanda seems to get it.

When you cite the comments of the President of Rwanda, you have officially jumped the shark.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5071665-trump-economic-force-canada/

“Because Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security,” Trump said.

 

The above quote suggests to me that some trolling of liberals is going on.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

“Because Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security,” Trump said.

 

The above quote suggests to me that some trolling of liberals is going on.

You wanted a quote, you got a quote. Now you're moving the goal posts.

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You wanted a quote, you got a quote. Now you're moving the goal posts.

No... I'm seeing the actual comment in context and making an observation based on his use of a term generally used by [those who advocate for open borders].

Edited February 11, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Analytics]

33 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

“Because Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security,” Trump said.

 

The above quote suggests to me that some trolling of liberals is going on.

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument." (Urban Dictionary)

Do you believe it is appropriate for a sitting President to use the office to troll liberals? What about trolling allies?

As I described in an earlier post (link) Trump's rhetoric is not harmless—it actively harms Americans. He campaigned on making America better, not on provoking liberals or Canadians in ways that create economic instability. Just look at the real-world consequences (USA Today on Economic Turmoil caused by Trump's rhetoric) 

Edited February 11, 2025 by Analytics

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument." (Urban Dictionary)

Do you believe it is appropriate for a sitting President to use the office to troll liberals? What about trolling allies?

As I described in an earlier post (link) Trump's rhetoric is not harmless—it actively harms Americans. He campaigned on making America better, not on provoking liberals or Canadians in ways that create economic instability. Just look at the real-world consequences (USA Today on Economic Turmoil caused by Trump's rhetoric) 

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

[halconero]

53 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

“Because Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security,” Trump said.

 

The above quote suggests to me that some trolling of liberals is going on.

Comments are trolling. Imposing a 25% sales tax goes beyond a goblin under the bridge.

[ZealouslyStriving]

57 minutes ago, halconero said:

Comments are trolling. Imposing a 25% sales tax goes beyond a goblin under the bridge.

Every country has the prerogative to charge foreign interests for the honor of doing business within their borders

[Analytics]

58 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

Thanks for sharing this. The Wall Street Journal lays out the basic economic reality that I illustrated with my friend’s anecdote.

What too many people fail to grasp is that Trump isn’t just corrupt—he’s also deeply incompetent. People voted for him expecting lower prices, yet his reckless trade war is doing the opposite. And it’s not some strategic, calculated move—it’s driven by ego and ignorance, not economic acumen. That’s why the conservative WSJ editorial board isn’t just criticizing it; they’re calling it ‘the dumbest trade war in history.’

I can understand why someone (e.g., @smac97) might support a strong-willed president who bends the rules in service of a greater good. But Trump isn’t that president. He isn’t just breaking norms—he’s bungling the job entirely. And those who thought they could manipulate him to serve their own agendas?

Just ask Mike Pence, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Rudy Giuliani. Or Jeffrey Clark, Mark Meadows, Roger Stone, Sidney Powell, and Peter Navarro. Or John Eastman, Bill Barr, Chris Christie, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Rex Tillerson, John Bolton, Anthony Scaramucci, Tom Barrack, Brad Parscale, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, and Michael Cohen.