Saturday, June 30, 2018
I’m not going to argue with him.
“The truth is that there is no black race-and there is no white race. So the idea of “racial reconciliation” is a false idea. It implies that there is more than one race. This is absolutely false. God created only one race-the human race.”
Monday, June 25, 2018
Curious
If a city government engages in the the same types of racist behavior over a long period of time, isn't there a point where you might think that electing members of the same political party over and over again would be a bad idea? Or, that it might be reasonable to assign some level of responsibility or blame tho the political party that has been in power for decades?
Sunday, June 24, 2018
An opinion
“Chick-fil-A: Serves ANYONE who walks through their doors.
Red Hen: Refuses service to people associated with Trump.
That’s the difference between a Christian Conservative business and a Liberal business.”
A random tweet from earlier.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Agreement
I think it'll make sense for me to just point out which of Dan's points I agree with, for two reasons.
1. It'll save time
2. It begins with common ground.
So, without further ado, here we go.
"2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, ...
3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists.
4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.
8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations.
9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation."
All of the above, as edited, I agree with. If anyone in congress put forth a bill with the points listed above I would support it.
What I would add.
A. I would add more places outside of the US where the screening (or pre screening) can be done early. My hope would be that the screening could be done while the immigrants are in transit to expedite either entry or repatriation.
B. Expand the number of entry points, the number of screeners, and adequate areas where immigrants can stay while going through the screening process. Especially expand the number of spaces suitable for families.
C. Rethink the use of foreign aid money away from government to government aid and toward government to private or ONG aid.
D. Given the ability of the US military to transport, feed, house, provide medical care and other basic services to large numbers of people find innovative ways to involve the military in the processing and care of immigrants.
The question before us now, is how Dan will react to this. Will he agree that the two lists above would be something that the two of us could agree to compromise on and agree that something like the above would be a a policy that we both could support (if it was actually proposed as a bill), or will he decide that he can't compromise at all.
My hope would be that he could find a spirit of compromise.
Either way, I'll look at the rest of his list another time.
1. It'll save time
2. It begins with common ground.
So, without further ado, here we go.
"2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, ...
3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists.
4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.
8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations.
9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation."
All of the above, as edited, I agree with. If anyone in congress put forth a bill with the points listed above I would support it.
What I would add.
A. I would add more places outside of the US where the screening (or pre screening) can be done early. My hope would be that the screening could be done while the immigrants are in transit to expedite either entry or repatriation.
B. Expand the number of entry points, the number of screeners, and adequate areas where immigrants can stay while going through the screening process. Especially expand the number of spaces suitable for families.
C. Rethink the use of foreign aid money away from government to government aid and toward government to private or ONG aid.
D. Given the ability of the US military to transport, feed, house, provide medical care and other basic services to large numbers of people find innovative ways to involve the military in the processing and care of immigrants.
The question before us now, is how Dan will react to this. Will he agree that the two lists above would be something that the two of us could agree to compromise on and agree that something like the above would be a a policy that we both could support (if it was actually proposed as a bill), or will he decide that he can't compromise at all.
My hope would be that he could find a spirit of compromise.
Either way, I'll look at the rest of his list another time.
Dan's immigration plan.
After a bit of prodding and respectful pressure, Dan came up with a list of specific policy proposals that he believes would help to improve the immigration situation in the US. I'm posting his comment in it's entirety to maintain the context that he wrote it in. I'm also posting it here, and will be responding here, because I would rather not be subject to the restrictions on commenters that Dan often implements. I will deal with each point or points in a separate post, to allow for some focus on the specific point and to make it easier to keep track of.
Finally, while I realize that the nature of a discussion is that it will wander away from strictly sticking to the original topic and don't want to stifle that natural tendency to drift, I reserve the right to delete, edit, or relocate comments comments that go too far astray. Personal attacks, foul language, and general vitriol will be grounds for adjusting comments.
------------------------------Dan's Post----------------------------------
SOME OF WHAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROPOSE FOR HANDLING IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS...
1. End the criminalization of Immigration, especially and specifically for those seeking safety/a better life.
2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, but it would NOT be a crime if you ended up across the border without the proper documentation. I would not take children from their families if they were found across the border without documentation. It would be a paperwork problem, and you would be required to get your paperwork in order, but NOT a crime, because it isn't a crime, morally speaking. Criminalizing seeking safety IS a crime.
3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists. 3a. FUND THE STATE DEPARTMENT sufficiently, this can be done by ending the huge investments in the Defense Department, as many military leaders request be done. This is done recognizing that more nations being stable and safe reduce the need for military responses.
3b. Make financial reparations for all the poorer nations that we have exploited or caused damage to. We should begin, for instance, by paying our war crimes debt to Nicaragua, but it would extend far beyond that.
4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.
8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations. IF someone reports fleeing danger/starvation, take that claim seriously, because turning away someone in such circumstances would be criminal.
9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation.
10. Since we would have decriminalized immigration, Sanctuary cities would probably disappear... but to the degree that any cities were still providing sanctuary for whatever reason, Good on them, may their tribe increase. Providing sanctuary IS the business of government when it's properly working, as well as the business of individuals, churches and other civic groups.
11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US... would be a policy that would go away because it is presumptuous and probably racist. Anyone who lies about their application BECAUSE they wish to cause harm would be held accountable, as all people who wish to cause harm are held accountable. Lying about one's age or other points for reasons of escaping violence is a reasonable thing to do. Nonetheless, it will be discouraged and we'll let people know that the old way of criminalizing immigration is done away with.
With criminalized immigration and the demonization and racist tropes espoused by the current administration go away, it will become apparent that the old sheriff is gone and a new, more reasonable and adult and moral day has come.
Finally, while I realize that the nature of a discussion is that it will wander away from strictly sticking to the original topic and don't want to stifle that natural tendency to drift, I reserve the right to delete, edit, or relocate comments comments that go too far astray. Personal attacks, foul language, and general vitriol will be grounds for adjusting comments.
------------------------------Dan's Post----------------------------------
SOME OF WHAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROPOSE FOR HANDLING IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS...
1. End the criminalization of Immigration, especially and specifically for those seeking safety/a better life.
2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, but it would NOT be a crime if you ended up across the border without the proper documentation. I would not take children from their families if they were found across the border without documentation. It would be a paperwork problem, and you would be required to get your paperwork in order, but NOT a crime, because it isn't a crime, morally speaking. Criminalizing seeking safety IS a crime.
3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists. 3a. FUND THE STATE DEPARTMENT sufficiently, this can be done by ending the huge investments in the Defense Department, as many military leaders request be done. This is done recognizing that more nations being stable and safe reduce the need for military responses.
3b. Make financial reparations for all the poorer nations that we have exploited or caused damage to. We should begin, for instance, by paying our war crimes debt to Nicaragua, but it would extend far beyond that.
4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.
8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations. IF someone reports fleeing danger/starvation, take that claim seriously, because turning away someone in such circumstances would be criminal.
9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation.
10. Since we would have decriminalized immigration, Sanctuary cities would probably disappear... but to the degree that any cities were still providing sanctuary for whatever reason, Good on them, may their tribe increase. Providing sanctuary IS the business of government when it's properly working, as well as the business of individuals, churches and other civic groups.
11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US... would be a policy that would go away because it is presumptuous and probably racist. Anyone who lies about their application BECAUSE they wish to cause harm would be held accountable, as all people who wish to cause harm are held accountable. Lying about one's age or other points for reasons of escaping violence is a reasonable thing to do. Nonetheless, it will be discouraged and we'll let people know that the old way of criminalizing immigration is done away with.
With criminalized immigration and the demonization and racist tropes espoused by the current administration go away, it will become apparent that the old sheriff is gone and a new, more reasonable and adult and moral day has come.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Two for one
1. I keep trying to thank Dan for his helpful explanations of what his expert really means when using words like “none” and “never”, and for clarification about “seeking safety” not actually being criminalized. I think there is some confusion about these things and I appreciate his clearing it up.
2. How about if we take the hundreds of millions of dollars we give Mexico and Central America in aid, and just use it to expedite the immigration process, or just give each family a big check.
2. How about if we take the hundreds of millions of dollars we give Mexico and Central America in aid, and just use it to expedite the immigration process, or just give each family a big check.
If only this were universally true
“Human beings are one thing, human just like you and me of the same flesh, blood and tears.“
Love other people
I just st finished the new Bob Goff book, and I’m struck by the story of his crusade against child sacrifice and mutilation in Uganda. I compare his approach to a truly horrific problem, and the results he’s gotten, to the people we see all over Facebook, Twitter, and the internet screaming about the crisis du jour, but not doing anything to actually fix the problem. Not only not fixing the problem, but also not demonstrating the listing be of Jesus to their “enemies”.
I want to be like Bob, who’s trying to be like Jesus, instead of the screaming vitriolic crowd.
Part of that means, I’m going to try to talk less and do more.
I’m sure I’ll fall short of this goal, but I’d rather fail trying to be more loving, than simply get dragged down in the gutter.
I want to be like Bob, who’s trying to be like Jesus, instead of the screaming vitriolic crowd.
Part of that means, I’m going to try to talk less and do more.
I’m sure I’ll fall short of this goal, but I’d rather fail trying to be more loving, than simply get dragged down in the gutter.
Maybe
it looks like there will soon be another GOP bill that addresses the immigration situation that has everyone so upset. Seems pretty simple and straightforward, I guess we’ll see if the DFL can put politics aside and solve this.
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Children are a gift
I just saw one of my radical leftist Facebook friends post the verse from Psalms saying that “Children are a gift from The Lord”, as a prooftext to demonstrate how horrible Trump is.
As a father, who is incredibly grateful to be able to celebrate both of my sons today, I firmly agree with this sentiment.
But, when the concern for these “gifts from The Lord”, only extends to the trendy political issue of the day y’all lose me.
If children are truly a “gift from The Lord”, how could you possibly justify and celebrate aborting these “gifts from The Lord” and throwing them out with the garbage.
If the goal of all this posting, is to convince people to agree with you, your lack of consistency, and selective use of scripture isn’t helping you achieve that goal.
The damage to these “gifts from the Lord”, that happens as a result of divorce (which the left, champions, defends, and celebrates) strikes me similarly.
I’m sorry, but if you literally believed that “children are a gift from The Lord”, why not be consistent?
As a father, who is incredibly grateful to be able to celebrate both of my sons today, I firmly agree with this sentiment.
But, when the concern for these “gifts from The Lord”, only extends to the trendy political issue of the day y’all lose me.
If children are truly a “gift from The Lord”, how could you possibly justify and celebrate aborting these “gifts from The Lord” and throwing them out with the garbage.
If the goal of all this posting, is to convince people to agree with you, your lack of consistency, and selective use of scripture isn’t helping you achieve that goal.
The damage to these “gifts from the Lord”, that happens as a result of divorce (which the left, champions, defends, and celebrates) strikes me similarly.
I’m sorry, but if you literally believed that “children are a gift from The Lord”, why not be consistent?
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Reality
Reality is an interesting word or concept. Many people try really hard to avoid it. Through drink, drugs, sex, tv, video games, and various other avenues. Peter Furler and Steve Taylor are pretty close when they say that the ultimate reality is found in God.
But for everyday use we talk about reality being what conforms with what we see, touch, taste, hear, measure, etc. Of course, if God created us and all those things, there shouldn’t be any conflict between acknowledging that God is our ultimate reality, while His creation is our temporary reality.
Where there is tension is when reality intrudes on our biases, agendas, or politics. For example the reality is that Trump is in many, many areas of his life a despicable human being. He’s arrogant, egotistical, unfaithful, untruthful, and certainly much more. Yet, does that reality means he’s devoid of anything good or redeeming? The truth is, that between his public persona, the version of him advanced by his detractors, and the version advanced by those who venerate him, we probably have very little idea of the reality of Trump. Many people, perceive Bill and Melinda Gates in just the opposite way. They’re altruistic, low key, seem likeable and fairly normal. Yet, the He’s clearly a ruthless businessman, not above stealing, bullying, and lying to gain money and power. His foundation also spends millions to distribute dangerous (banned by the FDA) birth control across the continent of Africa. The Clintons are interesting, they’ve somehow managed to portray that the reality is that they’re also nice people, yet I don’t have enough space here to demonstrate otherwise. I’ll just suggest the Slate article about their conduct in Haiti as a starting place.
The reality is, that the overwhelming number of people in Chicago who shoot other people are black, that the overwhelming number of MS13 members are Hispanic, that the overwhelming number of members of the Mafia are Italian. The vast number of human babies aborted are black. To acknowledge this is to simply and dispassionately look at the data. It’s simply the reality.
But, sometimes reality is inconvenient. Sometimes people use reality in ways that broad brush everyone in a particular group, it’s most likely always wrong to say anything about “all X’s”. Yet too many people do just that.
It seems like there should be a middle ground, a ground where we can realize the fact that the likelihood of a person of Japanese heritage being a Muslim terrorist is exponentially smaller than of someone of Saudi or Somali heritage. There should be a way to recognize that reality, and screen accordingly, without assuming that “all” the people in that group are guilty. It seems like the first step is to see people as individuals rather that members of a group.
My problem with the open borders, willy-nilly, let everyone in crowd is that’s it’s just as problematic as the close the borders/isolationist side. They’re both over reacting.
That’s why any immigration debate should start with controlling the borders. Some sort of barrier, yet one designed not to prevent, but to facilitate orderly immigration. I also think it’s important to screen everyone as individuals(I’m willing to accept the cost, in time and money), to make sure that we’re bringing in the individual people and families that will be beneficial to both the immigrants, but also to the communities they live in and the country as a whole.
Acknowledging that racism is sometimes a reality, is just reality. Acknowledging the reality that “Virtually all members of MS13 are Hispanic”, is simply stating an empirically demonstrable reality. But it’s not racism.
How can we get to a place where we can acknowledge reality we aren’t comfortable with, without demonization and vitriol?
But for everyday use we talk about reality being what conforms with what we see, touch, taste, hear, measure, etc. Of course, if God created us and all those things, there shouldn’t be any conflict between acknowledging that God is our ultimate reality, while His creation is our temporary reality.
Where there is tension is when reality intrudes on our biases, agendas, or politics. For example the reality is that Trump is in many, many areas of his life a despicable human being. He’s arrogant, egotistical, unfaithful, untruthful, and certainly much more. Yet, does that reality means he’s devoid of anything good or redeeming? The truth is, that between his public persona, the version of him advanced by his detractors, and the version advanced by those who venerate him, we probably have very little idea of the reality of Trump. Many people, perceive Bill and Melinda Gates in just the opposite way. They’re altruistic, low key, seem likeable and fairly normal. Yet, the He’s clearly a ruthless businessman, not above stealing, bullying, and lying to gain money and power. His foundation also spends millions to distribute dangerous (banned by the FDA) birth control across the continent of Africa. The Clintons are interesting, they’ve somehow managed to portray that the reality is that they’re also nice people, yet I don’t have enough space here to demonstrate otherwise. I’ll just suggest the Slate article about their conduct in Haiti as a starting place.
The reality is, that the overwhelming number of people in Chicago who shoot other people are black, that the overwhelming number of MS13 members are Hispanic, that the overwhelming number of members of the Mafia are Italian. The vast number of human babies aborted are black. To acknowledge this is to simply and dispassionately look at the data. It’s simply the reality.
But, sometimes reality is inconvenient. Sometimes people use reality in ways that broad brush everyone in a particular group, it’s most likely always wrong to say anything about “all X’s”. Yet too many people do just that.
It seems like there should be a middle ground, a ground where we can realize the fact that the likelihood of a person of Japanese heritage being a Muslim terrorist is exponentially smaller than of someone of Saudi or Somali heritage. There should be a way to recognize that reality, and screen accordingly, without assuming that “all” the people in that group are guilty. It seems like the first step is to see people as individuals rather that members of a group.
My problem with the open borders, willy-nilly, let everyone in crowd is that’s it’s just as problematic as the close the borders/isolationist side. They’re both over reacting.
That’s why any immigration debate should start with controlling the borders. Some sort of barrier, yet one designed not to prevent, but to facilitate orderly immigration. I also think it’s important to screen everyone as individuals(I’m willing to accept the cost, in time and money), to make sure that we’re bringing in the individual people and families that will be beneficial to both the immigrants, but also to the communities they live in and the country as a whole.
Acknowledging that racism is sometimes a reality, is just reality. Acknowledging the reality that “Virtually all members of MS13 are Hispanic”, is simply stating an empirically demonstrable reality. But it’s not racism.
How can we get to a place where we can acknowledge reality we aren’t comfortable with, without demonization and vitriol?
Friday, June 15, 2018
Oppressed?
I’ve been trying to exercise my basic human right to freely travel from point A to point B, or in this case. E to point N, and have had a number of roadblocks thrown in my path. I will start with the fact that our local city, county, and state governments will not build enough vehicle lanes to accommodate the number of cars on the road. Instead they spend money on things that serve virtually no one, and accomplish virtually nothing like choo-choo trains. On top of this, they set the speed limits artificially low, and do not regulate the number, location, or duration of construction projects that can occur simultaneously. It seems clear to me, that my local, and state governments, are actively trying to impede me from traveling from point E to point N in the most efficient and expeditious manner. I’m not quite sure of this a lot rises to the level of oppression, but it is certainly an inconvenience and an imposition.
On a related note, my trip from point E to point N was to purchase something that I in no way shape or form need, but something that I wanted, and something that is completely legal for me to purchase and to possess. Because I know there are folks out there who like to tell us what things we need to be able to purchase, and what things we don’t need to be able to purchase.
On a related note, my trip from point E to point N was to purchase something that I in no way shape or form need, but something that I wanted, and something that is completely legal for me to purchase and to possess. Because I know there are folks out there who like to tell us what things we need to be able to purchase, and what things we don’t need to be able to purchase.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Sometimes..,
Sometimes things make me wonder.
For example, the US is a nation governed by laws. For the most part these laws are designed to punish those who break them. What I wonder about is at what point did expecting people to obey the law become oppression?
I realize that not all laws are always good, and that we’ve changed laws over the years to better reflect our society, and that sometimes it took breaking those laws and accepting the punishment to make those changes. But in reality is that we’re expected to obey the bad laws until they’re charged. Which also means accepting the punishment no matter why the law’s are broken.
Maybe we’ve lost the courage to accept the consequences for our actions and we want the “I have a dream” speech, without wanting to spend the time in the Birmingham jail.
For example, the US is a nation governed by laws. For the most part these laws are designed to punish those who break them. What I wonder about is at what point did expecting people to obey the law become oppression?
I realize that not all laws are always good, and that we’ve changed laws over the years to better reflect our society, and that sometimes it took breaking those laws and accepting the punishment to make those changes. But in reality is that we’re expected to obey the bad laws until they’re charged. Which also means accepting the punishment no matter why the law’s are broken.
Maybe we’ve lost the courage to accept the consequences for our actions and we want the “I have a dream” speech, without wanting to spend the time in the Birmingham jail.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Must...protect...the...narrative...at...all...costs
I’ve been trying to get Dan to explain the concepts he’s trying to communicate with the terms he’s using. I genuinely want to understand what he’s advocating and the way he sees things working out in real life.
For example he’s advocated “stopping” people who advocate violence from entering the country, but won’t explain how he would identify those people or how he’d “stop” them.
Additionally, he’s using terms like “free movement” and others which (I suspect) describe something specific to him, but isn’t willing to expand on the meanings or limits to what he’s advocating.
It’s now devolved into Dan, refusing to answer questions, and deleting comments.
I guess nothing is sacred when it comes to protecting the narrative that US immigration policy is evil and must be abolished. It’s certainly clear, that he’s willing to exploit the tragic accidental death of a young man in Mexico to advance his narrative.
For example he’s advocated “stopping” people who advocate violence from entering the country, but won’t explain how he would identify those people or how he’d “stop” them.
Additionally, he’s using terms like “free movement” and others which (I suspect) describe something specific to him, but isn’t willing to expand on the meanings or limits to what he’s advocating.
It’s now devolved into Dan, refusing to answer questions, and deleting comments.
I guess nothing is sacred when it comes to protecting the narrative that US immigration policy is evil and must be abolished. It’s certainly clear, that he’s willing to exploit the tragic accidental death of a young man in Mexico to advance his narrative.
Be careful
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/us/teen-killed-after-ice-returns-him-to-mexico/index.html?no-st=1528579408
The link above is to the article that Dan is using to justify his version of some level of a "natural human right" that he calls "free movement" (among other things). While I'm hoping that Dan will provide some more details about what he means by the term "free movement" (or the alternatives), and foster a dialogue, I'm going to explore something else here. I want to look at whether or not the above article actually demonstrates what Dan says it does.
Dan starts by saying this.
" It should not be treated as a crime to move from point A to point B,..."
Yet the story quite clearly states that Pacheco was not prosecuted for "moving from point A to point B". His problem had absolutely nothing to do with his location. His problem stemmed from the fact that he violated the terms of his DACA protection. It seems as though the DACA law requires those it applies to to avoid things like breaking the law. In this case, Pacheco was convicted on two misdemeanor charges (one involving drugs). These two convictions resulted in his protected status being revoked and his being subject to a, " immigration hearing". The "immigration hearing" could have made "deportation a possibility" according the ICE (quoted in the article), which means it was possible that he wouldn't have been deported. However, after being released on bail, Pacheco was convicted of DUI. This third conviction was the tipping point. Now, I'm going to guess that his attorney told him that further arrests and convictions would be detrimental to his case, yet he clearly wouldn't take the prudent course.
Now, according to the story provided by Dan, one thing becomes clear. Pacheco wasn't deported, that's right, he wasn't deported.
"Neudauer said that Cano Pacheco was not deported.
The link above is to the article that Dan is using to justify his version of some level of a "natural human right" that he calls "free movement" (among other things). While I'm hoping that Dan will provide some more details about what he means by the term "free movement" (or the alternatives), and foster a dialogue, I'm going to explore something else here. I want to look at whether or not the above article actually demonstrates what Dan says it does.
Dan starts by saying this.
" It should not be treated as a crime to move from point A to point B,..."
Yet the story quite clearly states that Pacheco was not prosecuted for "moving from point A to point B". His problem had absolutely nothing to do with his location. His problem stemmed from the fact that he violated the terms of his DACA protection. It seems as though the DACA law requires those it applies to to avoid things like breaking the law. In this case, Pacheco was convicted on two misdemeanor charges (one involving drugs). These two convictions resulted in his protected status being revoked and his being subject to a, " immigration hearing". The "immigration hearing" could have made "deportation a possibility" according the ICE (quoted in the article), which means it was possible that he wouldn't have been deported. However, after being released on bail, Pacheco was convicted of DUI. This third conviction was the tipping point. Now, I'm going to guess that his attorney told him that further arrests and convictions would be detrimental to his case, yet he clearly wouldn't take the prudent course.
Now, according to the story provided by Dan, one thing becomes clear. Pacheco wasn't deported, that's right, he wasn't deported.
"Neudauer said that Cano Pacheco was not deported.
He
opted for voluntary departure, which means he would not suffer the
penalties of a formal deportation, such as being banned from legally
returning to the United States for a period of years, Neudauer said.
He
requested and was granted voluntary departure on April 10, ICE said,
and was returned to Mexico at the border in Laredo, Texas, on April 24"
Pacheco (advised by council) made the choice that gave him the best opportunity to potentially return to the US legally. In other words Pacheco used his" self determination" to exercise his "basic human right" to engage in " free movement" from "point A to point B".
Dan claims.
"Of course, you should
move away from one place if your life or the life of your family is
threatened there!"
" His family had LEFT Mexico because it was safer here."
Yet, these claims are NOT supported by the article referenced. Pacheco's mother clearly states.
" They traveled to Iowa because his father was already there,..."
Now, that's a reasonable reason, but it doesn't involve safety.
The only thing that article says about his death is the "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,". Now, I'm no expert, but people being killed for being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" is a phenomenon that is not limited to Mexico.
In fact, any conclusions about his death are pure speculation based on the information offered in the article. Given his history of substance abuse, it seems reasonable to speculate that drugs or alcohol could have played a role. It's also possible to reasonably speculate that his continued presence in Iowa could have resulted in the death of an innocent while Pacheco was driving drunk or high. We just don't know any of things.
So, let's stick to what we do know. Pacheco, used his "self determination" to make choices that resulted in his loss of DACA protection. His choices led him afoul of the US legal system, but he clearly had access to due process and was offered an option that would have allowed his potential return to the US.
I'm sorry for his tragic accidental death, I'm sorry for the pain felt by his family, I'm sorry that his illegitimate child won't have him around. Although, I'm not sure that a father with a history of substance abuse and criminal convictions is the best father, I understand that people change and that redemption is possible. I'm also sorry that this tragedy is being used as propaganda to advance a political agenda.
There are many things that can be learned from the story linked above, but I see nothing in it that supports Dan's reckless charges that this death directly results from US immigration policy or that it has anything to do with the "free movement" of people.
As usual, context is important. Also as usual, when the source offered doesn't actually support the claims being made, it diminishes the effectiveness of the source.
DISCLAIMER
I'm not going to delete off topic contracts, per se. I'm going to point out that this post is NOT about "free movement" or "self determination" or any other BS agenda, any comments about those topics will be relocated. This post is also NOT about any additional updates or new information about this situation. It's about the fact that the article that Dan linked to doesn't demonstrate what he claims it demonstrates. Therefore, any comments trying to bring new information about the underlying case will also be relocated.
I will not delete, but relocate, any off topic comments because I think that it's important to keep the evidence available while still keeping the thread on topic.
Suicide
This hits a little closer to home than it would have a few years ago, but...
How is it the describing suicide as “death with dignity” and pushing to legalize “assisted suicide”, doesn’t encourage a culture where suicide is seen as an appropriate action?
What if we didn’t mythologize people like Kurt Cobain?
How is it that we can disconnect teaching that humans don’t have a purpose, that life is a matter of chance, that we’ve descended from monkeys, that “nihilism lite” is a valid worldview, that it’s perfectly ok to end human life for the convenience of others, from the increased number of suicides.
I know it could be considered simplistic, and that there other factors, but isn’t it just possible that if we as a society started from a place where all human life had value, that we recognized and embraced the imago Dei present in all of us, and that we’re on this earth for a reason, that we might look at suicide a bit differently?
How is it the describing suicide as “death with dignity” and pushing to legalize “assisted suicide”, doesn’t encourage a culture where suicide is seen as an appropriate action?
What if we didn’t mythologize people like Kurt Cobain?
How is it that we can disconnect teaching that humans don’t have a purpose, that life is a matter of chance, that we’ve descended from monkeys, that “nihilism lite” is a valid worldview, that it’s perfectly ok to end human life for the convenience of others, from the increased number of suicides.
I know it could be considered simplistic, and that there other factors, but isn’t it just possible that if we as a society started from a place where all human life had value, that we recognized and embraced the imago Dei present in all of us, and that we’re on this earth for a reason, that we might look at suicide a bit differently?
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Momentum
I’m not usually big on getting deep thoughts from rock songs, but as I was listening to a playlist of bands a friend of mine has been connected with, I came across this.
“Been on a roll for two thousand years or so, we’ve got momentum baby.”
It made me think that Christianity started out small in the Middle East and Africa, them as it gathered momentum went through Rome to Western Europe and the Americas. But, as we look down the road we see the momentum shifting back to Africa and Asia, and away from the west.
I can’t help but think that this sense of momentum, of the center of gravity shifting isnt a big part of keeping the faith healthy and vital. Especially given how Christianity tends to thrive under hardships and persecution, while power and plenty tend to undermine the vitality of the faith.
All things considered, I’m not unhappy to see the momentum shift, I think it will ultimately revitalize the faith in Western culture as the growth of secularism will separate the wheat from the chaff, and will test believers in ways that will force a choice between following God or following man.
“Been on a roll for two thousand years or so, we’ve got momentum baby.”
It made me think that Christianity started out small in the Middle East and Africa, them as it gathered momentum went through Rome to Western Europe and the Americas. But, as we look down the road we see the momentum shifting back to Africa and Asia, and away from the west.
I can’t help but think that this sense of momentum, of the center of gravity shifting isnt a big part of keeping the faith healthy and vital. Especially given how Christianity tends to thrive under hardships and persecution, while power and plenty tend to undermine the vitality of the faith.
All things considered, I’m not unhappy to see the momentum shift, I think it will ultimately revitalize the faith in Western culture as the growth of secularism will separate the wheat from the chaff, and will test believers in ways that will force a choice between following God or following man.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
African American Unemployment
May 2010 15.5%
May 2011 16.3%
May 2012 13.5%
May 2013 13.4%
May 2014 11.4 %
May 2015 10.3%
May 2016 8.2%
May 2017 7.6%
May 2018 5.9%
May 2011 16.3%
May 2012 13.5%
May 2013 13.4%
May 2014 11.4 %
May 2015 10.3%
May 2016 8.2%
May 2017 7.6%
May 2018 5.9%
I’ll pray for you
Occasionally you’ll see public figures who are not particularly engaged in faith or openly hostile to Christianity say that they’ll “pray for you”. Or you’ll see people who deny the existence of God or who posit a God who doesn’t actually do anything who’ll say the same thing.
This raises some questions.
Who are they praying to?
What do they expect their prayers to accomplish?
What would make you pray to a being whose existence you deny?
If you believe God can’t act outside of the natural, physical realm, why pray to Him?
Just a few questions.
This raises some questions.
Who are they praying to?
What do they expect their prayers to accomplish?
What would make you pray to a being whose existence you deny?
If you believe God can’t act outside of the natural, physical realm, why pray to Him?
Just a few questions.
Monday, June 4, 2018
Bullies get what they deserve.
David Mullins and Charlie Craig’s attempt to harness to power of the state to bully someone who had the temerity to disagree with them has finally failed. Sometimes justice is done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)