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.
44 comments:
I like that last line!
Such lamentations by those who excuse law-breaking seem to believe that we're unwilling to consider reasons given why one might not abide a law. There are extenuating circumstances. But the law isn't required, obliged or really, even authorized to simply excuse a person simply because they claim to have a good reason for breaking a law. And where law enforcement and the courts hold fast to their duty, there may be cases where those who break a law with good reason have not made their case well enough to suffer the consequences. This is neither evil or immoral, nor does it mean the law broken is evil or immoral. It's just the way things are. It's why there's an appeals process.
Thanks, it just came to me. I’m not going to claim that God spoke to me or anything like that, but...😊
Seriously, thanks.
Yes, our system should account for the reasons law’s are broken and have room for mercy to temper justice. But we’re just seeing people what want to break the law, then try to justify it by claiming oppression. Or those that want to engage in civil disobedience, but aren’t willing to pay the price for doing so. I can respect someone who is willing to suffer for their convictions, I have none for those who won’t.
The bottom line is that expecting people to obey the law is not oppression.
Even if the law is oppressive, for examples look at much of the NT, you can obey the law and work for change, or disobey the law and take the consequences. Any other choice is simply self interest.
Good moral people refuse to heed immoral laws.
Good moral people work against oppression.
Good moral people DO NOT JAIL people for moving from here to there, simply seeking a better life/safety.
You know who DOES do that, though, don't you?
Dictators, thugs, monsters, oppressors, others in the employ of evil.
And citing King in this commentary in defense of oppression? Damn. Truly evil.
Praying for your sick, sick soul. Repent.
For what it's worth, I'm willing to go to jail.
What I'm damning as the hell-spawn detritus that it is, is the actions of sending innocent people to their deaths, placing children (kidnapped from their innocent parents) in concentration camps and defending those actions.
Evil, evil, evil.
Me? Put me in jail, you goddamned motherfuckers. TO hell with this evil.
"We're expected to obey bad laws until they're changed.."??!
TELL ME you're not that blandly evil! Damn that. If you truly believe that, you'd have been a great cog for the Nazi machine (and may be, yet).
Dan,
You again overstate the situation because it plays on the emotions to do so. That's called lying and if you wish to make a point and change hearts and minds, lying is not the way to do it, and it's not Christian in the least. If you seriously and prayerfully ever studied the Bible, you'd know that.
Calling what ICE does with the children of those who defy our immigration laws "kidnapping" is an example of your lying. Their reasons for detaining the kids separately from the parents is a matter of protection against the possibility that the kids are used as a prop to ease their entry, or to assure that the kids are not in danger from the adults who brought them, or to put them someplace while legal relatives are found to take care of them while the adult's case is reviewed. None of this is "kidnapping" in any sense of the word.
And where do you get off coming here and using that type of language when you won't even allow legitimate words and expressions because they offend your socialist sensibilities? Are you just embracing grace again, you pagan hypocrite? How dare you!
"Good moral people refuse to heed immoral laws."
It's a good thing our immigration laws aren't immoral!
"Good moral people work against oppression."
Good thing our government and it's immigration laws aren't oppressive!
"Good moral people DO NOT JAIL people for moving from here to there, simply seeking a better life/safety."
They do when the people moving from here to there break the law to do so. Indeed, it's the moral responsibility of the government and law enforcement to...you know...enforce the law.
It's so sad that you can't engage in conversation in a civil, rational manner.
Dan,
While I appreciate your comments and find it frustrating when you engage on a comment thread then disappear in the middle, I’d at least ask the you read the thread before you comment and respond to what I actually wrote not a caracture of what I wrote.
1. I appreciate your characterization of Obama as a “dictator, thug, evil etc), that’s a start.
2. Pointing out the reality that King was willing to undergo the hardships before he got to the mountaintop isn’t evil, it’s reality.
3. Of course you say your “willing to go to jail”, that’s easy from your safe space in KY. If you’re so angry that you decided that the spiritual gift of self control isn’t your thing, why aren’t you down on the border doing something? Instead you sit in safety and bitch and swear at others.
4. Please provide the section of US legal code that specifically criminalizes “moving from here to there”? Also where does it provider the death penalty for “moving from here to there”?
5. I guess following the example of the early church isn’t a good plan.
6. When you ignore what I actually say, to try to make it appear that I said something I didn’t say, it makes you look foolish.
7. You do know that the photos accompanying the “caged children” stories initially were taken when Trump had them caged in 2014.
You’d have a lot more credibility on this had you spent your vacation down on the border, risking something, actually bringing some immigrants to live with you. Instead, you just sit at a keyboard and bitch about how evil other people are.
You are associating the words of a great man of peace and justice with those who oppose justice and support evil. Shame on you.
When you degrade to that level of ignorance of history and that level of endorsing of evil, there is very little left to say, but shame on you.
Repent.
And fuck you about me spending my vacation visiting my son in the Peace Corps where he is working with the poor in Albania.
You need to fucking repent of your arrogance and your support of evil.
Damn, boys.
And of course, in the real world, I HAVE had real immigrants living in my house. And homeless families, too. And we work with and alongside them at my church daily and I and my family have done so for decades, in a variety of ways.
So, your fucking ignorance only embarrasses you and your cause.
Repent.
1. I didn’t say anything negative about where you spent your vacation, I just pointed out that you have a lot more credibility if you were down on the border actually risking something, rather that sitting safety behind a keyboard.
2. If by evil, you mean the people who hide behind the safety of Facebook, Twitter, and blogs instead of putting action to their words, then I guess you have me. But, otherwise I’ve done no such thing. I’ve pointed out the reality that King was willing to accept the beatings and imprisonment in order to achieve that greater goal. You, and lots of others haven’t demonstrated that same conviction so far.
3. When you continue with the expletive laden rants, you just sound like a 12 year old who just learned a new word. Certainly not like someone interested in demonstrating the “grace” you so often prate about.
I'd settle for some proof that any of the "victims" of our government's "evil" policies were truly "terrorized", as opposed to simply suffering the consequences of ignoring the law. I wonder if it matches the terror felt by rape/murder victims of MS-13 gangsters who entered the country by means and methods other than according to proper immigration procedures.
Who seem like reasonable questions, I suspect answers won’t be forthcoming.
Your response tells me that you don't read the news or know of any refugees/immigrants. I can point you to it, but I can't make you hear the cries of the poor.
Repent, you hard-hearted sin-blinded ones.
If I point you to more of the stories of immigrants describing the terrorism and fear and threats they face, will that change your mind, or will you just say, "They shoulda obeyed the laws, damned criminals!"?
Will pointing to Human Rights Watch (a watchdog group that watches out for the oppression of poor folk) story open your eyes, or will you just write them off as "snowflake liberals..."?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/12/05/us-devastating-impact-trumps-immigration-policy
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/25/us-trumps-immigration-actions-harm-millions
Or other organizations...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-community-terrorized-immigration-crackdown-could_us_58e1222de4b0d804fbbb73fd
The stories are out there, over and over and over. Deaths (as the story in my recent post), unknown disappearances, families being torn apart for - EVEN IF you support the xenophobic anti-liberty rules in place - a MISDEMEANOR. Being undocumented immigrant is a MISDEMEANOR. For that, people are having their babies literally torn from their arms.
Franklin Graham calls it awful, many, many conservatives recognize the evil that is at play here. Won't you open your eyes?
Yes, people are reporting living in terror. Open your eyes, read the stories, meet people and talk with them (well, no, not if you're only going to report them, like the Germans who "helped" the Nazis locate Jews and other "undesirables...")
Craig, I'd have a "lot more credibility" if I was jumping through your hoops? Says who? Credibility to whom? Just because YOU'D like me to abandon the other important work I'm doing to concentrate on this one important work does not mean that I'm not credible.
I work with adults with disabilities, who are too often marginalized and impoverished with our policies, too. That's an important work, too. There's only so much time in the day. One does not need to be involved in EVERY aspect of EVERY area of need to righteously, reasonably point out the horror of behavior such as is happening under Trump (and yes, which happened under Obama, it's just so much worse, now...)
You'll have to get over yourself, not everyone lives to jump through your hoops.
By evil, I mean people who would take children from their parents for the "crime" of trying to move to safety and seeking a better life.
By evil, I mean those who'd criminalize merely trying to establish a better life.
But we've said all this. You two can't understand what's at stake, at least not coming from me.
So listen to Graham, listen to Paul Ryan, listen to reasonable conservatives. WE've got to change this policy, it's a moral atrocity.
And Craig, I don't why, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just citing King in ignorance, and not as a deliberate whitewashing of history and complete assault on his name, here's the deal:
1. As a community organizer operating under NVDA principles, King DID talk about going to jail for the cause. But when one does it, it is part of a deliberate, planned Action. The point usually being to bring attention to the unjust situation.
2. Such NVD Actions are done by those who are protesting the injustice.
3. King NEVER said anything to suggest that people should quietly put up with random arrests for unjust causess. King never said to the black men in prison who had violated Jim Crow laws to quietly sit out their unjust arrest.
4. In short, King never suggested that individvual victims of oppression should just gladly be jailed... it was always in the context of planned NVDA. It is a special kind of evil to suggest to victims of oppression and unjust laws to just suck it up and put up with it, because... King.
NOT what he was about.
And "we're expected to obey bad laws until they're changed.."???! HELL NO. You are not that evil, Craig. Come on. Stop supporting the oppressors, and stop with the godawful abuse of King and the Bible.
You probably DO support Sessions bastardized take on "the Bible," in his defense of oppression, don't you?
God, save us from your followers!
You can overstate the situation all you want, and that alone indicts your credibility far worse than not taking Craig up on his suggestion to go to the border. When you engage in such hyperbole, you're just validating my claim that you're a liar...because it is lying to overstate. For example, is it really "torture" to have to work for a living? Of course not. But I've heard that said hundreds of times in my life...and it feels like torture to me at times. It's not actually torture, and I know it when I say it. Thus, it is dishonest.
But to use such hyperbole in dealing with the immigration issue is far worse because of the seriousness of the situation.
You also lie by citing people like Franklin and Ryan without any link to what they actually said in the context they said it so as to ascertain whether or not they know with certainty that children are being "ripped" from their mothers.
The fact is that when people run afoul of the law...particularly laws with which they disagree, it is more than common...standard operating procedure, almost...to overstate their experience in a manner intended to draw sympathy and divert attention from their having run afoul of the law. This is so common, in fact, that it is the basis for almost all accusations of police brutality. The perp resists to some degree and law enforcement is forced to step up their efforts to do their job. Now all of a sudden it's police brutality. Unless you can prove there is some actual ripping of children from mothers that does not involve resistance by the mother prior to the ripping (I'm speaking on the possibility that "ripping" ever took place at all), then what you're doing is repeating the overstatement...that is, the lie...about what took place in a law detention of a suspected illegal.
You want to start with principles?? Fine. Let's start with this one: honesty. Speak honestly and truthfully about what's going on without hyperbole, without accusing the government of "evil" and "immorality" when there is absolutely nothing evil or immoral about enforcing practical laws regulating the crossing of our borders.
Or just continue to be a liar.
Marshall, are we "expected to obey bad laws until they change?"
Or would you reject that as nonsense?
If you were required to have an abortion in your family, by law, would you do it?
Almost certainly, no, you wouldn't.
I can't, and I won't abide by laws that are tearing families apart.
I can't, and I won't abide by laws that are sending people to places where they are not safe, and they know it's a risk to return there.
I can't and I won't abide by laws that tell people, "You can't move from there to here even if you don't feel safe... even if you lack food or jobs where you are..."
I will call such laws unjust, un-Godly, immoral, irrational and will work to see them changed and will NOT cooperate with any who'd try to implement them.
I'm hoping that others will join those of us opposed to such oppression (and it is oppression) on the right, moral and rational side of history... the side of history where we abide by the Golden Rule taught by Jesus, our Lord and by just basic decency, because it is basic decency.
And that ain't no lie.
And I will call all those who stand by oppressive laws part of the problem, part of a system of oppression endorsed by racists and Nazis.
I hope you'll understand why I MUST act strongly against such laws.
I’m just going to stop commenting, because you’ve just taken over speaking for both of us.
As long as you’re going to misrepresent what I’ve said, there’s no point in continuing to try to correct you.
Again, it’s easy for you to talk tough behind your keyboard. The fact that your only enraged enough to engage in expletive filled rants, as opposed to participation says all I need to hear.
Unlike you, I’ve decided to leave your comments so what you’ve said is available for anyone to peruse.
I do appreciate the links, and will try to check them out when I have time, but I’d rather have something less biased.
Speaking of credibility, until you tar P-BO with the same brush your using on Trump, it'll be in short supply.
One interesting thing I learned is that Paul Ryan is advancing legislation to stop the practice and that Pelosi isn’t willing to support it. It’s probably too much to hope for a tiny thumbs up to Ryan for trying to fix the problem.
I’ll add this, as with many things this issue is much more complex than is presented by the partisans, and it certainly predates Trump. But, one thing is clear, the answer is legislation to deal with this issue. So, the question is, will the DFL support legislation (or even negotiate), or do they want the issue for future elections?
If legislation is passed and Trump vetos it, then go ahead and unload, if he does then I guess he’ll stop being evil.
As I've said repeatedly: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS WRONG TO DO WHAT THEY DID.
AND TRUMP IS WRONG TO TRIPLE DOWN ON OBAMA'S MISTAKE.
In my faith community, which includes connections to many immigrants/foreigners/refugees, we have been working against the Obama approach to immigration for years AND we are tripling our efforts now because Trump has made things that much worse.
We reject Sessions notion that jailing children is biblical, that taking children away from immigrants is biblical... as a GROSS distortion of the Word of God.
And we're not alone. Many Christians who better understand the Bible and basic morality are reacting to Sessions and Sanders hellish comments.
"It was terrible," said Mike Mather, the senior pastor at Broadway UMC in Indianapolis. "If you read the first 11 chapters of Romans, you get a pretty good idea of what the context of that community was. If you read (Chapter) 12, you see love is supposed to be the guiding force. ... (Sessions) didn't read on very far."
Romans 12 includes the line, "Contribute to the needs of God’s people, and welcome strangers into your home."
...Rev. Dr. Rob Saler, executive director for the Center for Pastoral Excellence at Indianapolis' Christian Theological Seminary, said the verses were used by Lutherans in Nazi Germany to justify supporting Adolf Hitler.
"Romans 13, for a long time, has been appealed to in an incorrect way, as a justification for 'Obey the laws, no matter what,'" he said. "Whether they're just or not. I don’t want to be too extreme, but … In Nazi Germany, Lutherans, for the most part, supported Hitler and they used Romans 13 to validate that."
In an interview with the Washington Post, John Fea, a professor of American history at Messiah College at Pennsylvania, said the verse was also used to support slavery in the 1840s and 1850s.
"(It) is invoked by defenders of the South or defenders of slavery to ward off abolitionists who believed that slavery is wrong," he said. "I mean, this is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made.”
So Team Trump, Sanders and Sessions (and Obama before them... although not to the diabolical degree they've taken it) are in great company with Nazis and slave-owners and their defenders.
And I'm not sure what Ryan has offered yet, but we KNOW that the Dems want to fix this problem, this evil mess of the Trump administration... so if the Dems are not supporting it, it's probably because the GOP is only giving lip service to human rights and notions of liberty and support for immigrants, but still wants to do evil shit like build walls that WE will pay for that will be worthless and cost money we don't have.
The conservatives are all for small gov't... until they're not, then they want huge monster wall-sized gov't.
Fucking hypocrites.
Craig, do you understand why people are outraged, why we have taken to cursing at our computers and idiots defending this Nazi-like administration? You appeared baffled why nice people don't just speak in sweet words and kind get-alongs.
This administration is a threat to the free world, to human rights, to our better ideals. We must stop them.
Source for the quotes above...
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/15/jeff-sessions-bible-immigration-debate-over-romans-13-sparked-fort-wayne-indy-area-experts-react/704400002/
the question is, will the DFL support legislation (or even negotiate), or do they want the issue for future elections?
The Dems and progressives DESPERATELY want laws to address this outrage. BUT, we won't go along with watered down outrage.
Watered down evil is STILL evil.
We'll compromise right up to the line of evil, but we can not cross that line. I'd hope good Christians would understand that notion.
Dan,
1. You've made your point regarding just how horribly outraged you are about these laws and policies you regard as evil. Your continued use of foul language and lies serves only to confirm that you're no Christian. So you can stop being a foul-mouthed liar.
2. I am not engaging in hyperbole when I refer to you as a liar. When Marv Albert says, "Stephan Curry is ON FIRE!!", that is hyperbole that no one mistakes for what it is: a means by which Albert conveys a sense of how well Curry is shooting the ball.
But when you engage in hyperbolic language, such as saying immigrants are being "terrorized" by immigration policy, or that we "send people to their deaths", and other such over statements, you are purposely trying to arouse others with less than accurate descriptions of what is happening, as if an accurate description isn't good enough. That's lying.
3. If you can't provide evidence that supports your hyperbolic descriptions, that suggests you are indeed lying. While video showing an ICE agent actually ripping a child from it's mother's breast would be nice, I'd settle for testimony from ICE officials confirming that one of their agents did anything remotely like that. An illegal and her advocates merely asserting the charge is not good enough.
"As a matter of policy, the US government is separating families who seek asylum in the US by crossing the border illegally.
Dozens of parents are being split from their children each day — the children labeled “unaccompanied minors” and sent to government custody or foster care, the parents labeled criminals and sent to jail. "
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents
Sessions SAYS OUT LOUD that this is the point of his policy: Be so monstrous that (they mistakenly think) no parent will want to be separated from their children. Of course, they don't. But staying behind is not, for them, an option.
That tells you how awful things are. Knowing the monstrous consequences here, they still are coming. It's lose/lose... but it's less awful than the danger behind in their home countries.
And here's a Montana state worker who quit his job helping process subpoenas for ICE agents because he couldn't agree with what was being done, the tearing apart/separation of families...
https://imm-print.com/i-quit-my-job-because-of-ice-you-can-too-617d6c5af418
Not sure what you're asking. No one is saying that these things aren't happening. Does it matter WHAT it looks like when the ICE agents separate the nursing child from the mother? Does it matter if he puts on gloves and gently tugs the baby until the crying mother gently lets go? Or if they're forcibly pushing the mothers down, stomping her and then kidnapping the baby?
BOTH ARE AWFUL, traumatizing, evil.
Good God.
Yes, it does matter, because in the former, most likely only accurately described scenario, it is the mother who is forcing the issue and the ICE agent acting in the only way possible while dealing with a non-complying law-breaker. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, word has not long ago gotten to people in all these nations the consequences they are likely to face should they choose to ignire our laws...that no one who claims to care about them has warned them of the possibility before they make that choice that leads to this very situation. Yet, what we DO know is that word DOES get to them providing tips for how to break our laws, encouraging the belief that "maybe I can get away with it, too". And they cry "victim" when held to account? They, and you, blame the laws and those rasked with enforcing them for holding them accountable? Sure. That's reasonable. How silly of me for not getting that.
BTW, I am unable to read your latest links above...added to others I've been unable to get to...but wonder if you've read any of mine to see how more directly-to-the-point-of-this-issue data affects your thinking. I hold out little hope that you're as keen to take into account victims of real, non-hyperbole terror.
Anyhow....
Well since Pelosi has already announced that the DFL isn’t going to support any bill offered, and shows no inclination to negotiate and write a more bipartisan bill, I’m unsure of who to believe. Peloton, who seems like she’d know of Tranue who insists that he does know.
Tough choice. Of course the DFL will probably screw this up. By not supporting a GOP bill, because they think it’ll get them votes. When they should get the bill on Trumps desk and hope he vetos it. I doubt they will, because they’re more concerned about not giving Ttump the “win”, than anything else.
One wonders why, if this outrage was going on during the P-BO administration why folks like Dan weren’t as vocal as they are now. One also wonders why these outraged leftists, didn’t deal with this legislatively. Finally, one wonders why compromising with the evil of the P-BO administration was so much more palatable.
I’m confused is P-BO classy and humble or evil? So, P-BO just made a “mistake”, but Trump is evil for essentially the same policy?
Continuing from earlier...
4. I find it ironic that you, who routinely misapplies Scripture in defense of your socialism would dare attack Sessions for doing similarly to defend enforcing the law. I have yet to investigate this statement of his, but I'm not about to take the word of someone like or anyone you'd cite without providing a link. You're just not honorable enough for that trust. More to come on this point later.
5. Imagine two immigrants,both of whom are caught in the country without proper documentation and both claiming to be fleeing danger.
Juan claims he resisted a known, legitimate oppressor who tried to recruit him. They threatened him directly with death should Juan refuse them. Juan fled and snuck in to escape.
Jose claims he lives in the same area and does not want to deal with what Juan has. Jose fled and snuck in to escape. Both stories are confirmed by our government and Jose is deported. Do you have a problem with this? Can you see how someone on my side of this issue would see a distinction between the claims made about fleeing danger...that there are no doubt degrees of danger that would would render some claims as undeserving of great concern? That all such claims are nnot equal and thus some who snuck/sneaked in actually deserve to be sent back? That some claims are of a more hyperbolic nature that is unfair and insulting to those who are trying to escape real danger aimed directly at them? Do you acknowledge that there are actual citizens of this country who make similar claims, and that those in real danger are sometimes die because the authorities could not save them for any number of reasons? Are the laws related to those people evil as well?
I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, word has not long ago gotten to people in all these nations the consequences they are likely to face should they choose to ignire our laws...
Are you NOT paying attention? Of course, word has gotten out. STILL they come. Do you know why?
DO you fucking understand why a mother or father or both who love their children and their homeland would risk everything to travel all this way KNOWING that the laws here are increasingly hostile towards them?
BECAUSE IT'S WORSE there. They are facing danger, starvation, threats to their lives and the lives of their children to such a scale that they take this drastic action, NOT because they want to abuse the US "system," but because it's not safe or sustainable where they're from.
So again, the question remains: WHAT kind of evil does it take to say to people seeking safety and a better life, "It is against the law to come here... okay, it's only a misdemeanor, but hell's bells! We'll treat it like a capitol offense if you DAAAAAARE cross our lily white border, you Mexicans!"
1. It's a misdemeanor, not a "crime." It's a minor paperwork infraction, NOT AN ATTEMPT TO CAUSE HARM.
2. They're just seeking a better life.
What kind of monster criminalizes that? What kinds of monsters take children away from parents over a MISDEMEANOR? Literally, "A MINOR wrongdoing..."
“A misdemeanor is a criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction. Misdemeanors are generally punishable by a fine and incarceration in a local county jail, unlike infractions which impose no jail time. Many jurisdictions separate misdemeanors into three classes: high or gross misdemeanors, ordinary misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors. Petty misdemeanors usually contemplate a jail sentence of less than six months and a fine of $500 or less.“
The above is a great definition of misdemeanor, which is clearly more serious than a “paperwork” error.
Things like this, and the vulgar abusive language, don’t really help you make your case.
I guess you've simply given up defending yourself against the charge of lying. Good move. It was a losing battle for you.
And yes, I know why they still come. Because they know they can wait it out and be given amnesty, too, as long as naive and moronic people like you exist in the numbers you do. The great irony is how the problems these people face, either in their own country or here when they ignore our laws, is absolutely due to people like you. But let's get back to your lies:
Our laws are not "hostile" towards these people. They are protective of OUR people. You're dismissive of our people, as evidenced by your wanton disregard for the suffering and deaths at the hands of people who sneaked in and were given sanctuary by people like you. So this "hostile" law, thing is a lie.
Next lie: "WHAT kind of evil does it take to say to people seeking safety and a better life, "It is against the law to come here..."
First, it isn't evil to enforce the law. You haven't established the law is evil or immoral, mostly because you refuse to focus what the law is intended to do, preferring to lie about it being intended to keep out foreigners. So that's two more lies right there.
Secondly, no one is saying anything like that, because it simply isn't against the law to come here. So that's another lie.
Thirdly, it's a lie to pair "seeking a better life" with "seeking safety". While the latter is certainly the former, the former isn't necessarily the latter. If you need more detail to understand this, let me know. As to the former, if "seeking a better life" means one simply wants to make more money, that alone is not a reason that makes denial immoral or evil.
Fourth, "okay, it's only a misdemeanor, but hell's bells! We'll treat it like a capitol offense if you DAAAAAARE cross our lily white border, you Mexicans!""
Considering how many Mexicans are welcomed into this country every year because they did so according to our laws and policies governing such a move, you lie in trying to make this a racial/ethnic thing. Typical and most egregious.
"1. It's a misdemeanor, not a "crime." It's a minor paperwork infraction, NOT AN ATTEMPT TO CAUSE HARM."
A misdemeanor IS a crime, so that's an incredibly blatant lie. It is often broken down as felonies are into classes. I've been unable to determine which class of misdemeanor illegal entry is (Class A, B or C Misdemeanor), but I would think it's a Class A, given it is a breach of a sovereign nation's borders. Hardly a "minor paperwork infraction" given that it can be a willful avoidance of border authorities or neglect to renew one's visa. As to the latter, I'm sure every case of visa overstay is simply, "I forgot", right?
An "attempt to cause harm" has no bearing on the crime itself. One simply isn't allowed to enter in any manner of one's choosing, but rather all are required to go through the proper ports of entry and subject themselves to official examination. Boo-hoo if you don't like it or think it shouldn't be. Kate Steinle would disagree with you...if an illegal didn't kill her.
"What kind of monster criminalizes that?"
Again, this is a lie because it isn't "seeking a better life" that is criminalized. It is improper entry into the country that is, and justifiably so.
"What kinds of monsters take children away from parents over a MISDEMEANOR?"
What kind of liar refers to law enforcement officers as monsters because an adult puts their children in a position where separation is almost guaranteed? And what kind of liar pretends "a MINOR wrongdoing" is an argument against a person suffering the consequences of having intentionally committed that "minor" offense. A "misdemeanor" doesn't indicate harmlessness, but only that there are worse crimes. BTW...the answer is: The Dan Trabue kind of liar.
Posted at Dan's and offered here in case he deletes it there:
I just read this relevant article at American Thinker and present it here. Given the dictatorial government of Rome over those who fell under their conquering, and given Christ's authority to speak on its morality, the extremes of the two provide a great illustration of what our own response to law and government should be like. In the context of this discussion, as I said, it is quite relevant. Here is a portion:
"By affirming the Roman soldier as having the greatest faith in all of Israel and suggesting that perhaps the sons of the kingdom would be cast out in his favor, Jesus turned the self-righteous politics of the day on its head. Jesus never denounced the severe Roman enforcement of laws as cruel, unusual, or worthy of God's rejection. The Jacobin reactionaries who are sure that Trump's supporters deserve God's repudiation ought to see themselves in the angry reactions that arise from Jesus's endorsement of the Roman military commander. Those who enforce the law are not evil or worthy of our contempt and derision. Even during Jesus's brutal crucifixion by Roman soldiers, he never delivered a homily on the abuses of government power or even a plain statement against capital punishment."
I’d suggest that looking at what Peter and Paul said about how we relate to government should inform how we do so. They certainly had a much more hostile government than we do.
FYI, Feo is kind of like weeds or an STD or something, you think it’s confined and under control then it pops up somewhere else.
I think you’re closer than you realize. Jesus was not found guilty of anything, He was truly innocent, yet he did what I described and was willing to endure the most unjust punishment possible, yet He chose to do so without saying a word about the injustice.
Of course, it seems he did delete it. What a surprise.
I’ve been following Dan’s off topic conversation with Hiram,and it’s reinforcing some things.
1. Dan’s aversion to going off topic is random, capricious, and inconsistent.
2. Asking questions specific to the post is now fake news.
3. Dan is clearly scared of specifics and details
4. Dan doesn’t come out much, because he doesn’t like to give up control.
I'd say that's a very spot-on summary, except that it's more likely that you're just not understanding Dan, or you're delusional and irrational...because how can it be his fault, right?
Trying to have an adult discussion with either Dan or his sock puppet feo, is really just an exercise in futility, as they have no real desire to get to the truth, to seek real solutions or to give up their hatred for all that contradicts their firmly held, but poorly supported ideologies. And it explains why so many people have opted to never again engage with Dan, some banning him outright. It's one thing to hold firmly to one's beliefs. It's quite another lie and obfuscate when those beliefs are honestly critiqued. But then, lies are essential to the left, and Dan is expert in that field.
I’m not sure where this was being discussed, but Dan keeps harping on the fact that crossing the border illegally is only a misdemeanor. In reality he’s only telling part of the story. Crossing the first time is a misdemeanor, once you’re sent back and cross again it’s a felony.
He's said it in a variety of places, in a number of threads, but your point is significant. While his arguments are often vague, I could allow that he's referring to first offenses in the first place. However, he still errs in suggesting that simply because it is a lesser crime by classification, that somehow that obliges law enforcement or the courts to let it slide. The problem, of course, is the incredible number of incidents and all the problems that go along with it. If it was just one alien every once in a while, I might be inclined to give an alien a pass. But the numbers are just too great, with each alien getting away with it prompting so many others to hope that they'll be just as lucky.
I think that the tactic is to be as broad and vague as possible so that it’s impossible to pin anything down. Clearly if you brush everyone with the “misdemeanor” label without actually knowing details it’s easier to evoke sympathy.
I’m not sure what happened, I had a nice comment thanking Dan for pointing out that words like “never” and terms like “no one” have exceptions and for confirming that “seeking safety” isn’t actually a criminal offense, and I disappeared.
Oh well, I know I appreciated his help and that’ll just have to be enough.
Yes indeed. He truly is helpful in clarifying exactly what he is. He's a pip.
Post a Comment